By Jen DiMascio
The leader of the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) yesterday vowed to block a war supplemental from moving forward unless the president agrees to change course in Iraq.
“As chairman of the appropriations committee, I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo,” Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) told reporters during a briefing.
Sooner or later, Obey said, the president will need a supplemental.
And Obey said he hopes to convert that need into concessions on key policy changes like setting a goal for ending combat operations by January 2009, ensuring troops spend the same amount of time in the United States as deployed and showing the will to start a regional diplomatic offensive.
While Obey intends to wait into next year if necessary to consider the supplemental, it doesn’t mean the Pentagon will be without any funding for the war.
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the HAC defense subcommittee, said the Pentagon could transfer funding to pay for the war. If needed, he would recommend a bridge fund to pay for the war through early next year.
Even though such a measure would continue funding for the war, it should not be taken as a signal that Democrats are maintaining the status quo, he said, because it would not last for the entire year.
Pointing to a statement made by Adm. Michael Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, about the toll the pace of operations is taking on U.S. troops, Murtha said he had hope that policies would change.
“We’re going to take it step by step. As things change, and they’re changing,” Murtha said. “The president’s backing down. You don’t think the secretary of defense would be speaking out like he was if it weren’t for the White House being quiet about it. You don’t think the chief of the joint chiefs would be speaking out. Before they weren’t speaking out at all, and why, because the military’s in such desperate shape. And our kids are burned up, bruised, battered.”
The Pentagon has flexibility to move money around to ensure that troops have the equipment and provisions they need to continue fighting, Lt. Col. Brian Maka, spokesman for the DoD comptroller said. But he added that funding a war this way is disruptive, causes problems and could potentially add to the cost of the fight.
Senate Republicans sought to make sure that funding would bridge any gap in consideration of a supplemental.
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, said he is pressing for a bridge fund of $70 billion to $80 billion, which could pay for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles and other equipment.
Delaying consideration of the supplemental wasn’t what SAC-D Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) had in mind.
In an opening floor speech, the senior senator said that he hoped the chamber would consider the supplemental in the coming weeks and that senators would hold off on Iraq- related legislation until the supplemental was considered.
Inouye was circumspect about the path ahead, telling Defense Daily that how he would proceed depends on what happens on the Senate floor as well as in the House and said it was not appropriate to comment on his plans at this time.
Procedurally, the Senate is supposed to wait for the House to mark up its bill first.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters the Senate would “most likely” wait for the House to vote first.
Reid did not express support or opposition to Obey’s proposal saying, “we’ll take a look at everything.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has not offered leadership support for the bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was even more direct, issuing a statement about her opposition to another idea floated by Obey, Murtha and Rep. James McGovern (D-Mass.) yesterday. They are putting together a policy that would charge war surtax taken as a percentage of citizens’ tax bills.
“Some have suggested that shared sacrifice should take the form of a draft; others have suggested a surtax. Those who oppose a tax and the draft also should oppose the President’s war. Just as I have opposed the war from the outset, I am opposed to a draft and I am opposed to a war surtax,” Pelosi said.
That was not unexpected.
“I don’t expect to get the support of our leadership to rush what we’re endorsing here today or the support of the caucus at this point,” Obey said. “But by putting together this bill we hope people will stop ignoring what this war is costing American taxpayers and call the President’s bluff on fiscal responsibility.”