Posted on 05/20/2006 6:26:38 AM PDT by Gipper08
House conservatives, rejecting protests from fellow Republicans who said they were depriving troops of needed support, stripped $500 million in military projects from a veterans spending bill Friday.
Democrats in turn said GOP-backed tax cuts and a tight budget passed two days ago were behind a fiscal crisis leading to the cuts.
"I don't know why they (the troops) should be stuck in the middle of a family squabble within the Republican Party," said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.
The conservatives, led by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, used parliamentary procedures to delete some 20 projects worth $507 million from the $94 billion spending bill for military construction and veterans programs in fiscal 2007, which will begin Oct. 1. The overall bill passed 395-0.
Writers of the legislation, seeking to meet limits outlined in the just-passed budget, had taken the money for the projects from a $50 billion war reserve to fund urgent projects, a move characterized by both conservatives and Democrats as a budgetary gimmick.
Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., a fiscal hawk, asked how $18.1 million for a bachelor enlisted quarters at Camp Pendleton in California or $102 million for a brigade complex at Fort Lewis, Washington, could be considered emergency spending.
"The ink is not even dry on the budget and we are already attempting to violate it, and that's simply not right," said Hensarling.
The conservatives also noted the bill contained some 66 other earmarks, or projects requested by individual members, costing the same $500 million.
But Rep. James Walsh, R-N.Y., chairman of the subcommittee that wrote the bill, slammed Hensarling, saying, "He does not understand that we are at war."
"Please don't come out here and lecture us," Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois, another GOP member of the Appropriations Committee, told the conservatives. "Pick another bill, not this one."
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., a leader of the conservatives, told reporters this would not be the last spending battle. "I think you are going to see an ongoing effort by House conservatives to see this Congress live within our means."
Democrats also pointed out that, while the bill approves record levels of spending for veterans' and active duty health programs, it falls $735 million short because the House did not go along with a White House request for fee increases for military retirees eligible for Tricare, the Defense Department's health care system.
Rep. Chet Edwards of Texas, top Democrat on the military quality of life and veterans affairs subcommittee, said that shortfall, coupled with $316 million in underfunding for base closings and the $507 million cut from construction projects, left the bill $1.5 billion short of what was needed.
"This sends a terrible message to our troops here at home, in Iraq, and Afghanistan," Edwards said.
Democrats proposed paying for the 20 projects, the $735 million for active duty health care and the $1.82 billion increase in veterans' health care by trimming tax cuts for those making over $1 million annually. The proposed amendments were ruled out of order.
The White House, while expressing support for the legislation, issued a statement questioning some of its components. It criticized the use of war reserve funds for military construction projects, and urged Congress to eliminate the 66 earmarks that the administration had not requested.
It also opposed cuts in spending to carry out the 2005 base closing act, and urged Congress to consider administration proposals to increase copayments and enrollment fees for higher-income non-disabled veterans and for military retirees under 65 using Tricare.
The bill provides $25.4 billion for veterans' health programs, up $2.6 billion from the current fiscal year, and $21 billion for the Defense Department health program, up $1 billion. Some $5.5 billion is funded for base closing activities, $6.6 billion for military construction and $4 billion for family housing construction.
The bill is H.R. 5385.
But, but, that bridge in Alaska needs that $500 million more than the vets. /s
The military is the right place for the GOP to cut fat. [just kidding].
This was probably a wise decision, looks like most of it is for unneeded military construction, but..............
The problem is Democrats will take this headline and use it against Republicans.
REPUBLICANS CUT VET BILL. You know that reads as if Republicans have cut veterans' benefits. There could be no more damaging accusation during time of war, democrats know that.
And long overdue!
It is a shame the namesake for you FR-SN isnt a fiscal conservative.
There is the point of why that bill? Why not make this stand on a different bill?
The GOP should quietly lump earmarks for Democrat districts into certain bills and their own earmarks for a different bill. Then when the Dem bill comes up, hammer it in the press. The GOP earmarks won't get addressed because we have the majority and control the agenda. The fight over GOP earmarks would be internal and out of the limelight.
This battle looks like it was fought for a noble cause, but it was not well chosen in the context of the media.
I wonder if Marines are still living in the same squad bay I lived in at Camp Margarita in 1959? If they are, it just might be time to upgrade their quarters.
Indisputably true DJ - but, the point, I think, as Owen pointed out - what in the name of blazes does a BEQ at Camp Pendleton have to do with Veteran's benefits??? The media is spinning this to make it look like we're taking from Vet's.
I guess that will have to be modified.
The GOP is certainly, in many ways, trying their best to once again become the party of "loyal opposition".
And how about the 700 million to destroy the perfectly good RR along the Mississippi Gulf Coast.
I've a friend who went into politics. (He is now a State Senator for Ohio.) He is one of those rarities an honest politician. Long before he reached his present level of politics he had a phrase he lived by.
What Would Ben (Franklin) Do.
It seems to have served him well.
Fair winds and following seas. Go get'em!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.