Congress Passes Iraq War Spending Plan

Package Also Extends Benefits for GI Bill, Unemployment And Provides Flood Relief

(AP)  The Senate passed a $162 billion war spending plan Thursday, sending to President Bush legislation that will pay for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until the next president takes office.

The package, approved 92-6, includes a doubling of GI Bill college benefits for troops and veterans. It also provides a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits and $2.7 billion in emergency flood relief for the Midwest.

The Senate, however, narrowly failed to approve a House-passed bill to cancel a scheduled cut in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients.

It also failed to resolve differences over home mortgage legislation and the administration's electronic surveillance program. Those matters will await lawmakers when they return from a 10-day July break.

The spending bill will bring to more than $650 billion the amount Congress has provided for the Iraq war since it started more than five years ago. For operations in Afghanistan, the total is nearly $200 billion, according to congressional officials.

Last week, the House approved the war funding measure, 268-155. The domestic add-ons were approved separately by a 416-12 vote. The White House has said it supports the combined measure, which technically allowed the measure to advance without senators having to vote specifically for the war funding, a distasteful matter for many Democrats.

As for Medicare, a 10.6 percent reduction in doctors' payments remains scheduled to take effect Tuesday. It was triggered by Medicare spending levels that exceeded established targets.

The Senate fell one vote short of the 60 needed to pass the bill under expedited rules. Nine Republicans joined Democrats in backing it. But most of the Senate's 49 Republicans voted against it, noting that the Bush administration has hinted at a possible veto. The insurance industry, in particular, opposed the bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., changed his vote from yes to no in a procedural move to enable him to bring up the bill later. He ridiculed Republicans who sided with Bush in opposing the bill.

"Who would be afraid of him?" Reid said as many senators looked on. "He's got a 29 percent approval rating."

Some of the roughly 600,000 doctors who treat Medicare patients have said they would be reluctant to take on new elderly and disabled patients if the reimbursement cut takes effect.

Avoiding the cuts in Medicare physician payments has become an annual event for Congress, but finding the money invariably requires trimming payments to other health care providers. Democrats this year focused on taking the money from the Medicare Advantage program. It lets the elderly and disabled receive health benefits through a private insurer rather than through traditional Medicare.

The bill that fell short Thursday would have reduced payments to insurers by about $14 billion over five years. Insurers say the financial hit would have come at the expense of millions of Medicare Advantage participants.

But Democratic lawmakers, citing findings by an independent advisory commission, said the payments are overly generous and make it harder to sustain Medicare for future generations.

Many pharmacists support the bill because it would delay payment cuts through Medicaid. Pharmacists also support a provision that would require Medicare drug plans to reimburse them within 14 days of an electronic billing and within 30 days for paper claims.

The bill has also generated support from rural hospitals and ambulance providers that would have received more Medicare funding.

In the House, lawmakers approved financial help for mass transit systems facing a surge in riders because of high fuel prices. But Republicans blocked Democrats from requiring oil and gas companies to forfeit their leases if they don't drill on the millions of acres of government land and water they lease.

Senators were unable to resolve differences on the housing and surveillance legislation. A dispute over taxes continued to stall the mortgage-finance bill, which would allow the government to back $300 billion in cheaper loans for homeowners facing foreclosure.

Majorities in both chambers appear to support such a bill. But Senate progress faltered when Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., insisted on adding an $8 billion package of tax breaks for renewable energy producers.

The incentives have bipartisan backing. But House Democrats oppose including them without balancing them with tax hikes to prevent an increase in the deficit.

The surveillance bill would provide legal immunity to telecommunications companies that helped the government wiretap American phone and computer lines without court permission after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

It also would make it easier for the government to tap the calls and e-mails of suspected terrorists. Its detractors contend that it does not protect Americans' privacy rights while its champions argue that it strikes the right balance between civil liberties and security. The bill passed the House with a strong majority last week.

[panhandlpete]

The continued funding of the war is Dems and Reps both playing the politics of transfering the wealth of the country to the military industrial establishment at the cost of our brave soldiers lives.

Come November vote every incumbent out on their ear or risk more blood-money making by both complicit parties.

Posted by komoncents at 02:27 PM : Jun 27, 2008

I felt it needed repeating. Wake up America

Posted by komoncents at 02:35 PM : Jun 27, 2008


DITTO.....worth printing a third time.

[noloyalisti]

Where are we getting this money. From the rich CEO Bushoccio pals, I hope.

We need liberals and progressives in power because the conservation agenda of no change is a complete and utter failure!!!

Don''t forget Jesus was a liberal as were our founding fathers. So stop knocking your heritage!!!!

[riptide213]

Does your elected representative advocate your views?

Perhaps voters need more facts to highlight how our country sustains wars without having to demonstrate political fortitude to activate a draft via an official Selective Service System.

How much tax money is annually depleted to maintain, operate, and staff a dust collecting US Selective Service System?

Who has political chutzpah to use this paper tiger war support and troop bolstering resource?

Instead US cowardly and ingeniously shackle military volunteers and then burn them out legally. Land of the free?

STOP LOSS, In Lieu of Taskings (ILO), 8 year minimum service obligations for advertised 2,3,4,6, enlistment options, Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) call ups, Army recruiting 17-41 years olds, and felony waivers all contribute to hazy smoke screen sham, a US government shanghai subterfuge to maintain war fighting troop numbers.

Would citizens support a formal Selective Service System draft call up for this war?

If answer is no, then why do citizens allow government manipulation to legally abuse loopholes to press gang those already serving in a supposed All Volunteer Force to serve at perpetual pleasure of Commander in Chief?

Why does American public allow President as Commander in Chief backed by Congress to shamefully get away with a read the fine print, covert war conscription ploys, and unofficial backdoor draft by stealth?

[komoncents]

The continued funding of the war is Dems and Reps both playing the politics of transfering the wealth of the country to the military industrial establishment at the cost of our brave soldiers lives.

Come November vote every incumbent out on their ear or risk more blood-money making by both complicit parties.

Posted by komoncents at 02:27 PM : Jun 27, 2008

I felt it needed repeating. Wake up America

[komoncents]

The dems will not cut off funding for the war because they will not leave our Soldiers without what they need to survive. Bush has already stated he will not bring the troops home without the funding and the dems do not hold a large enough majority to override a veto by the dumbf-u-c-k in the whitehouse anyway.
So again this goes back right in bush''''s face and all his lies and all his cherry picked intelligence that got us into this mess in the first place. The blame for this will never ever be put on the dems, this baby belongs to bush and his axis of evil: aka cheney, rumsfeld, rice. End of story.

Posted by armydog2 at 11:17 AM : Jun 27, 2008

You make a good point that Dems can''t override a veto, but of course they wouldn''t have to if they didn''t pass the bill in the first place. The Dems could force the war to an end by not funding it - pure and simple. If Bush still refuses to bring the troops home it would still be his responsibilty for leaving them there - as its his criminality that got them there to begin with. The continued funding of the war is Dems and Reps both playing the politics of transfering the wealth of the country to the military industrial establishment at the cost of our brave soldiers lives.

Come November vote every incumbent out on their ear or risk more blood-money making by both complicit parties.

[rgrxx175]

mccain wants an attack on us soil so he could win the election, what a great guy, the same old bush ways....

[barocalto]

As a democrat I just staying home on election day or maybe voting for Nader. Obama has already changed his position on removing our troops so what we have is just another politician.

[armydog2]

There are also good things in this bill, like the new GI bill that bush promised to veto, the extension of unemployment benefits, that bush promised to veto even though all his free trade *** caused the high unemployment, and aid to the flood victims in the midwest.
If bush and all you neocons support the troops so much , why would you not want to increase their benefits after they put their lives on the line for the USA? What a bunch of hypocrites you all are.

[rgrxx175]

hey mccain didn''t vote for GI Bill college benefits bill, and he tell everybody that he is for the troops, what a hypocrite...

[antoniof123]

Posted by notblue at 10:20 AM : Jun 27, 2008

you are clueless, and I will tell you why, the Republicans are in the minority but they can still keep the Democrats from doing the will of the voters.

But that is where the neo con party will fail because you think that the swing voters doesn''t see it. Now you also beleive that 2006 was a fluke. But when your own party leaders know and say if they don''t do something they will lose 30 to 40 more seats in congrss.

This is your party that knows it yet they still keep us in Iraq and keep destroying the economy.

Ask your self this do you really think that the swing voter is going to listen to limbaugh, o''reily, hannity, or coulter, or even beck. Don''t count on it neo con we know who is causing the problem.

Good night and good luck.