GOP Tries to Stall Bill to Fund Pentagon

(AP)  A pre-holiday package that wraps up Pentagon spending, extended unemployment benefits and other must-pass measures awaits one final vote in the Senate before it reaches President Barack Obama's desk for his signature.

The Senate cleared a crucial hurdle early Friday, voting to end debate on a bill that combined all that remained of this year's congressional agenda - except for health care.

Anchored by a $626 billion Pentagon funding bill, the measure also carries short-term extensions of unemployment benefits, highway and transit funding, key pieces of the anti-terror Patriot Act and a measure to save doctors from shouldering a 21 percent cut in Medicare payments.

The timing of the 63-33 post-midnight tally - which blocked GOP stalling tactics and forced a final vote to clear the bill for President Barack Obama no later than Saturday - was governed more by the brawl over health care than significant opposition to the defense measure or its additional baggage.

For a time, Republicans are using every avenue available to them to try to delay or kill the health care legislation, including stretching out debate on the defense measure. The bill passed the House Wednesday by an overwhelming 395-34 vote.

A key Republican, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, was expected to vote to advance the measure but succumbed to pressure from GOP leaders to try to sustain the filibuster. That forced Democrats to get all 60 of their members, including anti-war Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., to defeat the filibuster and try to keep the Senate on track to pass the health care bill by Christmas.

"I am not going to be part of a partisan and cynical effort to delay passage of the defense bill in order to block the Senate from considering health care reform," Feingold said.

After Feingold fell in line and the vote was assured, three Republicans joined the Democrats to end debate - Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine.

On Thursday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell to urge a vote, saying that delay would cause a serious disruption in Pentagon activities.

"It is inconceivable to me that such a situation would be permitted to occur with U.S. forces actively deployed in combat," Gates wrote.

The underlying defense measure provides $626 billion to the Defense Department for the budget year that began almost three months ago, a 4 percent increase for core Pentagon operations.

It includes $128 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The president has yet to request funds for his recently announced troop increase in Afghanistan, and there is no money in the bill for that.

A stopgap funding measure expires at midnight on Friday, but White House budget director Peter Orszag has advised Senate leaders that no funding lapse would occur so long as Congress delivers the bill to Obama on Saturday.

The package contains about $465 million to develop a much-criticized alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Air Force's multimission fighter of the future. The administration says the alternative engine is unnecessary and issued a vague veto threat over it, but has since backpedaled.

The bill contains no funds for new F-22 fighters. Defense Secretary Robert Gates staked his reputation on killing the program, which has its origins in the Cold War era but is poorly suited for anti-insurgent battles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The measure also trims personnel and maintenance accounts from previous versions of the measure to pump up weapons procurement for Afghanistan and Iraq by almost $2 billion.

The defense measure would trim $900 million from the Pentagon's $7.5 billion budget to train Afghan security forces. It would use the money to buy about 1,400 additional mine-resistance vehicles suited for rugged conditions in Afghanistan. Lawmakers say the training program can't absorb that much money in the coming year, so they used it for other purposes.

[lami987]

All republican senators were bought by American insurance companies. This time they even tried to stall pentagon funding. Usually they are always eagar to spend big on wars around the world and all those high tech. weaponry that benefit our defence industries. Many times those weapons are not even used. Even with all those weapons we have a tough time fighting the low tech insurgencies in Iraq and Afganistan. The best policy is still not to involved in wars. I can understand republican's objections to health care reform because usually they don't spend money on American people. They just spend on rich Americans and American industries but not on ordinary Americans much less the poor.

[fedupwithlies2]

When the Bill is FILLED with PORK; the Senator have an obligation to their tax payors to stall and not vote for it. Obama has spent this year into Oblivion! He purosely is trying to make the United States go bankrupt. These people in Congress have no con
Shame on Gates. War and more War; another broken promise from Obama. He LOVES the WAR. Gates is out of line to try and intimidate. Shame on Gates!

How is obstruction and stupidly the same thing? Are you saying you call people names who don't agree with you? That is what is called.....Dictatorship. Is that what you have in mind here?

[lami987]

United States went bankrupt decades ago when Pres. Reagan took office. He started our big borrow and spend policy. We are still paying the interest on money Reagan and Bush Sr. borrowed. Only Clinton was able to balanced our budget in his second term, paid off some of the debt Reagan and Bush Sr. created and accumulated a huge budget surplus. Unfortunately that huge surplus all evaporated in no time after Bush Jr. took office. We restarted our big time borrow and spend policy all over again and the economy went south. With no saving in our treasury, Obama has to borrow to stimulate our economy. A responsible government must save during good financial times but has to spend during bad ones. This is what Obama is doing. Republican presidents naver save just borrow and spend.

[CPJ44]

When you have a bill filled with PORK, what's wrong will trying to stall it?

And you know Obama is going to break another one of his promises and sign the bill.

What happened to his promise of vetoing all bills that have pork in them.

[AOCGUY]

There is nothing in this article to indicate that there is any "pork" in this bill. Now if you have a copy of the bill please enlighten the rest of us as to what portions contain "pork".

[CPJ44]

When you have a bill filled with PORK, what's wrong will trying to stall it?

And you know Obama is going to break another one of his promises and sign the bill.

What happened to his promise of vetoing all bills that have pork in them.

[lovegetspeace]

Folks,

I can understand stalling the Health Care bill but stalling the Defense Appropriation bill.

Oh my God! GOPs need to go to Rehabs.

[lmartink]

Thrashing about in every direction. Maybe we are finally seeing the death throes of the GOP -- a party of the 20th Century, hopelessly caught up in a 21st Century World.

Like the dinosaurs that they are.

[ToolMangler1]

That is the GOP for you, Hold our soldiers lives as hostage so that they can stop anything that helps America or makes Democrats look good.

[CPJ44]

The GOP will rebound in 2010. Every poll has them picking up seats in the senate and house. Every poll shows conservative values up over 50% for the first time in a while.

Just as the far left has taken over the Democrats the conservatives will take over the Republicans.

All the polling shows that the majority of Americans want smaller government and less spending. And almost 60% now oppose health care and even more oppose cap and trade.

So after the Dems push these through and Obama signs them into law, let's see how popular the Democrats are. They'll be hated more than Bush ever was.

[obwan222]

So in a stunning example of political spite the Reps have decided to effectively shut down the govt. again because they're afraid they won't get their way.

Reps have demonstrated time and again a willingness to abuse the rules - leaving votes open for hours past the deadline, filibustering EVERY vote, blocking even routine federal appointments. And whenever the Dems adopt the Reps methods guess who screams about socialism?

Well, let's forget about fancy parliamentary tricks and get back to basics. The filibuster was devised so that in a situation where the opposition was dedicated enough a bill that had the majority support of Senate could still be stopped. So let's devise the anti-filibuster, where the issue is so important that the majority decides that the filibuster will not be permitted. That the issue will be decided by that most American of institutions - the majority rules.

Senate rules are not enshrined in the Constitution. The Constitution envisions a simple majority rule. Let the filibuster become rare again and let the anti-filibuster be rarer still.

Now this post can be followed by all the addle-headed cons protesting that majority rules is somehow socialist.

[velma179]

No obwan222,

You are followed by someone who agrees with you. So much, my hands are dancing across the keyboard YES! YES! YES!

The Senate rules (as they have evolved to this day) thwart the will of the people in order to ensure both the power structure and plain ol' comfort of those who, according to the Constitution, are only empowered in a capacity to serve the people.
They have made themselves a ruling class. And that is so wrong.

What can we do? (...short of revolution -- not my chosen tactic certainly!)
I don't know, with one exception -- the 44-50% of eligible voting age Americans that refuse to exercise their rights and responsibilities COULD join the rest of us and tell the campaign fund raising-to-get-your-vote-then-we-will-do-whatever-helps-me-R-us gang.... we aren't buying the ads or the slick promises. We see what they do and we want to see it change. Start by getting back to the most basic governance of any number more than two people -- majority rules. Period.

Well, it couldn't hurt.