Senate Republicans block funding for U.S. troops

November 16, 2007

Just two days after the House passed a $50 billion war-funding package for Bush’s Iraq policy, Senate Dems were poised to bring a similar measure to the floor this morning. Of course, Republicans prefer an accountability-free blank-check for the president, and the Dems’ spending bills set a goal of troop withdrawal by the end of next year.

As a result, there was an interesting fight in the chamber today.

[Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell decided to try to go around Senate Dems. In a rare move he filed a motion to proceed on his own legislation, which would provide $70 billion to the war with no strings attached at all. Senate custom dictates that the Majority Leader sets the legislative agenda.

McConnell’s move failed, however: The Senate Dem caucus stayed largely united and defeated McConnell’s bill, 45-53.

That’s not to say the Repubs came out total losers here, however. The Senate Dem bill then came up for a vote — and because it contains the goal of withdrawal Republicans stayed united against it. And it went down to defeat, 53-45, falling short of the 60 votes it needed for passage under Senate rules.

Majority Leader Harry Reid hit the right note in a statement: “The President and his enablers in Congress are so afraid of being held accountable for this disastrous war policy, that they would rather leave our men and women in uniform empty-handed than work with us to change course in Iraq. Let’s be clear: The only ones threatening to cut off funding for our troops are President Bush and Congressional Republicans.”

There was some talk this week that Reid might force Republicans to literally filibuster the Dems’ war-funding bill, but the rumors proved to be false.

So, what happens now? Well, if Dems are going to cave on this, they’re not going to do it anytime soon.

They probably won’t even consider the spending measure again for months.

Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said this week that if Congress cannot pass legislation that ties war money to troop withdrawals, they would not send President Bush a bill this year.

Instead, they would revisit the issue upon returning in January, pushing the Pentagon to the brink of an accounting nightmare and deepening Democrats’ conflict with the White House on the war.

In the meantime, Democrats say, the Pentagon can eat into its $471 billion annual budget without being forced to take drastic steps.

“The days of a free lunch are over,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

As for the Democratic frame, I think John Aravosis is hitting the right notes:

[I]n a nutshell, the Democrats were ready to give George Bush $50 billion for Iraq today and the Republicans killed it because they don’t want to provide any oversight whatsoever. The Republicans think the war in Iraq is going great, and to prove it they just took $50 billion away from our troops.

The Republicans own this war. Remember that in one year when we’re still in Iraq, we still haven’t won, and the Republicans are still telling us that we need yet another six months to finally show progress.

As for the media coverage, I’ve been pleasantly surprised this afternoon. Usually, the headline is, “Senate Dems fail on Iraq measure.” Today, we’re seeing, “Senate GOP Blocks $50B War Funding Package.” It’s a pleasant surprise.

Get ’em, Harry. Chew ’em up. Nuke ’em ’til they glow, and then shoot ’em in the dark. Make the bastages own their freaking illegal war. Maybe they can have a damned telethon to pay for the blasted thing.

The order is:

HOLD AT ALL COSTS.

  • “In a rare move he filed a motion to proceed on his own legislation, which would provide $70 billion to the war with no strings attached at all.”

    Anybody know if the Dems tried this when in the minority?

  • Are they actually beginning to show some backbone? The American people are with them; they just need to stop the funding at all costs. The people who might lose are the military contractors (read Halliburton) who have been milking this poor old cow for years. It is past time to wean the poor babies.

  • There was some talk this week that Reid might force Republicans to literally filibuster the Dems’ war-funding bill, but the rumors proved to be false.

    Now that’s a bummer. The imaginary 60-vote barrier lives strong.

    Today, we’re seeing, “Senate GOP Blocks $50B War Funding Package.” It’s a pleasant surprise.

    I agree, that’s good news. We need to hear it continually from Dems. Even better, say “GOP filibusters funds for troops”, or “Republicans should give the troops an up or down vote on funds”.

  • “The President and his enablers in Congress”

    Thanks Harry, glad to see you not being one of those enablers. You have the majority of Congress and the majority of America (and the world) behind efforts to get rid of this silly war. It’s time for Bush to be the one betwen a rock and a hard place for a change.

  • I think this should be included in the report because the TPM report made it sound like “the 60 vote rule” is again in effect for any Democratic bill. This was a special vote with special rules:

    http://www.americablog.com/2007/11/republican-senators-kill-iraq-funding.html
    Anyway, Reid responded by trying to bring up his Iraq bill for a vote, basically the same bill that passed the House. Republicans objected to Reid’s bill. The objections meant that each bill would need 60 votes (out of 100 total senators) in order to even be brought up for debate. Both votes failed to get 60 votes. McConnell’s vote was 45 to 53. Reid’s vote was 53 to 45.

  • “And it went down to defeat, 53-45, falling short of the 60 votes it needed for passage under Senate rules.”

    This is completely wrong. Sixty votes are needed to end debate and vote, but only a simple majority (51 out of 100) is required for passage. This bill was killed by a threatened filibuster.

    When will the Senate Democrats wake up and make the Republicans perform a REAL filibuster? This would have been the ideal time to do it.

    As much as I enjoyed CB’s headline on this post, how much better would it have been if it read “Senate Republicans FILIBUSTER Funding for US Troops.”

  • I’m glad the Democrats are holding Republicans’ feet to the fire on this one, and it seems really really stupid of the Republicans to reject it if I understand it correctly. The date for withdrawal is NOT hard and fast but rather a “goal”.

    Now, if the Democrats were really smart, the same bill they offer in January will include only 45 billion for funding, not the 50 billion the Republicans turned down.

    Remember that in one year when we’re still in Iraq, we still haven’t won…

    But I thought Bush announced “Mission Accomplished” a LONG time ago. Now it appears that those Iraqs were right who complained that the Americans illegally invaded their country saying they would liberate them, but the Americans invaded to conquer them instead. No one should be mistaken: when the administration says “win”, they mean “conquer”.

  • There was some talk this week that Reid might force Republicans to literally filibuster the Dems’ war-funding bill, but the rumors proved to be false.

    I knew that was going to happen.

    Fucking invertibrates.

  • Hold your ground, dems….For once stand up to your own special interests and lobbyists and campaign contributers, and put the desire of the majority of the American population where it belongs, FIRST!!!!!!

  • This is completely wrong. Sixty votes are needed to end debate and vote, but only a simple majority (51 out of 100) is required for passage. This bill was killed by a threatened filibuster.

    Exactly right. The really depressing part is that it was TPM (and Greg Sargent) describing the 60 votes as being procedurally necessary under Senate rules. Not FOX News or CBS or CNN, but a source that ought to realize and acknowledge that the 60 votes is the bullshit defacto standard for anything not Republican in origin, not a rule by any means for passage of something. When progressive bloggers can’t even describe the problem accurately, we can hardly feel sorry for ourselves when the MSM does the same thing.

    Does anybody have ANY credible explanation for why Harry Reid isn’t making the Republicans ACTUALLY fillibuster anything? We end up looking like idiots every time, and the myth of “60 votes needed for passage” perpetuates.

    What the hell is the Democratic Senate leadership thinking???? What possible reason can they have for PURPOSEFULLY being a weak majority at every turn?

    Seriously, I’m at a loss at this point. This constant acquiescence by the Dem leadership is infuriating.

  • Thank god they finally grew a spine. I thought we would see a repeat of this springs war funding fiasco where the Dems passed a bill with oversight that Bush vetoed and turned around and gave him the bill without oversight anyway.

    I’m glad that isn’t happening again this time.

  • Oh yeah, and I’m also disappointed that even TPM and CB uncritically passed on the lie that 60 votes is the standard requirement in the Senate. Everyone knows that the GOP is responsible for that, and CB is normally good about reminding us.

    Regardless, I think it’s fine the Dems didn’t force the GOP to sustain the filibuster as long as they don’t plan to capitulate again.

  • At least the previous Congress was terrible simply because they were lazy and corrupt. I think that’s better really than being terrible because you’re too timid to govern.

    I don’t care how slim your majority is, or how many Liebermans you have to deal with. That’s no excuse for letting this 60-vote virtual filibuster stand. Harry Reid is an embarrassment.

  • Apparently the Senate has expanded to 120 members. I guess Washington DC, Guam, and all of the other territories are finally getting some representation.

  • It baffles me that the American public cannot see through the political BS to realize that it is in fact Republicans that are putting our troops in harms way more than any other group or constituency. Ignorance is bliss and I’m afraid the only way the Dems come out on top here is to start an all out attack on the President and Republicans in Congress. Make it personal, begin to destroy the reputations of a larger number of congressional morons. Play hard like the Republicans normally do. We’re starting to see some spark from otherwise spineless Democrats now, but they need to kick it into full gear.

  • Here’s the conundrum:

    Number of people who voted for Mukasey: 53
    Result: Mukasey is now our AG.

    Number of people who voted for Iraq withrdrawal: 53
    Result: Nothing.

    Are Democrats secretly in love with Bush? I really can’t figure it out.

  • “In the meantime, Democrats say, the Pentagon can eat into its $471 billion annual budget without being forced to take drastic steps.”

    This is why it was worth confirming Mukasey (who probably won’t really turn out to be such a terrible AG) to guarantee a vote in the senate on said $471 Defense bill. It’s also why I always thought using that all-nighter in the Senate last summer to provide cover for punting the Defense appropriations bill — which Republicans had their hearts set on passing before the August recess — into this month was such a smart move.

  • Are Democrats secretly in love with Bush? I really can’t figure it out. -Ohioan

    I didn’t think it was a secret.

  • Right on cue, the DoD is saying they are out of money. The AP reports that Gates Jawbones Hill on War Spending:

    GATES’ THREAT: Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that unless Congress passes funding for the Iraq war within days, he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.

    HIS REASONING: Gates said he does not have the money or the flexibility to move money around to adequately cover Iraq and Afghanistan war costs.

  • he will direct the Army and Marine Corps to begin developing plans to lay off employees and terminate contracts early next year.

    Okay with me, if they start with Haliburton.

  • The president of France is more patriotic than our very own Dem party. Truly amazing and astonishing – the Dems truly hate GW and our troops more than they do Al Qaeda and the other fascists.

    Sad to see the once proud party of FDR, Harry T, and JFK reduced to a mishmash of anti-American leftist caucuses. Sort of reminds us of the Bolsheviks’ takeover of Russia … and we all know how that turned out.

    But you can be sure, the day after D.C., LA, NYC, and Chicago are vaporized by Iranian-made nukes, the American people will remember the political thugs who put their own self-serving interests above the welfare of the country.

    By the way, the price of oil has gone up 39% since the Dems took the majority a year ago. Despite the campaign promise to the contrary.

  • It really makes you wander what we have elected. Beyond the funding for the troops this action could result in hundreds of thousands of people being laid off and the loss of military support for this country (along with the miltary support, we have several hundred thousand civilans and contractors whose liveihoods depend on the support they provide to the military. Its about more than just the Iraq War, its about the stability of a nation and its people. I would like to see what the folks who fought the bill have to say when the employment rate jumps and folks out of work because they decided to play with the President and the miltary to get what they wanted. It might be a little hard to explain that in an election year…but I guess they don’t care because they will get to take thier nice vacations and not have to worry about where their next paycheck is comming from…oh that is until the need the miltary that they decided to stop funding

  • the other day, i paraphrased dr. seuss and wrote “no one was certain what happened but they say that harry reid’s balls grew three sizes that day.”
    still waiting.
    make the bastards stand up and filibuster!!!!!!!

  • Lisa,

    I think you’re confusing the Defense appropriations bill with supplemental funding for Iraq. Two different things.

  • “By the way, the price of oil has gone up 39% since the Dems took the majority a year ago. Despite the campaign promise to the contrary.”

    LOL! “The campaign promise” by whom, IDY? References please.

    I will admit that you are partially, if inadvertently right though in one sense though (broken clocks and all that). The current price of oil does have a lot to do with a certain nasty little war that Democrats have so far been unable to talk Republicans out of wanting to keep going. Democrats need to try harder on that.

    It’s also true that certain allusions made by a certain president, vice president and other barking, batshit loonies of the far right wing fringes regarding potential of acts of war against yet another Muslim country have lately exerted even more upward pressure on oil prices. Democrats need to make it absolutely crystal clear to Republicans that they are not allowed to start wars any more with any more countries until we finish cleaning up the mess they made of the last two. Thanks for drawing attention to that point!

  • “But you can be sure, the day after D.C., LA, NYC, and Chicago are vaporized by Iranian-made nukes, the American people will remember the political thugs who put their own self-serving interests above the welfare of the country”

    Yep, the Bush White House.

    And how exactly will Iran get those nukes to DC, LA, NYC, and Chicago? And how come my hometown (Omaha, home to the US StratCom) gets left off the list?

  • By the way, the price of oil has gone up 39% since the Dems took the majority a year ago. — I dare you, @23

    Most of it in the last few weeks, ever since the world began holding its breath about the anticipated attack of Iran. And it’s not Dems — with the possible exclusion of Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation — who are pushing that attack.

    Also… How do you explain the price explosion — from $35 a barrel in ’02 (before the Iraq invasion), to nearly a $100 now — most of which happened *before* the Dems took the majority?

    You’re full of crude…

  • On November 16th, 2007 at 8:13 pm, CalD said:
    “By the way, the price of oil has gone up 39% since the Dems took the majority a year ago. Despite the campaign promise to the contrary.”

    LOL! “The campaign promise” by whom, IDY? References please.

    Here you go, FCOL…

    http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/April06/GasPrices.html

    Tuesday, April 18, 2006

    Contact: Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616

    Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on news reports that the price of oil has skyrocketed to more than $70 a barrel:

    “As Americans pay almost 90 percent more to fill their gas tanks since President Bush took office, oil companies continue to reap gigantic profits and oil executives receive astronomical compensation. Record prices, record retirement packages, and record profits are just the latest example of the wealthy few benefiting at the expense of hard-working Americans under the Bush Administration.

    “The Republican Rubber Stamp Congress has passed two energy bills, costing taxpayers $12 billion for giveaways to big oil companies. But the Republican bills clearly have done nothing to lower gas prices, as the price of a barrel of oil has settled above $70 a barrel – the highest price in our history. Even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve agrees that gas prices are decreasing the purchasing power of American families and depressing the U.S. economy.

    “Democrats have a plan to lower gas prices, taking America in a new direction that works for everyone, not just the few. Our plan would empower the Federal Trade Commission to crack down on price gouging to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices, increase production of alternative fuels, and rescind the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks, and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies.”

    http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/twip/twip_crude.html

  • PS, 30: They did exactly that, too.

    But what, you’re going to blame Democrats for peak oil now, when they’ve pushed bills and all voted for them…

    …And yet they don’t pass. This is their fault somehow?

    That’s like getting mad at the guy for throwing the potatoes on the ground, after he passed it to you, and you threw them on the ground. How petulant.

  • There’s no reason to pump more money into this war. First they should save some bucks by removing security for Maliki et al – soldiers have provided security long enough for ministers to see if they can work FOR THE COUNTRY of IRAQ instead of their own sect or tribe – and it appears they can’t. The only funds appropriated should be for plane fuel to bring get soldiers and their weapons out of Iraq. There’s no way non-Muslims can help with the1400 year old Sunni vs Shiite feud other than by showing how much can be accomplished by cooperating, and how much is wasted or stagnated by fighting. Islamic countries are starting to deal with the miscreants. Soldiers should stay in their countries to protect their own borders.

  • to 23, I dare you – Oil and gas have skyrocketed after Dems got in because oil companies are still run by Repubs… Pelosi shouldn’t make such promises.

    • Comments are closed.