Daily Kos

House Passes Supplemental Funding H.R. 1591 (Update 2)

Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:46:46 PM PDT

The House just passed H.R. 1591 by a vote of 218 - 208.

Update 1: Added roll call information (now available)
Update 2: Added Blue Dog and Progressive information

2 Republicans voted Yea.

13 Democrats voted Nay.
(7 Blue Dogs, 5 Progressives)

2 voted Present.
(1 Progressive)

5 Not Voting.
(1 Blue Dog)

The roll call can be found at this link  

2 Republicans voting Yea.
Gilchrest, Jones (NC)

13 Democrats voting Nay.
( # = Blue Dog  * = Progressive )
# Barrow,  # Boren, # Davis (Lincoln), * Kucinich, * Lewis (GA), * Lee,  # Marshall,  # Matheson, McNulty,  # Michaud,  # Taylor, * Waters, * Woolsey

2 voting Present.
Emerson (R), * Stark (D)

Not Voting
# Costa (D)
Lampson (D)

Cubin (R)
Davis, Jo Ann (R)
Westmoreland (R)

Blue Dog Coalition Web Site
Congressional Progressive Caucus Web Site


Summary of the Fiscal 2007 Supplemental Funding Legislation

House and Senate conferees have approved legislation providing $124.2 billion primarily for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, for improving the health care for returning soldiers and veterans, for continued Hurricane Katrina recovery for the Gulf Coast, to fill major gaps in homeland security, and to provide emergency drought relief for farmers.
As part of the legislation, conferees approved a sensible plan to redeploy U.S. forces in Iraq paired with progress made by the Iraqi government in meeting diplomatic and security benchmarks. The legislation, subject to Presidential waiver, would ensure adequate rest between tours of duty of both active duty and Guard and Reserve forces, while also requiring that their service in Iraq not be extended beyond a year for any tour of duty.
President Bush would be required to certify that the Iraqi government is meeting the diplomatic and security benchmarks. If he makes that certification, deployment shall begin no later than October 1, 2007, with the goal of completing the redeployment within 180 days. After that period, a limited number of U.S. forces could remain in Iraq for force protection, training and equipping Iraqi troops, and targeted counterterrorism options. The legislation makes it possible for the U.S. military to focus its resources on Osama bin Laden, whose organization attacked the nation on 9/11, and destroying his base of operations in Afghanistan.
Additionally, the U.S. commander in Iraq would provide regular progress reports to Congress on both the progress of the Iraqi government to take control of that country as well as the status of the redeployment efforts.
Overall, the conference agreement provides:
• More than $100 billion for the Department of Defense, primarily for continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The legislation includes a $1 billion increase for the National Guard and Reserve equipment and $1.1 billion for military housing. The conference report provides $3 billion ($1.2 billion more than the President’s request) for the purchase of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAP) -- vehicles designed to withstand roadside bombs.
• More than $5 billion to ensure that returning troops and veterans receive the health care that they have earned with their service.
• $6.9 billion for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita.
• Emergency funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) totals more than $650 million.
• Homeland security investments total $2.25 billion, including funds for port security and mass transit security, for explosives detection equipment at airports, and for several initiatives in the 9/11 bill that recently passed the Senate.
• $3.5 billion is provided to help relieve the enormous pressure on farmers and ranchers as a result of severe drought and agricultural disasters.
• The conference agreement also includes emergency funding for forest firefighting, low-income home energy assistance, and pandemic flu preparations.

Iraq Language in H.R. 1591

SEC. _. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that units should not be deployed for combat unless they are rated "fully mission capable".
(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be used to deploy any unit of the Armed Forces to Iraq unless the chief of the military department concerned has certified in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services at least 15 days in advance of the deployment that the unit is fully mission capable.
(c) For purposes of subsection (b), the term "fully mission capable" means capable of performing assigned mission essential tasks to prescribed standards under the conditions expected in the theater of operations, consistent with the guidelines set forth in the Department of Defense readiness reporting system.
(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the deployment to Iraq of a unit that is not assessed fully mission capable is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit’s deployment is necessary despite the chief of the military department’s assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable, may waive the limitation prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.
SEC. _. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be deployed for combat beyond 365 days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be deployed for combat beyond 210 days.
(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of extending the deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom of –
(1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve or Army National Guard beyond 365 days; or
(2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve beyond 210 days.
(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (a) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.
(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the extension of a unit’s deployment in Iraq beyond the periods specified in subsection (b) is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit’s extended deployment is necessary, may waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.
SEC. _. (a) Congress finds that it is Defense Department policy that Army, Army Reserve, and National Guard units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days or that Marine Corps and Marine Corps Reserve units should not be redeployed for combat if the unit has been deployed within the previous 210 days.
(b) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act may be obligated or expended to initiate the development of, continue the development of, or execute any order that has the effect of deploying for Operation Iraqi Freedom of –
(1) any unit of the Army, Army Reserve or Army National Guard if such unit has been deployed within the previous 365 consecutive days; or
(2) any unit of the Marine Corps or Marine Corps Reserve if such unit has been deployed within the previous 210 consecutive days.
(c) The limitation prescribed in subsection (b) shall not be construed to require force levels in Iraq to be decreased below the total United States force levels in Iraq prior to January 10, 2007.
(d) The President, by certifying in writing to the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services that the redeployment of a unit to Iraq in advance of the periods specified in subsection (b) is required for reasons of national security and by submitting along with the certification a report in classified and unclassified form detailing the particular reason or reasons why the unit’s redeployment is necessary, may waive the limitations prescribed in subsection (b) on a unit-by-unit basis.
SEC. _. (a) The President shall make and transmit to Congress the following determinations, along with reports in classified and unclassified form detailing the basis for each determination, on or before July 1, 2007:
(1) whether the Government of Iraq has given United States Armed Forces and Iraqi Security Forces the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias, and is making substantial progress in delivering necessary Iraqi Security Forces for Baghdad and protecting such Forces from political interference; intensifying efforts to build balanced security forces throughout Iraq that provide even-handed security for all Iraqis; ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces; eliminating militia control of local security; establishing a strong militia disarmament program; ensuring fair and just enforcement of laws; establishing political, media, economic, and service committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan; and eradicating safe havens;
(2) whether the Government of Iraq is making substantial progress in meeting its commitment to pursue reconciliation initiatives, including enactment of a hydro-carbon law; adoption of legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections; reform of current laws governing the de-Baathification process; amendment of the Constitution of Iraq; and allocation of Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects;
(3) whether the Government of Iraq and United States Armed Forces are making substantial progress in reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq; and
(4) whether the Government of Iraq is ensuring the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi Parliament are protected.
(c) If the President fails to make any of the determinations specified in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq no later than July 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days.
(d) If the President makes the determinations specified in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall commence the redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than October 1, 2007, with a goal of completing such redeployment within 180 days.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this or any other Act are immediately available for obligation and expenditure to plan and execute a safe and orderly redeployment of the Armed Forces from Iraq, as specified in subsections (c) and (d).
(f) After the conclusion of the redeployment specified in subsections (c) and (d), the Secretary of Defense may not deploy or maintain members of the Armed Forces in Iraq for any purpose other than the following:
(1) Protecting American diplomatic facilities and American citizens, including members of the U.S. armed forces;
(2) Serving in roles consistent with customary diplomatic positions;
(3) Engaging in targeted special actions limited in duration and scope to killing or capturing members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with global reach; and
(4) Training and equipping members of the Iraqi Security Forces.
(g) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 50 percent of the funds appropriated by title I of this Act for assistance to Iraq under each of the headings ‘‘ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND’’ and ‘‘INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT’’ shall be
withheld from obligation until the President has made a certification to Congress that the Government of Iraq has enacted a broadly accepted hydro-carbon law that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqis; adopted legislation necessary for the conduct of provincial and local elections, taken steps to implement such legislation, and set a schedule to conduct provincial and local elections; reformed current laws governing the de-Baathification process to allow for more equitable treatment of individuals affected by such laws; amended the Constitution of Iraq consistent with the principles contained in Article 137 of such constitution; and allocated and begun expenditure of $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.
(h) The requirement to withhold funds from obligation pursuant to subsection (g) shall not apply with respect to funds made available under the heading "ECONOMIC SUPPORT FUND" for continued support for the Community Action Program and Community Stabilization Program in Iraq administered by the United States Agency for International Development or for programs and activities to promote democracy in Iraq.
(i) Beginning on September 1, 2007, and every 60 days thereafter, the Commander, Multi-National Forces-Iraq and the United States Ambassador to Iraq shall jointly submit to Congress a report describing and assessing in detail the current progress being made by the Government of Iraq regarding the criteria set forth in subsection (a).

http://appropriations.house.gov/...
Note: This is a PDF

Tags: House, Iraq War, Nancy Pelosi, H.R.1591-110, legislation, funding (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 24 comments

  •  Good now we see the deciderer. (5+ / 0-)

    and his mighty veto pen.
    Soldiers as WH hostages.

    St. Ronnie was an asshole.

    by manwithnoname on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:42:33 PM PDT

  •  Please President Bush (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, Esjaydee

    LISTEN TO YOUR COUNTRY!  We want out of your war!!!

  •  Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md), my Representative.. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, Spedwybabs

    voted yea, one of 2 Repubs to do so. Sounds good to me.

    "To be a poor man is hard, but to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardships." ~W.E.B. DuBois [-7.12, -5.95] as of 09/2007

    by rovertheoctopus on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:45:18 PM PDT

  •  Well (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, Sagittarius

    guess the White House spin machine is about to get cranked up to 11, super duper full on lie and bullshit mode.

    Hang on to your seat belts the fun starts now.

  •  Kucinich voted nay (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    jlynne, joanneleon

    Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson

    by bumblebums on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:50:54 PM PDT

  •  Diary Updated with Roll Call info (0+ / 0-)

    The roll call information is now available, so I updated with a summary of the votes.

    "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

    by joanneleon on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:54:40 PM PDT

  •  Apparently many are not (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, poetas

    reading the polls.

    If only 22% of Americans still believe in this war...why the hell don't these legislators GET IT ?

    WE WANT THIS WAR OVER-

    YESTERDAY!

    "America, this is our moment." Barack Obama

    by Esjaydee on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 06:55:11 PM PDT

  •  I can't count (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, rovertheoctopus

    13 Democrats voting Nay.
    Barrow, Boren, Davis (Lincoln), Lewis (GA), Kucinich, Lee, Marshall, Matheson, McNulty, Michaud, Taylor, Waters, Woolsey

    I recognize Kucinich, Lee, Waters, and Woolsey as progressives, which is to say, Dems voting against the bill from the left as opposed to the right.  Lewis, too, right?

    Are any of the others on this list progressives, or are they all Blue Dogs?

    •  Blue Dogs and Progressives (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Steve M

      I just updated the diary -- it now notes which members are blue dogs and progressives, based on the membership lists on the respective web sites.  Here's a summary:

      Blue Dogs (voting Nay or not voting)
      ------------
      John Barrow (GA)
      Dan Boren (OK)
      Lincoln Davis (TN)
      Jim Marshall (GA)
      Jim Matheson (UT)
      Mike Michaud (ME)
      Gene Taylor (MS)
      Jim Costa (CA) (not voting)

      Progressives voting Nay or Present
      --------------
      John Lewis
      Dennis Kucinich
      Maxine Waters
      Lynn Woolsey

      Pete Stark (Present)

      "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

      by joanneleon on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:53:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lee is also a Progressive - Updated List (0+ / 0-)

        Updated List:

        Blue Dogs (voting Nay or not voting)
        ------------
        John Barrow (GA)
        Dan Boren (OK)
        Lincoln Davis (TN)
        Jim Marshall (GA)
        Jim Matheson (UT)
        Mike Michaud (ME)
        Gene Taylor (MS)
        Jim Costa (CA) (not voting)

        Progressives voting Nay or Present
        --------------
        Barbara Lee
        John Lewis
        Dennis Kucinich
        Maxine Waters
        Lynn Woolsey

        Pete Stark (Present)

        "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

        by joanneleon on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 08:49:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you so much... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    poetas

    To the progressives voting Nay.  I like to see congresspeople with principles once in awhile.

    You know what happens if the bill gets voted down?  No more $$ for war.  No more.  That means, kicking and screaming, Bush will have to withdraw troops.

    This congress disgusts me.  Assert yourself!  Congress has the power of the purse, and now is the time to really use it.  Not with bullshit deadlines, extending the war for another year.  Just end it.

    You can chain me, torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind. -Gandhi

    by New England Liberal Elitist on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 07:51:38 PM PDT

  •  and today sen casey taught me how to handle this (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    joanneleon

    now that it's passed the house and once it passes the senate and the *(&hole vetoes we attack noting that he vetoed funding for soldiers, vetoed funding for veterans, vetoed funding for healthcare and vetoed funding for agriculture!
    and when we visited the gallery today we apparently just missed witnessing this and the subpoena vote cause we had to go meet w/sen casey

    "We have President Homer" - Jon Stewart 1/8/08

    by Spedwybabs on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 08:00:08 PM PDT

    •  I don't think Bush will veto (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      joanneleon

      more's the pity.

      Steny Hoyer = a slam dunk argument for term limits

      by jlynne on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 09:25:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

        It wouldn't surprise me to find out that Bush was bluffing and blustering all along.  I'm gonna veto it, I mean it, I really, really mean it.  A big game of poker to try to get the dems to water it down as much as possible.  And then, a change of heart.  No veto.  He essentially got what he wanted.

        In any case, I've always been of the opinion that we should force him to veto it.  Let's see what he does now.  (That's assuming it passes the Senate -- I don't take anything for granted with the Senate.)

        "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

        by joanneleon on Thu Apr 26, 2007 at 05:00:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Lee and McNulty (0+ / 0-)

    Does anyone know why Lee and McNulty voted Nay?  I don't see them on the member list for either the Progressives or the Blue Dogs.

    "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." --Samuel Johnson

    by joanneleon on Wed Apr 25, 2007 at 08:02:25 PM PDT

  •  My wingnut representative, John Duncan, voted nay (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    joanneleon, poetas

    on the bill even though he has consistently voted against the war from the start (one of only a handful of Republicans to do so), and he even though he was only one of 3 Republicans to vote against the phony baloney resolution that the Republicans passed in July of last year stating that the United States must complete "the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure and united Iraq" without setting "an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of U.S. troops.  He has repeatedly called for the rapid withdrawel of U.S. troops.

    My guess is that he voted against this bill due to some of its other spending measures.  Like I said, he is a wingnut who has just happened to actually be on the right side of the issue on Iraq until now apparently.  In other words, his reasons for voting against this bill probably had nothing to do with any opposition to troop withdrawel but instead have to do with his wingnut philosophy that any government spending is always bad.  He and Ron Paul (who also voted against this bill despite his opposition to the war) are peas in a pod when it comes to fiscal issues.(Duncan, however, unlike Paul is also a wingnut on social issues)

    Nonetheless, it is interesting to note that when you factor in the anti-war progressives, who voted against this bill on principle, as well as the anti-war conservatives who voted against this bill on principle, it becomes clear that the support for troop withdrawel in the U.S. House is much greater than the 218 - 208 vote count reveals.

Permalink | 24 comments