House OKs Huge War Spending Bill

The House on Thursday approved a massive $13-billion emergency spending bill that would provide more than double what President Clinton has requested for U.S. military operations in the Balkans--an add-on Republicans said is needed to bolster “declining” military preparedness.

The 311-105 vote came a week after the House refused--with a 213-213 tie--to support the NATO-led air campaign in Yugoslavia.

House Republicans defended the apparent contradiction between Thursday’s vote and the one a week ago, contending that approval of the money measure did not mean they back Clinton’s Kosovo policies but only that they support U.S. troops and want to bolster military readiness after years of “neglect.”

The measure contains billions of dollars for outlays that some Democrats--and many private analysts--consider nonemergency, such as routine military construction projects and a 4.8% pay raise for armed forces personnel that would take effect in January.

In Thursday’s tally, 174 Republicans and 137 Democrats supported the measure.

The spotlight shifts next week to the Senate, which is expected to consider the proposed $13-billion appropriation as part of a House-Senate conference committee compromise on an earlier bill providing emergency funds for aid to victims of Hurricane Mitch in Central America.

Clinton supports the disaster relief, but the bill ultimately sent to him may also include provisions he opposes, such as a ban on any federal claims to the $250 billion the 50 states won last year to settle lawsuits against the tobacco industry.

Republicans crafting the strategy to link the Kosovo funding bill to a variety of unrelated matters believe Clinton will not veto the overall measure because of the need to fund the war.

Clinton has asked lawmakers to have the measure on his desk by Memorial Day to ward off a shortfall he says could squeeze day-to-day military operations around the world.

A spate of factions within the House voted against the $13-billion measure: some Republicans and Democrats who oppose Clinton’s policies in Kosovo, and conservatives who wanted to offset the proposed funding with spending cuts in other programs.

Still others worried that the measure would threaten the Social Security trust fund by reducing the overall federal budget surplus. The current budget surplus is based entirely on a surfeit of money in the Social Security fund.

But House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) called on both parties to “rise above the partisanship” in previous Balkans-related votes and “vote for the good of the country as a whole.” To those who oppose Clinton’s policies, he said: “You had your vote last week.”

Hastert was heavily criticized following the House’s refusal to support the Balkans air campaign for having failed to exercise leadership over the GOP rank and file. During that debate, he kept silent, finally voting to support Clinton at the end of the balloting. But most House Republicans voted against the resolution, which carried only symbolic effect.

Hastert told members of the House Republican caucus on Wednesday that he had made a mistake in not taking a more visible stand in advance of the vote on the air campaign.

There was no indication Thursday just how the emergency measure will fare in the Senate. Some conservative lawmakers, including Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), want to pare back the military spending portion of the bill. A spokesman said Thursday that Lott wants the total kept below $10 billion.

In the House bill, the bulk of the increase from Clinton’s $6-billion request for military and humanitarian aid operations in the Balkans comes as a result of the pay raise, which Clinton had proposed as part of the regular budget process, and money for munitions, spare parts, depot maintenance, military construction and base operations.

Many Republicans have been pushing for such an increase in overall defense spending for years but have been held back by congressional budget restrictions.

What makes the current bill so attractive for Republicans is that, as an emergency measure, it is exempt from requirements in congressional budget procedures that force lawmakers to approve offsetting budget cuts in other domestic programs--reductions that could be painful for some constituents.

Still, if approved by the Senate as well, the money bill would cut the overall federal budget surplus, which is now projected at $111 billion, to $98 billion, shattering a GOP pledge this year to leave that money alone to help ensure Social Security’s long-range solvency.

Hastert promised Republicans on Thursday that House leaders will take steps to “replenish that money to the Social Security trust fund,” but he did not provide any details on how they might do it. A spokesman said later that Hastert intends for Congress to restore the money “over time.”

Before the final vote Thursday, House members rejected a Democratic substitute proposed by Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) that would have trimmed the military spending slightly and added money for humanitarian aid, help for the Hurricane Mitch victims and aid to U.S. farmers hurt by bad weather.

The Obey provision was defeated, 260 to 164.

Most of California’s 52-person congressional delegation voted to support the emergency spending measure. But two Republicans and 11 Democrats voted against it.

The GOP no votes were cast by Reps. Dana Rohrabacher of Huntington Beach and Tom Campbell of San Jose. Democrats opposing it were Reps. Xavier Becerra, Maxine Waters and Henry A. Waxman of Los Angeles, Anna G. Eshoo of Atherton, Barbara Lee of Oakland, Zoe Lofgren of San Jose, George Miller of Martinez, Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, Pete Stark of Hayward, Mike Thompson of St. Helena and Lynn C. Woolsey of Petaluma.

Not voting were Reps. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach), Steven T. Kuykendall (R-Rancho Palos Verdes), Ron Packard (R-Oceanside), Howard L. Berman (D-Mission Hills) and George E. Brown Jr. (D-San Bernardino).