House Dems question Republicans’ commitment to fighting terrorism

Taking a page from the Republican playbook, House Democrats yesterday accused Republicans of “playing politics” with the homeland security spending bill.

The Democrats’ aggressive tone came after Republicans offered a slew of amendments to protest a Democratic plan of inserting earmarks into spending bills when House-Senate conference committees meet to iron out differences in companion legislation.

{mosads}The GOP decision to criticize earmarks is a marked departure from when they were in the majority and the number of earmarks increased exponentially.

President Bush has threatened to veto the homeland security measure because the amount of spending exceeds his funding request.

Floor action on the bill continued throughout the day yesterday after a late-night debate on Tuesday did not suspend until 2 a.m.  

The arguments put forward by House Democrats this week are similar to those made by Republicans over the last several years.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) said on the floor Tuesday that during the debate on the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill, GOP lawmakers frequently said that discussions to end involvement in Iraq or to consider a timeline to withdraw U.S. troops emboldened insurgents.

“The terrorists must be quaking in their boots over the Republicans’ motions to rise,” Emanuel said. “If we were blocking the homeland security bill they would be screaming that we are on the side of [Osama] bin Laden.”

The House Democratic Caucus yesterday wrote in talking  points disseminated to rank-and-file Democratic press secretaries  that “Last night, House Republicans chose to play partisan political  games. Unfortunately, Republicans appear to be planning to carry out the same reckless behavior today.”

The rhetoric escalated throughout the day.

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) said, “The members of the other side are dishonoring those memories [of those killed on Sept. 11] and compromising our homeland security   by using this critical bill … to score political points.”

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) said, “As [Republicans]  try to filibuster, that is just buying time for these programs not to  get implemented, and God forbid, if after another attack, the American people come to us and say, ‘What were you doing?,’ the Republicans will have to go back to their districts and say that they were filibustering.”

The change in tone did not sway House Republicans, who remained confident that delaying passage of the homeland security bill would expose what they call Democratic hypocrisy on earmarks.

“The American people understand that secret slush funds have no place in the homeland security bill or any other appropriations bills,” Conference Chairman Adam Putnam (R-Fla.) told reporters yesterday.

Putnam ripped Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), who recently threatened to withhold another lawmaker’s earmarks, adding, “It is important to understanding the needs of securing the needs of our homeland are not being diverted $23 million at a time to bureaucrats in Johnstown, Pennsylvania rather than to the people who need it.”

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) questioned why Republicans were so concerned about having the right to strike earmarks before conference committees. He noted that Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) attempted to torpedo 39 earmarks on the floor during the last Congress and failed to kill one, adding that most Republicans voted to preserve the earmarks.

Former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), now the president of the Club for Growth, said that the GOP would not face any political fallout from its tactics.

“The public has exhibited disgust with wasteful spending,” Toomey said. “This fight is very good for them politically.”

Despite the partisan sniping on the House floor, Rep. David Dreier (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, hinted at a compromise to end the impasse.

“We obviously feel very strongly about the need to get [the bill] done,” Dreier said. “There are people on the other side that are interested in some kind of resolution … there is a desire on the part of those who run the place to try and proceed.”

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) confirmed that he and  Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) had spoken but said no compromise had been reached, said a senior GOP aide.
Speaking to reporters, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) predicted that the spending bill, which passed the Appropriations Committee by a 56-0 vote, would pass the House with a “veto-proof margin.”

This is not the first time a so-called filibuster by amendments has been executed; Some Republicans waged earmark battle against their fellow GOP lawmakers in 2002 after fiscally conservative members decided to reject a decision by their leadership to break spending limits.

Flake and Toomey led the effort and, after six hours of debate, the GOP leadership relented.

“We didn’t want to play that game and so we derailed the appropriations bill,” Toomey said.