Some Lawmakers Want to Fund Civilian Projects Through War Bill

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, right, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, speak with the media outside the West Wing of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 28, 2007. The leadership in both houses of congress met with President Bush to discuss the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq.(AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson) (Lawrence Jackson - AP)

As House Democrats wrangle over details of a $100 billion war spending bill -- including whether restrictions should be placed on troops sent to Iraq -- some members want to add significant money for agricultural relief, Hurricane Katrina reconstruction and other nonmilitary projects.

Rep. Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.), who chairs the Agriculture Committee, said yesterday that rural states hit hard by floods, droughts and snowstorms in the past two years need $4 billion in emergency farm relief. And attaching the request to the war bill is the best way to insure they get it, he said.

Members from Gulf states want funds for improving levees in areas devastated by Katrina. And lawmakers from across the country say their states need federal help to cover deficits in a children's health insurance program.

As of yesterday, Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, had agreed to add about $3 billion to the war bill to help close military bases and relocate troops as part of the Base Realignment and Closure process. And he approved an additional $750 million for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a joint federal and state program that provides health care for six million poor children.

Obey has not agreed to the farm-relief request, according to Democratic aides familiar with the discussions. But Peterson made it clear that conservative Democrats and some Republicans from farming communities would be inclined to support the war bill if it included disaster aid. "A lot of these guys are farm guys," Peterson said. "Disaster relief is important to them."

Even though the details of the bill are still in flux, Republicans lost no time yesterday attacking Democrats for fattening the already hefty war bill. "Our focus ought to be on supporting our troops in harm's way, not in porking up this bill with everyone's latest ideas of how we ought to be spending the taxpayers' money," said Rep. John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), the minority leader.

The bill is a response to President Bush's request for $100 billion in supplemental funds to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of the fiscal year. Democratic aides said the details of the bill are likely to be finalized and released next week and will be debated by the Appropriations Committee sometime within the next two weeks, before it is sent to the House floor for a vote. Although it is highly likely that the bill will be approved by the committee, the outcome on the floor is more difficult to predict.

Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), the Democrats' most celebrated war critic and chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on defense, is trying to use the bill as a vehicle for exerting congressional control over Iraq policy. Murtha wants to include language that says troops must meet certain readiness and equipment standards before they can be deployed. Some liberal Democrats oppose any legislation that would further fund the war. Some senior Democrats want to include a provision that would allow the president to dispatch troops that do not meet readiness standards, as long as he formally notifies Congress that he is doing so.

Republicans and some conservative Democrats have said that they will oppose such restrictions, even if it means voting against a bill that is fundamentally designed to pay for the war. "We will not support a bill that inhibits the president's ability to win this war in Iraq," Boehner said.