Pulling at the Purse Strings: The House Considers Iraq Funding

Congress has entered the Iraq debate with a fury, and while legislator’s words are influential, more potent is their power to control funding.

Congress’ power of the purse is their primary check over the executive branch, and since all money matters begin in the House of Representatives, the House Appropriations Committee will be first to debate next year’s Iraq budget.

Fiscal Year 2008 begins in October, so appropriators are arguing the budget now. President Bush has requested a big chunk of money -- $103 billion to be exact - as the latest installment for the ongoing war in Iraq.

Congress is expected to grant the money, perhaps even more than requested. However, some Democrats want the funds to be conditional.

Policy options:

• Grant the money, no strings attached
• Grant the money, with provisions
• Other provisions - rules and sweeteners

Grant the money, no strings attached

Republicans and many Democrats are ready to fork over the billions. They argue that cutting or slowing funding would only hurt the soldiers on the ground.

Since President Bush is Commander-in-Chief, he controls the direction of the war. Congress would have to remove his powers, cut funding, or place strict requirements on the funding in order to affect the war.

Grant the money, with provisions

Some Democrats argue that the money should come with conditions. The Out of Iraq Caucus wants the funding bill to carry a provision that requires the redeployment of troops within a certain timeline.

Democratic Congressman Jessie L. Jackson Jr. of Illinois would like to prevent funds from being used for troop increases, and would require troops to stay at their January 1, 2007 levels.

Barbara Lee, Democrat from California, wants to add an amendment that would require the withdrawal of all military forces by December 31, 2007.

Jackson, Lee, and other Democrats on the Appropriations Committee have been discouraged from amending the bill for fear that it will slow or prevent passage.

Most Republicans are opposed to conditional funding, as are "Blue Dog" Democrats, who are ambivalent about decisive anti-war action.

Other provisions - rules and sweeteners

The bill is likely to contain other sought-after funding, such as a $400 million timber subsidy and agriculture and hurricane relief. These additions, often called "sweeteners," will make it difficult for Republicans to vote against the bill, especially for legislators who come from districts that need the extra funds.

On the other hand, the bill may also contain a rider that would prevent the president from taking military action in Iran without the expressed consent of the Congress.

It’s important to get to our representatives when they’re working on the bill in committee, because Democratic leaders may not allow amendments on the House floor.

The House Appropriations Committee is hammering out the details, so contact your legislators NOW! Tell them what policies you believe in. Look up your Senators, Congresspeople, and their committees - RIGHT HERE:

About WomenMatter

WomenMatter is a place to discuss life issues with other women. We don’t want to wedge women apart, but rather bring them together to dialogue.

WomenMatter is the place where we can take one issue at a time, match what we do about it every day of our lives to the facts of the bigger system that we all live in and recognize that every idea for making it better has tradeoffs.

WomenMatter is dedicated to engaging women in the political process. To do this we have invested in the most in-depth NONPARTISAN information, because we trust each woman to make up her own mind.

• We track nine issues every week and update this website several times a week.
• We do continuous research to make sure that we are meeting the needs of women across the country of all ages, races, incomes, preferences, and religions.
• To explore our archive of past Security Life Issue updates, click here.