|
House Dems press 60-day troop option |
|
By Mike Soraghan, and Jonathan E. Kaplan
|
|
Posted: 05/08/07 07:31 PM [ET] |
House Democrats plan to vote as soon as tomorrow on an Iraq war spending proposal that pays for military operations through late July.
Under the plan, Democrats would then seek a vote before the August recess on whether to withdraw or keep troops in the country.
The proposal, outlined in a Democratic Caucus meeting yesterday, appears to have picked up the support of some conservative Blue Dog Democrats who voted against the last Iraq spending bill that was later vetoed by President Bush. But it does not appear to have won over the Out of Iraq Caucus liberals who voted against the last bill.
“I can’t vote for something weaker than something I’ve already voted against,” said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.).
But John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, said he is confident that the proposal will pass the House and go to conference.
“There’s a momentum here,” Murtha said.
House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) said he feels that Democrats have compromised, and that it’s now time for the White House to do the same. He said in an afternoon briefing yesterday that he intended to meet with White
House officials on Capitol Hill later in the day.
“We’ve conceded on two major points,” Obey said, referring to troop readiness standards and a firm timetable for withdrawal. “The White House has yet to concede on any.”
But the White House had already rejected the broad outlines of the plan.
“We think it’s bad management,” said White House spokesman Tony Snow. “It’s kind of a start and stop measure. It denies commanders and forces the kind of predictability they need to be able to plan effectively.”
House Republicans also rejected the measure, saying it treats troops like “children who are getting a monthly allowance.”
“ Republicans will not support rationing funds for our troops in harm’s way and neither will the American people,” House
Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), said in a statement.
Support among Senate Democrats was tepid. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he would look at any supplemental that the House approves, neither reiterating his past criticism of the two-part “trigger” approach nor endorsing any House proposal.
“It’s possible to do something on the House side that can get done with only Democrats … [but] I can’t jam something through with only Democrats,” Reid told reporters.
For Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the idea of a two-part spending bill was a non-starter.
“I can safely say that there is minimum-to-no enthusiasm from Republican senators for that proposal,” he said.
At least four bipartisan groups of senators were working on their own versions of a supplemental bill. Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), a leader in those efforts, said the House movement would not sway senators from going their own way.
“There’s no reason why I and others couldn’t go forward and file a document articulating some points of concern,” Warner said. He added: “The question of whether we should be dividing these funds is very serious.”
House Democratic leaders have divided their proposal into two bills: a war bill and an agricultural relief bill. House Majority
Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the two bills could be “married together in the end.”
The war bill itself is also split into two pots of money. The first pot contains about $30 billion for war operations and $12 billion for other matters like military healthcare and training of Iraqi and Afghan troops.
But it would withhold a second pot of $53 billion until Bush submits a report to Congress on July 13 regarding progress in Iraq. That would trigger two votes 10 days later on whether to continue forward with war spending without strings, or whether to begin an immediate withdrawal of troops.
Obey called the two mandated votes a “neutral jump ball” to allow the war’s supporters in the White House and in the Republican Party to square off against its most staunch Democratic opponents on the floors of the House and Senate.
“It’s like [a corporate board] putting the CEO on a very short leash,” said Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), an appropriator. “It’s something that the shareholders are demanding.”
The regular defense appropriations bill for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 would be debated on the floor shortly after the late July votes, informed by the results of that debate, Obey said.
Along with the $30 billion for war funding, the House war bill includes the minimum wage legislation and Murtha’s language requiring the president to issue public waivers if he deploys units that don’t meet readiness standards.
The agricultural bill, which could be voted on Friday, could include money for rural schools, as well as wildfire and salmon relief. It would not include the much-mocked funding for peanut storage or spinach farmers.
Elana Schor contributed to this article. |
