Democrats back down on Iraq timetable

After President Bush's veto last week of the $124 billion emergency spending bill, House Democrats have responded with a new plan to pay for the Iraq War through the end of the federal fiscal year, Sept. 30. The new plan splits the original legislation into two parts and drops a requirement to begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq. Democrats backed off the original war funding bill after the House failed, on a vote of 222 to 203, to override the president's veto of a $124 billion measure that would have required US forces to begin partially withdrawing as early as July. The original bill was limited in scope; the Democratic proposals for withdrawal had significant loopholes that would have allowed for a continued US military presence in Iraq. The proposal is aimed at appeasing Democratic lawmakers who want to end the war immediately and at urging leaders not to back down after Bush's veto. But lacking a firm endorsement by the Senate, the new challenge by House Democrats seemed more for political show. White House press secretary Tony Snow said that President Bush would veto the bill. "There are restrictions on funding and there are also some of the spending items that were mentioned in the first veto message that are still in the bill," Snow said on Air Force One traveling with Bush on May 9. The House is scheduled to vote on May 10 on the bill, which would provide at least $83.4 billion for the war in Iraq through September and more than $20 billion more for operations in Afghanistan, Hurricane Katrina relief, medical coverage for poor children and veterans, and an increase in the federal minimum wage. About $30.4 billion of the Iraq War money would be released immediately, but the rest would be held back. The proposal would require the president to report to Congress by July 13 about whether the Iraqi government has made progress on such items as sharing oil revenues and other political power. Congress would have to vote again to release the remaining money. Within 10 days of receiving those reports, the House would vote on releasing the remaining money sought by the administration to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through Sept. 30–about $50 billion–or restricting its use to limited operations in Iraq and preparing to withdraw US forces. Representative David R. Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who is chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said the two-stage approach would give President Bush two more months to make his case for sustaining the war and Congressional war opponents an equal chance of prevailing. Obey said he would continue to negotiate with administration officials over a compromise plan, but said Democrats had to simultaneously move ahead with their own bill. At a news conference on May 8, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California was asked why Democrats were moving forward alone, risking another veto. "I didn't commit to any compromise," Pelosi said, adding: "I said we had a responsibility to the American people to try to find our common ground. Where we didn't find our common ground, we would stand our ground." The new approach formulated by Pelosi and her top deputies also has been assailed by a coalition of anti-war groups, which wants the Democrats who control the House and Senate to stand up to Bush and end the war as soon as possible, even in the face of presidential vetoes. On May 3, a coalition of 20 anti-war groups wrote Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to tell them Democrats should not give in to Bush by dropping a withdrawal timeline from the spending bill. David Swanson, a representative of two of those groups, Democrats.com and Afterdowningstreet.org, said the new bill is unacceptable. "The peace movement does not support further funding of this war and even more so does not support funding the war without a deadline to end it," he said. Rep. William Clay (D-MO) said the new bill is a major letdown and that he might not be able to support it. He had voted for previous versions. "If it doesn't have the withdrawal timelines, I don't like it. That was the only reason I voted for it in the first place," Clay said. "What are we going to do, except give in a little bit more to the president? He vetoed the bill. That was his intention. Now it's time for us to follow through on our intention" and keep withdrawal language, he said.