Senate Approves War Funding Bill
WASHINGTON _ The Senate on Thursday approved a war funding measure calling for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq next year, and Democratic leaders warned President Bush that he risks “undermining” the troops on the battlefield if he vetoes the bill, as he has promised.
With the vote, both houses of Congress are on record supporting a timetable for a U.S. troop pullout from Iraq.
The Senate vote went mostly along party lines, with Sens. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., joining the Democrats to pass the emergency spending bill for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Included in the bill is a requirement that withdrawal from Iraq begin within 120 days, as well as a non-binding goal of bringing home nearly all U.S. troops by March 31, 2008.
After passing the measure, Senate Democrats challenged Bush to sign the legislation or face the judgment of history.
“I don’t know if you could find in history any time that a president has done more to undermine the troops in the field than this,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.. “If the president vetoes this bill, it is an asterisk in history. He sets the record for undermining troops more than any president we’ve ever had.”
But the president was not backing down from a showdown. Flanked by House Republicans whom he had summoned to the White House to rally party consensus on Iraq, Bush again promised to reject the legislation as soon as it reaches his desk.
“We stand united in saying loud and clear that when we’ve got a troop in harm’s way, we expect that troop to be fully funded,” Bush said on the White House’s North Portico. “We’ve got commanders making tough decisions on the ground. We expect there to be no strings on our commanders.”
Leaders on both sides of the aisle expected Thursday’s outcome after Republicans were unable to pass an amendment earlier this week that would have stripped the withdrawal language from the $123 billion spending bill.
Along with war funding, the legislation includes billions of dollars for projects unrelated to the wars that Republicans have derided as “pork-barrel spending.” Republicans have lambasted provisions such as $100 million in grants to the host cities of the 2008 political conventions to help defray security costs and $25 million to help pay for background checks for immigrants filing for government benefits. The Democrats defended the projects and called on Bush to tone down the rhetoric and come to the table to negotiate, while throwing barbs at the president for his handling of the war.
“What is in this bill regarding Iraq is what the American people said they wanted on Nov. 7 and what they have said in a more amplified manner since then,” said Reid. He noted that some of the so-called pork includes Hurricane Katrina relief and funding to assist returning veterans.
But with the White House reiterating its promise to veto any legislation that sets an end date for the war, and Democrats insisting they will stand their ground, the Senate’s vote set the table for a colossal game of chicken when the House and Senate return from their spring recess in mid-April.
Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who had voted on Tuesday for the Republican-sponsored amendment to remove the timetable, voted in favor of the legislation on Thursday despite its inclusion of the timetable.
“Although I am opposed to public timelines, I strongly believe emergency funding for equipment, armor, ammunition and other resources must move forward to keep our troops safe on the battlefield,” Pryor said in a statement. “President Bush should not stand in the way either. Let’s be clear: if he vetoes this bill, he will be the one standing between American troops and the equipment they need.”
Last week, the House passed a similar war spending bill that called for all combat troops to be out of Iraq by September 2008. Reid said House and Senate leaders were already working to reconcile their two versions of the bill, and added that Congress would send the unified legislation to Bush after Congress returns from its break. “The ball is in the president’s court,” Reid said, adding that he hoped Bush would quickly sign it into law.
Bush has made clear he has no intention of doing that. But he finds himself in perhaps his most politically vulnerable position since the start of the war four years ago.
Polls show that nearly 60 percent of Americans support legislation setting an end date to U.S. involvement in the war. And on Wednesday, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, one of America’s closest allies in the Arab world, said the bloodshed in Iraq is happening under an “illegal foreign occupation.”
But the White House is trying to turn the pressure on the Democratic leadership, demanding that Democrats present Bush with a “clean” war spending bill, devoid of pork or timetables, and charging that they are putting troops in harm’s way, since funding is set to dry up in a matter of weeks.
With slim majorities in both chambers, its is highly unlikely the Democrats have enough votes to override Bush’s veto.
Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense that a holdup in funding would force the curtailing of training for National Guard and Reserve units, and that some equipment repairs would be put off.
Delays in training, Pace said, could result in some troops already in Iraq and Afghanistan having their deployments extended as they await troops to replace them.
___
(c) 2007, Chicago Tribune.
Visit the Chicago Tribune on the Internet at http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.