Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
New York Times
November 7, 2007 By Robert Pear
WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 — House and Senate negotiators approved a $459 billion military spending bill on Tuesday, but rejected a Republican bid to provide $70 billion more to continue fighting the war in Iraq without any restrictions.
Senior Democratic lawmakers said they would provide less money for the war, for a shorter time, with certain restrictions that are to be decided in the next few days.
Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, urged the House and Senate negotiators to provide the $70 billion for six months of combat in Iraq, money separate from the regular Defense Department budget.
Senator Robert C. Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said: “This amendment would send to the president additional funding for his horrible, misguided war in Iraq without any Congressional direction that he change course. No strings attached. That would be a tragic mistake.”
“No more blank checks for war funding,” Mr. Byrd declared.
The new Democratic leaders of Congress have repeatedly been stymied in their efforts to bring troops back from Iraq or to force a change in President Bush’s war policies. But the Democrats made clear on Tuesday that they would try again to change course by using the power of the purse — what James Madison called “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.”
Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania and chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said: “The public wants this war over with. Many Democrats were elected because they said this war ought to end.”
Mr. Murtha said he and Mr. Byrd would recommend “goals or timelines” for curtailing American military operations in Iraq. “Our goal,” he said, “would be to get everybody out” by the end of next year.
Mr. Byrd said he had drafted legislative language that would send “a clear message to the president that we must transition the mission in Iraq to encourage Iraqis to take a much greater role in securing their future.”
The restrictions would be added to a bill providing money — a maximum of $50 billion — to continue the Iraq war to next spring, Mr. Murtha said. The president has requested nearly $200 billion for the full year, but Democrats said they were unwilling to provide the full amount in a lump sum, without conditions.
Short-term financing for the Iraq war is not included under the military spending bill that pays for weapons systems and the far-flung operations of the Defense Department in the budget year that began Oct. 1.
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Congress has approved some $412 billion for the Iraq war, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Most of the money has paid for military operations.
In May, Mr. Bush vetoed a war spending bill on the ground that it would “set an arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops” from Iraq. Military commanders, he said, should not have to take “fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.” The White House could raise similar objections to the restraints now contemplated by Congressional Democrats.
Republicans said the Democrats were trying to establish a “slow bleed strategy” in Iraq.
“It’s just a political ploy to try to end the war by starving the troops,” Mr. Stevens said.
The bill includes a 3.5 percent pay increase for all military personnel. That is one-half of a percentage point more than Mr. Bush requested.
Congress has not completed work on any of the 12 annual appropriations bills. Attached to the Defense Department spending bill is a measure that would provide a short-term infusion of cash for other agencies, to allow them to continue spending at current levels through Dec. 14.
In late September, just days before the start of the current fiscal year, Congress passed a stopgap spending bill for the entire government, but most of its provisions expire Nov. 16.
Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, predicted that most of the unfinished appropriations bills would be packed together in “a bloated omnibus money bill.”
November 7, 2007 By Robert Pear
WASHINGTON, Nov. 6 — House and Senate negotiators approved a $459 billion military spending bill on Tuesday, but rejected a Republican bid to provide $70 billion more to continue fighting the war in Iraq without any restrictions.
Senior Democratic lawmakers said they would provide less money for the war, for a shorter time, with certain restrictions that are to be decided in the next few days.
Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, urged the House and Senate negotiators to provide the $70 billion for six months of combat in Iraq, money separate from the regular Defense Department budget.
Senator Robert C. Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said: “This amendment would send to the president additional funding for his horrible, misguided war in Iraq without any Congressional direction that he change course. No strings attached. That would be a tragic mistake.”
“No more blank checks for war funding,” Mr. Byrd declared.
The new Democratic leaders of Congress have repeatedly been stymied in their efforts to bring troops back from Iraq or to force a change in President Bush’s war policies. But the Democrats made clear on Tuesday that they would try again to change course by using the power of the purse — what James Madison called “the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.”
Representative John P. Murtha, Democrat of Pennsylvania and chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, said: “The public wants this war over with. Many Democrats were elected because they said this war ought to end.”
Mr. Murtha said he and Mr. Byrd would recommend “goals or timelines” for curtailing American military operations in Iraq. “Our goal,” he said, “would be to get everybody out” by the end of next year.
Mr. Byrd said he had drafted legislative language that would send “a clear message to the president that we must transition the mission in Iraq to encourage Iraqis to take a much greater role in securing their future.”
The restrictions would be added to a bill providing money — a maximum of $50 billion — to continue the Iraq war to next spring, Mr. Murtha said. The president has requested nearly $200 billion for the full year, but Democrats said they were unwilling to provide the full amount in a lump sum, without conditions.
Short-term financing for the Iraq war is not included under the military spending bill that pays for weapons systems and the far-flung operations of the Defense Department in the budget year that began Oct. 1.
Since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Congress has approved some $412 billion for the Iraq war, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Most of the money has paid for military operations.
In May, Mr. Bush vetoed a war spending bill on the ground that it would “set an arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops” from Iraq. Military commanders, he said, should not have to take “fighting directions from politicians 6,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.” The White House could raise similar objections to the restraints now contemplated by Congressional Democrats.
Republicans said the Democrats were trying to establish a “slow bleed strategy” in Iraq.
“It’s just a political ploy to try to end the war by starving the troops,” Mr. Stevens said.
The bill includes a 3.5 percent pay increase for all military personnel. That is one-half of a percentage point more than Mr. Bush requested.
Congress has not completed work on any of the 12 annual appropriations bills. Attached to the Defense Department spending bill is a measure that would provide a short-term infusion of cash for other agencies, to allow them to continue spending at current levels through Dec. 14.
In late September, just days before the start of the current fiscal year, Congress passed a stopgap spending bill for the entire government, but most of its provisions expire Nov. 16.
Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Republican whip, predicted that most of the unfinished appropriations bills would be packed together in “a bloated omnibus money bill.”