By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
November 14, 2007
WASHINGTON - Nearly a year after anti-war voters put them
in power, congressional Democrats remain unable to pass legislation
ordering troops home from Iraq. Frustrated by Republican roadblocks,
Democrats now plan to sit on President Bush's $196 billion
request for war spending until next year — pushing the
Pentagon toward an accounting nightmare and deepening their
conflict with the White House on the war.
"We're going to continue to do the right thing for the
American people by having limited accountability for the president
and not a blank check," said Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid, D-Nev.
Senate Republicans on Friday blocked a $50 billion bill by
Democrats that would have paid for several months of combat
but also would have ordered troop withdrawals from Iraq to
begin within 30 days. The measure, narrowly passed this week
by the House, also would have set a goal of ending combat in
December 2008.
The 53-45 vote was seven votes short of the 60 needed to advance.
It came minutes after the Senate rejected a Republican proposal
to pay for the Iraq war with no strings attached.
Now, Democratic leaders say they won't send President Bush
a war spending bill this year. They calculate the military
has enough money to run through mid-February.
Responding to the congressional blockage, Defense Secretary
Robert Gates on Friday signed a memo ordering the Army to begin
planning for a series of expected cutbacks, including the layoffs
of as many as 100,000 civilian employees and another 100,000
civilian contractors, starting as early as January, Pentagon
press secretary Geoff Morrell said.
"The memo reflects the urgency of the situation we find
ourselves in — we are in a real crisis," Morrell
said, noting that layoff notices to some civilian employees
would have to be sent as early as mid-December. He decried
Congress' refusal thus far to provide the money needed to continue
fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, accusing lawmakers
of "holding hostage the well-being of our men and women
in uniform, and our national security."
The delay will satisfy a Democratic support base that is fiercely
anti-war. But it also will give Republicans and the White House
ample time to hammer Democrats for leaving for the holidays
without funding the troops.
"We ought to get the troops the funding they need to
finish the mission without restrictions and without a surrender
date," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
At the White House on Friday, deputy press secretary Tony
Fratto said the spending gap is unjustified.
"We'd rather see the Department of Defense, the military
planners and our troops focusing on military maneuvers rather
than accounting maneuvers as they carry out their mission in
the field," Fratto said.
Since taking the reins of Congress in January, Democrats have
struggled to pass any significant anti-war legislation. Measures
that passed along party lines in the House repeatedly sank
in the Senate, where Democrats hold a much narrower majority
and 60 votes are routinely needed to overcome procedural hurdles.
In May, Republicans agreed not to stand in the way of a $95
billion bill that would have set a timetable for troop withdrawals.
Bush rejected the measure and Democrats lacked the two-thirds
majority needed to override the veto, as Republicans anticipated.
Democrats eventually stripped the timetable from the bill
and sent Bush the money without restrictions on force levels.
The move was an unpopular one with many Democratic voters who
say Congress should cut off money for the war.
As the year progressed, Democrats hoped for Republican defections.
But a drop in violence this fall in Iraq helped to shore up
GOP support for the war.
On Friday, only four Republicans joined Democrats in voting
for the Iraq measure: Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Olympia
Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
Sen. Christopher Dodd was the lone Democrat opposing it because
he said it did not go far enough to end the war. Other Democrats,
including Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, said they too opposed
the bill as too soft but that they supported advancing debate.
"The only way to end the war is with a firm deadline
that is enforceable through funding," said Dodd, D-Conn.
Democrats acknowledge recent progress made by the military
in Iraq but contend the security will be short-lived unless
the Iraqi government reaches a political settlement.
"We need to do more than say to the Iraqis that our patience
has run out and that they need to seize the opportunity that
has been given them," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "Their
dawdling will only end when they have no choice."
Republicans on Friday tried to counter with an alternative
proposal that would have paid $70 billion toward the war without
restrictions. That measure failed by a vote of 45-53, falling
15 short of the 60 needed to advance.
Republicans said there were appalled by Sen. Chuck Schumer's
comment, reported by The Associated Press on Thursday, that
the Bush administration wouldn't get a "free lunch."
Schumer, D-N.Y., had told reporters that unless Bush accepted
the restrictions, the Defense Department would have to eat
into its core budget.
"The days of a free lunch are over," he said.
Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan said Schumer's
comments were "unbelievable," and Rep. Heather Wilson
said the senator should apologize to the troops.
"Sen. Schumer only wants to fund pay, body armor and
chow for the troops if he can put conditions on the money so
that they cannot do the mission they have been ordered to do," said
Wilson, R-N.M.
The Pentagon confirms the military will not run out of money
until mid February, after which all Army bases would cease
operations.
___
AP Military Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report.
___
On the Net:
Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov
Pentagon: http://www.defenselink.mil/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. BadConcress.com has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is BadCongress.com
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.
|
