Agreement Nears On Iraq Funding Bill
Flinching in the face of a veto threat, Democratic congressional leaders neared agreement with the Bush administration Tuesday on legislation to pay for the Iraq war without setting a timeline for troop withdrawal.
Several officials said the emerging compromise bill would cost about $120 billion, including as much as $8 billion, originally resisted by the White house, for Democratic domestic priorities such as disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina victims and farmers hurt by drought.
The deal would be considered a victory for President Bush because there are no deadlines for troop withdrawals, reports CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. But that victory may be fleeting, as more and more Democrats and Republicans are considering September as an unwritten deadline, Attkisson reports.
After a bruising veto struggle over war funding, congressional leaders in both political parties said they hoped the compromise would be cleared for President Bush's signature by Friday.
Despite the concession, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters that the legislation would be the first war-funding bill sent to Mr. Bush since the U.S. invasion of Iraq "where he won't get a blank check."
Reid and other Democrats pointed to a provision that would set standards for the Iraqi government in developing a more democratic society. U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward meeting the goals, but Mr. Bush would have authority to order the money to be spent regardless of how the government in Baghdad performed.
He said Democrats would look to a different defense bill later this summer to "continue our battle — and that's what it is — to represent the American people like they want us to represent them, to change the course of the war in Iraq."
Republicans said that after weeks of struggle, they had forced Democrats to give up their demand for a date to withdraw the troops.
"I'm optimistic that we will achieve the following: a full four-month funding bill without surrender dates. I think there's a good chance of that," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, added, "Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory surrender dates in a funding bill for the troops, so forward progress has been made for the first time in this four-month process."
Republicans paid a price, too, in terms of billions of dollars in domestic spending that Democrats wrung from them and the administration.
Officials said the final details of the measure remained in flux. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intended to present the proposal to her rank and file at an evening meeting.
In all, officials said the measure included about $17 billion more than Mr. Bush initially requested. Of the $17 billion, about $9 billion would go for defense-related items and veterans' health care. The balance would be for other domestic programs.
© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Several officials said the emerging compromise bill would cost about $120 billion, including as much as $8 billion, originally resisted by the White house, for Democratic domestic priorities such as disaster relief for Hurricane Katrina victims and farmers hurt by drought.
The deal would be considered a victory for President Bush because there are no deadlines for troop withdrawals, reports CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. But that victory may be fleeting, as more and more Democrats and Republicans are considering September as an unwritten deadline, Attkisson reports.
After a bruising veto struggle over war funding, congressional leaders in both political parties said they hoped the compromise would be cleared for President Bush's signature by Friday.
Despite the concession, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters that the legislation would be the first war-funding bill sent to Mr. Bush since the U.S. invasion of Iraq "where he won't get a blank check."
Reid and other Democrats pointed to a provision that would set standards for the Iraqi government in developing a more democratic society. U.S. reconstruction aid would be conditioned on progress toward meeting the goals, but Mr. Bush would have authority to order the money to be spent regardless of how the government in Baghdad performed.
He said Democrats would look to a different defense bill later this summer to "continue our battle — and that's what it is — to represent the American people like they want us to represent them, to change the course of the war in Iraq."
Republicans said that after weeks of struggle, they had forced Democrats to give up their demand for a date to withdraw the troops.
"I'm optimistic that we will achieve the following: a full four-month funding bill without surrender dates. I think there's a good chance of that," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, added, "Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory surrender dates in a funding bill for the troops, so forward progress has been made for the first time in this four-month process."
Republicans paid a price, too, in terms of billions of dollars in domestic spending that Democrats wrung from them and the administration.
Officials said the final details of the measure remained in flux. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intended to present the proposal to her rank and file at an evening meeting.
In all, officials said the measure included about $17 billion more than Mr. Bush initially requested. Of the $17 billion, about $9 billion would go for defense-related items and veterans' health care. The balance would be for other domestic programs.
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 450 Comments
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
- Anthony Weiner comeback try begins: Running for NYC mayor 118 Comments
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- Major immigration overhaul passes first big test
- Will tornado relief funding escape politics?
- Top IRS official to invoke 5th Amendment at congressional testimony 219 Comments
I even remember O'Reilly before the war telling a person who knew that there were no WMDs that if he was right, he would never trust the Bush admin again. He didn't keep that promise did he?
And you act as though you are glib about the democrats losing to Bush when you must know (how can you not) what a total disaster this war is.
I lost 10% of my company over there. Be glib of the democrats if you wish, but they were elected to represent the people. Isn't that worth anything to you?
That is what we though we did in November - but it was all a sham. We are not represented anyway.
I had hopes for Nancy and Reid, but no more. The caved to the likes of Bush and McConnel.
WE ARE NOT BEING REPRENTED AND THEY DON'T GET IT!
HA HA, boy that Democrat-majority House is really cleaning house. Better to blame Bush for the War...accuse him of lying when the senior democrats had the same info GWB had. By the way...how many senior Congressional Democrats voted for the war??
The president has veto power and appoints cabinet officials and nominates Justices, he can't do much else without congressional backing. Its called "Checks and Balances".
Perhaps those of you living in "Conspirecyville" should look that up yourself instead of vomiting media blurbs from the spoonfed junk you call "news"
You want election reform?
1) Make all ballots write in
2) forbid any political candidate,in any prerecorded speech or publication,from mentioning any proper names. Can only use pronouns when referring to a person
3) political advertising limited to the telephone or mail.
You think corrupt washington types would last long if the rules were changed?
Posted by forthepeopl1 at 09:51 AM : May 23, 2007
+ report abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they cant kill millions of americans at once so if we charge them all at once we will win and take them out and hang them all..
just like in the old days of the west...hang them from the trees in front of the whitehouse and see how many start telling the truth about what they have done to all us americans..
Posted by forthepeopl1 at 09:47 AM : May 23, 2007
report abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if the american NOW dont stand up and start a NATIONAL REVOUTION ON THIS WASHINGTON BULL S/H/I/T/ THEN we as TRUE AMERICANS can say nothing!!!
its time to take all this *** and take our government back now..
just like in the old days of the west...hang them from the trees in front of the whitehouse and see how many start telling the truth about what they have done to all us americans..
its time to take all this *** and take our government back now..
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1599682,00.html