Democrats Concede Defeat as Unrestricted Iraq Funding Moves Forward

Congress moved closer to giving President Bush $70 billion in unrestricted war funding as the Senate’s war amendment to the omnibus package headed back to the House for final passage. Senators adopted an amendment late Tuesday, offered by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that would provide the war funding without any policy restrictions. The amendment raises totals across the board when compared with the $31 billion provided in the House version (HR 2764), but most importantly, it funds the Iraq War. Democrats, in allowing the McConnell language to be adopted, conceded defeat in their effort to force Bush to change course in Iraq this year, and perhaps until he leaves office. With the next war funding bill not expected until late spring, Democrats have no illusions that they will be able to do better during the heightened partisanship of the presidential campaign season. The McConnell language, adopted on a 70-25 vote, would give $35.2 billion to the Army for its operations and maintenance accounts, which should be more than enough for the service to back off its earlier threats to issue furlough notices to its civilian employees. The amendment would also give the Marine Corps $4 billion in operations and maintenance money. Both totals are about double what the House bill would have provided. The amendment would provide $3.7 billion to the Iraqi Freedom Fund, an account to support the U.S. mission there; $1.5 billion to train the Iraqi security forces; and more than $6 billion in procurement funding to be spread across the military. Like the House bill, the new Senate version includes $4.3 billion to fight the threat of roadside bombs and $300 million to reimburse countries such as Pakistan and Jordan for providing logistical support for U.S. operations. Senate Democrats capitulated in part because they came to the sober realization that their strategy to legislate a change in Bush’s war policies was ultimately doomed to failure. “When it comes down to crunch time, the president has all the cards,” said Armed Services Committee member Ben Nelson, D-Neb. “You can’t play the cards you don’t have or the cards you wish to have.” Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., blamed the Democrats’ slim majority for the failure to force the president to change course. He doubted that the result would be better next year, when the remainder of the president’s $196.4 billion supplemental request will be considered. “The real war debate will take place when we have 60 senators who want it to take place,” Durbin said. House Expected to Clear War Bill If the House votes Wednesday on the Senate war-funding amendment, as expected, the measure is likely to clear Congress almost completely on the strength of Republican votes. It will garner nearly unanimous Republican backing, lawmakers said. House Republicans are likely to be bolstered by a minority of Democrats who are supportive of defense spending. “If they put Iraq funding back in, I’ll vote for it,” said Gene Taylor, D-Miss., an Armed Services member whose district includes Keesler Air Force Base and other military facilities. “I, in all likelihood, will probably hold my nose and vote for it,” said Sanford D. Bishop Jr., D-Ga., a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. But most Democrats will vote against the war-funding measure, “probably 80 percent,” said John B. Larson of Connecticut, vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said she would not vote for the war funding. Some Republicans believe Democrats set up a separate vote on the war funding so they could depict the GOP as pro-war in political ads. “We understand they wanted one more vote where we’re with the president,” said Jack Kingston, R-Ga. Last-Ditch Democratic Efforts The Senate voted for the funding after two last-ditch efforts by Senate Democrats to add Iraq policy language to the bill. An amendment by Russ Feingold, D-Wis., which would have mandated redeployment from Iraq beginning within 90 days and an end to combat operations within nine months, failed to reach debate by a vote of 24-71. An amendment by Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would have expressed the “sense of Congress” that the Iraq mission should shift from combat to support operations by the end of 2008, failed 50-45. Durbin said the Senate will not take up the remainder of Bush’s $196.4 billion supplemental request until May or June. Several senators on both sides of the aisle predicted that the upcoming election season would drown out any chance of bipartisan agreement on Iraq policy next year. “You’re going to have the overarching debate over the presidential battle, and that’s going to have more than a trickle-down effect on what Congress does,” said John W. Warner, R-Va. Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine, said Democrats missed their chance to build bipartisan support for an Iraq policy shift when they had momentum and greater public support earlier this year. Democrats decided to draw partisan lines, pushing away moderate Republicans who were willing to join them, she said. “They threw down the gauntlet too early, instead of trying to negotiate compromise and bring people in,” she said. “I think a strong bipartisan resolution would have reverberated across the country, and the world.”