[NYTr] Democrats close to another self-defeat on Iraq

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

The Washington Post - Dec 8, 2007
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/07/AR2007120702550.html

Hill Close To Deal on War Funds
Democrats Would Drop Iraq Timeline

By Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writers

House Democratic leaders could complete work as soon as Monday on a
half-trillion-dollar spending package that will include billions of
dollars for the war effort in Iraq without the timelines for the
withdrawal of combat forces that President Bush has refused to accept,
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday.

In a complicated deal over the war funds, Democrats will include about
$11 billion more in domestic spending than Bush has requested,
emergency drought relief for the Southeast and legislation to address
the subprime mortgage crisis, Hoyer told a meeting of the Washington
Post editorial board.

If the bargain were to become law, it would be the third time since
Democrats took control of Congress that they would have failed to force
Bush to change course in Iraq and continued to fund a war that they
have repeatedly vowed to end. But it would also be the clearest
instance yet of the president bowing to a Democratic demand for more
money for domestic priorities, an increase that he had promised to
reject.

"The way you pass appropriations bills is you get agreement among all
the relevant players, among which the president with his veto pen is a
very relevant player," Hoyer said. "Everybody knows he has no intention
of signing anything without money for Iraq, unfettered, without
constraints. I think that's ultimately going to be the result."

The Democrats plan to take a three-step approach to completing the
deal. House leaders are considering an initial allotment of about $30
billion, ostensibly for the war in Afghanistan and some other military
needs, which all sides in the deal recognize could be shifted to fund
the Iraq war.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) then would allow
Republicans to increase that amount to avert a filibuster of the
spending bill in the Senate. The goal of Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.) is $70 billion for the war, more than the $50 billion
short-term funding that House Democrats initially proposed but far less
than the $196 billion Bush has sought.

The Senate-passed bill would then go to the House for final approval.

McConnell was the first to suggest the outlines of the deal, which
would allow Congress to pass the 11 remaining appropriations bills for
fiscal 2008. Hoyer said Democrats are ready to accept that bargain.

But the deal has a long way to go before it can be enacted. Reid and
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed last month to oppose any
additional money for the Iraq war that does not come with a timeline
for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. In talks this week with White House
Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and White House budget chief Jim
Nussle, Reid signaled that he could accept the McConnell deal,
according to Senate Democratic aides. But Pelosi is uncommitted,
spokesman Nadeam Elshami said.

Republican leaders are badly divided on the plan. At a White House
meeting this week, McConnell presented the proposal to Bush, but House
Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Minority Whip Roy
Blunt (R-Mo.) urged the president to reject it.

Even as Bush's approval ratings have slid to historic lows, House GOP
leaders have stood by him, twisting the arms of rank-and-file
Republicans to uphold his vetoes of popular legislation, such as an
expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program and funding
increases for health care and education.

White House acquiescence now to increased domestic spending would be
viewed as a betrayal by House Republicans who are trying to reestablish
their credentials as small-government conservatives.

"I am adamantly opposed to it," Boehner said Thursday. "I came here to
hold the line on spending, not to raise it."

Blunt said yesterday that Democrats will give in on war funding, with
or without additional money for domestic programs. "There's no reason
to make a bad bargain," he said. "The president holds all the cards."

McConnell has been more circumspect in his public statements,
predicting that an omnibus spending bill will pass only if Bush gets
Iraq war funding with no timeline strings attached to it.

"We made our bright lines very clear," said Don Stewart, McConnell's
spokesman.

Behind closed doors, McConnell has expressed confidence in the
Republican negotiating position, telling his GOP colleagues Thursday
that, by holding firm, they had moved from a Democratic offer of no
money for the war to at least $30 billion, according to a Republican in
the meeting.

"We're just going to sit right here," McConnell told Senate Republicans
of the negotiating strategy, according to the Republican, who made
anonymity a condition for speaking freely about an internal meeting.

Senate Republican leadership aides said an additional $11 billion in
domestic spending, plus drought relief, might be a hard sell in the
Senate. One GOP aide said that the Democrats made a bargaining mistake
last month when Reid signaled that the Democrats were willing to halve
their initial request of $22 billion in additional domestic spending,
setting "boundaries" for the current debate in which $11 billion serves
as the new ceiling.

Regardless of the spending increases for veterans, health care,
education and other domestic priorities, however, several House
Democrats have said they will vote against any bill that includes war
funding shorn of policy prescriptions. Pelosi will have to attract
considerable Republican support to get the deal through.

Democratic leadership aides expressed confidence that Boehner and Blunt
will not be able to keep enough Republicans away from a bill that funds
the war, popular domestic programs and their own pet projects, known as
earmarks. With a long holiday break beckoning, few lawmakers will be in
the mood for a protracted standoff.

Ultimately, it will be up to Bush to decide whether to accept the deal.
Sean Kevelighan, a spokesman for the White House's Office of Management
and Budget, would not say how the president will proceed.

"Until we have seen a piece of legislation, it's really hard to
speculate, because not only had [the Democrats'] strategy been shifting
constantly, but we can't know whether or not the House and the Senate
are even talking to each other," he said.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the president's position has not
changed. He wants the war funds without strings, and he wants Congress
to toe his line on spending.

Hoyer struck a pragmatic tone, pushing for Congress to adjourn for the
year by the end of next week. He suggested that Democrats need to
divorce their goal of ending the war from the battle over funding.

"We have to get to a point where the American public more clearly
perceives our policy position and is not confused by whether or not the
Democrats intend to support the troops that we've sent to Iraq. I don't
think there's an option on that," Hoyer said.