|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Rep. Steny Hoyer: No Deadlines for Troop Withdrawal
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer confirmed Tuesday a final Iraq spending bill will not include a deadline for troop withdrawals, but promised that Democrats would try to end the war using next year's spending bills. "We can't pass something without the president's signature and the president can't pass something without our agreement," Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters. "So we can be at a standoff and go back and forth at each other, or we can come to an agreement." The House planned to vote Thursday on the bill. While the precise details remained in flux, officials said the legislation would likely threaten billions of dollars in reconstruction aid if the Iraqi government failed to make progress on political and security goals.
Story Continues Below But Democrats planned to drop provisions from an earlier bill - vetoed by the president - that would have demanded troops start coming home this fall. Democratic leaders first will have to sway a large number of Democrats who want to end the war immediately - or pick up enough Republican votes to make up for the losses. Earlier this month, 171 House members voted to order the withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq within nine months. Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., co-founder of the liberal Out of Iraq Caucus, said she will vote against the new measure and predicted that many of colleagues will join her. "Every time we negotiate, it (the bill) becomes weaker," said Woolsey, D-Calif. "This is a Republican bill, so it better be Republican votes that pass it." Hoyer said the new bill, despite its lack of a timetable on troop withdrawals, is still a victory for Democrats.
"There's not a rubber stamp or blank check here. . . . And we believe the net result here will be a significant change in direction," said Hoyer. For weeks, the president demanded Congress send him a "clean" bill without any restrictions on the war. Last week, a top aide told Democrats the president would accept legislation drafted by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., that would restrict U.S. aid for Iraq if Baghdad does not make progress on political and security reforms. That proposal, however, included a presidential waiver that would have allowed Bush to ignore the restriction. "The fact of the matter is, I think we have moved this debate very substantially forward in terms of accountability and demanding a new direction in Iraq," Hoyer said.
The Maryland Democrat said the next step for his party will be to insist on tougher language in the 2008 military spending bill to be debated this summer. Democrats say they hope to send Bush a new bill by the end of the week he will sign, and troops in combat will get the resources they need without disruption. "I'm frustrated" with the war, said Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif., a member of the Blue Dog coalition, a group of conservative Democrats. "But we realize too we have a responsibility to fund our troops and make sure they have the right equipment." The final Iraq bill also was expected to insist that U.S. troops meet certain standards before being sent into battle, out of concern from Democrats that some troops were going to Iraq without proper training. But the measure likely would give the president authority to waive this restriction. The Democrats' new bill also was expected to include the first federal minimum wage increase in more than a decade, a top priority for the Democrats who took control of Congress in January. White House officials have said Bush was amenable to accepting an increase in the minimum wage, although they and key GOP lawmakers favor larger tax cuts to accompany the measure.
© 2007 Associated Press.
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: Inside Cover Stories
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2012 NewsMax.Com |