Skip to content
Link copied to clipboard

House backs benchmarks; Bush shifts

While opposing a newly passed funding bill, he signaled a change on requiring progress by Iraqis.

President Bush pauses duringa talk with reporters at the Pentagon. He said benchmarks could be part of the war bill.
President Bush pauses duringa talk with reporters at the Pentagon. He said benchmarks could be part of the war bill.Read more

WASHINGTON - The Democratic-controlled House voted last night to pay for military operations in Iraq on an installment plan, defying President Bush's threat of a second straight veto in a fierce test of wills over the unpopular war.

The 221-205 vote went largely along party lines, and sent the measure to a cool reception in the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) is seeking a compromise with the White House and Republicans.

Under growing political pressure from his own party, Bush coupled his veto threat with a sign of flexibility. Visiting the Pentagon, he said for the first time that he was willing to sign a military money bill that includes political and military goals for the Iraqi government.

"Time's running out, because the longer we wait, the more strain we're going to put on the military," said the president, who previously had insisted on what he termed a "clean" war-funding bill.

Bush and key lawmakers have expressed increased frustration with the government in Baghdad in recent weeks, and Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh spent his day appealing to key senators for patience.

In a brief interview with the Associated Press, Saleh said he had sought to convey the "imperative of success against terrorism and extremism" in the Middle East.

Bush vetoed an Iraq funding bill last week, objecting to a timetable for troop withdrawal that was included as well as several billion dollars for domestic programs.

After failing to override the veto, Democrats began work on a replacement measure, hoping to clear a bill the president would sign within two weeks so the flow of money to the troops was not interrupted.

That would inevitably require the party's rank and file to make additional concessions. The withdrawal timetable already has been jettisoned. But for now, Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California has decided to defy Bush before negotiating with him.

"Democrats are not going to give the president a blank check for a war without end," she said, advancing two bills for votes during the day that challenged the commander in chief's conduct of the war.

The first would have required the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq within nine months. It fell, 255-171, with almost all Republicans in opposition along with 59 Democrats. Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D., Md.) was among them.

"This war is a terrible tragedy, and it is time to bring it to an end," said Rep. James P. McGovern (D., Mass.), the leading advocate of the withdrawal measure. "For four long, deadly years, this administration and their allies in Congress have been flat wrong about Iraq."

Republicans argued that a withdrawal would be disastrous.

"Now is not the time to signal retreat and surrender," said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R., Calif.). "How could this Congress walk away from our men and women in uniform?"

A few hours later, the House passed legislation providing funds for the war grudgingly, in two installments. The first portion would cover costs until Aug. 1: $42.8 billion to buy equipment and train Iraqi and Afghan security forces.

Under the bill, it would take a summertime vote by Congress to free an additional $52.8 billion, the money needed to cover costs through the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year.

The House also passed, by a 302-120 vote, legislation providing $4.5 billion in emergency domestic spending, including $3.5 billion in crop and livestock disaster payments for farmers and ranchers.

Rep. John P. Murtha (D., Pa.) said the war bill was an attempt to provide accountability for a war gone wrong. He said the last four months had been the deadliest of the war for U.S. troops.

Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republicans leader, argued that the bill "is designed to bring failure in Iraq," which he said "means chaos in Iraq. It means genocide in Iraq."

Democratic officials, speaking privately, said Pelosi had agreed to allow the vote on the withdrawal measure in the hope that her rank and file would then unite behind the funding bill.

But in an increasingly complex political environment, even that measure was deemed to be dead on arrival in the Senate, where Democrats hold a narrow advantage and the rules give Republicans leverage to block legislation.

In a speech in January, Bush listed several goals for the Iraqis, including legislation to share oil revenue among all Iraqis, spending $10 billion on job-creating reconstruction projects, holding provincial elections, overhauling de-Baathification laws, and creating a fair process for considering amendments to the constitution.

Republicans say it is unlikely that Bush would sign legislation that makes war funds contingent on progress by the Iraqi government. But several key Republicans have suggested withholding Iraqi reconstruction funds if the benchmarks go unmet, and it seems likely that the White House will face intense pressure to agree.

How They Voted

Here are how members voted in the 221-205 roll call yesterday by which the House opted to pay for military operations in Iraq in two installments.

A "yes" vote is a vote to pass the bill. X denotes those not voting.


Democrats: Andrews, Y; Holt, Y; Pallone, Y.

Republicans: Frelinghuysen, N; LoBiondo, N; Saxton, N; Smith, N.


Democrats: Brady, X; Fattah, X; Kanjorski, Y; Murphy, Y; Murtha, Y; Schwartz, Y; Sestak, Y.

Republicans: Dent, N; Gerlach, N; Pitts, N; Shuster, N.