|
GOP tries to derail Dems’ use of Iraq amendments in defense authorization |
|
By Manu Raju and Roxana Tiron
|
|
Posted: 07/11/07 07:12 PM [ET] |
Republicans increasingly divided over President Bush’s war strategy found unity yesterday in a growing procedural battle with Democrats that is now threatening to derail a major defense bill.
Emboldened by Republican defections over the Iraq war, Democrats have been eager to use the annual defense authorization bill as a vehicle to attach restrictions to U.S. involvement in the region.
But efforts to move toward the first of a host of Iraq-related votes broke down yesterday when Republicans demanded that the amendments should have 60 votes in order to win adoption to the overall bill. They argued that by agreeing to the 60-vote threshold, it would ensure the controversial measures could clear any procedural roadblock that could hobble the bill.
Democrats rebuffed the request and offered Republicans a chance to have their own alternative amendments come forward for a vote. By demanding a 60-vote threshold, they said Republicans were trying to delay a bill crucial for troops on the ground, and argued that a simple majority should determine the will of the Senate on the amendments.
“I guess rationality is in the eye of the beholder,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said after the procedural snag prompted a fresh round of partisan sniping.
Yesterday Reid filed cloture to end debate on the first amendment to the bill, which is being offered by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). Under an agreement, the cloture vote would occur today, followed by 30 hours of post-cloture debate. Sixty votes are required to invoke cloture. A final up-or-down vote on the first amendment then would be pushed back until Friday.
Without a bipartisan agreement, that process could occur repeatedly for the host of pending amendments.
“Let me suggest that this is not the most efficient way to work through this bill,” Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said.
“The American people are wondering: What the heck we are all about here?” asked a furious presidential aspirant John McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Some aides say the bill still may be pulled from the Senate floor and brought back in September when Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, reports to Congress on the status of the war. So far, most Republicans have said they would wait until September before determining whether to vote for pulling back troops from Iraq.
Yet divisions are surfacing as a result of prominent Republicans, such as Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Olympia Snowe of Maine recently breaking with Bush over the conduct of the war.
Voinovich said yesterday he may support a bipartisan amendment being drafted by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) to implement the 2006 Iraq Study Group report. Democrats have called the measure weak, while Republicans like McCain do not think a change in strategy is necessary.
Lugar, along with senior Virginia Republican John Warner, is working on his own Iraq amendment, but both declined to comment on specifics yesterday. They said they would wait until an interim progress report is presented to Congress July 15.
The Webb amendment, which has the support of Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who opposes the war, seeks to give troops more time at home between deployments. Reid projected that most senators would support Webb’s amendment, which the Democrats consider one of the least controversial amendments to be debated as part of the defense authorization bill.
Signaling concern with the continuing erratic deployment schedules, the amendment would require the Pentagon to give active-duty troops at least as much time at home as they spent on deployments, and would mandate that National Guard and Reserve members get to stay home for three years following their one-year deployments.
Republican leadership has indicated that Webb’s provision would hinder the military commanders’ flexibility on the battlefield. Some have indicated that it goes beyond that: It would undercut the president’s troop surge in Iraq.
On behalf of the GOP, Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who is under enormous pressure from conservatives in his home state, is offering an alternative to Webb’s amendment, which Graham called a “backdoor attempt to destroy the surge.”
Graham’s alternative amendment is a non-binding resolution that expresses the sense of the Senate that active-duty troops should get at least 12 months at home after their deployments, while National Guard and Reserve components should get no fewer than five years between deployments.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the majority whip, criticized Graham’s sense of the Senate provision for not addressing deployment and dwell time for the National Guard and Reserve.
Active-duty Army soldiers currently serve up to 15 months in Iraq or Afghanistan, with a 12-month home stay. National Guard and Reserve units can serve longer terms, which has placed significant strain on their supplies and readiness at home. In addition, the White House surge strategy in Iraq has increased demand for military personnel.
“Micromanaging of military by Congress is a bad idea,” Graham, the ranking member of the Armed Services Personnel subcommittee, said. “Congress will go on a road it has never gone before. It will change the relationship between the executive and the legislative branch and it would be suppressing a pretty successful strategy of fighting al Qaeda.”
Webb, however, argued that the Bush administration instituted the surge without “taking into consideration the normal rotation cycles.” The senator said the assumption that his amendment would tie commanders’ hands is “absurd.”
Webb said Graham’s amendment would offer some senators cover. “When you have a side-by-side vote it’s when you want to give someone a softer vote,” Webb said.
The White House several months ago vetoed the 2007 war emergency bill partly on grounds that Congress should not etch into law deployment and dwell times, which the administration says would curtail commanders’ flexibility on the battlefield.
|
