Legislative Update VIII

Rep. Mark Udall (who is running for U.S. Senate out in Colorado) will be introducing a resolution in the House of Representatives on Monday condemning Rush Limbaugh for his "phony soldiers" remark. For those unaware, Limbaugh slandered troops who have spoken out against the war as somehow "phony" and less than good, conservative persons in the military, I guess. Since Republicans took delight in forcing a vote on condemning MoveOn.org's "General Betrayus" ad, Udall is hoping to put them on record in regards to Rush's idiotic comment. No word yet on whether the Democratic leadership will bring it to a vote, but I would think there would be support for it.

Rep. Henry Waxman, the chairman of the House oversight committee, says that aides to State Department Inspector General Howard Krongard threatened two investigators with retaliation, including losing their jobs, this week if they cooperate with a congressional probe into Krongard's office.

While the House has passed all 12 appropriation bills for the upcoming fiscal year, the Senate has only gotten to four (but will finish before the end of the year). To keep the government running, both chambers passed a "stopgap" spending measure to fund everything at current levels (the Senate also voted to increase the national debt limit - an unfortunate but necessary move). However, President Bush has threatened to veto many of the appropriation bills put forth by Congress, so we will have to see what happens.

The Senate approved the conference report for the Water Resources Act, 81-12, the first of its kinds in seven years that improves the country's water infrastructure. The House approved it before the August recess, so the bill now goes to President Bush. If he signs it, it will be law; if he vetoes it, the Congress will hold a vote to override the veto.

On Tuesday, the House voted 397-16 to slap new energy sanctions on Tehran and brand its Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group (which the Senate later concurred with in a "Sense of the Senate" resolution)).

The Senate will vote Monday on the 2008 defense authorization bill which has seen many amendments related to the Iraq war, hate crimes, etc. Late Thursday, the Senate by voice vote adopted a string of amendments that would streamline the system for granting asylum to persecuted Iraqis, especially those whose lives are threatened because of their work for U.S. troops or government agencies, establish a wartime commission on contracting, allocate $24 billion for vehicles to protect soldiers from roadside bombs, and establish controls over arms delivered to Iraq’s military in order to reduce the odds they will fall into insurgents’ hands. Bush has threatened to veto the bill.

The House will vote on a bill next week that would regulate conduct of government contractors overseas in response to mounting outrage over recent killings of Iraqi civilians by employees of Blackwater USA. The bill would make all U.S. contractors in combat zones, not just those working for the Pentagon, subject to criminal prosecution in U.S. courts in addition to defining the role of civilian security contractors in Iraq, mandating basic background screening and establishing rules of engagement for their operations. Rep. John Hall has also introduced legislation that would freeze the number of private security contractors operating in Iraq by prohibiting federal agencies from entering into contracts that would increase the number of private security contractors in Iraq above the number present in Iraq on September 1, 2007. In addition, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is working on a bill to strengthen the oversight role of executive branch inspectors general in foreign conflict zones. While there is an inspector general for Iraq, there is not one for Afghanistan.

Last, but not least, the House will also soon return to legislative attempts to change Iraq war policy: One fairly non-controversial bill would ban “war profiteering," to be passed on the fast-track suspension calendar early next week. That will be followed by a vote on a bill that calls for President Bush to report regularly on his administration’s plans for withdrawal from Iraq which is expected to pass with Republican support and without the "Out of Iraq" Democratic caucus that considers something that will provide political cover for Republicans when it doesn't do anything to end the war. Then would come a bill, yet to be written, ordering the administration to undertake a “diplomatic surge” similar to the Iraq Study Group recommendations bill.

The next big battle over the course of the war will be over the White House’s $190 billion supplemental funding request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which may not come to the floor until perhaps early next year. Democrats in the House and Senate both have said they want to scrub it of non-related provisions and may break it up into smaller installment. In any case, expect some sort of war policy amendments to be offered as the timetable was on the last request.

Iraq Resolution Stalled

As expected, the Republicans moved to block debate on the non-binding Senate resolution on Iraq that would criticize President Bush's plans for escalation. It takes 60 votes to begin debate, and every single Republican and Joe Lieberman voted "nay." While RealClearPolitics and FOX News are declaring Mitch McConnell and his Republicans the winners here, I'm not sure. Personally, I think it makes Republicans look like they are obstructing debate on Iraq, the most important issue of the day, and also keeps Democrats from stepping into a Republican minefield intended to undermine their message.

Furthermore, it looks like the House will pick up the cause next week (with binding resolutions promised to follow). And there will be no chance of Republican obstruction then.

Republicans To Try and Block Vote on Iraq Resolutions

According to the New York Times, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his Republicans will block Senate debate on the compromise Iraq resolution unless Democrats allow votes on two Republican alternatives. One, introduced by John McCain and Joe Lieberman, would be in support of the escalation, while another would state opposition to any cutoff of money for added troops.

Clearly, the Republicans want to force Democrats to go on record regarding funds for the war, an issue that currently divides the caucus, and muddy the message. However, I don't see how this is anything but a lose-lose strategy for the Republicans, in the end. If they block the vote, they will be seen as obstructing criticism of Bush's war policy. If it does go forward, the Republicans will have to vote on whether they support the "surge" or not.

Optimally, the Democrats should allow the McCain-Lieberman resolution so they can put the Republicans on record, but disallow the other (afterall, the compromise resolution already admonishes cutting funds for the "surge"), and see if the Republicans really won't break on not allowing a debate on the most important issue of the day.

About Those Iraq Resolutions...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has scheduled a vote on a non-binding resolution which combines elements of ones proposed by Carl Levin and Chuch Hagel and another proposed by John Warner, respectively. The revised resolution would express the Senate's opposition to the troop increase but would vow to protect funding for the troops. The resolution does not include the Democratic language saying the Bush plan is against the national interest, but it also drops an earlier provision by Warner suggesting Senate support for some additional troops.

It is unclear whether even this water-downed proposal will garner enough support to pass, since a majority of Republicans still oppose even the softened language and Democrats Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd criticized the resolution as weak and meaningless, while others, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, were undecided. All have argued for binding resolutions.

It is clear that Democrats in the Senate have opted to try and get the largest possible vote, but what is really the point? Such a resolution will neither change war policy, nor make any sort of powerful statement. Markos Moulitsas argues this well over at DailyKos:

"Reid should introduce binding legislation. Let the Republicans vote against it. It'll give us grist to use in the 2008 elections. The American people didn't elect a Democratic Congress to waste time passing useless, non-binding resolutions that Bush can easily (and gleefully) ignore.

A successful non-binding resolution will be no more useful in ending this disastrous war than a failed binding one. So let's make a real statement on the war, not empty platitudes and rhetoric."

Thankfully, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has hinted she will push binding legislation that would begin bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq. "I believe that you'll see initiatives on the floor to this effect: that we have this year in which we should be able to drastically reduce the number of troops," she said in an interview broadcast on National Public Radio yesterday.

According to the Washington Post, some early parameters of the legislation may already be coming together. Legislative language, to be attached to a forthcoming "supplemental" war spending bill, would stipulate that only troops deemed fully trained and ready could be deployed to Iraq, and that National Guard and reserve troops could be deployed only for about a year. Such language would initially restrict Bush's ability to fully man his planned troop increase and over time would force troops to come home.

"We need to finish these hearings and put together our recommendations, so it is a little premature to say how we're going to do this," Rep. James Moran, a Democratic member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, said. "But when the supplemental comes out, people are going to find the speaker has spoken consistently. I think the American people are going to feel they got exactly what they wanted when they voted in a new Congress. You're going to see some dramatic initiatives."

One would hope so. The House shouldn't wait for Senate leadership on this. It's apparent that with 49 Republican Senators, Joe Lieberman, and hesistant leadership, nothing substantial is going to happen unless it happens in the House first. In the meantime, Bush will go ahead with his "surge" in clear defiance of the will of most of the rest of the nation. Though this situation shows why it is more-than-ever important we work towards electing a Democratic president and increasing Democratic majorities in Congress in 2008, that is a long way away and we must keep pressure on those currently in Congress to step-up efforts to combat the President's war policy. Non-binding resolutions are not enough. We need action. And we need it now.

So someone, please take the lead.