Let Justice Roll

Iraq Timetable Gains Momentum
By John M. Donnelly and Tim Starks, CQ Staff

Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 3/9/07

Democrats in the House and the Senate last week wrote separate pieces of legislation that would set a timetable for most U.S. troops to leave Iraq.

The House vehicle is a fiscal 2007 war spending bill that would require the president to complete a withdrawal of most U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008. A withdrawal could come sooner, perhaps as early as January, if President Bush does not certify that the Iraqi government has met benchmarks for progress he outlined earlier this year.

Leaders also decided to attach a minimum wage increase and a tax break package to the supplemental appropriations bill. Both moves angered Republicans, who vowed to vote against the spending bill. The White House, meanwhile, threatened to veto the supplemental bill if it contained the troop withdrawal language. (Minimum wage package, p. 747)

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., sponsored a joint resolution (S J Res 9) that would set a non-binding goal of withdrawing most troops by March 2008.

But Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., still face major challenges from both parties as they try to deliver a plan for anti-war voters who helped propel Democrats to control of Congress last fall.

The two leaders hoped the new approach could draw together Democratic caucuses that have been split over how to send a message to the White House that they strongly disapprove of the president's policy in Iraq. Some liberal and conservative Democrats, however, remained uncommitted to the new plan. (Democratic discord, CQ Weekly, p. 660)

Even if they do win widespread support in their own party, a Democratic message is likely to be the only result accomplished by the latest efforts.

"Obviously, the administration would vehemently oppose and ultimately veto any legislation that looked like what was described today," presidential counselor Dan Bartlett said March 8.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, called the Democratic plan a "roadmap for terrorists," who he predicted would step back and wait for troops to leave before resuming their attacks.

"Having the Congress of the United States micromanage what's happening on the ground in Iraq is a fatal mistake," Boehner said in a news conference.

Separate but Similar
In the Senate, the fight would be even more difficult, as Democrats concede that they probably lack the 60 votes needed to overcome any GOP filibuster. Also, it is unclear how each chamber would deal with the other's legislation.

"The goals are the same, our principles are the same," Reid said of the House and Senate measures. "How we get there is the difference between the House and the Senate."

House leaders, who were successful in adopting an anti-war resolution last month, are now using the $100 billion-plus emergency funding measure for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, hurricane relief and other emergency spending to attack the president on his war policy.

In addition to appropriating funds, the bill would require Bush to certify on July 1 that the Iraqis are meeting commitments he outlined in a January speech, such as taking responsibility for security in all provinces. If he certified that progress was being made toward the benchmarks, the U.S. military campaign would continue. By Oct. 1, Bush would have to certify that all the benchmarks had been met. (Bush plan, CQ Weekly, p. 171)

If at either point Bush could not make those assurances, all but a limited contingent of U.S. forces would have to be withdrawn in six months. The remaining troops would be required to train Iraqi security forces, protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and conduct counterterrorism operations.

Regardless of Iraqi progress, the "redeployment" of all but the limited U.S. force would begin by March 1, 2008, and be completed in 180 days, or by the end of August 2008. The draft supplemental also would require that the administration deploy only those units that are fully ready for their missions; limit the length of troop deployments; and require that minimum periods between tours be enforced. (Details, p. 748)

But the bill also would allow the president to waive the requirements if he deemed it in the national interest -- a concession to Democrats concerned about being perceived as unsympathetic to U.S. troops.

The House Appropriations Committee is expected to mark up the bill this week, with floor action next week.

Selling to All Sides
Before announcing the plan, House leaders met separately with two Democratic factions whose support they need to pass the bill -- the conservative Blue Dog Coalition, which tends to oppose withdrawal timelines, and liberals who believe that a U.S. withdrawal must begin promptly. Several of the 41 Blue Dogs said they would vote for the supplemental, including David Scott of Georgia, Michael Arcuri of New York and Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania.

"I'd say probably 70, 80 percent of the Blue Dogs will ultimately vote for this," said Dennis Cardoza of California, another coalition member. "There is a consensus to be had around this proposal."

On the other hand, many expressed concerns about the bill language and how it will affect the military's ability to execute the war, according to those who attended a meeting with Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., and Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, D-S.C. "My personal opinion is that deadlines are not a good idea," said Jim Cooper, D-Tenn.

Democratic leaders must also woo members of the Out of Iraq Caucus or the Progressive Caucus, two overlapping liberal groups that claim roughly one-third of House Democrats. Pelosi met for hours with dozens of members of the Out of Iraq Caucus, which supports a proposal by Barbara Lee, D-Calif., to bring home the troops by the end of the year. "I'd like to have the troops out by tomorrow," Pelosi told them, according to a witness. "But that's not how we pass the supplemental."

Caucus members leaving the meeting March 8 expressed a range of views, with some appearing willing to consider it and others rejecting it.

Dennis J. Kucinich, D-Ohio, a vocal war opponent, said there is "not a chance" he will back the bill unless it includes Lee's proposal. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., D-Ill., predicted that the majority of the progressives would vote against the supplemental. He also said he and others plan to try to amend it, despite pressure from Democratic leaders not to take that step.

But some liberal House Democrats were open to supporting the measure, with most waiting to see bill language. They included Maxine Waters of California, chairwoman of the Out of Iraq Caucus; Maurice D. Hinchey of New York; Marcy Kaptur of Ohio; and Jerrold Nadler of New York.

House Republican leaders predicted that the proposal would not pass and said their members would fight the bill because they believe it ties the hands of the military. "Democrats are mandating failure," Boehner said. "We are not going to vote for failure in Iraq."

Even so, many Republicans may find it difficult to vote against a war spending bill. Republican defectors already were beginning to appear, including Walter B. Jones of North Carolina and Wayne T. Gilchrest of Maryland.

The Senate resolution attempts to bridge the divide between doves and more moderate members by making the March 2008 withdrawal a "goal." Within 120 days of adoption, the Bush administration would be called upon to limit the U.S. mission to training Iraqi forces, performing counterterrorism operations and protecting U.S. assets.

Debate on the new resolution could begin as soon as March 12, although Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., objected last week to terms for floor consideration offered by Reid. The resolution appears to have the support of nearly all Senate Democrats, but it may not sway enough Republicans to cross the 60-vote threshold needed to avoid a filibuster.

Reid took a step to try to forestall a Republican filibuster by saying he will allow several Republican amendments, including a measure (S 641) by Judd Gregg, R-N.H., stating that Congress would not cut funding for troops in harm's way. Reid also has offered to allow two other GOP amendments: one by John McCain of Arizona that would set benchmarks for the Iraqi government, and a bipartisan amendment by John W. Warner of Virginia.

Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who has been working with Warner, said the proposal could include conditions for staying in Iraq, along with benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

Democrats, clearly wary of the perception that they are split over Iraq strategy, took pains to present a unified front. Two senators on opposite sides of the caucus's political spectrum -- Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, a progressive, and Evan Bayh of Indiana, a conservative -- joined party leaders at a news conference.

"It's a middle ground," Bayh said. "It provides flexibility for unforeseen circumstances. I, for example, am not in support of circling a date on a calendar and saying, 'No matter what, we're out on that date.' "

Feingold, who favors a more aggressive stance against the administration, nonetheless was supportive. "I still believe the only way we're really going to end this war is to use our power to safely use funding to get the troops out, and that may come," Feingold said. "But this gives the White House an opportunity to face reality."

McConnell said Republicans were still studying the Democrats' latest proposal, since "the ink is barely dry." Nonetheless, he criticized it as "the latest iteration of their plan to make [the] job harder" for Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

"Funding the troops is the goal of the Senate Republicans," McConnell said. "We'll have to see if the three amendments we had planned still make sense, given the current status of the mission."

Virtually every Democrat who left a special joint caucus meeting expressed firm support for the resolution. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who has come under fire from the Democratic base for refusing to apologize for her vote in favor of the war, said "absolutely" when asked whether she would back the resolution.

And Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, also a presidential candidate, said the resolution "responsibly, reasonably expresses the central insight that we can't have our troops policing a civil war."

Susan Ferrechio, Steven T. Dennis, Liriel Higa, Jonathan Allen and Martin Kady II contributed to this story.

Wage Hike, Tax Breaks Added to Supplemental
Congressional Quarterly Weekly, 3/9/07
By Alan K. Ota and Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff

The decision by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., to incorporate a combined proposal to raise the minimum wage and provide $1.3 billion in small-business tax breaks in the fiscal 2007 supplemental spending bill immediately triggered complaints from tax writers that appropriators are trying to skirt their authority.

According to Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Democratic leaders want to include the wage increase and tax package on the war supplemental to help break a stalemate with the Senate.

The House passed a stand-alone version of the minimum wage bill (HR 2) on Jan. 10. But in the Senate, where Democrats hold the slimmest of majorities, leaders paired the wage increase with an $8.3 billion tax break package to benefit small businesses. The Senate passed that bill Feb. 1, and, in response, House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y., wrote the smaller tax-break package (HR 976), which passed Feb. 16. (CQ Weekly, p. 546)

The underlying bill would raise the minimum wage by $2.10 an hour, to $7.25, over two years and is a priority for Democrats.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, complained last week that House Democratic leaders were trying to trump negotiations between House and Senate tax-writing committees over the size of the small-business tax bill. "Speaker Pelosi ought to know, there's another house. We are a bicameral Congress," he said. "And there are things like the Senate Finance Committee. This is an intrusion on the prerogatives of the tax-writing committees."

The addition of the minimum wage increase underscores the difficulty House leaders are having finding 218 votes to pass the more than $100 billion emergency supplemental measure as they grapple with intraparty divisions over whether, and how fast, to push for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. (Story, p. 746)

Democratic leaders had already decided to include non-war spending such as agriculture disaster relief and a children's health insurance program.
One aide described the motivation behind the move as twofold: swiftly raise the minimum wage while also picking up the votes of liberals otherwise inclined to vote against war funding. Another said improving the paychecks of the nation's lowest-paid workers was the only reason for tacking the additional language to the bill.

Emanuel defended the decision to put the minimum wage and tax package in a spending bill.

"We're doing this because we want to raise the minimum wage and cut taxes for small businesses. We're trying to get to conference," he said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been pushing to bring the House-passed version of the small-business tax package to the Senate floor and to make it a vehicle for a combined minimum wage and small-business tax bill. But Republicans have insisted on a pre-conference deal.
Two House Democratic tax writers said concerns were raised about the potential intrusion by appropriators on the turf of their panel during a caucus meeting with Rangel. They said several tax writers were concerned that party leaders planned to go around the committee and put the minimum wage and tax package in the supplemental spending bill.

Markup This Week
House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., said he hopes to mark up the measure this week, with floor action the week of March 19.
Though military spending would make up the largest part of the measure, it would also include:
- $735 million for the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
- $4.3 billion for agriculture disaster relief.
- $400 million for a low-income energy assistance program.
- $2.9 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane-recovery efforts.
- $500 million for wildfire suppression.
- $2.5 billion for homeland security.
- $1 billion for pandemic flu preparedness.

Minimum Wage Raises Turf Concerns for Supplemental

By Alan K. Ota and Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff
Congressional Quarterly Today, 3/9/07

The decision by Speaker Nancy Pelosi to incorporate a combined proposal to raise the minimum wage and provide $1.3 billion in small business tax breaks in the supplemental spending bill has triggered complaints from tax writers in the Senate and House that appropriators are trying to skirt their authority.

Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said Friday that Democratic leaders have pushed to include the minimum wage and small business tax breaks on the supplemental to help break a stalemate with the Senate. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, R-Mont., and his ally, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the panel's ranking Republican, have argued for combining a larger Senate-passed $8.3 billion package of business tax breaks with a similar proposal (HR 2) to raise the minimum wage by $2.10 over two years to $7.25.

Grassley complained Friday that Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Democratic leaders were trying to trump negotiations between House and Senate tax-writing committees over the size of the small business tax bill . "Speaker Pelosi ought to know, there's another house. We are bicameral Congress," he said. "And there are things like the Senate Finance Committee. This is an intrusion on the prerogatives of the tax-writing committees."

The addition of the minimum wage increase, favored by Democrats of all political stripes, underscores the difficulty House leaders are having to find 218 votes to pass the measure -- which provides about $115 billion for military operations, hurricane relief and other needs -- as they grapple with intraparty divisions over whether, and how fast, to push for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Democratic leaders already had decided to include in the bill non-war spending such as agriculture disaster relief and a children's health insurance program.

One aide described the motivation behind the move as two-fold: swiftly raise the minimum wage while also picking up the votes of liberals otherwise inclined to vote against war funding. Another aide insisted that improving the paychecks of the nation's lowest-paid workers was the only reason for tacking the additional language to the bill.

Though military spending would comprise the largest part of the measure, it also would include:
- $735 million for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, an amount that will be offset;
- $4.3 billion for agriculture disaster relief;
- $400 million for a low-income energy assistance program;
- $2.9 billion for Gulf Coast hurricane-recovery efforts;
- $500 million for wildfire suppression;
- $2.5 billion for homeland security, and
- $1 billion for pandemic flu preparedness.

A White House spokesman called the spending add-ons "unfortunate and a mistake." But indications of a possible veto hinged on war funding conditions, not fiscal concerns.

House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., said he hopes to mark up the measure the week of March 12, with floor action the week of March 19.

Emanuel deflected concerns about turf and defended the decision to put the minimum wage and tax package in a spending bill. "We're doing this because we want to raise the minimum wage and cut taxes for small businesses. We're trying to get to conference," Emanuel said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been pushing to bring the House-passed version of the small business tax package (HR 976) to the Senate floor and to make it a vehicle for a combined minimum wage and small business tax bill. But that effort has been stalled as Republicans have insisted on a pre-conference deal.

Two House Democratic tax writers said concerns were raised about the potential intrusion by appropriators on the turf of their panel during a caucus meeting Thursday with Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel, D-N.Y. They said several tax writers were concerned that party leaders planned to go around the committee and put the minimum wage and tax package in the supplemental spending bill.

Former Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., often opposed efforts by House GOP leaders to move provisions on taxes and other issues under his panel's jurisdiction in appropriations bills.

Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee Chairman Richard E. Neal, D-Mass., would not comment when asked whether tax writers had concerns about protecting their turf on the minimum wage and small business tax package. He said House leaders were effectively sending another vehicle to the Senate for trying to resolve the minimum wage dispute.

In terms of legislative strategy, Neal said he was hopeful that the move by House leaders would increase pressure on the Senate to cut a deal on the small business tax package. "That's the hope, to get this to conference," Neal said.

Baucus said he was concerned that the House was pushing hard on its version of the small business tax package, but did not express worries about a turf fight. "Minimum wage is so important that it's going to trump everything," he said.