House still unsettled on Iraq legislative strategy for October

Aside from a bipartisan Iraq redeployment bill expected to pass Tuesday, House members are in the dark as to which major Iraq bills might come next.

House leaders say Tuesday’s vote will reopen the war debate as the first in a series of votes on Iraq this month.

{mosads} Democratic talking points distributed Monday state that the bill, dubbed “Tanner-Abercrombie” after its authors, “is only one in a series of measures the House will consider in the coming weeks.” Authored by Reps. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) and Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), it would require President Bush to report within 60 days on the status of redeployment plans for Iraq, followed by quarterly updates.

But the only other Iraq bill that has so far been scheduled is a measure by Rep. David Price (D-N.C.) that would rein in civilian contractors in Iraq by making them subject to U.S. criminal law.

An ad hoc committee led by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) last week recommended the Tanner-Abercrombie and Price bills to leadership. Larson received at least three lists of bills suggested by members of that panel, but the panel did not settle on any further floor action.

Larson’s panel is part of an effort by House Democratic leaders to settle on a legislative strategy for Iraq. The task has been made difficult by divisions between liberals and centrists in the caucus on how to approach Republicans, and by the success of Senate Republicans in preventing Democrats from getting the 60 votes they need to pass even mild rebukes of Bush’s war planning.

The Larson committee has discussed legislation that would order a “diplomatic surge” in the region, as well as a bill limiting the size of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to prevent it from becoming a de facto military outpost.

The implication that there are more bills to come appears intended to mollify the party’s liberal anti-war base, which has criticized the Tanner-Abercrombie measure as “backsliding” that will provide “cover” to wavering Republicans.  
 
Tanner disputed that claim Monday, arguing that lawmakers “can no longer approach the discussion on Iraq as a partisan issue.”

“It is time we work together as a Congress to engage in oversight of the administration’s plans for what comes next in Iraq,” he added.

The House will consider the bill on the fast-track suspension calendar, which limits debate and requires a two-thirds supermajority for passage.

The bill is expected to pass because House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) gave Republicans the green light last week to vote for it.

A Democratic leadership aide indicated that Republican support for the bill demonstrates the erosion of support for Bush on the war.

“If Republicans vote for this legislation, it’s a break with the administration on Iraq policy,” the aide said.

But Republicans brushed aside that suggestion, saying Boehner indicated his support for the bill only because it is meaningless.

“It’s like telling Democrats to start naming post offices,” said Brian Kennedy, spokesman for Boehner, whose leadership team has mocked the Democrats as a “post-office Congress.”

Such comments indicate that the bill could suffer the fate of a bill of Rep. Barbara Lee’s (D-Calif.) that banned the creation of any permanent military bases in Iraq. The measure was part of the House Democrats’ effort to put an Iraq bill on the floor every week during July. It was put on the suspension calendar, passed overwhelmingly, and is now all but forgotten.

Lee and her fellow co-founders of the Out of Iraq caucus, Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), are expected to vote no on the Tanner-Abercrombie bill Tuesday, but they will not whip other members to do so.

According to some Democrats who attended last week’s meetings, leaders of the Out of Iraq caucus may be keeping their powder dry in hopes of getting some of their legislative priorities to the floor.