Leader Reid gets pushback on Iraq war bill

Senior Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee are pushing back against Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for suggesting he might bypass their panel and send a massive emergency war spending bill directly to the Senate floor.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the 90-year-old chairman of the committee, on Tuesday scheduled a markup for Thursday afternoon on the bill, sending a signal to Reid that he doesn’t agree with a strategy that calls for skipping the moneymen.

{mosads}Byrd received the support of a number of appropriators Tuesday, who also questioned the idea of moving a bill that could cost in the range of $200 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and for a handful of other domestic priorities straight to the Senate floor.

The division among Democrats comes despite weeks of closed-door negotiations led by Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to craft a narrowly tailored bill and devise a strategy to limit extraneous amendments that would prompt a White House veto.

Pelosi on Tuesday defied her own chamber’s objections, mostly from GOP appropriators, by unveiling a long-awaited bill that she plans to bring directly to the House floor as soon as Thursday.

“There are only pros [to holding a markup],” said Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), who sits on the Senate panel. “To the extent that we could have some type of regular order, we want to do that.”

Caught in the Capitol hallway in between votes, Byrd had only this to say when asked about his scheduling the markup: “I’ll have to see you later.”

Reid last week insisted that the Senate would determine its strategy after the House passed its bill. And he seemed to throw cold water on the idea of having a markup after Byrd previously suggested his committee would consider the bill. “It’s easy to cancel a markup,” Reid said last week.

Reid’s office on Tuesday didn’t voice objections to the markup.

“Sen. Byrd is well within his rights to have the Senate Appropriations Committee express its views on the House’s supplemental amendments,” said spokesman Jim Manley. “We hope Senate Republicans permit the Senate Appropriations Committee’s amendments to receive votes on the Senate floor when we turn to the supplemental.”

The House bill would spend $108 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan for fiscal 2008, and another $70 billion as a temporary “bridge fund” for part of 2009. That means the next president would have to find funds for Iraq later next year.

The bill also includes $5.8 billion for levee reconstruction in Louisiana, $720 million for a GI bill that would fund education benefits for military veterans and $11 billion for an extension of unemployment insurance over the next decade.

The bill — hammered out in Democratic leadership suites — will be split into three parts: war policy, war spending and domestic spending. The Senate will join the parts it passes and send the package back to the House for final passage. The plan is to pass that final version on the strength of Republican votes, and initially allow liberal lawmakers to vote for the withdrawal language.

The war policy portion would require troop withdrawals from Iraq to begin immediately, with a goal of complete withdrawal from combat operations by December 2009. It would also block permanent bases, torture and any military agreement with Iraq that isn’t submitted to the Senate as a treaty. That part of the bill is expected to be deleted in the Senate.

The bill will be brought up without an opportunity for further amendment and no motion to recommit. That has sparked Republican outrage and delay tactics on the floor. Because of that, some members said they expect the vote to last until Friday.

“Everybody would like to do this in the traditional way,” said Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.). “In this case, it’s just gotta be done.”

Some fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the House showed signs of heartburn over starting a new program, the GI bill, without offsetting the cost with tax cuts or spending increases.

“How does it honor our veterans to borrow money from China to pay for a new program for them?” said Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.). “It’s something we should do, but we should pay for it.”

They’re also bothered that leadership is skipping the Appropriations Committee.

“We haven’t been part of the negotiations. That’s part of the problem,” said Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), a Blue Dog who sits on the Appropriations Committee.

But the process could stall in the Senate, where appropriators have a range of items they would like to add to the bill.

Dorgan said he wants to add provisions that would halt shipments of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and tighten offshore tax loopholes used by the energy and construction firm KBR Inc.

“I always worry about when you’re bypassing the process, what are you leaving out for what you get?” said Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), an appropriator.

“Given my druthers, things would always go through committee,” said Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a senior appropriator.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) acknowledged the procedural difficulties of marking up a bill before the House passes its version. But she wants provisions added to the bill during a committee markup, including ones helping rural schoolteachers and combating wildfires.

Some privately speculate that Byrd might have been motivated to schedule the markup to answer questions about whether his health might prevent him from managing the process. The longest-serving senator in U.S. history was hospitalized twice this year.

“I suspect it’s just usual senator prerogative at work, perhaps enhanced by Byrd wanting to prove his capability,” a senior GOP aide said.

J. Taylor Rushing contributed to this article.