Senate Republicans weigh their options on war-spending debate

Senate Republicans are weighing strategies to defeat a Democratic war-spending bill that combines Iraq and Afghanistan funding with sensitive domestic proposals expected to re-emerge on the campaign trail.

One serious consideration is to allow the emergency war-spending bill to advance to President Bush, who is expected to veto the measure and force Democrats to negotiate closer to the GOP terms, several senior Republican aides said Monday. The move would also allow the Senate GOP to deflect blame for blocking the must-pass measure.

{mosads}“I think the feeling is [to] let this get to the president and let him veto it,” one GOP leadership aide said of the option. “It makes it clear we’re not the ones delaying funding for the troops.”

Republicans also might try to force changes by raising point-of-order motions on proposals that could constitute legislating on an appropriations bill, including a provision that would allow illegal immigrant farm workers to stay in the U.S. on temporary visas.

They are also weighing whether they should block the package altogether on procedural grounds, a move that could become more likely should Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) limit GOP amendments to the bill. Another option is forcing Reid into a compromise by objecting to the majority leader’s anticipated efforts to speed consideration of the bill.

The bill is expected to be on the Senate floor Tuesday.

“I don’t think there is a conclusion of Republican strategy,” another GOP leadership aide said. “We’d just assume pass the funding clean and get on with it.”

Much of the strategy will be hashed out at Tuesday’s GOP policy lunch and will be influenced by what Reid does.

Reid’s move comes amid weeks of carefully choreographed negotiations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) aimed at combining the war funding with Democrats’ preferred domestic policy initiatives, including a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits, a delay of seven controversial Medicaid rules and expand GI Bill benefits for all military personnel who have serve in active duty since Sept. 11, 2001.

The calculation was that Republicans would feel political pressure to accept the popular domestic initiatives needed for the slumping economy in exchange for more war money, effectively avoiding a protracted election-year fight with Bush.

But that strategy was thrown into jeopardy last week when House Republicans staged a protest on the Democratic procedures and refused to vote on the war spending. At the same time, the Senate Appropriations Committee added billions of new spending and controversial measures to the bill, including the farm-workers amendment.

 It appears unlikely that Congress will clear the emergency supplemental spending bill before the Memorial Day recess, which begins next week.

Reid plans to bring up this week a $193 billion package approved last week by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The package will be split into two amendments: one for more than $25 billion in domestic spending and another combining restrictions on war policy with $165 billion for military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq through part of next year.

It’s unclear what Democrats will do if they cannot muster the votes to win adoption of the domestic spending provision, which will be offered as an amendment early in the debate, especially because the House bill includes a controversial provision that pays the $52 billion price for the GI Bill expansion by taxing wealthy Americans.

After the domestic amendment is dispensed with, the Senate will propose an amendment to provide money for the wars while also calling for all troops to leave Iraq by June 2009.

Whatever emerges from the Senate would almost certainly be silent on troop-withdrawal timelines, but whether it includes any domestic funding remains a question. Bush has called for no additional domestic spending items, but a number of Republicans – especially ones facing tight reelections – have signaled a willingness to add some provisions, like the unemployment insurance extension and delay of Medicaid rules.

If the Senate sends strictly war funding to the House, it would put Pelosi in a tough spot with her caucus that largely opposes the war and has called for at least some domestic spending.

Reid will likely file cloture on both amendments early in the week, a move that requires a mandatory 30 hours of debate before the procedural vote. If Republicans feel they are not being allowed to offer amendments, they may choose to object to any efforts to waive the mandatory debate time.

 The thinking is that Reid may be willing to allow the GOP to offer amendments to move the measures quickly since the majority leader has signaled a full agenda for the week, including final action on a fiscal 2009 budget resolution.

If Reid employs a parliamentary tactic to limit amendments, Republicans say they would easily muster enough support to block the measure from advancing on procedural grounds.

But doing that would open them to attacks of obstructing funds for troops and the sagging economy.

That’s one reason why they are considering allowing the bill to advance and let Bush veto the measure.

“He has a bigger microphone. If you send him this bill that’s a much cleaner storyline,” said another Senate GOP leadership aide.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said last year it took a veto before they “got serious about passing something that could become law,” and added that all their options are on the table.

Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman, said the Democrats’ “job is not to send Bush only bills he will support – it is to give our troops the strategy and support they need to make America safer.”