Senate Prepares for Its Effort to Force Troop Reductions in Iraq
    By Adam Graham-Silverman
    Congressional Quarterly

    Friday 13 July 2007

    The Senate marked time in its Iraq debate on Friday, laying the rhetorical groundwork for a showdown next week over its latest effort to force President Bush to begin withdrawing U.S. troops.

    During a morning debate that wandered off on a variety of unrelated topics from the now-defunct broadcasting "fairness doctrine" to the perils of tobacco use, the Senate adopted, 87-1, an amendment to the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill (HR 1585) to double to $50 million the bounty on Osama bin Laden.

    Debate begins in earnest next week on more contentious amendments, beginning with the principal Democratic challenge to Bush's current policy - an amendment by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Jack Reed, D-R.I., that would mandate a drawdown and redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq by the end of April 2008. The Senate plans to take up that amendment Monday.

    On Thursday, the House passed by 223-201 a bill (HR 2956) that would require a similar adjustment of U.S. forces in Iraq by the end of March 2008, one month earlier than the Levin-Reed proposal.

    Like the Senate amendment, the House bill, sponsored by Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., would require the military drawdown to begin within 120 days of the bill's enactment.

    The White House warned on Thursday that Bush would veto the House measure if it reached his desk, and he has made clear that the threat applies to any legislation that attempts to set a withdrawal timetable or dictate the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq.

    In both chambers, advocates of such legislation remain far short of the two-thirds majorities needed to override a presidential veto.

    Indeed, Senate Republicans appear to have enough votes to block adoption of the Levin-Reed proposal. Sixty votes are needed to surmount a filibuster, and so far, there are not enough GOP defectors to allow Democrats to prevail.

    At White House urging, Senate and House GOP leaders are pressing their members to give Bush's troop surge more time. Like the president, they say Congress should wait until Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, delivers a detailed progress report in September.

    In an interim report mandated by the fiscal 2007 Iraq War supplemental spending bill (PL 110-28), the administration found a "complex and extremely challenging" security environment, an "uneven" economic situation and little sign of progress toward political benchmarks that Bush and Congress had laid down.

    The interim report was released Thursday, and congressional reaction to it divided along partisan lines. Democrats said it showed no meaningful progress toward key benchmarks, and that it was time for Congress to force Bush's hand. Republicans insisted that more time is needed for U.S. military efforts to dampen sectarian violence and give the Iraqi government breathing room for tough political decisions.

    Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, must provide Congress with a fuller report on progress in Iraq by Sept. 15, and Bush on Thursday again appealed for patience until that report is delivered.

    Although the Levin-Reed amendment will be the primary Democratic assault on Bush's strategy, a couple of major alternatives are likely to be offered.

    One, a bipartisan proposal by Ken Salazar, D-Colo., and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., would make the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group official U.S. policy. The group called on the administration to hand off the combat mission to the Iraqis, bolster diplomatic efforts in the region and pave the way for a drawdown of troops by spring 2008. But that target would be non-binding.

    Another anticipated amendment, by John W. Warner, R-Va., and Richard G. Lugar, R-Ind., would require the administration to report to Congress by Oct. 16 its options for redeploying troops for a more limited mission. That would include maintaining Iraqi borders, counterterrorism, protecting U.S. personnel and training Iraqis. The amendment says that Congress "expects" that the president will include in the Sept. 15 progress report a proposal to revise the law authorizing use of force in Iraq. The amendment also would require an updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq by Sept. 4.

    Bin Laden Bounty

    The amendment adopted Friday morning, offered by North Dakota Democrats Byron L. Dorgan and Kent Conrad, also would require quarterly reports to Congress on U.S. progress in pursuing al Qaeda.

    "Six years later, the greatest threat to our country is al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, and they haven't been brought to justice. And that's why we introduced this amendment," Dorgan said.

    Jim Bunning, R-Ky., cast the sole no vote.

    Larry E. Craig, R-Idaho, supported the amendment, but he said that a better intelligence network was more important than any bounty. "Does money make the difference?" he asked. "If money made the difference, Osama bin Laden would be in his grave."