The debate over the Iraq War resumes in the Senate on Monday, when Democrats will use the defense authorization bill to spotlight their demands to bring U.S. troops home.

The floor debate over the fiscal 2008 defense measure (HR 1585, S 1547) is expected to run as long as two weeks. During that time, Democrats hope to capitalize on a growing divergence between Senate Republicans and President Bush over the way forward in Iraq.

Several senior Republicans — including Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, the former chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and a respected voice on foreign policy — have broken from Bush over the war, calling for a shift in strategy and an immediate drawdown of U.S. forces.

It is unclear, however, how much Republican support Democrats will receive for their war amendments.

The $648.8 billion measure would, for the first time, authorize funding for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the Pentagon’s regular activities for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

The total is about the same as Bush’s request and the amount in the version the House passed May 17, but it would shift $12 billion from war funding to the regular defense base budget.

According to Senate aides, the first amendment lawmakers will debate, by freshman and former Navy Secretary Jim Webb, D-Va., would mandate an amount of time for active duty soldiers to rest at home that is equal to the length of their deployments. Currently, Army soldiers deploy for fifteen months after twelve months at home.

“This is the bottom line that we owe to people who have been sent into harm’s way.” Webb said.

Another key amendment to be offered would sunset Congress’ 2002 authorization for the use of force in Iraq (PL 107–243). This language, to be introduced by Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., would amend the law so it expires Oct. 11, 2007, the fifth anniversary of its enactment.

The Clinton-Byrd amendment also would require the president to seek a new authorization for the Iraq War, forcing him to spell out the mission, strategy, and goals of the U.S. presence there, according to a draft version.

“The [2002] authorization, which references the government of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction, is no longer relevant,” the senators wrote in a June 14 “Dear Colleague” letter. “The American public and our troops in the field are entitled to a new debate about this war.”

John W. Warner, R-Va., the former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, may offer a Republican version of the Clinton-Byrd amendment. One option under review by Senate Republicans is a non-binding resolution calling for a new use-of-force measure to be considered in September — after Bush has filed his progress report on Iraq to Congress.

Warner has said that the 2002 resolution authorizing the war has been overtaken by events.

Many other efforts to seek a path out of the war could be attached to this year’s authorization bill.

Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., is expected to introduce an amendment calling for troop reductions in Iraq. Details of the amendment have not been finalized, according to Levin’s staff, but the amendment could be similar to one Levin offered to the Water Resources Development Act (HR 1495). That language would have required a reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq to begin in October, with a waivable goal of completing the drawdown within 180 days.

Levin withdrew the amendment following a failed cloture vote May 16.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis., are expected to offer a stronger amendment that would set a date certain for troop withdrawal. Their most recent version called for completing a withdrawal by March 31, 2008, leaving troops only for the specific missions of force protection, border protection, counterterrorism and training Iraqi security forces.

Meanwhile, moderate Democrats and Republicans alike have endorsed a bill introduced June 5 by Ken Salazar, D-Colo., and Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., that would make the 79 recommendations of the Iraq Study Group the official policy of the government.

That bill (S 1545) also looks toward March 2008 as a “goal” for a drawdown of troops, and is also expected to be offered as an amendment this week.

“The bill changes the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq, which could allow for a drawdown of our troops without setting an arbitrary withdrawal deadline,” Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico said July 5.

Domenici is among the senior Republicans who have called for a new Iraq strategy.

Amendments related to detainee treatment also are expected. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, are considering language that would close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year.

Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., and ranking Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania have indicated they will propose language to restore habeus corpus rights to prisoners there.

Presidential candidate Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., has a bill (S 576) that would change the military commissions act (PL 109-366), and could also become an amendment.

Overall, Democrats will be under pressure to pass stronger measures in the defense authorization bill than the non-binding benchmarks included in the Iraq supplemental bill (PL 110-28).

“The American public and most of Congress now are looking for an endgame here,” one Democratic aide said, adding that “language that provides the president with the ability not to move towards that is not going to be viewed well.”

Without committing to any specific votes, several Republican staffers acknowledged that their senators were ready to agree to stronger steps, in light of the Iraqi government’s failure so far to meet several important political benchmarks, including parliamentary passage of a law that would equitably share the country’s vast oil revenues among its Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish populations.

“From the practical standpoint, I think everybody realizes the benchmarks are pie in the sky,” said one Republican aide. “We really need to think about the next step.”

The Democratic amendments, even if they fail, would serve the purpose of keeping the focus on Iraq, Democratic aides said. “The idea is keep having these votes and put them on the spot, so more and more Republicans turn,” one aide said.

John M. Donnelly contributed to this story.

First posted July 6, 2007 4:45 p.m.