To understand the House leadership’s plan for action on the war spending bill, begin by recognizing that the last thing the majority wants is a deadlock exposing Democrats to charges of abandoning the troops.

Then come to grips with the fact that Democratic leaders are not aiming to force a troop withdrawal with the latest supplemental spending bill, nor are they determined to use the bill as a vehicle for domestic spending.

In other words, the leadership’s strategy for the spending bill headed to floor on Thursday is defensive in nature and designed to frustrate the desires of most Democrats.

A prime tactical objective is avoiding a stalemate with the Blue Dog Coalition. The conservative faction has been fertile ground for raiding by the Republican minority on procedural votes designed to appeal to a conservative base, so the leadership hatched a plan to lock the door against such defections.

But there is more involved. The leaders are also trying to accommodate Democrats representing antiwar or conservative districts by staging the floor action in a way that allows both liberal and conservative Democrats to vote in line with the views of their constituents without endangering passage of the war money.

“The people on the other side of the aisle have made clear they are going to use whatever means they have to block legislation. We will use whatever we have to use to pass legislation,” said John Larson of Connecticut, vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

House Republicans will be able to slow progress on the war funding bill in protest, but not stop the supplemental or shape it beyond voting on amendments drafted by Democrats.

The same goes for Blue Dogs and antiwar Democrats — unless enough of them unite with the GOP to defeat the resolution establishing the ground rules for the floor debate.

Alan Boyd, a Florida Blue Dog, warned the leadership on Wednesday that defections on the rule are possible. “We’ve had conversations with the majority leader and he asked ‘Where are we?’ and we’ve tried to tell him that we don’t think you have much support at all among the Blue Dog group for doing it this way,” Boyd said.

The leadership must pay attention to the fiscally conservative wing of the caucus because the Democratic advantage in the House is not large enough to overcome 47 potential Blue Dog defections.

“They respect our numbers,” said Mike Ross of Arkansas, a Blue Dog co-chairman.

“All our legislation is by consensus,” said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “They have been a very major force for fiscal discipline in the Congress.”

The supplemental is riding — without a committee markup — on the shell of the previously abandoned fiscal 2008 spending bill for military construction and veterans affairs (HR 2642). That rules out pesky GOP motions to send the measure back to committee with instructions to make additions or deletions. It is those recommittal motions that have been luring Blue Dogs across party lines.

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged that the previously passed bill is being used as a vehicle in order to avoid procedural roadblocks.

“It’s going to be a battle week. You do what they are trying to do on the supplemental and just shut off minority rights,” said Zach Wamp, R-Tenn, a senior appropriator.

Spending add-ons that Democratic leaders want attached to the supplemental will be offered as an amendment to the bill — separate from two others that would provide the war funding and call for troop withdrawals.

Advocates of the domestic spending and lawmakers who want to require a withdrawal from Iraq can thus support those causes without ultimately having to take the risky step of opposing the war funding bill.

Blue Dog Differences

Blue Dogs said Wednesday they strongly oppose adding money to the bill that is unrelated to the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are particularly unhappy that the cost of a proposed $2.5 billion to $4 billion add-on for veterans’ education benefits would not be offset by revenue increases or cuts in other spending — as would be required if the “emergency” spending in the appropriations bill were subject to the pay-as-you-go rule.

“How does it honor our veterans to add new benefits if we have to borrow from China to pay for them?” asked Jim Cooper, D-Tenn. “It must be real emergency spending to be added to the supplemental.”

Hoyer said the Blue Dogs have a point on pay-as-you go, but urged them not to stage a revolt over the issue.

The supplemental showdown is the latest skirmish in an ongoing clash between Blue Dogs, who insist on enforcement of the pay-as-you-go rules, and party leaders who argue for pragmatic exceptions. The Blue Dogs and Democratic leaders are also often at odds on immigration and national security issues.

It was a pressure from Republicans and Blue Dogs, and the threat of successful discharge petitions, that led Pelosi to allow hearings earlier this week on an immigration security bill (HR 4088) and to extend negotiations on an overhaul (HR 3773) of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (PL 95-511) that contains a contentious liability exemption for telecommunications providers.

A similar bipartisan insurgency is attempting to revive legislation to implement a free trade agreement with Colombia (HR 5724), possibly during a post-election session.

What separates the Blue Dogs from other Democratic factions has been their willingness to take their disputes with leadership to the House floor, and even to vote for Republican motions viewed as poison pills for legislation important to the party.

“The leaders want as much unity as possible,” said Joe Donnelly, a Blue Dog from Indiana. “But they understand that . . . I told the voters I would put our interests first.”

Source: CQ Today
Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill.
© 2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.