Authorization bill’s fate hinges on Dems' next step on Iraq

A possible Democratic maneuver to attach Iraq withdrawal language to the upcoming defense authorization bill would put at risk the only chance the House and Senate Armed Services committees may have to set the nation's defense priorities for fiscal 2008, according to several congressional and defense industry sources.

With a presidential veto of the supplemental spending bill expected this week and House Armed Services subcommittees scheduled to begin marking up the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill Wednesday, the authorizers must decide if their bill is worth losing to keep the pressure on President Bush to reverse his Iraq policy.

"My guess is that if the authorization got vetoed [because of troop withdrawal language], that's it," a Democratic congressional aide said. The Armed Services committees "would break a long streak of actually passing an authorization and would become utterly irrelevant," the aide said.

"No one but [the committees] would likely put all that much effort into passing a second version that could get signed," the aide added.

Unlike the annual and supplemental spending measures that provide funds to the military, the authorization bill does not fall into the "must-pass" category. It sets policy for the Pentagon and military services and typically guides the work of the House and Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittees.

The House expects to consider the annual measure in mid-May, with the Senate following suit in June.

It has been at least 47 years since Congress last failed to enact a defense authorization bill, but it seems the Armed Services committees must struggle every year to get their bills passed -- at times having to overcome bitter partisan battles, negotiate away veto threats and press leadership for floor time.

This year, with Iraq dominating discussion of military policy and budget priorities, the task will be tougher. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., already have said the defense authorization and appropriations bills would be vehicles for Iraq language.

On Monday, House Armed Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chairman Martin Meehan, D-Mass., called Iraq the "most important issue" facing Congress and said House Democrats will continue to use the legislative process to press the administration to end the unpopular war.

"In approaching this year's authorization bill, we have to walk a fine line to hold together a coalition of members to make sure the bill gets 218 votes," Meehan said. "I am sure that we will address Iraq in some way in the bill, but I don't think that we will know how until we get a little more clarity into what is going to happen with the supplemental that I expect will be vetoed."

But a senior aide to a prominent anti-war Democrat warned that omitting a timetable for troop withdrawals will anger liberals in the caucus.

"We've been trying to look to the defense authorization bill for a little while," said this aide. A push will be for a six-month U.S. troop withdrawal plan akin to that proposed by "Out of Iraq" caucus co-founder Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif.

Veterans of past authorization battles acknowledge that controversy usually dogs the bill, whether due to provisions banning torture of suspected terrorists, limiting combat assignments to men or barring abortions at military hospitals. Indeed, the bill has been vetoed three times since 1978 -- most recently in 1996.

"You don't want to say we're not ever putting anything in there that would get the bill vetoed," a former Senate Armed Services staff director observed, "because then you end up with pretty bland bill."

Christian Bourge contributed to this report.