The big story last week in the House was an attempt to guarantee funding for the Iraq conflict for only a few months and to set up a vote on de-funding the conflict in July (a possibility I wrote about in February). While that approach isn’t getting any traction, it’s unclear what Congress will send to the president instead. It seems that dozens of Senators are offering suggestions on how to arrive at a compromise bill built on benchmarks, but it’s hard to guess what will happen next. If you’re a Nevada Senator and know how to play poker, maybe it’s time to ‘check:’
The idea of a ‘shell bill’–one that offers no policy decisions, but simply sets up negotiations with the House–is a sign that Senate leaders want to claim some progress while avoiding votes on any bill except for the final product of negotiations among the Senators and with the White House. If the administration is encouraging such an approach, it must indicate that they are content with the progress they are making with Senate leaders. Meanwhile, House liberals are pushing to avoid a compromise with the Senate. It looks like they are content to let Harry Reid jump under the bus:
The Senate Democratic leadership continues to reject the increasingly serious effort by House liberals to simply end the war. Levin and others continue to push for funding. This could set up a serious conflict with the House over the final conference product–particularly since it now appears that anything the president would sign will be opposed by a strong majority of House Democrats. That means that Speaker Pelosi will be calling up a bill that she knows must be passed with mainly Republican votes. That’s not a politically attractive option for any Speaker–particualrly on an issue as contentious as this.
