Democrats bar GOP Iraq alternative

House Republicans assailed Democrats Tuesday for barring them from offering their own Iraq resolution during this week's landmark war debate, accusing them of stifling votes on a vital issue.

Determined to send an unambiguous and bipartisan message of disapproval for President Bush's troop surge, Democrats moved Monday night to block Republicans from proposing any alternative, including one that would have guaranteed funding for U.S. forces in Iraq.

Rep. David Dreier of California, the senior Rules Committee Republican, said the constraints rendered the 36-hour debate that opened Tuesday morning "really little more than a joke."

"This rule silences any meaningful debate," Dreier said. "Why can't we have a discussion that explores real options and real solutions?"

The Democrats' strategy is carefully calibrated to avoid votes on a GOP alternative that could expose a potentially messy divide within Democratic ranks over whether to cut off or restrict funding for troops on the ground.

The choreography of this week's Iraq debate reflects the dilemma facing Democrats on the war, which figured prominently in their rise to power. There is broad support for the Democratic-written resolution opposing Bush's plan to add 21,500 troops. But many rank-and-file members _ particularly moderate newcomers who rode to Congress on a wave of public discontent about Iraq _ are wary of ending funding for the mission.

"We don't think that it ought to be confused by any other issues that might be raised," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland said of his party's resolution Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Hoyer had said earlier that Republicans would have a chance to offer their own measure, but quickly reversed course, and the leadership-controlled Rules Committee voted Monday night to deny the minority the option.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., said his measure enacting the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group should get a vote.

" What you're offering is fine," Wolf said of Democrats, "but give the country, give the American people, give us an opportunity to vote."

The tightly controlled approach to running the House is becoming a habit with Democrats, who complained bitterly during their dozen years in the minority about similar Republican tactics. When Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, groused about it Sunday, Hoyer shot back sarcastically, "Poor John."

On Iraq, the new House leaders' strategy is particularly important to holding together a newly shaped Democratic Caucus that includes several moderate newcomers who unseated Republicans amid public dissatisfaction with the war, but whose conservative constituents might balk at the notion of setting deadlines or spending constraints on troops in harm's way.

It also echoes the tack Senate Democrats took earlier this month, when they declined to allow Republicans the chance to debate a measure declaring that Congress should not cut off funding for troops in the field.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., a first-termer who said he plans to back his party's measure rejecting the troop increase, said he would be inclined to support a resolution committing Congress to funding U.S. troops.

"I don't want to cut off funding. Our troops are performing magnificently," Perlmutter said. But he added that a funding debate was premature, and said Republicans were trying to "trip us up" by proposing such a measure now, realizing there is "no consensus on funding" among Democrats

"What we are trying to achieve as a caucus is unanimity. We're pretty spread out in terms of where we are," said another freshman Democrat, Rep. Michael Arcuri of New York. "We feel that we want to do what is best for the troops, but we have some differences in terms of how you do that."

Will Marshall of the center-left Democratic Leadership Council has consulted with freshman Democrats on Iraq. He said there is "broad unity on the fact that we have to start winding the occupation down, not doubling down on it, but after that, I think it's harder to find consensus."

The dilemma is especially profound for newer members.

"They're in marginal districts, competitive districts, almost by definition, so most of them would be leery of voting to cut off funding for the troops. It would be too easy to be caricatured by the Republicans as turning against the troops in the middle of a mission," Marshall said.

Republicans say they recognize that a resolution expressing a commitment to funding the troops would put Democrats in a bind.

"There is virtually no support in the country for an effort that would eliminate funding for the troops, and a great many Democrats realize that, and don't want to be put in a position of taking a vote to do just that," said Brian Kennedy, a Boehner spokesman.

Democrats concede that by flexing their muscles to constrain the minority, they risk becoming what they criticized during last year's elections.

"We're going to run a fair House, but we're not going to be naive about it." said Stacey Farnen Bernards, Hoyer's spokeswoman. "We're just trying to give the American people a clear debate and a clear answer" on Iraq.

___

EDITOR'S NOTE _ Julie Hirschfeld Davis has covered Congress and the White House since 1997.