The Senate adjourned for the Fourth of July Recess without taking action on several important pending bills, including a mortgage bailout, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization, and the war funding supplemental. Democratic leaders complain that minority Republicans have deliberately stalled legislation in an attempt to create a "do-nothing Congress" against which to run in the fall. But Democrats have short memories, forgetting that when they were in the minority, they adopted much the same tactics to prevent bills that they opposed from advancing. Then, filibusters were a precious right of the minority, vital to the functioning of a democracy and a sacred method of preventing a tyrrany of the majority.

Ironically, Republicans did not hold up the FISA bill or the war supplemental. Those bills are delayed by infighting among factions in the Democratic caucus. Liberals like Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), oppose the measures both on principle and as a result of pressure from their political base and wish to offer amendments to soften their impact. The mortgage bailout is opposed by more conservative members in the Republican caucus, but will likely pass by a large majority when it does come up for a vote. Republicans argue that by stalling work in the Senate, they are protecting their minority status from an uncooperative majority which often denies them the chance to amend legislation or offer alternatives.

The back and forth battle is nothing new in Washington politics. Both parties engage in it just as vigorously as they decry its results. But in the short run, it appears that Republicans have been particularly successful at frustrating the Democratic leadership, as well as preventing legislation that their base would find difficult to accept. In an election year that is shaping up to very bad for Republicans, they may have to take their solace anywhere they can find it.

Democratic and Republican negotiators have reached a tentative deal in the ongoing battle over funding for the war in Iraq. The Pentagon will receive all of the money requested by the White House for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan without restrictions, while Democrats will get some domestic measures inserted into the bill to help satisfy their political base. Most important politically for the Democrats, however, is that the deal will provide funds for the war through fiscal year 2009; thereby avoiding an election season vote on war funding. The compromise is slated for a vote in the House today.

A House source with knowledge of the deal said that Republican negotiators were able to secure the funding with no restrictions, eliminated funding for Planned Parenthood, and cut two Senate amendments from the final bill which would have added $8 billion in spending on pet projects and prevented the Bush Administration from restricting states from extending access to the the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). In return, Democrats won a 13-week extension of unemployment benefits, although they had wanted 26 weeks, and generous spending on education benefits for soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, a new GI Bill, without increasing taxes. The White House has indicated that it will sign the bill once it is passed.

On balance, it appears that Congressional Democrats, in order to avoid a politically tricky vote on the war funding this fall, gave more than Republicans in reaching the deal. Like any good compromise, neither side will be entirely happy with the outcome. But more important than the scoring of who won or lost, is the fact that the troops will receive the funding they need and deserve to continue operations in the war on terror. With violence declining steadily in Iraq, and the Iraqi government demonstrating more control over the country, interruptions in funding for the troops helping to achieve that progress could have been devastating to the growing success there. In Afghanistan, on the other hand, attacks by Taliban militants are up, and the funds are needed to help extend the reach of the government in Kabul.

Taking a cue from their counterparts in the House, the Senate will begin debate on the president's supplemental war funding measure today. The Administration is seeking $108 billion in funds for the remainder of the fiscal year, which concludes on September 30th, and has agreed to include $70 billion for operations lasting into the first half of 2009. That allows Congressional Democrats a small victory on one of their key goals, avoiding a vote on war funding in the month before the November elections. Many House and Senate Democrats may have felt compelled to support funding so close to an election, potentially angering their anti-war base.

Also like the House, the Senate is weighing the bill down with additional spending on domestic programs. The Senate would include some $50 billion more for education benefits for veterans, a new G.I. Bill for returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan, $14.5 billion in extended unemployment benefits, home heating oil assistance for the poor, money for rural schools, funding to fight Western wildfires, and an immigrant farm labor provision that would allow about 1.4 million farm workers to stay in the country for up to five years to help pick crops. Altogether, the Senate would spend $193.1 billion in the bill, more than $10 billion over the president's request. The White House has threatened a veto.

The House of Representatives voted on the latest supplemental war-funding bill requested by the president today. But in a strategic twist, 132 House Republicans voted "present" rather than cast yes or no votes, affectively removing their votes from the total. The result was that the funding portion of the bill was defeated 149-141, on the strength of anti-war Democrats' votes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and the Democratic leadership had decided on a novel strategy to address the war funding measure. It called for the bill to be split into three parts, one each for war spending, non war-related domestic spending, and anti-war policy provisions. The strategy was supposed to make the supplemental more palatable to the anti-war caucus of Democrats in the House while protecting the moderate Blue Dog caucus, whose members could not afford to vote against funding the troops in this election year. But the Republicans' move thwarted the Democrats' plans, saddling them with the defeat of funding for troops in harm's way. After the vote, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) was triumphant.

"[T]he Democratic Majority has chosen to play political games with our troops and delay their funding by at least several more weeks. This is unacceptable, and House Republicans will not be party to such a cynical political ploy. A troop funding bill should fund the troops. Period. The exercise today on the House floor would instead hijack the troop funding bill and use it as a vehicle for billions upon billions in unrelated Washington spending and a $54 billion tax hike on small businesses. This is reckless, it is dangerous, and it must not stand."

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, is warning Congress that the Pentagon will be forced to stop paying soldiers after June 15th if a $108 billion supplemental war-funding measure is not passed soon. He told Roll Call (subscription required) that the uncertainty surrounding the bill creates unnecessary pressure in the military. "It makes it extremely difficult to execute the day-to-day business of the Pentagon without knowing the money is coming," he said.

The Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans have been calling on Congress to pass the supplemental war funding bill before the Memorial Day congressional recess. Democrats have been debating within their own caucus on how to proceed with the funding request. Some Democrats want to pass a bill nearly double the size requested by the White House to cover the remainder of this fiscal year and next in an effort to avoid having to vote on another supplemental funding bill during the fall election season. Others want to limit the amount of aid that the United States would provide the Iraqi government for infrastructure projects due to rising oil prices. The White House has said that the president will veto any bill that exceeds his funding number; and stresses that cutting aid for the Iraqi government could actually prolong the war effort.

In either case, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sees no need to hurry. "I think we'll do our best to finish this before the Memorial Day break, but if we don't, it's no big deal. There's money there," he said.

In a new line of argument, the White House cautioned Congress that any funding cuts in aid for Iraq could wind up lengthening the war effort there. This is the first time that the White House has used this reasoning in its annual battle with the Democratic-controlled Congress over war funding and could reflect a new confidence within the Administration about the eventual outcome of the war. In past funding debates, the Administration has focused its lobbying efforts around the strategic argument of completing the mission in Iraq and the moral imperative for Congress to provide resources to troops in harm's way. But with the success of the troop surge both at reducing violence in Iraq and shoring up the Iraqi government, the Administration sees a light at the end of the tunnel and is asking Congress not to throw the war's trajectory off track.

The rising cost of fuel and the Iraqi government's expected windfall of some $70 billion this year from oil exports are driving the Congressional push to recoup some of the costs of operations in Iraq. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) said that there needs to be, "honest-to-goodness pressure," placed on the Iraqi government to convince it that it needs to do more for itself and not continue to rely on the largesse of the United States. But in terms of reconstruction projects, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told Congress earlier this month that the United States had largely stopped funding large scale projects. "The era of U.S. major infrastructure projects is over," he said.

The Bush Administration has requested $108 billion in supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the remainder of this fiscal year. Democratic leaders in Congress are trying to decide how to proceed on the measure. President Bush has threatened to veto any war spending measure that exceeds his funding request or that contains added provisions. Democrats are considering both strategies to make the funding request more palatable to some in their caucus. It's a reprise of a battle fought between the Administration and Congress last year, one the Democrats eventually lost, and the experience has made them just a little more wary of this year's exercise.

Earlier this week, reports indicated that House Democrats were considering adding withdrawal language to the supplemental. That's a tactic that failed them last year, as a series of vetoes and failed override attempts led to Democrats caving in to the Administration and passing a bill containing no restrictions on troops and every dollar requested by the White House. Their strategy this year strategy may be to try and add favorite Democratic economic measures to the bill like food stamp assistance and extended unemployment benefits. Democrats may still try to make a stand on withdrawal language as well. But the fact that the leadership in Congress is already considering inducements to get its more stridently ant-war members to vote for the bill shows that Democrats realize the politics of using the supplemental request to make a point of their opposition to the war are not on their side.

In a strategy twist, the Senate Republican conference agreed to allow a vote on an anti-war Iraq measure to take place, changing their previous strategy of blocking the measure from coming up for debate on the Senate floor. After a meeting of the caucus, however, a test vote on the measure, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), passed by a vote of 70-24. "We welcome a debate on Iraq," said Senate Minority Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

The legislation in question would require funds for combat operations in Iraq to be cut off in 120 days. Reid said that the bill would help turn the focus to problems at home. "Americans need to start taking care of Americans," he said. "We cannot spend a half billion dollars every day in Iraq." The White House said in a statement that it would veto the measure if it were to become law.

Yesterday, the Senate approved an authorizing resolution for fiscal year 2008 defense appropriations. Included in the legislation is $150 billion on top of funds allocated for the Pentagon for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan that was sought by the White House. This bill only determines the size of the pot for defense related expenditures in 2008, it does not actually fill that pot with any money. Congress plans on passing separate appropriations legislation later that will determine just how much funding the war receives. It will be on that bill that Congressional Democrats will try once again to influence the course and conduct of the Iraq War.