Democrats postpone action on war bill
By DAVID ROGERS | Politico.com
6/4/09 9:06 PM EDT
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23372.html
Worried by their prospects in the House, Democrats postponed final action on a nearly $100 billion wartime spending bill until next week so as to buy more time for talks among lawmakers and the return of President Barack Obama from overseas.
The administration remains confident it can navigate between the conflicting pressures from the right and left. But for this confident young White House, which so prides itself on juggling many balls at once, the delay is a humbling reminder of just how complex the low-profile appropriations process can be.
Obama himself faces growing criticism for piling on new requests and not doing more to support his demands. Privately, officials now concede that the budget calendar put them at a disadvantage, forcing the new administration to submit its funding requests in April, even before its policies could be fully formed.
This was most embarrassingly true in the case of Obama’s plan to close the Guantanamo detention center. But in a single stroke, the same appropriations bill affects wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a new alliance with Pakistan, the threat of pandemic flu, and complex civil liberties issues, such as whether the public should have access to damaging photos of post-Sept. 11 detainees held by the U.S. military.
“We’ll get through this,” one official told POLITICO. “But if we had had more time, it would have been prettier.”
The biggest immediate obstacle in the House is finding the right balance between the war funds in the bill and Obama’s addition of billions in new financing for the International Monetary Fund.
Republicans have threatened to bolt, with top leaders in open competition as to who can produce the most inflammatory press release. This puts the pressure on anti-war Democrats — 51 of whom opposed the bill last month — to step in and help Obama. But the same liberals, including prominent chairmen, were in open revolt Thursday over the White House’s handling of a Senate provision to bar the release of detainee photographs.
Obama himself has argued that the pictures should not be released, and the administration gave its tacit blessing to the Senate language when it was inserted — without a roll call vote last month — by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent. At a party whip meeting Thursday, top House Democrats warned the language must come out if Obama is to get his IMF funds. But to the surprise of its allies, the White House even Thursday wasn’t willing to commit to this option.
“I’ll swallow IMF, but I won’t vote to suspend Freedom of Information,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who chairs the House Rules Committee and is close to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who has been Obama’s strongest House ally on the IMF issue, put the choice bluntly.
“They can have the IMF. They can’t have the IMF and no pictures,” Frank told POLITICO in his animated shorthand. “They certainly miscalculated on this pictures thing. I don’t know how the hell they thought that would work. The IMF drives away the Republicans. The pictures drive away the liberals you need. You have to choose.”
If Obama could cut his Republican losses on the IMF financing, he might have more options. As many as 12 Senate Republicans backed him last month, and the delay now gives the president time to make a final pitch to the House GOP when he returns from the Mideast and Europe.
But the conservative rhetoric has been so heated already, it won’t be easy getting converts. “This is lunacy,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said of the IMF funds. And Frank was dismissive of Obama’s chances after his own frustrated attempts to engage moderates on the subject.
“The House Republicans are a lost cause,” Frank said in an interview. “I talked to some House Republicans who might be interested. They are now under the thumb of the right wing. They said, ‘I wish I could, but I can’t.’”
“The issue of IMF is one that I think has strong support on the Democratic side, not any support, we’re hearing, on the Republican side,” Pelosi told reporters Thursday. “I believe there are people in the Republican Party who support it. They just don’t want to support it on this bill. So we have to do that with all Democratic folks.”
Behind the scenes, the rockstar Bono and his ONE campaign, which is active on global economic issues, has stepped in with a letter supporting the IMF dollars. But winning over anti-war Democrats is not a done deal.
“I’m all for encouraging more investments in development … but look, we’re talking about a war,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), who is leery of Obama’s increased military commitments to Afghanistan and Pakistan. “I have a serious concern that we don’t have a clearly defined mission, no exit strategy, and I’m really worried about getting sucked into a war that has no end.”
In the course of floor debate last month, both the House and the Senate stripped out $80 million requested by Obama to begin the closing of Guantanamo. But the administration would still like to retain some flexibility to move detainees to foreign countries or into maximum security corrections facilities or military prisons in the U.S.
Draft language circulated this week would allow for moving prisoners into the U.S. after Congress has first had 45 days to review the certifications sent from the administration. But this faces stiff resistance still in the Senate, and a more likely compromise could be language simply setting a date by which a plan would have to be submitted by the White House — leaving Congress the option to then decide if a go-ahead should be authorized.
Both Obama and the Pentagon, with the largest stake in the war funding, had once hoped the bill could be enacted before Memorial Day. And the Appropriations leadership is anxious as well, since the House must soon turn its attention to the dozen annual spending bills for the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
The first of these rolled out Thursday, covering the Commerce and Justice departments, as well as major science agencies. Four more are due next week, including for the Interior, Homeland Security and Agriculture departments.
Here, too, Obama’s luck isn’t holding — with his fellow Democrats.
Just weeks ago, the president offered a package of spending cuts and terminations that would have done away with the so-called State Criminal Alien Assistance Program within Justice, for a savings of $400 million in 2010.
California and Texas lawmakers immediately warned that their states are too reliant on the federal help to incarcerate criminal illegal immigrants; true enough, the House Appropriations panel Thursday settled for just a 25 percent cut that will keep the program alive with annual funding of $300 million.
© 2009 Capitol News Company LLC
War bill stumbles over Gitmo and IMF money
By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 06/04/09 08:15 PM [ET]
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/war-bill-stumbles-over-gitmo-and-imf-money-2009-06-04.html
Democratic leaders in the House put off a Friday vote on a $90 billion war supplemental as the conference committee ran into problems.
In the House, the main problem is the inclusion of additional funding for the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is intended to meet a pledge made by President Obama to world leaders. The inclusion of the money has drawn united opposition from House Republicans, who say it should not be included in the war bill.
House leaders on Thursday put off a vote on the bill as they searched to find enough support to pass it. They’d kept open the possibility of a Friday vote all week, but canceled it Thursday afternoon.
In the Senate, Democrats worked to find a compromise on language that would prevent suspected terrorists at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp from being transferred to prisons in the U.S. The language is not in the House version of the bill, and the administration is seeking to change the Senate language.
The war-funding bill, which would provide money for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, passed the House easily in May with support from both Republicans and Democrats. But then the Senate added $5 billion to cover the risk of default on a new $108 billion line of credit for the IMF.
Republicans, who overwhelmingly supported the bill last month, have now put up a wall of opposition to including the money in conference. They’ve fused the electorate’s outrage over the bailout with the traditional disdain for foreign aid, calling the money a “global bailout.”
Democratic leaders concede they will have to pass it with Democratic votes.
But that gets tricky. Even in the Democratic Caucus, the IMF issue has turned supporters of the war supplemental against it.
When the bill passed last month, 200 Democrats voted for it but 51 voted against it. The opponents were mainly anti-war lawmakers opposed to the buildup in Afghanistan.
Democratic vote-counters would need to get 18 of those members to switch their vote for the bill to be approved against united GOP opposition. White House and Democratic leaders worked the phones Thursday plumbing the depths of those members’ opposition.
They might need to find more than 18, because some Democrats, particularly vehement backers of Israel, also have problems with the IMF funding.
One of them is Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) who fears the money could benefit Iran, and could wind up in the hands of Hezbollah, if it gains political dominance in Lebanon.
“If there’s a blank check that makes Iran bailout-eligible, I would have to vote against it,” Sherman said. “And what I’ve heard is that it’s a blank check.”
Ten Democrats signed a letter he sent to colleagues demanding safeguards to prevent Iran or Hezbollah from getting the money.
Republicans also seized on Sherman’s allegations. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) called it “a bailout that could line the pockets of terrorist regimes around the world.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) dismissed Republican charges about whether the money could go to “terrorists,” saying, “It simply is not based in fact and is a scare tactic and is most unfortunate.”
There are other Democrats who are more supportive of the IMF and want it to get more money. They circulated a letter in May saying they considered the Senate’s IMF allocation “inadequate.”
The list of signers included 20 Democratic lawmakers who had voted against the supplemental in May, representing a pool of potential converts to the “yes” side, having already registered their opposition to the Afghanistan buildup.
Democratic aides warn that Republicans who oppose the bill could face the same charge they once lodged against Democrats, that their votes against the bill will be seen as a lack of support for U.S. troops. But Republicans don’t think the charge will stick.
“We’ve been funding the troops for the last seven years,” said a Republican aide.
The conference committee did not conclude its work, and aides said much of the reason for the delay was simply finishing writing the conference report. One said a Friday vote had always been “wishful thinking.”
In the Senate, Democratic leaders said Thursday they are developing a compromise that would allow the White House to bring Guantanamo detainees into the U.S.
Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said senior party members are trying to find a way to bend to demands from the Obama administration.
Durbin said most people realize that if Obama’s goal of holding trials for detainees is to be realized, detainees would have to be brought to the U.S. and incarcerated before trial. He also said other countries will not accept detainees if the U.S. refuses.
“Its naïve to think that the rest of the world is going to take Guantanamo detainees and we have no responsibility,” he said.
Durbin acknowledged, however, that the talks on a compromise are difficult given the 90-6 Senate vote in favor of language preventing detainees from entering the U.S.
J. Taylor Rushing contributed to this report.
© 2009 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.