The Declaration of Peace - Article

July 3, 2008: A Devil's Bargain

Timothy Baer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:24:51 -0500

Body:

A Devil’s Bargain

by Carolyn Eisenberg

Published on Thursday, July 3, 2008 by CommonDreams.org

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/03/10075/

With the President’s signature now affixed to the bill, the clever deal is done. In exchange for another “blank check” for a year of war, the Democrats have wrested from their Republican colleagues and the White House a host of domestic benefits — tens of billions of dollars in educational funding for returning GIs, a thirteen-week extension of unemployment insurance, millions for Midwest flood relief and other laudable projects. “This shows …that even in an election year, Republican and Democrats can come together,” George W. Bush boasted.

Depending on their source of news, few Americans may be aware that Congress has now allocated another $162 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan until next summer. In many media outlets, the only coverage pertained to the new educational benefits for soldiers. But even when the war funding received nominal attention, one would be hard pressed to find in the mainstream media or for that matter in the halls of Congress any critical discussion of this political deal.

With more than 60% of the country opposed to the Iraq war and significant majorities saying they want the troops out within a year, this Congress has handed over to President Bush and to his successor, the right to persist in this failed enterprise. Or to put the matter bluntly, Congress has just agreed to keep our soldiers in harm’s way for another twelve months, killing and dying for no achievable end. Is this worthy of some attention? Perhaps even distress? Should it be a bland assumption rather than a horrifying fact that to get the government to provide adequate veteran’s benefits, extended unemployment insurance and relief from summer floods, that another year of senseless war is approved?

The reality of this dirty Washington trade is far removed from the inspirational rhetoric on the campaign trail. Whether on the stump or in formal debates, the Democrats reliably bring down the house, when they denounce the Iraq War and promise to bring the troops home. Yet such things were also said in 2006 and two years later a Democratic-controlled Congress cannot even agree to a non-binding “goal” for troop withdrawal, let alone a binding deadline. Meanwhile Barack Obama, the new Democratic torch-bearer, who has been electrifying young people with his message of courage and change, skipped the vote on the war-funding bill despite his presence in the Capitol.

If challenged, members of Congress may point to the domestic benefits (”a lot of veterans are going to be happy with the United States Senate,” claims Sen. Jim Webb) and the need to provide support for U.S. soldiers in the field. None of this justifies or explains the failure of Congress to insist upon a plan for taking the troops out of Iraq.

While the mass media has anesthetized the broader public to this moral collapse, there is a parallel numbness among committed antiwar people. The two are related. For years there has been a virtual blackout of the grassroots organizing all across this country to get Congress to stop the war. Apart from the occasional story about mobilizations on the internet, one would never know about the thousands of local initiatives that have occurred — the vigils on street corners, the sit-ins at Congressional offices, the petitioners in the mall, the lobby visits, phone calls, public forums and confrontations at legislative hearings. Even the progressive media has tended to downplay these developments. Without sufficient news about a vibrant national effort, many individuals who might be inclined to participate feel discouraged and remain at home, while those who have been organizing feel less sense of accomplishment.

Also muffled are the positive results. Paradoxically this month’s vote on war funding holds significance because there were real choices. In actuality, it was not “the Democrats” who produced the recent debacle, but the Congressional leadership and some individuals from both parties. Twenty-six Senators voted against war funding, as did one hundred and fifty-five members of the House. That reflected the largely unreported efforts of activists, who relentlessly pressured these legislators to take a firm stand.

As disheartening as the final result might be, it underscores the need for greater grassroots efforts, not less. All government officials, including a future President, will be affected by the unintended consequences of this Administration’s mistakes. An American withdrawal from Iraq is likely to mean a reduction of influence in a region of vital economic and strategic importance to the United States. Such a choice runs against the historic temptation to rely on military solutions, even when military activity has been demonstrably futile.

The only hope for a wiser policy is an aroused public, determined to cut American losses and to hold elected officials accountable for what they do. In an electoral season, we have our work cut out for us. Support for a GI bill or flood relief is no substitute for ending the war — that devil’s bargain, which has so far escaped scrutiny. Herein lies the educational task, which can be accomplished. Congressional incumbents have made their record and many count on public ignorance to keep them afloat. To quote a Presidential candidate, “not this year, not this time.” A crucial task for the peace movement is to shatter the silence.

Carolyn Eisenberg is a professor of U.S. foreign policy at Hofstra University and Co-Chair United for Peace and Justice Legislative Working Group.

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

June 26, 2008: Senate Passes Bill Finalizing War Funding

Timothy Baer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 02:12:03 -0500

Body:

Congress Passes New Iraq War Funds

By REUTERS

Filed at 3:17 a.m. ET - June 27, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-usa-funding.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Thursday approved $161.8 billion in new funds to continue fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next year, without timetables for withdrawing combat troops.

The House of Representatives passed an identical bill last week. President George W. Bush is expected to promptly sign the measure into law once he receives it from Congress.

The Senate’s 92-6 vote to pass the war-funding bill marked a victory for Bush, who has vigorously opposed any move by Congress to impose timetables for ending the Iraq war, now in its sixth year.

Democrats, who are the majority party in Congress, repeatedly had tried to set such dates, most recently with a House vote in May calling for troop withdrawals to be completed by December 31, 2009.

The new war money could last through mid-2009, well past Bush’s departure from office on January 20.

With this legislation, Democrats can claim victory in winning passage of a significant expansion of veterans’ education benefits and domestic unemployment benefits.

The new money for combat in Iraq and Afghanistan puts the war tab since late 2001 at more than $800 billion, with most of that money going to Iraq.

Congress did attach two conditions on the funds, related to the war in Iraq. It prohibited the construction of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and required Baghdad to match, dollar-for-dollar, U.S. reconstruction aid.

Now that Congress has passed the final war-funding bill of Bush’s presidency, debate of the Iraq war and how to end it moves to the presidential campaigns being waged by Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain.

Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans get a huge new benefit with this legislation: A significant expansion of college tuition payments by the government at a cost of about $63 billion over 11 years.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

Senate passes domestic spending, GI Bill

By J. Taylor Rushing

TheHill.com

Posted: 06/26/08 10:24 PM [ET]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-passes-domestic-spending-gi-bill-2008-06-26.html

The Senate on Thursday night approved billions in domestic spending initiatives and a new GI Bill but fell a single vote short of passing Medicare legislation that would have prevented pay cuts to physicians.

The flurry of votes capped a day of dull inaction. Senators will now begin their Independence Day recess, following which they will take up legislation modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Tuesday, July 8. Partisan wrangling delayed action on housing legislation until after the recess.

The supplemental, which passed by a 92-6 vote, authorized a new GI Bill, Gulf Coast and Midwest flood recovery funds and an extension of unemployment benefits. It will be added to $165 billion that the House and Senate have already approved for U.S. military needs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Medicare legislation would have blocked a 10.6 percent fee cut to physicians that is scheduled to take effect on July 1. It failed 58-40, two shy of the required 60, but Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) switched his vote to “no” as a procedural move that allows him to bring the bill back up for a future vote. Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and GOP presidential candidate John McCain (R-Ariz.) missed the vote.

However, the White House had issued a veto threat for the bill, meaning that even getting to sixty votes would not have been sufficient for an override.

Crossing the aisle to support the Democratic-written bill were Republicans Norm Coleman (Minn.), Susan Collins (Maine), Elizabeth Dole (N.C.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Ted Stevens (Alaska) and George Voinovich (Ohio). Coleman, Collins, Dole and Smith are all considered politically vulnerable in November.

Democrats argued that the Medicare cuts were devastating and needed to be prevented, and a simple extension of the existing Medicare system is not acceptable to the House.

“We must decide whether to stick with President Bush like lemmings over the cliff, or do the right thing and pass this bill,” said Reid. “There are no other opportunities to prevent this cut.”

But Republicans said since Bush would have issued a veto that could not be overridden, the smarter choice was to deny cloture on the bill, which could presumably allow time for bipartisan negotiations on a bill that could get his signature without disrupting physicians’ incomes too much.

“My side has been willing to negotiate. We tried to find a way to solve the problems,” said Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) “Apparently the majority isn’t interested.”

Republicans also criticized the bill for expanding Medicare by $17 billion over 10 years and causing service cuts in the Medicare Advantage plan. Democrats said the cuts were the only way to fund the bill.

The Medicare vote required the attendance of both Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who were at a joint fundraiser across town. Obama was also prepared to return for a vote on FISA, although that became unnecessary after Reid decided to delay that until July.

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

June 25, 2008: War Spending Bill Could Slip Past Recess in Senate

Timothy Baer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 01:04:15 -0500

Body:

War Spending Bill Could Slip Past Recess in Senate

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE

June 25, 2008 – 1:52 p.m.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000002905696

The Senate might not take up the supplemental war spending bill this week, pushing back completion of the measure until after the July Fourth recess.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., Wednesday said a crowded legislative calendar might force Democrats to delay what could be the final vote on the long-awaited measure.

”It’s been difficult to get from here to where we need to be by the end of this week. We still have a lot of things to do,” Reid said.

He blamed Senate Republicans for complicating the Senate’s schedule by holding up action on an unrelated housing bill.

“It is all up to the Republicans. … If they make us wait until after the recess, then that’s what will have to happen,” Reid said.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin , Ill., said after the housing bill is finished the Senate would move to a bill overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and then start work on the supplemental.

Durbin downplayed Reid’s remarks and seemed more confident that somehow the vote on the supplemental would still come before Congress leaves town June 27.

“We want to get it done before the recess,” he said, “I think we can get to it before the recess, but we need some cooperation from the other side and we’re not getting a lot of it.”

The bill would fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for about a year. It would provide for an expansion of veterans’ education benefits, an extension of unemployment insurance benefits and would delay six Medicaid regulations proposed by the administration. The bill also contains money for disaster relief in the Midwest and to rebuild levees in Louisiana.

Meanwhile, the Army is scheduled to run out of operations funds in early July, barring any further reprogramming, and the Army has said it will be unable to pay soldiers after mid-July.

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

June 20, 2008: Congress Funds Another Year of War

Timothy Baer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:59:06 -0500

Body:

Congress Funds Another Year of War

Friday 20 June 2008

by: Maya Schenwar, t r u t h o u t | Report

http://www.truthout.org/article/congress-funds-another-year-war

In a step that sealed the fate of Iraq war funding until next June, the House of Representatives voted on Thursday to approve $162 billion for the occupation, with no strings attached. The vote follows a series of compromises and revisions over the past two months, ultimately resulting in major concessions from Democrats.

The first House vote on war funding, taken last month, failed due to the combined influence of antiwar Democrats and conservative Republicans: a sizable number of hard-liners refused to fund the war with a bill that contained any inkling of “conditions” placed on the funds. Only one restriction is included this time around: a ban on permanent bases, which was also attached to the Defense Authorization bill that passed the House last month, and has been attached to several spending and authorization bills over the past couple of years.

The current version of the supplemental is much closer to the plans of House Republicans - and the Bush administration - than to the initial proposal presented by Democrats, who make up the majority of the House.

“This legislation shows that when Democrats are actually willing to reach out and work with Republicans, we can get things done for the American people,” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a statement late Wednesday.

White House Budget Director Jim Nussle was equally enthusiastic about the bill, telling Congressional Quarterly that the administration “obviously” approved of it. The legislation satisfies Bush’s demands not only for fiscal year 2008 funding, but also for about half of the funding needed to support status quo operations in Iraq for 2009.

The bill does throw one fairly large bone to centrist and liberal Democrats, despite the protestations of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats: funding for a new GI bill that would grant a free college education to Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. The supplemental legislation also includes a three-month extension on unemployment benefits. Additionally, the package supplies $2.6 billion for flood assistance in Iowa, a key domestic priority.

The rule by which the resolutions were decided made it possible for pro-war Congress members to vote for the Iraq funding while opposing the domestic spending, and vice versa, since the two sections were voted on as separate amendments.

The supplemental vote provoked sharp splits among Democrats, largely disappointing both the Out of Iraq Caucus and the fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats, according to Craig Jennings, federal fiscal policy analyst at the government watchdog group OMB Watch. The Blue Dogs had hoped that the GI Bill funds would be offset by a tax hike, according to the principle of PAYGO, by which all direct spending increases should be offset by revenue increases.

“Ultimately, the package is the politically-possible result of Congressional leadership efforts to move their priorities,” Jennings told Truthout. “Getting the troops safely out of Iraq and adhering to PAYGO rules are evidently not their numbers one and two priorities.”

Stalwart antiwar Democrats are having none of the plan. Progressive Caucus Chairwoman Barbara Lee is sticking to her opposition to the war and will continue to fight it, despite the passage of the funding bill, her press secretary, Julie Nickson, told Truthout.

“We should not provide one more dime for funding combat operations but should fully fund the safe and responsible redeployment of all troops and contractors from Iraq,” Lee said this morning.

Yet, the remainder of the year doesn’t leave much opportunity for dramatic changes on Iraq, once funding has been approved. Historically, the best strategy for altering the course of wars has been attaching policy initiatives to spending bills. In order to ensure troop safety and welfare, war spending bills must pass, and must be considered in a reasonably timely manner. Stand-alone legislation advocating troop withdrawals or other measures championed by antiwar Congress members are typically shot down quickly, or linger in committee indefinitely, never to reach the floor for a vote.

“With the passage of the Defense Authorization bill and the passage of this war supplemental, antiwar Congresspersons really have no more vehicles by which to push antiwar legislation,” Jennings said. “They have been pretty ‘flexible’ in their opposition to the war.”

However, both Jennings and military policy analyst Travis Sharp note that in exchange for their concessions on Iraq, the Democrats picked up some crucial domestic wins.

“With the economy struggling, these domestic victories are important during an election year,” Sharp, who works for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, told Truthout. “The Democratic leadership is willing to take heat from the antiwar base in order to reinforce the fact that Iraq is Bush’s fault, the only way to get out of Iraq is to elect Democrats in the fall, and there are pressing domestic concerns that must be dealt with.”

The GI Bill and unemployment benefits, Sharp says, represent significant triumphs for Democrats. The former not only promises a four-year college education to veterans, but allows them to transfer that benefit to spouses and dependents. The latter provides unemployed workers who have exhausted their benefits with 13 extra weeks to find a job.

Jeff Leys, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, argues that the unemployment extension falls short of satisfactory.

“Unemployed workers will continue to lose unemployment benefits, though now it will be 13 weeks longer before the benefits run out and they and their families are faced with the stark reality of no income for food and housing,” Leys told Truthout.

The supplemental now moves from the House to the Senate, and leadership in that body appears open to the compromise.

“We look forward to reviewing the House’s proposal for the supplemental,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley, told Truthout. “We will take it up quickly once we receive it.”

As for the antiwar crowd, Thursday’s vote signals a finality of sorts for its efforts to sway a Bush-bound Congress.

“Those of us whose work tends to focus upon ending the war will have to come to terms with reality,” Leys said. “We can take our marbles and go home, continuing to live with pipe dreams of impeachment, filibusters, mass action on singular days of action, or a revolution in government. Or we can make the hard assessments of the political lay of the land and recommit to grassroots organizing, with the full knowledge that this organizing includes being engaged in the electoral process.”

Maya Schenwar is an editor and reporter for Truthout.

Bush praises FISA deal, war vote

By Walter Alarkon

TheHill.com

Posted: 06/20/08 11:02 AM [ET]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-praises-fisa-deal-war-vote-2008-06-20.html

President Bush on Friday praised a deal reached in the Democratic-led House to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the House’s approval of funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush said the FISA update will both help intelligence agencies monitor terror activities and protect civil liberties. The compromise, reached Thursday, includes a way for telecom companies that took part in the president’s domestic wiretapping program to obtain immunity from lawsuits. Most Democrats had opposed retroactive immunity.

“My director of national intelligence and the attorney general tell me that this is a good bill,” Bush said. “It will help our intelligence professionals learn our enemies’ plans for new attacks. It ensures that those companies whose assistance is necessary to protect the country will themselves be protected from liability for past or future cooperation with the government.”

The House is scheduled to vote on the measure Friday.

The House also approved a $162 billion war-funding bill on Thursday. Bush called it a “responsible” bill that will provide “vital resources” to those on the front lines.

“This legislation gives our troops the funds they need to prevail without tying the hands of our commanders in the field or imposing artificial timetables for withdrawal,” he said.

The bill also guarantees money for troops to attend a public university, a measure that was championed by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). Bush and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had offered their own education benefits package, but Webb’s proposal gained more bipartisan support.

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

June 19, 2008: Senate Set to Clear Supplemental

Timothy Baer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:53:33 -0500

Body:

Senate Set to Clear Supplemental

CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION June 19, 2008 – 9:45 p.m.

By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=3&docID=news-000002901365

The Senate is set to bow to the House in their long battle over whose plan for the supplemental spending bill will reach the president’s desk.

The House on Thursday evening approved its latest version of the measure (HR 2642), which would provide $161.8 billion in war funding, an expanded veterans’ education benefit, an extension of unemployment insurance and money to deal with flooding in the Midwest.

Senators from both parties had fought hard to include domestic spending of about $10 billion above President Bush’s stated limit and had approved a version with that level, 75-22, last month.

But after weeks of negotiations and with the military running short of money, Senate Democrats reluctantly endorsed the deal that House Democrats finally struck with the White House and GOP leadership, potentially ending the back and forth of the bill.

House Democratic leaders used a procedure that sent the measure to the Senate after two votes but without a final vote on the overall package.

The House concurred with a Senate amendment that would provide the war funding by a vote of 268-155. A second amendment that would provide the domestic spending was adopted, 416-12. The revised package was then automatically sent to the Senate to be cleared.

The parliamentary maneuver allowed Democrats opposed to the Iraq War to vote against the military funding but in favor of the unemployment benefits and other domestic spending.

Disappointed Senators Will Likely Go Along

Although Senate Democrats were disappointed that many of their priorities did not make it into the final House version, they were realistic about the need to support the bill now and fight for their items later.

“When time is used as leverage against you, sometimes the other side wins,” said Sen. Ben Nelson , D-Neb., referring to the House’s eleventh-hour dealmaking, “It’s not everything we were looking for, but we’re happy that the funding for military operations will be taken care of.”

The administration officially endorsed the House package Wednesday in a statement of administration policy.

“We urge both the House and Senate to immediately pass this bipartisan agreement,” the White House Office of the Press Secretary said in a statement.

The Senate’s Democratic leaders said Thursday that they would bring the House package to the floor next week and expressed cautious optimism that it would clear that chamber.

“I’m not a dictator over here,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., who supports the bill. “The individual senators will have to make a decision on what they will do on this.”

But many Senate Democrats said they would fall in line and allow the bill to clear without much objection. Many touted additions that were included over administration objections, including a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance benefits and the largest expansion of veterans’ education benefits since World War II.

“At this point, I assume that we have gotten a much better deal than anyone expected, and it’s a good deal for all of us,” said Patty Murray , D-Wash.

Although the Senate’s Republican leaders have not commented yet on the spending package, they were expected to follow the White House’s lead.

The House dropped various items that had been in the Senate bill, including $1billion for a low-income home energy assistance program, $490 million for Byrne law enforcement grants and $451 million for the Federal Highway Administration’s emergency relief program.

But the measure still contains a modest amount of funding for domestic discretionary spending, such as $150 million for the Food and Drug Administration for food and medical product safety, $178 million for the Bureau of Prisons for incarceration costs, and $210 million for cost overruns for the decennial census.

The long list of scrapped items, many of which had been added during a Senate Appropriations Committee markup in May, prompted several Senate Democrats to call for a second supplemental bill this year focused on domestic needs.

“I have every reason to believe the committee will meet again to consider a second supplemental,” said Appropriations Chairman Robert C. Byrd , D-W.Va.

Reid, Murray and Richard J. Durbin , D‑Ill., endorsed the idea of a second supplemental, although none could give any specifics about when or how such a bill would materialize.

Even Senate Republicans were irked by the House’s unilateral decision to scuttle Senate priorities.

“It seems that the House has taken out of the bill whatever they want, and we’re going to take it that way,” complained Pete V. Domenici , R-N.M.

But in the end, the approaching deadline for completing the bill before the military runs out of money for its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan forced the Senate to go along.

“No one likes this process,” said Byron L. Dorgan , D-N.D. “But the plain fact is we’re coming to the edge of the cliff here on time, in terms of passing something.”

Lack of House-Senate Coordination

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., defended her chamber’s measure, arguing that the bill’s inclusion of several non-requested items represented a victory for Democrats.

”You don’t do everything in one bill,” Pelosi said. “It is important for us to have a bill that will be signed because we have to get the job done.”

House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey , D-Wis., who led the negotiations over the measures, acknowledged that the lack of consensus between the House and Senate contributed to the tortured path between the chambers.

“The problem, I think, is that a number of people on both ends of these issues preferred to chew their cud more than once,” Obey said. “And so we ended up the House sending a vehicle over to the Senate; the Senate added everything but the kitchen sink to it, sent it back; then people decided they wanted to express their first preferences all over again.”

The bill also includes $1.2 billion in food aid, $374 million to help support international peacekeeping missions, $220 million for international disaster assistance in places such as Myanmar, and $390 million to fight international narcotics trafficking.

The bill would give $8.8 billion for State Department and foreign operations through June 2009.

The bill would bar any permanent bases in Iraq and require that any money for Iraqi reconstruction be matched by the Iraqi government dollar-for-dollar.

The total cost of the bill is $186.5 billion in discretionary funding for fiscal 2008 and 2009, as well as $62.8 billion for the veterans’ benefits and $8.2 billion for the unemployment extension, both over 11 years.

“The cost of the bill, frankly, is high, but it’s a price of freedom,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio.

Liriel Higa, David Clarke and Chuck Conlon contributed to this story.

Supplemental likely to pass Senate

By Manu Raju

TheHill.com

Posted: 06/19/08 02:12 PM [ET]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/supplemental-likely-to-pass-senate-2008-06-19.html

The long-awaited emergency spending bill will likely pass the Senate and end the Democrats’ last big fight over Iraq with President Bush, Democratic leaders signaled Thursday.

While the leaders said they could not predict what would happen when the Senate takes up the measure next week, they declared victory since the White House reversed course and has agreed to allow billions of dollars of new domestic-spending provisions to be added to a pending House bill. Initially, the White House insisted that the bill be restricted to funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The deal puts aside $165 billion to fight the wars through the beginning of the next presidency. As part of the deal, the administration had to give up ground on its opposition to adding some domestic spending to the package.

In turn, the Democrats had to agree to drop demands for some programs, including a $1 billion low-income heating assistance initiative and state and local law enforcement grants. Also, they were forced to eliminate language calling for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq, falling short of 2006 campaign promises to end the unpopular war.

House leaders reached the deal with the White House Wednesday night, and are expected to approve the measure Thursday, ending several weeks of a bitter stalemate between the White House and congressional Democrats.

Senate Democrats praised the package and its inclusion of a $52 billion expansion of educational benefits for veterans under the GI Bill, the postponement of six Bush-backed Medicaid rules and a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance for all states. The Democrats claimed that the 75 senators who supported a much broader domestic spending package in May prompted the shift from the White House.

“Look at the progress that’s been made,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Thursday. “It’s going to get over here, we’re going to take it up — exactly how, I don’t know just yet.”

Reid would not say whether he would seek to limit amendments to the package, saying he would first discuss the issue with his conference. He said he supports the domestic package and opposes the war funding, but added, “That doesn’t mean that it won’t pass.

“I’m not a dictator here, and I’m going to meet with my caucus and we’re going to decide what we’re going to do,” Reid said.

Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), a member of Democratic leadership, hailed the breakthrough of including the GI Bill, which was authored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and strongly opposed by GOP presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and the White House.

“I am very proud that today we are on the verge of passing the GI Bill,” Murray said. “If I would have told any of you two months ago that we were going to be able to get a supplemental bill above and beyond what the president was asking for, to include the GI Bill, I don’t think you would have believed me.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the majority whip, said the Senate would try to move the bill quickly but added it was unclear how his conference would react to the deal.

“Those to me are amazing victories when you consider the weakened position we were in last year,” Durbin said of the domestic spending provisions.

The White House last year insisted that Democrats not include spending above the president’s requested levels, and Democrats were forced to drop their push in order to keep the government running.

Reid signaled Thursday that the supplemental would likely be the last spending bill approved this year since White House budget director Jim Nussle has said that Congress should not exceed the president’s budget in its 12 annual appropriations bills.

“I don’t think he should be waiting … to get these bills because he’s unwilling to work with us,” Reid said. “We’re having to deal with Nussle, who should be muzzled.”

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

June 19, 2008: House Sends War Supplemental to Senate

Timothy Baer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:46:39 -0500

Body:

House Sends War Supplemental to Senate

CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS

Updated June 19, 2008 – 8:28 p.m.

By Liriel Higa and Josh Rogin, CQ Staff

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=3&docID=news-000002901005

The House on Thursday sent to the Senate a $161.8 billion supplemental spending bill that includes war funding, an expanded veterans’ education benefit, an extension of unemployment insurance and money to deal with flooding in the Midwest.

Lawmakers did so in two votes. In the first, they concurred with a Senate amendment to provide the war funding, 268-155. They then agreed to a second amendment consisting of the domestic programs and spending, 416-12.

The Senate is expected to concur with the House amendments, effectively clearing the bill for President Bush’s signature.

The final deal, struck Wednesday between House Democrats, the White House and House Republicans, came together relatively quickly. But it followed weeks of negotiations within the Democratic caucus, with the White House and between the chambers.

Both parties compromised, with Democrats adhering to the discretionary topline figure requested by President Bush, but they were able to get modified versions of the veterans’ and unemployment benefits, and a delay in six Medicaid provisions.

Echoing the sentiments of many who are eager to send a bill to the president, House Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, acknowledged that members of his caucus might not be fully satisfied with the compromise but “members need to just suck it up and vote yes.”

Similarly, House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey , D-Wis., acknowledged the frustration of many in his caucus that they had been unable to make more headway in stopping the war.

“What this bill does is to think about the needs of the next president,” Obey said. “And the amendment simply gives the next president enough time to think through what he wants to do and how he intends to extricate us from what I consider the dumbest war since the War of 1812.”

As they did when they first voted on the supplemental (HR 2642), Democrats split the war funding and domestic items into two votes, allowing Republicans to carry the vote for the war money, while still allowing Democrats to vote for the domestic items. The war amendment provided $165.4 billion — the Senate total, but the second amendment reduced that funding by $3.6 billion to make room for domestic items, such as $150 million for the Food and Drug Administration, $178 million for the Bureau of Prisons and $210 million to address cost overruns in the decennial census.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., said he planned to bring up the package sometime next week, but he wouldn’t promise the Senate could clear it.

“I’m not a dictator over here,” said Reid, “The individual senators will have to make a decision on what they will do on this.”

As to the steep cost of the bill — $186.5 billion in discretionary funding, as well as $62.8 billion for the veterans’ benefit and $8.2 billion for unemployment extension, both over 11 years — Boehner said, “The cost of the bill frankly is high, but it’s a price of freedom.”

Non-Appropriations Items A Challenge

Obey said Wednesday that the biggest problems had always been with the non-appropriations items, with the three last sticking points being the Medicaid regulations, a surtax to pay for the veterans’ benefit and the unemployment insurance extension.

Democrats had wanted to delay seven Medicaid regulations but settled for six.

The original House version of the war funding bill had delayed seven regulations, and a separate bill (HR 5613) had received overwhelming support when the House passed it, 349-62, as a stand-alone measure in April.

The House-passed package would not block a regulation that would limit federal funding for hospital outpatient services. Obey said the administration would not go along with having all seven of the regulations blocked so they dropped the smallest one.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the regulation would save the government $300 million over five years, which is the least of any of the seven.

Obey said that getting an agreement with the White House had been crucial to ensuring support from the Senate and within his chamber.

“If you didn’t have the White House then you wouldn’t get the Senate. Because in order to stop the ping-ponging, you’ve got to be able to say this is the last thing,” Obey said. “And the Blue Dogs justifiably were saying ‘look it, if everybody is voting their first preferences, we want to be able to express our first preference, too.’”

The fiscally conservative Blue Dogs had wanted to offset the cost of the veterans benefit with a 0.5 percent surtax on high-income earners because the benefit would become an entitlement program that would continue indefinitely.

On Tuesday, Blue Dog Dennis Cardoza , D-Calif., said he was very disappointed, though not in the party’s leadership.

“I think we were stuck,” Cardoza said. “I was going to vote for the rule no matter what because they’re doing the best they can. The problem is the Republicans in the Senate aren’t willing to pay the freight.”

Higher Costs For Veterans’ Benefit

The cost of the veterans’ benefit ended up being even more than what Democrats had proposed, with the initial cost at $52 billion. After Democrats included a transferability provision sought by the White House, the cost increased by around $10 billion.

But the unemployment benefit extension ended up with a lower cost after Democrats agreed to a GOP demand for a 20-week work requirement for eligibility and dropped an additional 13-week extension for states with high unemployment.

The final product provides an across-the-board 13-week extension for all states. That dropped the cost of the program by about $2 billion, to $8.2 billion. Obey said that lawmakers would seek the additional extension for high unemployment states on another bill, such as the next stimulus package.

“On unemployment, it’s always baffled me that the administration hung in there as long as it did in opposing an extension because I think that was a huge loser for them,” Obey said.

Senate Spending Scrapped

House and Senate Democratic leaders acknowledged that many of their priorities, such as money for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and Byrne law enforcement grants, had to be dropped.

“We’ll continue to fight,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif. “It’s not something we could accomplish in this bill.”

Pelosi suggested that the several domestic spending items that were jettisoned from the bill could be part of a second supplemental measure this year, focused on domestic needs.

Indeed, at a Senate Appropriations Committee markup Thursday, Chairman Robert C. Byrd , D-W.Va., indicated that Congress would not stop efforts to get additional funding. “I have consulted with the House, and with Senate leadership, and I have every expectation that the committee will meet again to consider a second supplemental,” Byrd said.

The Senate ended up giving up more, having provided $10 billion more in discretionary spending than the House in its version.

But for the most part, senators seemed resigned to accepting the deal reached between the House and the White House. Appropriator Sen. Patty Murray , D-Wash., one of the staunchest defenders of the Senate’s prerogative to influence the supplemental, said even she supported the House package.

“At this point, I assume that we have gotten a much better deal that anyone expected and it’s a good deal for all of us,” said Murray.

The bill also does not include a provision that would have cut the price of birth control pills and devices at university health clinics and Planned Parenthood centers that had been included in the Senate version.

The provision sought to undo part of a 2006 deficit reduction law (PL 109-171) that squeezed a total of $38.9 billion in savings from a variety of programs, including federal student loans, Medicare and Medicaid.

That law removed university clinics and private birth control clinics from the list of entities eligible for “nominal” pricing under the Public Health Service Act (PL 78-410) — a law enacted in 1944 and revised numerous times since then — which outlines a series of federal health program partnerships with states, localities and nonprofit schools, among other provisions.

Obey said Thursday that he had no problem with the provision but that the White House had indicated it would draw a presidential veto.

No Withdrawal Provisions

To the disappointment of anti-war lawmakers, but the surprise of few, the final bill does not include a timetable for troop withdrawal. It does, however, retain language prohibiting permanent bases in Iraq. It also would require Iraq to match State Department and USAID reconstruction aid dollar-for-dollar.

Another provision that would have required the Bush administration to get congressional approval for any status of forces agreement or mutual defense pact with Iraq was included until Wednesday afternoon but then stripped from the bill, said House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha , D-Calif.

Murtha said he would keep pushing for it, possibly on the annual fiscal 2009 Defense appropriations bill.

David Clarke and Catharine Richert contributed to this story.

First posted June 19, 2008 1:19 p.m.

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

June 18, 2008: House & Bush Reach Deal on War Supplemental

Timothy Baer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:37:46 -0500

Body:

House, Bush reach deal on war supplemental

By Mike Soraghan

The Hill.com

Posted: 06/18/08 08:05 PM [ET]

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/house-bush-reach-deal-on-war-supplemental-2008-06-18.html

The House will vote on an emergency supplemental spending bill Thursday after Republican and Democratic leaders struck a deal with the White House late Wednesday, aides said.

The deal did not include the Senate, but House leaders were to present the deal to Senate leaders later Thursday night, aides said.

The compromise bill will include about $165 billion in funding for the Iraq war with no conditions, such as banning torture or blocking a “status of forces agreement” between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.

It will include a new program, called the “new GI Bill,” to pay the college tuition of Iraq and Afghan war veterans, which will be transferable to family members. The cost of the program will be added to the federal deficit, because there will be no offsetting tax increase.

It will extend unemployment benefits by three months, but will require recipients to have worked at least 20 weeks, a requirement Democrats had sought to shorten.

It is also to include $2.6 billion to address flood damage in Iowa.

The bill will require significant Republican support to pass because fiscally-conservative Democrats in the Blue Dog coalition are likely to object to loading the cost of the GI Bill onto the deficit, and ardent opponents of the Iraq war are likely to object to funding combat operations with no restrictions.

“This legislation shows that when Democrats are actually willing to reach out and work with Republicans, we can get things done for the American people,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement.

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

June 18, 2008: House Leaders Announce Deal on War Funding

Timothy Baer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:34:08 -0500

Body:

House Leaders Announce Deal on War Funding

CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS Updated June 18, 2008 – 5:59 p.m.

By Dave Clarke and Liriel Higa, CQ Staff

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=3&docID=news-000002899543

House Democratic and Republican leaders Wednesday said they have reached a deal on war spending they believe President Bush will sign.

The leaders declined to reveal specifics of the deal, which the House is expected to vote on Thursday. Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., went straight to a meeting with Senate leaders, who have not signed off on the deal, to inform them of the agreement.

“I think we have an agreement on what the supplemental will look like,” Hoyer said. “I think if we pass the supplemental pursuant to this agreement we have an indication the White House will sign this.”

Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, added: “This is an agreement that has been worked out in a bipartisan way that I think is acceptable to most Democrats and most Republicans and to the White House.”

But Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey , D-Wis., cautioned the deal had yet to be put in writing.

“This agreement has required significant compromise by both sides and we need to get it down in writing before we talk about the individual pieces so that there are no slip ups because we want to put this thing to bed and finish it in the House tomorrow.”

While no details of the final deal were released, House Democrats have been considering a package (HR 2642) that would include funding for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to last the rest of this year and enough to fund operations into spring or early summer 2009. Democrats also have considered including expanded GI Bill education benefits for veterans and an extension of unemployment benefits for all states that includes an additional 13 weeks in states with high unemployment.

The bill also is likely to include about $2 billion to help the Federal Emergency Management Agency deal with flooding in the Midwest. Bush has asked Congress to add money for flood relief.

The sticking points have been whether to offset the cost of the veterans education benefit and Republicans insistence that the unemployment benefit be targeted only to states with high unemployment and individuals work at least 20 weeks before collecting the extended federal benefit.

House Democratic aides said a 2 p.m. meeting initiated by Hoyer in his office with Boehner and attended by White House officials led to the deal. Aides said the two party leaders later met in Hoyer’s office and provided a green light for the House Rules Committee to pave the way for floor action Thursday.

Alan K. Ota contributed to this story.

First posted June 18, 2008 10:01 a.m.

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

June 11, 2008: Senate Panel Releases Iraq Report

Timothy Baer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:29:48 -0500

Body:

Senate Panel Releases Iraq Report; GOP Calls it Partisan Politics

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE

June 11, 2008 – 11:08 a.m.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=3&docID=cqmidday-000002889538

Bush administration officials, in the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, made several public statements about the danger of Saddam Hussein’s regime that were contradicted by available intelligence at the time, according to a Senate Intelligence Committee report released Thursday.

The panel’s release of the report — along with a second that concludes Pentagon officials held “inappropriate” clandestine meetings with Iranians in Rome and Paris without informing the intelligence community — officially ends the committee’s acrimonious four-year investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Democrats and Republicans exchanged fire over the reports immediately upon their release. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., highlighted the documents in a news release; Republicans said Democrats were trying to “score election-year points.” The release of the reports also deepened partisan tensions on the Intelligence panel, already high over a rewrite of foreign intelligence surveillance law.

“Unfortunately, our committee has concluded that the administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV , D-W.Va., said. “In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”

Two Republicans, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, joined Democrats in voting 10-5 for the reports during committee deliberation. But other panel Republicans accused Democrats of politicizing the reports.

The Iraq report “is a great disappointment to us and an unfortunate commentary on the political nature of intelligence oversight in the Congress today,” a group of Republican panelists led by vice-chairman Christopher S. Bond of Missouri wrote in the minority views section of the “public statements” report.

The report concluded that Bush administration officials made numerous claims that were contradicted by available intelligence, including the alleged connections between Iraq and al Qaeda and Saddam’s desire to share weapons of mass destruction with terrorist groups.

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes:

June 9, 2008: U.S. Seeking 58 Bases in Iraq

Timothy Baer — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:25:01 -0500

Body:

US Seeking 58 Bases in Iraq, Shiite Lawmakers Say

Monday, 09 June 2008

by: Leila Fadel, McClatchy Newspapers

http://www.truthout.org/article/us-seeking-58-bases-iraq-shiite-lawmakers-say

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/40372.html

Baghdad - Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed “status of forces” agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.

Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.

“The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation,” said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. “We were occupied by order of the Security Council,” he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. “But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far.”

Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said.

“It would impair Iraqi sovereignty,” said Ali al Adeeb a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s Dawa party of the proposed accord. “The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq… if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help.”

Both Saghir and Adeeb said that the Iraqi government rejected the terms as unacceptable. They said the government wants a U.S. presence and a U.S. security guarantee but also wants to control security within the country, stop indefinite detentions of Iraqis by U.S. forces and have a say in U.S. forces’ conduct in Iraq.

The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

“Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn’t there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs,” Saghir said. “We have given Bush our views - some new ideas and I find that there is a certain harmony between his thoughts and ours. And he promised to tell the negotiators to change their methods.”

Maliki returned Monday from his second visit to Iran, whose Islamic rulers are adamantly opposed to the accord. Iran’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said following meetings with Maliki that we have “no doubt that the Americans’ dreams will not come true.”

Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, criticized the lawmakers for poisoning the public discussion before an agreement is concluded. He said U.S. officials had been flexible in the talks, as well as “frank and honest since the beginning.”

“This is an ongoing process,” Zebari said. “There is no agreement yet. Proposals have been modified, they have been changed and altered. We don’t have a final text yet for them to be judgmental.”

Zebari, who said a negotiating session was held with U.S. officials on the new accord Monday, said any agreement will be submitted to the Iraqi parliament for approval. Leaders in the U.S. Congress have also demanded a say in the agreement, but the Bush administration says it is planning to make this an executive accord not subject to Senate ratification.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain didn’t respond for requests for comment, but the presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, said through a spokesman that he believes the Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress and that it should make “absolutely clear” that the United States will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said he had not heard of a plan to seek 50 or more bases in Iraq, and that if it is the case, Congress is likely to challenge the idea. “Congress would have a lot of questions, and the president should be very careful in negotiating,” Hamilton, who now directs the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, told McClatchy.

The top U.S. Embassy spokesman in Iraq rejected the latest Iraqi criticism.

“Look, there is going to be no occupation,” said U.S. spokesman Adam Ereli. “Now it’s perfectly understandable that there are those that are following this closely in Iraq who have concerns about what this means for Iraqi sovereignty and independence. We understand that and we appreciate that and that’s why nothing is going to be rammed down anybody’s throat.

“It’s kind of like a forced marriage. It just doesn’t work. They either want you or they don’t want you. You can’t use coercion to get them to like you,” he added.

U.S. officials in Baghdad say they are determined to complete the accord by July 31 so that parliamentary deliberations can be completed before the Dec. 31 expiration of the UN mandate.

The agreement will not specify how many troops or where they will be deployed, said a U.S. official who asked not to be named due to the sensitivity of the subject, but the agreement will detail the legal framework under which U.S. troops will operate. The U.S. official said that in the absence of a UN resolution authorizing the use of force, “there have to be terms that are in place. That’s the reality that we’re trying to accommodate.”

Iraqis are determined to get their nation removed from the purview of the U.N. Security Council under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which allows the international body to declare a country a threat to international peace, a step the U.N. took after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. Iraqi officials say that designation clearly is no longer appropriate.

But even on that basic request, the U.S. has not promised to support Iraq, Saghir said, and is insteadn withholding that support as a pressure point in negotiations.

U.S. demands “conflict with our sovereignty and we refuse them,” said Hassan Sneid, a member of the Dawa party and a lawmaker on the security committee in the parliament. “I don’t expect these negotiations will be done by the exact date. The Americans want so many things and the fact is we want different things.”

“If we had to choose one or the other, an extension of the mandate or this agreement, we would probably choose the extension,” Saghir said. “It is possible that in December we will send a letter the UN informing them that Iraq no longer needs foreign forces to control its internal security. As for external defense, we are still not ready.”

Margaret Talev in Washington contributed.

McClatchy Newspapers 2008

Your Name: Timothy Baer

Your Email Address: timothybaer2003@hotmail.com

Link to Published Item:

Notes: