Update: I think the Australian media reports have missed the significance of this vote. Yes, Bush can veto a bill he doesn’t like, and it may not and probably won’t pass the Senate. But a supplementary appropriations bill has to be passed before April 15. On April 15, the money for the Iraq War runs out, and then the troops would have to be withdrawn. It’s actually very high stakes poker.
The House of Representatives has passed a supplementary funding bill placing conditions on funding for the Iraq War.
The bill would establish strict standards for resting, training and equipping combat troops before their deployment and lay down binding benchmarks for the Iraqi government, such as assuming control of security operations, quelling sectarian violence and more equitably distributing oil revenue. If progress is not made toward those benchmarks, some troops would be required to come home as early as July. In any event, troop withdrawals would have to begin in March 2008, with all combat forces out by Aug. 31, 2008.
In the context of the Australian debate, this bill is very similar to the one Obama introduced in the Senate, and has as its inspiration the report of the Baker Study Group. Labor is basically supporting the Democrats’ agenda here.
It’s moot at this stage as to how this bill will go in the Senate, or what will come out of a conference committee to reconcile separate bills from the two houses. Some left wing Democrats voted against the bill, not wanting to allocate any more funding to the war at all. Only two Republicans supported the bill, and the fourteen Democrats who opposed it were the liberal and conservative extremes of the Caucus. In the Senate, the bill as it stands is unlikely to pass.
But Bush has to get his head around the fact that Congress has the constitutional responsibility to attach conditions to funding requests. And Congress has a mandate from its constituents who by a large majority oppose continued American involvement in the Iraqi civil war. At Obsidian Wings, hilzoy despairs of Bush understanding anything about how the constitution allocates responsibility for appropriations to the legislative branch:
Give me a break. The Democrats just sent their money. They have approved the emergency funding, and they did it long before April 15. That’s what passing an appropriations bill is.
Ah, the President says, but they have not passed a bill that he can sign. Well, why is that? It’s not as though the bill the House passed has an internal self-destruct mechanism, like those tapes on Mission Impossible, that will cause it to vaporize before it can be signed into law. The Democrats haven’t secretly subjected him to some strange neurological procedure that causes him to become unable to sign his name whenever he sees a certain word, and then malevolently put that very word into the bill’s title. It’s not as though the House had passed a bill and shot it off to the moon, or hidden it away on a desert island whose location is known only to them, or printed it on special signature-resistant paper, or in some other way prevented him from signing it. It could perfectly well become law, if Bush were willing to sign it.
He could sign it if he wanted to, but he chooses not to, since he thinks it’s a bad bill. The Democrats, for their part, could send him a bill appropriating funds without restrictions, but they choose not to, since they think that would be a bad bill. Both sides are entitled to their views — we have, after all, a system with several branches of government.
If their disagreement is not resolved, the effect will be to deprive the troops of funds, and to force a precipitous withdrawal. This would be a very bad thing. But it’s completely disingenuous to pretend that it is a bad thing that is solely the Democrats’ fault: that they have knowingly chosen to send him a bill that he is just plain incapable of signing.
The Democrats have made their choice. Bush will make his. Each will be responsible for that choice, and each will bear some responsibility for the consequences that ensue. It’s stupid to pretend that the Democrats are in full control of their actions, while Bush’s will is just somehow there, a solid and inflexible given, unchangeable even by him; a great huge block of volitional granite that we all just have to accept and find ways to work around. However hard he tries to pretend otherwise, Bush can make choices just like the rest of us; and if he chooses not to sign the bill the Democrats passed, that is not because he just can’t sign it; it’s because he chooses not to.
Kim, must the Bill in its exact wording go before the Senate? If yes, and the Senate rejects it, what happens then, returned to the House for amendment per the Oz system?—the power of the purse strings between the House and Senate is most confusing, some enlightenment would be most appreciated.
Peter, it’s a bit more complex. A conference committee (composed of representatives from each house) tries to reconcile different versions of bills, and then both houses have to vote to either accept or reject the conference committee report. It’s possible for bills to undergo major change in conference.
There’s dispute between the two houses as to where the power of the purse strings lies - revenue bills must originate in the HoR but appropriations bills - the Senate claims the power to originate them, but the House disputes this.
Oops, missed a question.
Yes, but then the Senate can do what it likes. For instance, a similar bill initiated in the Senate can be substituted for it.
Some more enlightenment may be forthcoming from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress#Bills_and_resolutions
Congress only authorized Bush to use diplomacy, and force as a last resort, with regards to the Iraq war. Given he ignored the Blix and ElBaradei reports - and thoroughly abstained from any diplomacy - Bush should have been impeached long ago for procecuting an avoidable war.
Why are they still giving him money?!
“Here’s some more billions George, to see you off until you just about resign. And remember to blackmail us with “Support Our Troops” when you need some more. Its not like we will be able do anything about it then, either.”
As I understand it, if the president refuses to sign an Appropriations Bill, then he has no legal access to the monies released thereby.
Eventually, therefore, the Executive arm of government runs out of funds.
However, more immediately, the Anti-Deficiency Act, which bars any federal public official from spending funds not specifically earmarked to a particular purpose, will force a shut-down of government activities not specifically funded by current appropriations acts.
That’s the thing, Katz.
If he won’t sign whatever bill he gets, there’s no money for Iraq and there has to be a withdrawal. Unless it’s a clean bill or he does sign it, in which case… ?
Update: I think the Australian media reports have missed the significance of this vote. Yes, Bush can veto a bill he doesn’t like, and it may not and probably won’t pass the Senate. But a supplementary appropriations bill has to be passed before April 15. On April 15, the money for the Iraq War runs out, and then the troops would have to be withdrawn. It’s actually very high stakes poker.
I think that’s right. The Australian reports (such as this one in the SMH)
don’t seem to pick up on the fact that if Bush doesn’t get a supplementary appropriations bill in time, the money to maintain the US troop presence begins to run out. So it is indeed “very high stakes poker”. Contrast the report in the NYT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/24/washington/24cong.html?hp
Bush will probably get a bill, but this is comparable to Gingrich’s government shutdowns. It may well be that whatever he finally signs does impose some conditions. His veto threat message has to be seen as part of the rhetorical tug of war.
Poor performance by the Australian media in apparently assuming this is a “symbolic” vote like the earler non-binding resolutions. It was initiated in Congress because appropriations bills have to be - that’s why it was written by the House Appropriations Committee under Obey. The administration, because of the separation of powers, can only request Congress to make an appropriation, not write the language of the bill (though of course in practice they can if they control Congress, but the bill has to originate from within the House).
The Republicans in the House couldn’t substitute a “clean bill” because of the way in which particular “rules” can limit amendment and substitutions as set by the House Rules Committee (effectively the House leadership). So, in many cases, no amendments are allowed on the House floor. It’s a different matter in the Senate, where GOP Senators are likely to introduce a “clean bill” as a substitute measure. Then, as Kim says, it goes to conference because the GOP can threaten a filibuster if the the Dems can’t muster 60 Senators (and not all Dems in the Senate support this approach). Effectively, then, the thing gets negotiated between Congress and the White House while it’s holed up in conference.
I liked Tim Dunlop’s point that now one arm of the American government has clearly called for a withdrawl, so when Howard talks about ‘’supporting” the American’s, who exactly is he talking about?
In not entirelyunrelated news, are you guys following this whole British sailor saga? That situation could turn really ugly. I wonder who is actually telling the truth, Iran or Britain?
It’s something of a mystery to me why several leftist Democrats voted against this Bill. What purpose would have been served, from their point of view, if it had been defeated?
Is it the case that if the Bill had been defeated, still the House would have remained so divided over the question of appropriations to fund the war on Iraq, there would little chance of any funding scheme suitable to the Administration being passed?
In other words, are these Leftist Democrats basing their behaviour on the belief that utter stalemate in the House over appropriations for the war on Iraq will produce a fiscal crisis earlier than the phased strangulation of the Administration foreshadowed in the currrent bill?
The leftist Democrats’ strategy would appear to remove the opportunity for Bush to act, and to appear to act, by vetoing the offending appropriations bill.
Is it politically important that Bush be faced with that decision, rather than simply to have the money cut off as a result of political deadlock in the House?
Alternatively, is it possible that the leftist Democrats have predicted that the current appropriations bill, as it stands, will never pass the Senate? Therefore, Bush will never be faced with the dilemma over whether or not to sign it.
Eventually, the House will have to decide whether or not to pass a bill that will pass the Senate. Maybe the leftist Democrats are saying to the world, “Don’t count on us to accept any compromise.”
When an amended bill returns to the House, vacillating Democrats who supported the original bill will be put under enormous pressure. Are the leftist Democrats saying to them, “Don’t expect us to come and save your hides. We didn’t vote for your bill, and we’re not going to vote for any watered down bill.”
Indeed. The battle will leave the Congress and be taken to the country. Presumably Bush will continue on the line he has taken, saying that the Congress is putting the troops in danger by playing political games and usurping the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.
Only 3 votes out of 435 need to change in the House for the Bill in its current form to fail.
I think that right-wing Democrats will insist on a new Bill that funds the war without a cut-off date, and get what they want. In return expect more symbolic resolutions, enquiries designed to keep the heat on the White House etc.
If the Democrats were sure they were on a political winner, they would vote to cut off funds immediately, as their activist base demands (see Code Pink press release link below).
The fact that they do not indicates their fear of being left with the blame that would come with doing so.
They are acting to placate their base, whgo demand an immediate withdrawal, who have no understanding of Congressional tactics or how to win over a country that they are still largely out of step with.
See this media release from Code Pink.
The Democrats have to placate the left-wing base by appearing to be stridently against the war, without alienating the right-wing a la Senator Lieberman.
David,
In America Lieberman’s politics is not considered right wing. He is liberal with some moderate leftist votes to his record. He voted for gun control, and in America that almost makes him a communist. He voted against the criminalization of flag burning. He has voted in favour of affirmative action, and he has supported Gore on environment issues.
Its hard to say if Lieberman actually does support free-trade since he is such an avid supporter of sanctions.
Actually, a lot of leftist folk support warmongering. So long as they aren’t conscripted, they see it as an act cleansing or something. I’m sure that there is a whole bunch of little Albert Langers running about in our universities today postulating the goodness of it all.
I think the Iraq war issue in America isn’t a left/right one. Its the neocon fanatics who control U.S. foriegn policy vs a growing movement urged on by the vast majority of Americans who are finally waking up to what the Bush Presiduncy is all about.
First, they believed Bush. Then they couldn’t believe the truth and they thought he’ll get them out of the mess he got them into… and voted him again. Now they are trying their luck with the Congress and Senate.
One of the advantages America has as an energetic democracy is that the people really believe in their institutions. You just ask them about their wonderful Constitution and those check and balances.
It had better start showing results pretty soon. So far Bush has stared down all comers, and his supporters say his word is law.
I meant to say that Lieberman was a right-wing Democrat, following on from my use of the same term in paragraph 4 of my last response.
He’s certainly been labelled as such by the Kossacks.
This isn’t beyond the realms of possibility. But don’t forget that the 20 or so dissenting leftist Democrats would vote against such a bill.
The PBS Newshour program (on SBS) had a Blue Dog Dem on. He seemed pretty adamant that his constituency were opposed to further sacrifices “of blood and treasure” in Iraq. He didn’t sound like a waverer to me.
And Bush’s troubles still wouldn’t be over even if a no cut-offs bill passed the House. The Dems in the Senate have the numbers to either defeat the House bill or to fillibuster it to death.
It will be fascinating to see whether an immediate cessation of funding after 15 April would strengthen or weaken Bush and the Republicans.
It would most likely kick off a “Who Lost Iraq” bunfight of considerable magnitude. I imagine that in their heart of hearts Democrat presidential hopefuls would like Iraq to continue to be an albatross around the necks of Republicans for as long as possible.
Congress-forced withdrawal may be an electoral liability for Dems by election time in Nov 2008.
Katz, there were only 6 leftist Democrats who voted against the bill and 8 conservative Democrats.
But it’s worth observing that every new member of the Democratic caucus supported it.
Well, I wouldn’t take their word as gospel! Partisan abuse more like.
Then there are signing statements. Bush can scribble over the bill that the executive has authority as commander in chief and that any proposals in the bill counter to that constitutional authority are null and void.
Any dispute would go to the supreme court and my money’s on the president in that case.
It would be bad practice to clog up courts with knowingly faulty legislation, but it would provide funding. However, it won’t come to that - the senate will stomp all over this bill.
It is highly doubtful that a signing statement would have eny effect at all on an appropriations bill. either the Congress allows the Executive to be financed, or it does not.
For example the President could not willy nilly add a couple of zeros to some appropriation and claim thereby the right of access to those monies.
The president cannot conjure monies up from nowhere by virtue of the stroke of a pen.
The power of the purse is beyond even the voracious appetite for Executive Privilege claimed by Bush.
I was talking about the armed services micro-management aspect of the bill. I’m assuming that the Democrats would otherwise fully fund troops to the requested levels.
The house & senate of course have the sole constitutional power to raise money, but to strip troops of equipment and supplies would doom them in 2008. So there’s definitely one senator from NY who would vote for full funding, and it only takes one.
The really shabby thing about this bill is the amount of pork that’s been attached to it - obvious bribes to swaying representatives. Bring back the line-item veto I say.
I mentioned the various motivations of Dem Senator 2008 presidential candidates upthread. I agree that Clinton, of example, wants Iraq to persist as a running Republican sore throughout the 2008 electoral cycle. Continued funding would achieve part of this. However, the Dems, by funding the war, are purchasing responsibility for the war on the never-never.
This war stinks in the nostrils of American voters. It is therefore good politics to oppose it. But it is not good politics to appear to be opposing it by impeding or endangering the troops. The Dems must find a way of doing the former without being perceived to be doing the latter.
The reality is that funds begin to dry up for the Iraq adventure after 15 April 2007. If Bush signs a bill similar in structure to the current House bill, he will be able to fight his war until August 2008.
The Dems could argue quite effectively that it is Bush’s choice to deny himself the oppostunity of fighting this war for 18 more months on his own terms. How much time does he need? Therefore his determination to veto this bill is a product of his own well-known stubbornness and state of denial about the dire and irretrievable nature of the Iraq fiasco.
In other words, its Bush’s choice: continue the war his way, or accept that he has no solution within the 18 month timeframe.
Thus, the Dems could argue, it is Bush who is endangering the troops by insisting that they continue to wage a struggle for which there is no reasonable prospect of victory, one of the classic criteria of just war theory.
$20B well spent by the Democrats. Not their own money of course.
It has just got more interesting.
The Senate has upped the ante on the House, setting a mandatory withdrawal date of 31 March 2008. The House stipulated august 2008.
This one’s going to the wire.
Meanwhile, Russian military sources warn of imminent US stikes on Iran. Operation “eternal dumbf*ck” commences?
Special Reports
Operation Bite: April 6 sneak attack by US forces against Iran
planned, Russian military sources warn
By Webster G. Tarpley
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Mar 26, 2007, 01:02
WASHINGTON DC, — The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now
on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April
6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known
Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty
Nedeli.” Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian
General Staff for his account.
The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, according to Uglanov, from
4 am until 4 pm local time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran. In the
course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are
marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities,
research centers, and laboratories.
The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian
engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The
US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to
be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian
Gulf, and for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed
forces to be wiped out.
The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the
island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently
home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also
participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from
aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the
Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be
fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the
Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran’s nuclear
program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was reissued
by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English,
several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and
German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.
Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level
orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which
draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence
services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness
by pro-peace forces around the world.
Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel
General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21
interview: “I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more
precisely a violent action against Iran.” Ivashov, who has reportedly
served at various times as an informal advisor to Russian President
Vladimir Putin, is currently the vice president of the Moscow Academy
for Geopolitical Sciences.
Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the
Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove
language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military
appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to
Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that
the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing
group representing the Israeli extreme right, and from Israeli Foreign
Minister Tsipi Livni.
“We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will
take place,” said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not
include a land operation: ” Most probably there will be no ground
attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating
Iran’s capacity for military resistance, the centers of
administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the
Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,” he continued.
Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would
use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian
nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create
panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos
and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. “This will
unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a
peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in
Teheran,” Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his
estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican
administration, which would now be able to boast that they had wiped
out the Iranian nuclear program.
Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of
Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the
Near and Middle East into smaller regions. “This concept worked well
for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle
East,” he commented.
“Moscow must exert Russia’s influence by demanding an emergency
session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the
current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the
destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,” said General
Ivashov. “In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France
and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this
kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,” he concluded.
Wow, Webster G. Tarpley. Where do people find these lunatics - In the Joe Vialls wing of Hotel Lithium?
Actually these days, you’re more likely to find them about half up Pennslyvania Avenue in DC, from number 1600 to the OEB.
Ooh, I just noticed this phrase in Lefty E’s quote above.
“The Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.”
That really does sound like one hardnosed mutha of a think tank (a T-96 at least) that’d make the AEI look like a Fabian barbie.