Z
Zaroc Stone
Guest
Democrats Stand Back as Congress Keeps Funding the Occupation of Iraq
By Maya Schenwar, TruthOut.org. Posted November 2, 2007.
More blank checks from Congress.
In the next few days, a Congressional conference committee will likely
pass the largest defense spending bill in the history of the United
States. Despite Democratic lawmakers' promises to stop issuing blank
checks for war, the bill does not call for the withdrawal of troops
from Iraq or Afghanistan, nor does it prevent military action against
Iran.
Though the current version of the defense budget does not contain
funding specifically for the war, money could easily be drawn from the
budget and funneled into war costs unless the language of the bill is
changed to specifically prohibit that usage, which it currently does
not.
"A bridge fund is always possible," said OMB Watch policy analyst Adam
Hughes, referring to a measure that would cordon off funds in the
defense bill to be used only for war. "But even without it, they would
have enough in the budget to sustain what's currently happening."
Moreover, even if no baseline budget money is used for war costs,
Congress plans to continue financing the war at the current rate,
House Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha told the
Congressional Quarterly on Wednesday night.
Congress is currently operating on a "continuing resolution," or CR,
which allows the war to be funded at the same levels it was funded
last year. According to Murtha, Congress plans to renew the CR in
mid-November, allowing war spending to continue unabated into the new
year.
No proposals to impose restrictions on CR funds have been announced.
Last month, a group of Congress members pledged to add provisions for
withdrawing all troops from Iraq to any future war funding
legislation, but that plan will not apply to the CR, according to a
spokesman for Congresswoman Barbara Lee, one of the crafters of the
plan. "We're really waiting for the debate on the supplemental to
bring that up," the spokesman said in an interview, adding that Lee
will probably not vote for the upcoming CR if it includes more funds
for war.
Without a specific resolution barring all war funding, it would be
virtually impossible for Congress to end the war by the power of the
purse alone, according to Larry Korb, a Senior Fellow at the Center
for American Progress and a former assistant secretary of defense.
"You've already got the planes, the bombs, the people on the payroll,"
Korb said in an interview. "Congress can't stop the war unless they
pass a bill saying that no more money can be spent in Iraq."
When Congress considers Bush's war supplemental spending bill next
year, it will likely tack on several billion dollars, bringing the
supplemental to more than $200 billion, according to Murtha.
At that point, the war discussion will come into full swing, according
to a spokesman for Senate Defense Appropriations Committee Chairman
Daniel Inouye.
"When the supplemental comes up, there will be a full debate with a
number of proposals," Inouye's spokesman said. "We will look at ways
to have some sort of withdrawal schedule."
Included in that list of proposals will be Lee's plan to use all
supplemental money to redeploy troops from Iraq.
However, the war will not wait for the passage of the supplemental
spending bill. In these months before the supplemental comes to the
floor, if the administration deems more war funding urgently
necessary, it could invoke the Feed and Forage Act, an 1861 measure
providing for defense-related emergencies, to draw funds from the
treasury, according to Korb. The Act was cited to support the war in
Vietnam and the Gulf War, and the Bush administration invoked it
immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Citing the Act to finance attacks
on Iran would not be unprecedented.
Some measures to immediately restrict war-related funding are on the
table. In February, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced a plan to
use existing money to bring troops and equipment home within three
months of enactment. Also, last week, Majority Whip Dick Durbin
proposed a bill stating, "any military action taken against Iran must
be explicitly approved by Congress before any such action be
initiated."
"If this administration believes it has some authority from Congress
for the invasion of Iran, I challenge them to show me what that
authority is," Durbin said on the Senate floor. "Before they initiate
any offensive action in Iran, they have to come to the Congress for
the authority to do so."
Yet, it is unclear whether such proposals have a chance of getting
heard before the defense appropriations bill passes. The bill is
usually not a contentious matter, and Inouye's spokesman noted many in
Congress are eager to keep it that way. "There was some effort to
include Iraq-related amendments, but Congress didn't want the bill to
be caught up with the Iraq debate," he said. "That would've delayed
action on the general bill."
Maya Schenwar is a Chicago-based freelance writer and an editor for
Publications International.
By Maya Schenwar, TruthOut.org. Posted November 2, 2007.
More blank checks from Congress.
In the next few days, a Congressional conference committee will likely
pass the largest defense spending bill in the history of the United
States. Despite Democratic lawmakers' promises to stop issuing blank
checks for war, the bill does not call for the withdrawal of troops
from Iraq or Afghanistan, nor does it prevent military action against
Iran.
Though the current version of the defense budget does not contain
funding specifically for the war, money could easily be drawn from the
budget and funneled into war costs unless the language of the bill is
changed to specifically prohibit that usage, which it currently does
not.
"A bridge fund is always possible," said OMB Watch policy analyst Adam
Hughes, referring to a measure that would cordon off funds in the
defense bill to be used only for war. "But even without it, they would
have enough in the budget to sustain what's currently happening."
Moreover, even if no baseline budget money is used for war costs,
Congress plans to continue financing the war at the current rate,
House Defense Appropriations Chairman John Murtha told the
Congressional Quarterly on Wednesday night.
Congress is currently operating on a "continuing resolution," or CR,
which allows the war to be funded at the same levels it was funded
last year. According to Murtha, Congress plans to renew the CR in
mid-November, allowing war spending to continue unabated into the new
year.
No proposals to impose restrictions on CR funds have been announced.
Last month, a group of Congress members pledged to add provisions for
withdrawing all troops from Iraq to any future war funding
legislation, but that plan will not apply to the CR, according to a
spokesman for Congresswoman Barbara Lee, one of the crafters of the
plan. "We're really waiting for the debate on the supplemental to
bring that up," the spokesman said in an interview, adding that Lee
will probably not vote for the upcoming CR if it includes more funds
for war.
Without a specific resolution barring all war funding, it would be
virtually impossible for Congress to end the war by the power of the
purse alone, according to Larry Korb, a Senior Fellow at the Center
for American Progress and a former assistant secretary of defense.
"You've already got the planes, the bombs, the people on the payroll,"
Korb said in an interview. "Congress can't stop the war unless they
pass a bill saying that no more money can be spent in Iraq."
When Congress considers Bush's war supplemental spending bill next
year, it will likely tack on several billion dollars, bringing the
supplemental to more than $200 billion, according to Murtha.
At that point, the war discussion will come into full swing, according
to a spokesman for Senate Defense Appropriations Committee Chairman
Daniel Inouye.
"When the supplemental comes up, there will be a full debate with a
number of proposals," Inouye's spokesman said. "We will look at ways
to have some sort of withdrawal schedule."
Included in that list of proposals will be Lee's plan to use all
supplemental money to redeploy troops from Iraq.
However, the war will not wait for the passage of the supplemental
spending bill. In these months before the supplemental comes to the
floor, if the administration deems more war funding urgently
necessary, it could invoke the Feed and Forage Act, an 1861 measure
providing for defense-related emergencies, to draw funds from the
treasury, according to Korb. The Act was cited to support the war in
Vietnam and the Gulf War, and the Bush administration invoked it
immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Citing the Act to finance attacks
on Iran would not be unprecedented.
Some measures to immediately restrict war-related funding are on the
table. In February, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced a plan to
use existing money to bring troops and equipment home within three
months of enactment. Also, last week, Majority Whip Dick Durbin
proposed a bill stating, "any military action taken against Iran must
be explicitly approved by Congress before any such action be
initiated."
"If this administration believes it has some authority from Congress
for the invasion of Iran, I challenge them to show me what that
authority is," Durbin said on the Senate floor. "Before they initiate
any offensive action in Iran, they have to come to the Congress for
the authority to do so."
Yet, it is unclear whether such proposals have a chance of getting
heard before the defense appropriations bill passes. The bill is
usually not a contentious matter, and Inouye's spokesman noted many in
Congress are eager to keep it that way. "There was some effort to
include Iraq-related amendments, but Congress didn't want the bill to
be caught up with the Iraq debate," he said. "That would've delayed
action on the general bill."
Maya Schenwar is a Chicago-based freelance writer and an editor for
Publications International.
