[NYTr] Democrats Stand Back as War Funding Continues

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

sent by Riaz K. Tayob -activ-l

Truthout - Nov 2, 2007

  Democrats Stand Back as War Funding Continues

     By Maya Schenwar

     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 reporter for Truthout.org.