[NYTr] Bush Veto a Blow to "Wounded Warriors"

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

Truthout - Jan 3, 2007
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010308R.shtml

Bush Veto a Blow to "Wounded Warriors"

    By Maya Schenwar and Matt Renner

    The Bush administration's veto of a broad-ranging defense policy
bill Monday night will delay a long list of benefits for Iraq and
Afghanistan veterans.

    Bush did not veto the Defense Authorization Bill of 2008 outright,
according to White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. Instead, he used a
maneuver called a "pocket veto." Essentially, a pocket veto is a way to
kill a piece of legislation while Congress is adjourned. In allowing a
bill to expire by refusing to sign or veto it, a president can
effectively force Congress to restart its legislative work from the
beginning.

    House and Senate leaders contend that this attempted pocket veto is
illegitimate and that they will act as if Bush had issued a standard
veto. According to spokesmen for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and
Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid, Congress was not out of
session, because the Senate was in "Pro Forma" session and the House
had left specific instructions for communications with the executive
branch. They plan to hold a veto override vote when the House and
Senate convene later this month. This disagreement is key because a
pocket veto could delay the bill for much longer than a traditional
veto. The bill had overwhelming bipartisan support, and a traditional
veto could be overridden quickly.

    The Bush administration claims that a provision that would allow
lawsuits against the new government of Iraq for crimes committed by
Saddam Hussein's regime prompted the unexpected veto. Specifically at
issue is Section 1083 of the bill, which would allow victims of
terrorism and torture to sue foreign governments for compensation.

    In a "Memorandum of Disapproval" issued by the White House on
December 28, Bush referred to Section 1083 of the bill as "a danger to
Iraq's progress," because it would allow people harmed by Hussein to
sue the government of Iraq and potentially "weaken the close
partnership between the United States and Iraq during this critical
period in Iraq's history."

    In the memo, Bush also claimed that by freezing Iraqi assets, the
provision could have negative consequences for the US economy. "By
potentially forcing a close US ally to withdraw significant funds from
the US financial system, section 1083 would cast doubt on whether the
United States remains a safe place to invest and to hold financial
assets."

    A Hardship for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans

    The vetoed Defense Authorization bill, not to be confused with the
defense spending bill passed in November, does not allocate funding,
but addresses a potpourri of defense-related issues, from missile
defense to naval research to supplies for troops in Iraq.

    Normally, a veto in any form is frustrating for Congressional
leaders. But, according to Veterans' Rights advocates, this action
could result in misery and even death for veterans of the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan.

    At a time when veteran suicides are skyrocketing, delaying the
passage of the authorization bill is "unconscionable," according to
Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, a
nonpartisan veterans' advocacy organization.

    "Americans are outraged that our wounded, injured and ill veterans
are waiting months or longer while the politicians dither about,"
Sullivan said, continuing, "Don't they know our veterans are dying
while they fail to do their jobs?"

    Twenty percent of the 224,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who
have filed a disability claim with the VA are still waiting for an
answer, according to VA data.

    The vetoed bill contained the Dignified Treatment for Wounded
Warriors Act, which would have expanded health care availability for
members and veterans of the armed services. It would have provided five
years of free medical care to all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, who
currently receive only two years. The bill also would have paved the
way for expedited access to mental health care for returning veterans,
who currently face a lengthy application process and waiting period for
services. In addition, the bill included a three and a half percent pay
raise for US troops.

    The White House has stressed that its veto will not jeopardize
benefits for troops and veterans, since they will be compensated
retroactively once the bill is enacted.

    However, Sullivan noted that the time between the veto and the
bill's enactment could be a matter of life or death for many veterans.
A veteran discharged on December 31, 2005, whose health benefits have
expired as of Monday, is currently without free health care until
legislation is passed.

    "A retroactive benefit is no good for a dead veteran and his or her
family," Sullivan said.

    Pocket Veto Rules

    The disagreement over Bush's attempted pocket veto is technical,
but quite important in this situation. If Bush legitimately used a
pocket veto, the bill would have to undergo the legislative process all
over again, further delaying its enactment. If, instead, the bill was
halted by a traditional veto, Congress has an opportunity to override
the veto quickly, putting the bill back on track as soon as it
reconvenes.

    Under a normal veto, the bill would be returned to Congress, where
representatives and senators would be given the opportunity to override
the veto with a two-thirds approval vote in both bodies. With a pocket
veto, there is no way to override the president, and Congress must
resubmit the legislation, hold new votes, and eventually resubmit the
bill to the president for his approval before it becomes law.

    "They can say that it wasn't a veto until they're blue in the face,
but the fact is that we were in Pro Forma session and the House was
able to receive messages, so this was a regular veto," Jim Manley,
spokesman for Reid told Truthout.

    The Senate has been holding "Pro Forma" meetings where one member
of the body opens the floor briefly every two or three days to prevent
the president from making recess appointments. The House instructed the
House clerk to receive communications from the executive branch during
the recess.

    According to Ohio State University Law Professor Peter Shane, the
fact that the House had a communication mechanism in place sufficiently
prevents Bush from using a pocket veto under legal precedent set by the
Washington, DC, Circuit Court. Shane pointed out that the actual case
that set the precedent (Kennedy v. Sampson) was thrown out by the
Supreme Court in 1987 on "unrelated procedural grounds" but added that
"the approach of the DC Circuit is clear and, unless they would now
take a different direction, the president cannot pocket veto a bill
that originated in the House if the House currently has someone
appointed to receive his veto message."

     However, the Democrats have not mounted significant challenges to
the Bush administration in most confrontations over constitutional
procedure or law.

[Matt Renner and Maya Schenwar are assistant editors and reporters
for Truthout.]