Democrats won't overcome the balance of power without convincing republicans to sign on

[bigtree]

to our legislative initiatives and actions . . . like we did in the opening session in the House with the bipartisan advancement of legislation the republican leadership had been blocking.

I don't know why folks think we can afford to throw away the votes of republicans who want to work out compromises on important issues like Iraq. I don't know why some seem to be willing to leave our soldiers in place while they stand on their 'principles'. A partisan bill which had all of the Democrats voting and the miracle of overcoming the inevitable republican filibuster would still face a certain veto when the bill reached the White House - in effect, making the entire effort worth nothing more than a protest vote; ineffective and accomplishing nothing.

On the other hand, the non-binding resolution would stand without a presidential signature. It provides bipartisan pretext for the Democrats next announced move to use the budget process to put the lid on the escalation and pressure Bush to end his occupation. It also lays down a bipartisan pretext for any future action which intends to hold Bush accountable for ignoring the (bipartisan) will of Congress and the American people - something which shouldn't just be presented in a partisan way, out of the blue, if we expect such an extreme rebuke to get the support in and out of Congress it needs to succeed.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[Warren Stupidity]

1. We do not need one Republican vote to end the war.

The house can defeat the next military appropriations bill for the Iraq War Crime and then it will be up to Dumbass to give in or walk outside the constitutional framework. We do not need any of their votes to do this, all we need is the courage to do the right thing.

[bigtree]

5. that sounds way too simplistic

can't Defense appropriations be held subject to a cloture vote?

I think they can even filibuster the Defense Appropriations bill in committee.

The Budget Reconciliation bill is the only kind of legislation that cannot be filibustered on the Senate floor.

[liberaldemocrat7]

14. The Democrats only control one house of congress. Pressure Republican contributors.

THE MILLION PHONE MARCH.


No Free speech Zones. NO arrests. No marginalization by the press.

You call Republican contributor and war contractor General Electric Corporation 203-373-2211 http://www.ge.com and give them an ultimatum.

GET THE GOP to END THE WAR or WE DON'T BUY YOUR PRODUCTS ANYMORE.

NO CEO WANTS THEIR TELEPHONE LINES TIED UP AND TO GET CALLS FROM THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
EVERY DAY WHILE THEY LOSE MONEY. NO CEO. NOT ONE.

"The Republican party appears weak and vulnerable at the cash registers of those companies that donate money to them."

[Warren Stupidity]

15. The House is not the Senate.

"can't Defense appropriations be held subject to a cloture vote?"

There is no such thing in the house. And you miss the point entirely. The Iraq War Crime is funded by a separate special (and off budget) appropriations bill. The House simply needs to vote this down. The Senate is not even involved in that. The Senate can pass anything it wants, but appropriation bills have to originate and pass first in the House. The appropriation can be defeated by a simple majority vote in the house. No veto can override a legislative defeat. We have the power to end this war and the only thing stopping us is our cowardice.

[bigtree]

18. I haven't missed anything. The House can ram anything they want through

it still has to mesh with the Senate. If the Senate bill is different it will go to committee. If the committee reports it out it will THEN go to reconciliation.

There is no easy path to what we want out of our Democrats. Folks shouldn't be misleading us into believing that there is an easy path.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. OK I'll try again very slowly.

A no vote on funding in the house ends the funding for the war.

The war is funded by a special appropriations bill. If this bill is defeated in the house that is the end of the appropriations process. It is not the act of passing anything - passed bills are indeed subject to all sorts of maneuvers to modify them. It is instead the act of defeating a bill that cannot be circumvented. Defeated appropriations bills are dead on their defeat in the house. A no vote on funding in the house ends the funding for the war.

[bigtree]

22. again

THAT bill will have to go to the Senate. They can do whatever they want to it, amend it like crazy. If you think it will sail through without any revision, you are more optimistic than I am.

If it stalls in conference, other functions of the defense dept. can be funded by a continuing resolution. The entire process is within our control, but by no means assured. The FY 2006 defense authorization bill stalled in the Senate and it took four additional months for the legislation to return to the floor.

Of course, once they reconcile the differences in conference it can't be fiddled with again or filibustered before the vote.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. I actually give up.

THAT bill, defeated by a simple majority in the house goes nowhere. That you continue to not understand this simple fact amazes me. But I give up. One of us is being deliberately obtuse.

[bigtree]

23. here

from the Nation: http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070202/cm_thenation/20070219cockburn

In September 2006 Congress passed the FY 2007 Defense Appropriations Act, containing $70 billion for war, which Bush has been spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That money will last at least until March, and after that, Defense can always shift money around in its existing budget till a new supplemental is passed. So for now Bush has the money he needs to surge. But it's untrue that there's nothing effective Congress can do.

On February 5, in considering the supplemental appropriation requested by the White House, Congress could decree no money for the surge and impose a ceiling on the number of US military in Iraq. The President could rotate the troops but not increase their number. To give this teeth, Congress could simultaneously decree that no money for surging could be used from previously appropriated funds, which is something the Defense Department can do unless there is an express prohibition.

So a surge no-no in the supplemental appropriation is a legislative possibility. In the House, the defense appropriations subcommittee is chaired by Jack Murtha, who wants to bring the troops home now. Murtha could put a ceiling on troop levels and other prohibitions in the bill, but then he'd have to get it through the full committee and onto the floor. A lot would depend on Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), who could dispose of procedural tripwires. Then Murtha's bill would land in the Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense, chaired by Daniel Inouye, where it would be vulnerable to fiercer procedural attacks on a "point of order," since it would be "legislating" an appropriations bill previously passed. And of course the supplemental, altered by Congress, would have to survive a Bush veto.

It's easy for Bush to veto a one-page bill decreeing no money for any troops above, say, 140,000. On February 5, Congress also begins to consider the half-trillion-dollar FY 2008 Defense Appropriations Bill. If Congress installs curbs on the war in Iraq there, Bush can only veto the entire bill.

So Congress can deny Bush the money he wants, to escalate the war or even continue it, through either of the two legislative routes described above.

[bigtree]

25. further

from OMB Watch: http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3695/1/475

The power of the purse is not unlimited. First and foremost, an appropriations bill is subject to a point of order if it "legislates." Legislating on appropriations means the appropriations bill limits, directs or conditions funding in a way that does not comport with enacted authorizations, which enable or create government policy but often do not fund them. The Congressional Research Service summarizes this restriction:

Under Senate and House rules, limitations, as well as other language in the text of appropriations legislation, cannot change existing law (paragraphs 2 and 4 of Senate Rule XVI and clause 2(b) and (c) of House Rule XXI). That is, they cannot amend or repeal existing law nor create new law (referred to as legislation or legislation on an appropriations bill). Limitations also may not extend beyond the fiscal year for which an appropriation is provided.

In other words, Congress must waive a point of order, provided one is raised, to turn on funding for policies that are not already written into law. When this happens, it is what's known as an "unauthorized appropriation." In addition, appropriations bills that change the terms of enacted authorizations are subject to points of order.

This obstacle is not as restrictive as it may appear. Points of order are not self-enforcing, as a member must raise a point of order for it to take effect. In the House, points of order can be waived by special order of the Rules Committee. In the Senate, a 3/5ths majority is necessary for a waiver. And this point of order has limited application. It does not apply to limitations that proscribe or prescribe funding certain activities, unless they amend, repeal or enact authorizing legislation, or require the enactment of a separate authorization.

What's more, there is ample evidence of unauthorized appropriations surviving year after year. The Congressional Budget Office produces a report each year itemizing unauthorized appropriations that continue to pass each year. Therefore, the point of order must be waived from time to time, or not raised at all.

Yet there are other ways this power is limited, such as through the presidential veto. Just like any other bill, appropriations bills are vulnerable to a possible veto, which can be overturned only by a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate. Further, the president could also choose to not comply with directives included in an appropriations bill. Someone must then enter litigation to force presidential compliance. If such a dispute were to enter the courts, Congress's authority would likely be affirmed. Many constitutional law experts have asserted Congress has the constitutional authority to construct rules that guide military affairs.

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3695/1/475

[bigtree]

24. and there's this potential outside of the entire process

Past Is Prologue: Bush to Buck Congress' Yokes
By Spencer Ackerman - February 5, 2007, 10:08 AM

. . . don't expect an end to appropriations-based chicanery. Even though the new Democratic Congress is sure to embed any number of restrictions on the war into the language of the next defense bill, President Bush has an important arrow in his quiver for doing what he wants outside of the budget process: signing statements, his constitutionally-murky declarations of how he intends to implement a law. And if last year's defense bill is any indication, he's set to use them.

This time last year, the GOP was firmly in control of Congress. Even so, lawmakers slipped in provisions to the fiscal 2007 defense bill to prevent the president from using his power in certain reckless ways. For example, buried in at section 8007 is a restriction on covert action:

Funds appropriated by this Act may not be used to initiate a special access program without prior notification 30 calendar days in advance to the congressional defense committees.

In a nutshell, Congress was trying to ensure that special operations didn't run amok, as happened in places like Camp Nama outside of Baghdad, where detainee abuse was widespread. Bush, zealously protective of his authority, signed the defense bill -- but declared in a signing statement that he wouldn't abide by the provision, or others like it:

Although the advance notice contemplated by sections 8007, 8084, and 9005 can be provided in most situations as a matter of comity, situations may arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his constitutional grants of executive power and authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while protecting certain extraordinarily sensitive national security information. The executive branch shall construe these sections in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President.

This move wasn't new: Bush has claimed exclusive jurisdiction on special operations since the start of the war on terrorism. And it's not known what effect this most recent signing statement actually had. But there have been a number of questionable special operations set up in Iraq over the last year, such as Task Force 16, which seeks to disrupt Iranian activity in Iraq -- something several lawmakers fear may spur further conflict. But with a more hostile Democratic Congress seeking to rein the president in on Iraq -- and many Republicans joining in out of political expediency -- expect an invigorated focus on signing statements.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002479.php

[Hippo_Tron]

26. The House doesn't even need to vote it down

The House Rules Committee just needs to never let it reach the floor.

[bigtree]

27. something *should* emerge to be acted upon by the Senate

It will be an interesting struggle.

[Selatius]

2. Do we always need 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate?

What if Reid simply lowered the bar to 51 and then ramrod them through? It feels like the Repubs have been doing that to us the last 6 years.

[tritsofme]

3. It takes 75 votes to change the rules in the Senate.

You also IMHO falsely assume there are 51 votes to do such a thing.

[Robbien]

4. You need 60 votes to pass a veto proof bill

A bill can pass with just 51 votes but POTUS can then veto it.

[tritsofme]

6. 67 votes is veto proof in the Senate, 290 in the House

You need 60 votes in the Senate just to invoke cloture and end debate on the bill.

[jwirr]

8. We only need one more than half to pass a bill in senate but we

need 60 if we are going to be veto proof. If we do not have the votes to override then *ss will surely veto anything we send him.

[madfloridian]

7. Thanks to Joe Lieberman. And Dems for Joe who supported him.

.

[mmonk]

9. Non binding resolutions really have no standing power

and provide easy cover for different agendas. Net effect, nothing really happens but satisfies people that something was being done (but really wasn't).

[bigtree]

10. The effect of a defeat of such a resolution would have huge political ramifications for Democrats

So, the passage of this bipartisan rebuke would carry weight and give momentum to their next actions.

They may be better off, as Reid has indicated in a NYT article, to let the thing stand as is, obstructed by republicans. As many Democrats, Durbin and others stated in their floor speeches, they have no illusions about the 'power' of a non-binding resolution. They are, however, well aware of the political value in advancing the case against Bush's occupation by registering the FIRST meaningful vote against Bush's occupation with the certain numbers of republicans who will sign on if it come to the floor for a vote.

Also, EVERYONE in the leadership has said they will look to the appropriations legislation and hearings to press their case further. They will not stop at this non-binding resolution effort. They've said this all along. Reid is quoted as saying exactly that in the NYT today.

[mmonk]

11. We shall see. I don't see how a resolution that is

popular with the people harms democrats if it is defeated by republicans. The non binding resolutions do have a political effect for some that sign on, present new non binding resolutions, and 08 candidates that want to espouse their expertise on Iraq with their own "plan", but have no illusions about their lack of worth.

[mmonk]

12. IMO, the non-binding resolutions are thus so over the issue

of funding. This way, they don't absorb criticism by the right that they don't support the troops currently there and of course, their own desires about the money train.

[bigtree]

16. I don't think that's our leadership's goal, just a political dodge.

some will try to hide behind it, but, you can see by their reluctance to move forward how significant republicans think this resolution will be to the rest of the debates to come over Iraq. If it's such a meaningless thing, why won't they let it through?

When it does move, if it does, watch the media reaction. I predict it will be covered as a major rebuke, putting the WH even further on the defensive.

[mmonk]

13. I think pressure will eventually get enough republicans on board

with doing something about this war. It's not going to get better anytime soon. That's why I'm adamant on applying the maximum pressure. My wife's cousin has a son that keeps being called back on tours of duty.

[bigtree]

17. I think pressure is the ONLY thing which will move the WH.

Our party leadership isn't finished. There is much more to come.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said that “time was tenuous” and that he would not guarantee that Democrats would try again to bring up the resolution. He did promise that there would be more clashes over Iraq policy as the Senate turned to measures like the president’s request for $100 billion in emergency Iraq spending.

“You can run but you can’t hide,” Mr. Reid told his Republican colleagues on the floor. “We are going to debate Iraq.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/washington/06cong.html?bl=&_r=1&ei=5087%0A&en=c801393758b8ad51&ex=1170910800&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

[mmonk]

19. I support an up or down vote concerning Iraq for

the purposes of record. My only problem with all these non binding resolutions is it falsely gives the appearance that everyone is working on the issue. The problem with that is it allows further media distortion and changes the debate into false questions and framing about de-funding the war vs. de-funding the troops and leaving them helpless against attacks. We have too many dems falling into this trap and being paralyzed from acting based on fear of this false framing. It's time to destroy false framing with a sledgehammer.

[bigtree]

20. The action against the escalation gave us a lever to highlight the issue in a progressive way

instead of just revisiting the old arguments (which we will again anyway in our hearings and debates).

I think the 'binding' efforts will be necessarily partisan, at least for the near future. That will make it hard to even get these initiatives to the floor for a debate, much less a vote. We will act on the appropriations, but that process will be muddled and obstructed in some way because of the balance of power in both bodies.

The ONLY way to move the issue our way is to pressure the republicans and the WH from ALL angles and with every lever available. But you can already see the outlines of the opposition. Binding and non-binding alike are going to suffer attempts to divert and derail in the short-term, and beyond if we don't find our own way to divert them and distract their efforts by pressuring on other things they want or need politically.