UPFJ Legislative Update - 9/26/07

www.unitedforpeace.org

1. House passes CR, may delay vote on Iraq supplemental until January
2. Senate passes amendment on Iran
3. National Priorities Project releases new data for country and states on the Cost of the war
4. A new 'bi-partisan' agreement on Iraq war in the House

Congress has been busy this week on Iraq and Iran -- I apologize for so many emails, but I want to get the information to everyone as quickly as possible.

House votes additional billions for Iraq - Senate will vote tomorrow
Today the House passed a Continuing Resolution (known as a CR) to provide funds to keep the government operational beyond the end of the fiscal year (Oct. 1). While these funds will meet important human needs, the Democrats slipped billions of unneeded dollars for the war in Iraq into this CR. Only 12 members voted against the CR: Blumenauer, Clay, Ellison, Filner, Frank (MA), Hinchey, Kucinich, Lee, McDermott, Paul, Payne, Waters, Watson, Woolsey. Find the Roll Call Here

Why didn't you hear about this vote before it happened? While we knew that there would be a CR to fund things like children's healthcare, veterans affairs and all the other government programs, we did not know until late yesterday that the Dems were planning to slip money for Iraq into the bill.

In the meantime, an article in "The Hill" paper reported that Pelosi may hold off bringing the now $200 billion request for Iraq funding until January.

New bill on Iran, with possible implications for Iraq:
Yesterday, Rep. Walter Jones introduced a bill, HJRes53, also called the Constitutional War Powers Amendments of 2007. I have read through the bill but haven't had the chance to understand all its implications -- but wanted to let you know about it. I would appreciate hearing people's thoughts on this bill.

Senate votes on Amendments to the Defense Authorization Bill
non-binding amendment on Iraq partition (Biden amendment #2997) passes 75-23. Roll Call
non-binding resolution on Iran (Kyl/Lieberman amendment # ) passes 76-22. Roll Call
More on Kyl/Lieberman:
Senators who voted against the resolution were Senators Biden, Bingaman, Boxer, Brown, Byrd, Cantwell, Dodd, Feingold, Hagel, Harkin, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerry, Klobuchar, Leahy, Lincoln, Lugar, McCaskell, Tester, Webb and Wyden.

To find a silver lining in this vote -- given the Ahmadinejad-hysteria and the general anti-Iranian fervor in the media and Congress, we did well to get 22 No votes. In addition, Senators Lieberman and Kyl were forced to drop some of the worst language in the amendment to alleviate concerns that the resolution might be taken as an authorization for the use of force against Iran. In addition, we will be able to fight to have this amendment removed during the reconciliation process (a committee of House and Senate members who reconcile the differences between House and Senate versions of a bill). This fight is not over.

Senator Webb stood up once again to oppose the amendment, noting that if the administration proceeds as recommended in the resolution, it would be the first time that the US has designated an entire military as a terrorist organization and this could be taken as a defacto authorization for use of force. Mr. Webb again noted that there has not been one hearing on this matter and that the amendment should be withdrawn and considered in the appropriate committees.

Action: Please Call your Senators 202-224-3121
Thank them for a NO vote; or heap scorn on them for a YES vote. In either case, please add this talking point:
Even though the most provocative sections were eliminated, the amendment still could easily lead to a tit-for-tat escalation resulting in military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran and is like throwing more gasoline into a highly flammable forest. Rather than escalating tensions, the U.S. should pursue smart, tough-minded dialogue and diplomacy. It is time to stop threatening and start talking to Iran

As Senator Webb noted, there have been NO hearings on this matter and I encourage you to ask Senator Biden to conduct hearings on this issue in the Committee on Foreign Relations.

3. From NPP: COST OF IRAQ WAR WOULD RISE TO $617 BILLION UNDER NEW SPENDING REQUEST; STATE BREAKDOWNS AVAILABLE

The Bush Administration is expected to request today an additional $50 billion in war spending, which would bring the total cost of the Iraq War to $617 billion, according to the National Priorities Project (NPP), a national non-profit research organization.

With this upcoming request, the war spending proposal for Fiscal Year 2008 totals $200.7 billion. This amount includes $197 billion for the Department of Defense and $3.7 billion for other agencies. Of the total amount requested, $160.9 billion would be allocated to the Iraq War, according to NPP. Click here for a chart detailing the Fiscal Year 2008 request.

In addition to this national analysis, NPP offers state breakdowns of the cost of the Iraq War thus far, the cost to each state's taxpayers of the new funding request and the total cost of the war if Congress approves the request.

"This latest request is another urgent call to voters to weigh in with their Congresspeople and hold them accountable for how they're spending our tax dollars," said Greg Speeter, executive director of the National Priorities Project. "Should we be spending another $160 billion next year to continue fighting this failed war while the President claims we can't afford to give kids health care?"

4. Moderates are fed up with the rhetoric, but not the war apparently:

House Lawmakers Release Bipartisan Agreement On Iraq, Seek End To Rhetoric

The Hill - September 26, 2007- By Bob Cusack

A group of 28 House lawmakers unveiled a bipartisan agreement on Iraq Tuesday and called on their leaders to "end the political rhetoric and focus on substantive approaches to improving stability" in the Middle Eastern country.

At press time, Reps. Mike Castle (R-Del.) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.) released the multi-pronged "Bipartisan Compact on Iraq Debate." The compact was signed by 14 Democrats and 14 Republicans in the lower chamber.

In a release, Castle said, "Following months of gridlock, this is the most bipartisan agreement reached on the issue of Iraq in the House of Representatives. … I am hopeful this group can carve out the middle ground that is vital to achieving stability in the region and bringing our soldiers home from Iraq.

The eight principles that the 28 members agreed to are: bipartisan dialogue on Iraq; opposition to efforts to eliminate troop funding; a defined and measurable mission; a shift in responsibility to the Iraq government; adequate rest time for U.S. troops between deployments; safe and responsible redeployment based on recommendations from military leaders; transitioning of the U.S. mission to counterterrorism; support of Iraqi forces; and robust diplomacy in the Middle East.

Members who signed the compact are Reps. Tanner, Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), Bud Cramer (D-Ala.), Marion Berry (D-Ark.), Allen Boyd (D-Fla.), Brian Baird (D-Wash.), Nick Lampson (D-Texas), Dennis Moore (D-Kan.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah), Mike Ross (D-Ark.), Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.), Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin ( D-S.D.), Dan Boren (D-Okla.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), Castle, Thomas Petri (R-Wis.), Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.), Phil English (R-Pa.), Steven LaTourette (R-Ohio), Sue Myrick ( R-N.C.), Judy Biggert (R-Ill.), Timothy Johnson (R-Ill.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), Jim Gerlach (R-Pa.), and Charles Dent (R-Pa.)