Democrats Hoyer, Pelosi Hand White House Sweeping Legislative Victories

By Jason Leopold, The Public Record

When Democrats regained control of Congress for the first time in 12 years nearly in November 2006, Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi explained the significance behind the record voter turnout that helped shift in the balance of power in Washington.

“People voted for change and they voted for Democrats who will take our country in a new direction,” Pelosi said during a victory speech in San Francisco on Nov. 8, 2006.

Pelosi, a San Francisco Democrat who became the first female Speaker of the House, never managed to exact the type of change she promised her supporters.

In a one-two punch Thursday and Friday, Democrats, led by Pelosi, gave the Bush administration sweeping new domestic spy powers, immunized telecom companies that participated in possibly illegal surveillance of American citizens, and agreed to further fund the occupation of Iraq with a promise to the White House that the final bill would not include benchmarks or timetables for withdrawal.

The Senate is expected to vote on both bills next week and would put to rest of months of partisan bickering and guarantees that the issue won’t pop up during the height of the presidential campaign in the fall. President Bush said he would sign both pieces of legislation into law when it crosses his desk

The passage of the emergency supplemental bill to continue military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan took place less than 24-hours before former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s testified before the House Judiciary Committee, where he told lawmakers that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was based largely on phony intelligence that was used by the Bush administration to win support for the war.

McClellan’s testimony Friday was actually interrupted at one point so Judiciary Committee members could vote on an overhaul to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). That measure was brokered over the past two weeks by Pelosi and Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer despite a public outcry that the plan gave the White House far more powers than it was seeking.

There are about 40 lawsuits pending against telecom companies, such as AT&T and Verizon, for taking part in the administration’s warrantless surveillance program, hatched in secret by the Bush administration shortly after 9/11. Many civil liberties groups believe the surveillance was illegal.

Democrats called the new FISA bill a “compromise” and pointed out that it does not shield telecoms from lawsuits. Rather, Pelosi said in a floor statement the bill requires a federal district court to review the written authorizations telecom corporations received from the attorney general at the time stating that a presidential order required them to tap phones in order to prevent a terrorist attack.

If the documents appeared to be in order, a judge would dismiss the lawsuit.

In addition to the immunity provision, civil liberties and privacy groups are opposed to the bill because they say it weakens oversight of the surveillance court and allows the Bush administration to initiate a wiretap without first seeking a warrant.

“It’s Christmas morning at the White House thanks to this vote,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislative Office. “The House just wrapped up some expensive gifts for the administration and their buddies at the phone companies. It is not a meaningful compromise, except of our constitutional rights. The bill allows for mass, untargeted and unwarranted surveillance of all communications coming in to and out of the United States. The courts’ role is superficial at best, as the government can continue spying on our communications even after the FISA court has objected. Democratic leaders turned what should have been an easy FISA fix into the wholesale giveaway of our Fourth Amendment rights.

Congressman Maurice Hinchey, (D-NY), who voted against the surveillance bill, said he understands there is need to update the 1977 FISA law in light of the technological advancements to communications over the past 30 years. But “sacrificing our basic civil liberties and granting de facto immunity to telecommunication companies that may have violated the law to appease the Bush administration is simply unacceptable.”

In a strange twist, Sen. Arlen Specter, (R-Penn.), sparred with Pelosi over the extraordinary powers the Democrats’ bill grants to the White House, saying the legislation does not appear to prevent the White House from initiating surveillance without a court order.

“This proposal dodges" that, Specter said.

Democrats Approved $300 Billion For Iraq Since 2006

The $162 billion emergency supplemental appropriations bill sailed through the House by a vote of 268-155 late Thursday and won support from Democrats largely as a result of the tens of billions of dollars in domestic spending attached to the legislation, including an extension of unemployment insurance, and funding for a new GI Bill for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. The bill ensures the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are funded well into 2009 and brings the total cost for the conflict to about $650 billion.

In a floor statement before the bill was passed, Pelosi lauded her colleagues for working in a bipartisan manner and explained why she was voting in favor of the legislation.

“Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry I cannot fully participate in all of the camaraderie that is accompanying this legislation because of the huge amount of money that is in this bill to fund the war in Iraq without any conditions, without any limitation on time spent there,” Pelosi said. “President Bush started a war based on a false premise,” Pelosi continued. “He sent our troops into a situation that he didn’t know what he was getting into. “Five years later we are still engaged in the war in Iraq. Two years longer than we were in World War II. And that has come at a very great cost. The costs are clear, of course, and we all mourn: 4,100 of our troops have lost their lives in battle; tens of thousands of our troops injured, many of them permanently.”

“We sent the original bill to the Senate with conditions and they struck it,” Pelosi said. “We have no choice. This is not about a failure of the House of Representatives. It’s about what we cannot get past the next body and onto the next President’s desk... I will enthusiastically vote for the domestic portion, I’m not urging anyone to do anything. I just want you to know why I will be voting no on the spending without constraint.”

Pelsoi’s comments appear to be disingenuous. She is largely responsible for engineering the latest emergency appropriations in backroom discussions with Democratic leaders in the House and then worked secretly with the White House budget director offering up concessions for benchmarks on the condition that Bush would agree to the domestic spending attached to the final bill, according to aides to several Democratic leaders in the House.

There was little debate preceding a vote on the measure.

"The president basically gets a blank check to dump this war on the next president," said Congressman Jim McGovern, (D-Mass.) "I was hoping George Bush would end his war while he's president."

Since November 2006, Democrats have approved more than $300 billion in emergency spending bills for Iraq and Afghanistan without the benchmarks or withdrawal timetables they said they would demand. Pelosi and Hoyer received numerous written warnings and testimony about the Pentagon’s mismanagement of war funds since they assumed control of Congress in January 2008. The total cost of the war when the Democrats took over

David Walker, comptroller general of the Government Accountability Office, testified before the Congressional Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Affairs in July 2006 about the lack of actual costs, supporting documentation and routine financial reporting problems by the Pentagon.
The DOD "has not been willing to provide Congress" with the data it uses to predict its operating costs on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, Walker said.

At the time he said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "make it difficult to reliably know what the war is costing, to determine how appropriated funds are being spent, and to use historical data to predict future trends."