By Josiah Ryan, CNSNews.com [1]
(CNSNews.com) - The Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives could halt funding for the war in Iraq simply by omitting any war-funding bill from the floor schedule, experts told Cybercast News Service on Wednesday.
But rather than do that, the Democrats on Thursday plan to bring up a $195-billion bill to fund the war through the middle of next year. Republicans object to the bill for a number of reasons; President Bush has threatened to veto it because it includes a troop-pullout provision; and even some moderate Democrats don't like the bill because it includes benefit programs but no way to pay for them.
The Democrats' bill includes $163 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan; $11 billion for extending unemployment benefits; $720 million to pay for veterans' education; and $4.6 billion for military construction projects -- twice what President Bush has requested.
The bill also requires the Pentagon to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq within 30 days.
One liberal activist told Cybercast News Service that the Democrats have not and will not exclude war funding from the agenda because they are afraid of the reaction from press, the Democratic leadership, and the Democratic presidential candidates.
"Technically, the House leadership could just run out the clock and not fund the war. In the House the majority rules, and rules very strongly. The Republicans would have very little to say about it," said Danielle Doan, director of House relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "But leaving the war dry like that would leave young men and women in a very vulnerable situation and in harm's way."
"There is no constitutional or legal obligation to bring up any bill and much less a bill to fund an illegal occupation of a foreign country that you claim to oppose. There is absolutely none," said David Swanson, a liberal anti-war activist. "Technically, the House leadership could just run out the clock and not fund the war. They could simply do nothing. The leadership could simply choose not to bring it up and effectively it would be killed."
Swanson told Cybercast News Service that he believes Democrats are not willing to cut war funding because they are afraid of negative fallout: "They are afraid of being called names on television like weak on terror," he said. "Pelosi also looks very carefully at what Obama or Hillary might approve of."
So far the neither Obama nor Clinton, who both say they oppose to the war, have been willing to commit to plans to remove the U.S. from Iraq by 2013.
Swanson told Cybercast News Service that Democratic backbenchers don't push to defund because they do not want to get on the wrong side of the Democratic leadership.
"The other thing you hear is that ordinary Democrats in the House are afraid to annoy their party leadership. They like having their bills considered. They like their sub-committee chairmanships, they like support from the party, and they like lack of opposition in elections," said Swanson. "They place their party leadership above the demands of their constituents."
Doan told Cybercast News Service that even if Democratic leaders decided to omit war-funding legislation, Republicans would still have procedural options open to them. "They could bring it up as a discharge petition which is a right of the minority," she said. "If they bring up a discharge petition and manage to get 218 signatures, the bill will automatically go to the floor," she said.
Because there are now 199 Republicans in the House, a successful discharge petitiot would require the signatures of all Republicans and at least 19 Democrats.
"Democrats could sign the petition at their own peril," Doan said.
Swanson runs After Downing Street, a coalition that includes hundreds of prominent liberal activist groups, including Veterans Against the Iraq War and Code Pink.