In addition to the regular defense appropriation request of $463 billion, the President is asking Congress to appropriate an additional supplemental request of almost $200 billion - a blank check to finance U.S. activities in Iraq - and he clearly expects that request to be repeated for years to come.
"I would be more than willing to report out a supplemental meeting the President's request if that request were made in support of a change in policy that would do three things.
1. Establish as a goal the end of U.S. involvement in combat operations by January of 2009.
2. Ensure that troops would have adequate time at home between deployments as outlined in the Murtha and Webb amendments.
3. Demonstrate a determination to engage in an intensive, broad scale diplomatic offensive involving other countries in the region.
"But this policy does not do that. It simply borrows almost $200 billion to give to the Departments of State, Defense, Energy, and Justice with no change in sight.
"As Chairman of the Appropriations Committee I have absolutely no intention of reporting out of Committee anytime in this session of Congress any such request that simply serves to continue the status quo.
"I also have no intention of acquiescing in a policy that will result in draining the treasury so dry that it will result in the systematic disinvestment of America's future.
As long as Obey isn't willing to play along with a blank check, the supplemental simply will not be voted on in the House. This will allow for at least three more months before there is a vote on the floor.
This seems to be a mixed bag. On the one hand, it seems that there is a timeline and troop readiness standards in what Obey is looking for. Also, the extended timeline means that this might be the final supplemental Iraq appropriation fight with Bush in the White House. On the other hand, "a goal" sounds similar to the toothless bills currently being pushed by Bush Dogs and endangered Republicans alike. Also, it isn't clear if "ensure" means binding troop readiness standards, or simply promises from the Pentagon and the White House that are guaranteed to be broken.
I am intrigued and encouraged by this, but more info is needed. I like the idea of the appropriations committee bottling up the supplemental even if the entire House will not. It focuses the campaign more narrowly, for one thing, and puts the leadership in a more powerful position for another thing. Any Democrat on the appropriations committee who breaks with Obey and allows this bill to pass out of committee as a blank check should have his or her seat on the committee revoked by the leadership. Given that no one wants to lose a seat on appropriations, the Bush Dogs on the committee would be faced with a pretty big carrot and stick in order to stay in line.
The Bush Dogs on the appropriations committee are Alan Boyd, Ciro Rodriguez, Chet Edwards, and Ben Chandler. It also features supposedly anti-war Republican Jim Walsh. Without those five members, the partisan balance of the committee is 33-28 Democrat, meaning that there still isn't a conservative majority even if they all side with Republicans. If we can't block a blank check this bill in the appropriations committee, then we can't block it anywhere.
