Live Blogging House War Funding Debate

By David Swanson

As illustrated in this graphic by Chris Jeffries, the Dems have surrendered. They’ve surrendered to Bush and Cheney and abandoned our troops to remaining in Iraq to kill, die, and suffer for - let’s be exact here - eternity. The votes this week are only happening because the Democratic leadership has chosen to make them happen. If members of the Democratic leadership vote No, that is only because they are hypocrits. They are only voting No because they know there are enough Yes votes for passage - with most of those Yes votes coming from Republicans. Pelosi not only takes her talking points from the RNC ("Impeachment is off the table"). She facilitates votes for Republicans. Senators abandoned by their "leadership" should not simply vote No; they should filibuster.

If we can get enough Democrats to vote No (or filibuster), it could wreck the whole pretense. And at least we’re going to have an honest vote for the first time, where everyone admits that a Yes vote is to fund the war and a No vote is to not fund the war... Unless, the Democrats make the only vote a vote on a Rule, to try to hide the war vote (this is what David Sirota claims will happen). If the Republicans vote No because they want an open debate, all of the Democrats except for the handful of them with some integrity, will have been lined up to vote Yes. Then that Yes vote will have to be depicted as (somehow) a vote to end the war by funding it. It appears more likely that, even with the vote on a rule, the Republicans will vote Yes to fund the war, and Democrats who join them will be clearly on record funding the war too.

10:30 a.m. They do appear to be debating and then voting on a rule. Congresswoman Louise Slaughter actually just claimed on the floor of the House that if Congress does not fund the war, Bush will continue the war but lack money for things the troops need. She promised to always fund the war. And she bragged about the (waiverable) "benchmarks," the minimum wage, etc., etc. What a disgrace! The troops can be left in Iraq or be brought safely home. They aren’t going to be left in Iraq without food or supplies. A President who continues a war that Congress ends must be impeached, not obeyed.

10:40 Rep. David Dreier is speaking, apparently in opposition to the rule. The rule dumps more money into the war than Bush asked for. Bush should not be given any check, even with notes scrawled all over both sides of it, but this check is indeed blank. Dreier is not upset about that. He is upset about the maneuverings of the Democrats in Congress and the early morning Rules Committee meeting today.

10:44 Dreier is now speaking in support of continuing the war. Does this mean the Republicans will vote Yes? Will lots of Democrats (though not enough) vote No?

10:50 Rep. David Obey is talking now, blaming the White House for the late timing. "I hate this agreement. I’m going to vote against the major portion of this agreement even though I negotiated it." Wow. Obey should run for President. He’s the sort of clear and consistent guy the Democrats like to run.

10:54 Obey is now blaming Bush’s veto for preventing money from getting to the troops. As long as Obey is maintaining the pretense that the money is for the troops, and is planning to vote No on it, it is clear that he knows there are enough Yes votes for it to pass and that he wants it to pass.

11:03 Rep. Jim McGovern is blaming Bush for the occupation and blaming the Senate for being "too timid". He’s a No vote. No votes are being given time to speak by Slaughter - at least if they’re high ranking on Rules Committee.

11:08 Rep. Dan Lungren is speaking. He’s a Yes vote, supporting Bush and the war and its escalation, attacking "the enemy."

11:14 Rep. Greg Walden, another Republican, is speaking on a side issue.

11:21 Rep. Jay Inslee is speaking against giving Bush "a blank check" - he’s said the phrase about 4 times. Sounds like a No vote. How giving Bush ANY KIND of check could be justified is beyond me.

11:29: Dreier is still upset about the rushed process and advocates voting No on Rule. But if rule succeeds, he says, "I thank God that we are going to pass this measure."

11:36 They’re voting.

11:37 Apparently they’re going to wait to vote on this together with other vote(s) later tonight. It appears there will be further debate and vote in House tonight, and a Senate vote tonight or tomorrow.

1:23 p.m. Here’s the vote on the rule to have the debate and vote, H Res 438 providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2206, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007. Only seven Democrats voted No: CLAY, HARMAN, KUCINICH, MCNERNEY (finally), MOORE, STARK, WATERS. Harman nearly lost a primary to peace candidate Marcy Winograd. Where are our other usually reliable members? The vote was 218-201. They could have voted No and still achieved passage. 8 Dems and 5 Repubs didn’t vote at all (see above link). Here’s what the AP says:

"The House voted 218-201 to advance the measure, paving the way for a final vote later that day. Democrats, who said they were disappointed with the White House deal, agreed not to block debate so long as the House would vote later this year on a separate proposal to bring troops come home before July 2008."

This little crumb (from AP) might be closest thing to silver lining on this one:

"The bill also for the first time explicitly states that the U.S. would leave Iraq if asked by the Baghdad government."

Unbeknownst to Congress, it already has been.

Open for list of who says they’ll vote No on endless war and who says they plan to vote yes.

Call Congress and help us update this list.

HOUSE

Nancy Pelosi - will vote No according to American Progress Action Fund

Jerrold Nadler - will vote No according to constituent Rusti Eisenberg, leans No according to The Hill, will vote No according to Courtney Lee Adams

Lynn Woolsey - will vote No according to The Hill

Raul Grijalva - will vote No - has released statement

Dennis Kucinich - will vote No - has released statement

Jan Schakowsky - will vote No according to a constituent

Ed Markey - will vote No according to constituent Susan Lees

Anna Eshoo - will vote No according to Lenny Siegel who found it on her website

Welch - will vote NO — from a constituent in anonymous comment below

Barbara Lee - wil vote No according to anonymous comment below

Carolyn Maloney - will vote No according to constituent Frances Anderson

Yvette Clark - undecided according to Rusti Eisenberg, will vote no according to Sam Koprak

Lois Capps - will vote No according to constituent Dinah Mason who got that from Danielle in her DC office

Diane Watson - will vote No according to Tim Carpenter who got an Email from Jim Clarke in her office who said they’d received 300 calls about it today

Mike Capuano - will vote NO according to constituent Vicky Steinitz

Pallone of NJ 6th - will most likely vote NO on supplemental according to an anonymous comment below citing a staffer.

Tammy Baldwin - will vote No according to Joy First of Madison, WI, who writes: "I called Tammy Baldwin’s (Wisconsin House) staff in DC and they told me she will vote no. We brought flowers to her Madison office where it was confirmed by them also."

Olver - will vote No according to an Email from his staff sent to Tim Carpenter.

Keith Ellison - will vote No (finally) according to Michael Perkins

Kennedy - will vote No according to Providence Journal

Langevin - will vote No according to Providence Journal

Sam Farr - will vote no according to Medea Benjamin

Massachusetts Reps - "Re our reps, we seem to have all NO votes here in MA, except perhaps Lynch." - Susan Lees

Jim Moran - will vote No according to constituent Peter Rush: "This is Peter Rush, in Virginia, and I just called Jim Moran’s office (VA-8) about 9:30 Thursday, and they told me Moran is voting against the bill. If true, this would mean that he has changed his mind, in the right direction, since yesterday. I also called the offices of the other Democrats from Virginia, Bobby Scott from Richmond (VA-3) and Rick Boucher (VA-9), but their staffs say they don’t know how he will vote, and Sen. Jim Webb, whose staffer also said he didn’t know how Webb was going to vote. Webb gave a pretty strong speech April 26 justifying his vote for the previous bill, and it would be a betrayal of what he said if he turns around and supports this one, so we’ll see."

Carol Shea-Porter 1st District NH - will vote NO according to Beth, an office staffer, according to constituent Barbara Hilton. And she just said so on the floor.

Yarmuth (D-KY) voting NO, according to Kevin Martin

McNulty (D-NY) voting NO according to Kevin Martin

Carson (D-IN) voting NO according to Kevin Martin

Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) NO according to Kelly Campbell

Rep Fatah - will vote No, David Gibson reports: "OK. Just spoke with Nuku Ofori, Fatah’s LD on Iraq. He told me that Fatah was not taking a position until the actual language of the Bill was released, which it was today, and that he was to brief the Congressman on the bill. He also told me that we can expect a "No" vote if there is no exit language in it, which seems to be the case."

Pete Stark (CA) will vote NO according to a constituent call, reported via email

Henry Waxman (CA) will vote NO according to a constituent call, reported via email

 

David Wu (D-OR) leaning NO according to Kelly Campbell

Nydia Velasquez - is leaning NO according to Eisenberg

Edolphus Towns (NY) leaning NO, according to anonymous commenter below, Rusti Eisenberg reports: "Cong Towns (D-Brooklyn) is leaning towards a "No" but is not decided. Its pretty dismaying that "antiwar" Congressional reps can’t make up their mind on this "no-brainer.""

 

Rahm Emmanuel — undecided according to constituent call, quotes in news suggest he’s voting YES

Chris Van Hollen - undecided according to constituent Sue Udry

Maurice Hinchey - undecided according to The Hill

Ed Perlmutter - undecided according to the Hill

Charles Rangel - undecided, likely No, according to constituent Nancy Kricorian

Bobby Scott - "Undecided! Richmond office suggested he would vote no since he voted against war to begin with but suggested I call DC office. Did so and was told he was undecided, but the person that answered was unaware that the debate would be taking place today (maybe it is not?). Call his DC office at 202-225-8351 if he is your rep. Thanks, Rain"

Bob filner - undecided according to constituent Barbara Cummings who writes: "I just called again and his DC office said he has not made up his mind and is taking calls today. So I’m notifying everyone I know in this district to call now. 202 225 8045 Please ask everyone to call. They did ask for my address so don’t cheat."

 

Mark Udall - is leaning Yes according to constituent Stephanie Westbrook, who writes: "Staff at Mark Udall’s office (CO 2) haven’t had a chance to talk with him about this (!) but think he will vote YES, in order to support the troops. I asked where in the supplemental there is anything about supporting the troops. No answer. I was reminded, as I am every time I call, that he voted against the war. I replied that it is much more acceptable to me someone who voted for the war back in 2002 and votes to end it now than vice-versa. I also told them that I read the statement on his web site saying he will introduce new legislation after memorial day which "implements the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and provides a foundation for the phased withdrawal of American troops out of Iraq beginning in March of next year" and instead urge him to take action NOW by voting NO on the supplemental. If there are any other people out there from CO-2, please call Udall’s office!"

 

Joe Sestak - will vote Yes according to The Hill — Rep Sestak - undecided and leaning Yes, David Gibson reports: "According to his Washington DC office, Joe Sestak is leaning yes, but still on the fence. Call right away and tell him not to betray his pledge to vote for a date certain and vote "No" on this supplemental unless an exit timeline to fund a withdrawl by the end of this year is reinserted. We want a ’No" vote. Here is his office number:

1-202-225-2011 Cranston Grey is the Legislative Aide on Iraq. Please call right away!"

Dutch Ruppersberger - will vote Yes according to The Hill

Larsen (D-WA)- will vote Yes according to anonymous comment below

Danny Davis - will likely vote Yes: "I spoke with him myself after hearing it from the receptionist. He needs a SWARM!" - Robin, Maywood, IL

Louise Slaughter - will vote yes: she actually claimed on the floor of the House on Thursday morning that if Congress does not fund the war, Bush will continue the war but lack money for things the troops need. She promised to always fund the war. And she bragged about the (waiverable) "benchmarks," the minimum wage, etc., etc. What a disgrace!

Brown (SC) voting YES according to Kevin Martin

Mark Kirk - will vote Yes according to an Email from David _____.

 

SENATE

 

Chris Dodd - will vote No and said so on CNN according to Rusti Eisenberg

Russ Feingold - will vote No - has released statement

Kerry and Kennedy - "Yesterday we heard ’undecided’ from both Kerry and Kennedy offices.. Today’s Boston Globe article now reports Kerry as a NO, and Kennedy undecided." - Susan Lees

Pat Leahy (VT) will vote NO, according to press release

 

Dick Durbin - undecided according to anonymous comment below

Clinton - undecided according to Courtney Lee Adams

Schumer - undecided according to Courtney Lee Adams

NJ Senators - undecided: From Susan: "Sen. Menendez’s office didn’t know how he plans to vote. I couldn’t get through to Sen. Lautenberg’s office. Will try again later."

 

Barbara Mikulski - will vote Yes

Reed - will vote Yes according to Providence Journal

Whitehouse - will vote Yes according to Providence Journal: Anonymous comment: "Today’s Providence Journal actually said, ’Sheldon Whitehouse said he MAY also support the war funds bill.’ That means UNDECIDED, or leaning, not a firm YES as your list indicates. C’mon, my fellow Rhode Islanders, call him NOW."

Biden - will vote Yes according to USA Today

Bunning - YES according to Kevin Martin

McConnell - YES according to Kevin Martin

Graham - YES according to Kevin Martin

DeMint - YES according to Kevin Martin

Sen Ken Salazar (D-CO) to vote Yes, by stephaniewestbrook, "But! plans to introduce legislation after the break calling for phased withdrawal. Ugh. Can’t vote against the supplemental because then the troops wouldn’t get the armor they need to defend themselves. Double ugh. Colorado voters - call his office! May take you a while to get through."

Senator Casey - will vote Yes, David Gibson reports: "I just Spoke a Legislative Correspondent for Sen. Casey. They tell me that Casey plans to vote for the Supp. But will vote for a new bill, Salazar - ? I didn’t get the other name on the bill, that they tell me will implement the Iraq study group recommendations. I have not heard of this bill till now. They did tell me, after I lobbied them to tell the Sen. how disappointed we were in that position and in his vote against Fiengold, that they cannot say for sure and doesn’t want to quote him. They seemed to indicate that it was possible that Casey could still change his vote, but it sounded like a heavy lift to me. They went on to say how the Sen. agrees with us in principal. I told them that he should vote his principals and put them into practice then. They thanked me and told me to call them anytime. Here’s their number. Send to your networks. 202-224-6324"

POST ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS AS COMMENTS BELOW

It’s very helpful if you log in and then post comments - that way they show up immediately and we don’t have to approve them.