Congress Reaches Deal On New Defense Bill After Bush Veto

The Hill reports:

Congress has reached a compromise with the White House over a defense authorization bill provision that had drawn complaints from the Iraqi government.

Those complaints prompted President Bush to veto the defense bill last month. He complained that a provision in the bill that allowed victims of terrorism to be awarded compensation from frozen foreign assets of state sponsors of terror could have crippled the fledgling Iraqi government with billions of dollars in liability.

Under the compromise, Iraq is excluded from the provision, but other state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran and Syria, could see frozen assets used as compensation. The compromise is likely to leave American victims taken hostage and tortured by Saddam Hussein’s regime during the first Gulf War without recourse in U.S. federal court.

The new language allows the president to waive the entire provision with regards to claims against Iraq for acts of terrorism that happened before or on the date of the enactment of the 2008 defense authorization bill. The president is required to make a national security determination before issuing a waiver and must notify Congress 30 days prior to issuing it.

However, the changed provision does give a nod to those who had wanted Iraq to be covered by the provision. It includes a sense of the Congress that the secretary of State should work with the government of Iraq to ensure compensation for any meritorious cases based on terrorist acts committed by Saddam’s regime against U.S. citizens or members of the military whose cases can’t be addressed in U.S. courts.

The Bush administration had argued that freezing Iraq’s assets, even temporarily, would deter Iraqis from working with U.S. businesses and could invite other nations to freeze American assets abroad.
The House is expected to vote on the revised defense authorization bill Wednesday night and send it to the Senate for approval.

Democrats Say Bush Can't Pocket Veto Defense Bill

The Hill reports:

House Democrats and the Bush administration appear on the verge of a new constitutional fight over whether President Bush can pocket-veto the defense authorization bill.

The White House on Monday said it was pocket-vetoing the measure, but a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the president cannot use such a measure when Congress is in session. The distinction over whether the president can pocket-veto the bill is important because such a move would prevent Congress from voting on an override.

“Congress vigorously rejects any claim that the president has the authority to pocket-veto this legislation, and will treat any bill returned to the Congress as open to an override vote,” said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi. He said the Speaker is keeping all legislative options on the table.

White House Spokesman Tony Fratto responded by saying that the president returned the bill in an appropriate way and is looking forward to working with congressional leaders to fix it when Congress returns this month.

The defense bill passed both the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities. Still, it’s unclear whether those majorities would hold, since House Republican leaders have called on Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to make changes to the bill demanded by the president.

A pocket veto occurs when the president neither vetoes nor signs a bill within 10 days, excluding Sundays, after its passage while Congress is adjourned. When Congress is in session, any bill that the president does not act on becomes law, according to the Constitution. The Senate has been in pro forma session over the last two weeks, while the House has been out of session.

The White House argues it pocket-vetoed the defense bill on Dec. 28 by sending it back to the House with a message of disapproval. It argues that a pocket veto was possible because the House, where the bill originated, was out of session.

“A pocket veto, as you know, is essentially putting it in your pocket and not taking any action whatsoever. And when Congress — the House is out of session — in this case it’s our view that bill then would not become law,” White House Spokesman Scott Stanzel told reporters Monday.

He said Congress should move quickly to send Bush a new defense bill with the demanded changes after it returns in January, and noted the White House had taken the “additional step” of returning the bill to the House with a message of disapproval.

Bush opposes parts of the bill that would allow lawsuits against Iraqis for acts committed when Saddam Hussein was in power to move forward in U.S. courts. Those lawsuits could slow down the Iraqi government’s reconstruction efforts, Bush has said.

Pelosi and Reid released a statement last week decrying Bush’s announcement that he intended to veto the bill, saying that it would delay the disbursement of money that troops needed. They also noted that the White House should have raised its objections to the bill before Congress had passed it.

In announcing the president planned to veto the bill last week, the White House did not specify it intended to use a pocket veto.

Louis Fisher, a constitutional scholar at the Library of Congress, said that the president is inviting a constitutional fight in trying a pocket veto.

“The administration would be on weak grounds in court because they would be insisting on what the Framers decidedly rejected: an absolute veto,” Fisher said.

True pocket vetoes are available only when Congress is away for months and unable to vote on an override, he said.

Bush Vetoes $23 Billion Water Bill

Congress is expected to override the president next week in a bipartisan vote.

The LA Times reports:

President Bush delivered his threatened veto of a $23-billion water bill Friday, but Congress is virtually certain to reverse it in the first override of a Bush veto.

And Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress are moving closer to a federal budget showdown that could result in more vetoes.

The House and Senate are expected to move swiftly next week to override Bush's veto of a bill loaded with water-related projects sought by members of both parties, from shoring up California's levees to protecting the Gulf Coast from hurricanes.

In a statement accompanying his veto, Bush said, "This bill lacks fiscal discipline."

On Capitol Hill, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said, "I am 100% confident that we can override this veto."

The defiant bipartisan response to the veto underscores the difficulty the president faces in his new zeal to hold down federal spending, especially when it affects highly visible construction projects cherished by lawmakers.

"This will be the first veto this Congress has overridden, and it was all about getting parochial water projects back to their home districts," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.

The bill would authorize more than 900 projects, such as restoration in the Florida Everglades and the replacement of seven Depression-era locks on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers that farm groups say is crucial for shipping grain.

For California, the bill authorizes $1.3 billion for 54 projects, including $106 million to strengthen the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta levees, $25 million for revitalizing the concrete-bound Los Angeles River and $38 million for replenishing sand at Imperial Beach in San Diego County, a project that supporters say would protect coastal residents from storms.

It is the fifth bill that Bush has vetoed -- the fewest by any president since James A. Garfield, who was shot in 1881 after four months in office and died weeks later. Bush has vetoed two bills that would have expanded federal support for embryonic stem cell research, a bill to pay for the Iraq war that included a timeline for withdrawing troops, and a bill that would have expanded a children's health insurance program. The four vetoes were sustained.

The Water Resources Development Act passed the House 381-40 and the Senate 81-12, far more than the two-thirds needed to make the measure law over the president's objections. The override would be the first since 1998, when Congress reversed President Clinton's veto of $287 million worth of military construction projects from a spending bill.

"Nothing seems as dear to members of Congress as their water projects," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group.

Bixby expects that Bush, with support from congressional Republicans, will wield more influence over the appropriations bills. "Bush has a willing and sufficient minority with him to sustain his vetoes -- so long as it isn't a water project," he said.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), leader of a group of House conservatives, said he expected the water-bill veto to be overridden. "I plan to vote to sustain the veto, and I assume it will be a very small group of us," he said. "When the appropriations bills come . . . that's where the real fight on fiscal responsibility will be, and my guess is we'll have enough Republicans to sustain" a veto.

The water bill is supported by a number of Bush's usual allies, including business and farm groups. The measure even brought together Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Olka.), the panel's ranking member, who rarely agree. Inhofe had appealed to Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Budget Director Jim Nussle to urge the president not to veto the bill, and he vowed to lead the fight to override the veto.

"I share the president's concerns on excessive spending," said Republican bill supporter Sen. Mel Martinez. "There are some things in this bill that are not pretty in terms of government spending. But at the end of the day, as a Floridian, Everglades restoration is such an integral part of this WRDA bill we have to take the good with the bad."

Democrats pounced on the veto to portray Bush as out of touch with domestic priorities.

"When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Next week, the House is expected to take up the first of a string of spending bills that could face Bush vetoes: a $215-billion bill that combines Democratic-sought funding increases for health and education programs with spending for popular veterans programs.

Although the fiscal year began Oct. 1, Congress has yet to send Bush a spending bill.

Bush, signaling a new determination to erase the red ink in the budget, has complained that Congress added $22 billion to his budget and seemed addicted to earmarks. In the first six years of his administration, federal spending soared. Bush never vetoed a GOP-written spending bill. His administration inherited a budget surplus and has presided over six years of deficits, including a record $412.7 billion in fiscal 2004.

On Friday in his veto statement, Bush noted that the House originally approved a $15-billion water bill and the Senate approved a $14-billion measure, but instead of the customary splitting the difference during negotiations, they "emerged with a Washington compromise that costs over $23 billion."

"This is not fiscally responsible," he said.

The water bill authorizes projects, but the funds must be provided through the separate appropriations process.

Bush complained that some of the projects fall outside the main mission of the Army Corps of Engineers: "facilitating commercial navigation, reducing the risk of damage from floods and storms, and restoring aquatic ecosystems."

House Falling Short on SCHIP Override

The Washington Post reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reversed her stance from a week earlier, appearing resigned Sunday that Democrats would not convince enough Republicans to pass an expansion of a children's health insurance program over President Bush's veto.

"Isn't that sad for America's children?" she asked on ABC's "This Week." Her second appearance on a Sunday talk show in as many weeks came days before the House is expected to vote again on the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Last week, Pelosi was far more optimistic about the chances of overriding Bush's veto, saying on "Fox News Sunday" that the Democrats needed "about 14 Republican votes" to reach the required two-thirds majority.

This week, it was Pelosi's Republican counterpart, House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio), who was facing questions on Fox, and he said he was confident that "we will have the votes to sustain the president's veto."

The White House has signaled it wants to find a compromise with Democrats over the program, but any agreement seemed distant today.

Pelosi said she has never heard from Bush about the program and she reiterated a point she made last week, that she is unwilling to support legislation that would cover fewer children than the current bill's 10 million.

The Senate already has a sufficient majority to override the veto, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) predicted on ABC that the White House and congressional Democrats would strike a deal.

"Neither side is going to leave these kids uninsured. It's become kind of a political football, which is really unfortunate. But the coverage is going to be provided in some way," McConnell said.