Monday, March 26, 2007

Bush impeachment on the table, Hagel says



From the Associated Press
March 26, 2007

WASHINGTON — Some lawmakers who complain that President Bush is flouting Congress and the public with his Iraq policies are considering impeachment an option, a Republican senator said Sunday.

Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment.

But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says 'I don't care' or 'I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else' or 'I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed' — if a president really believes that, then there are … ways to deal with that," Hagel said on ABC's "This Week."

The White House had no immediate reaction to Hagel's comments.

Hagel, who is considering a presidential run, said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops.

The senator said that lawmakers now were ready to stand up to the president when necessary.

In the April edition of Esquire magazine, Hagel described Bush as someone who didn't believe he was accountable to anyone.

"You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment," Hagel told the magazine.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Thursday, February 22, 2007

HR 508

H.R.508 Title: To require United States military disengagement from Iraq, to provide United States assistance for reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] (introduced 1/17/2007) Cosponsors (49) Latest Major Action: 2/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.

Where is Bill Delahunt? Call and ask him to co-sponsor this bill!


Latest Major Action:
2/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/17/2007--Introduced.

Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007 - Declares that it is U.S. policy to: (1) end the occupation of Iraq; (2) accelerate the training and equipping of Iraq's military and security forces; (3) pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy; (4) help preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq as a nation state; (5) account for any missing U.S. Armed Forces personnel or U.S. citizens in Iraq; and (6) turn over internal security activities and military operations in Iraq to the elected government of Iraq within six months.

Repeals the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

Requires the withdrawal from Iraq of all U.S. Armed Forces and contractor security forces within six months.

Prohibits, with exceptions, fund use to continue deployment of U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq.

Prohibits: (1) the construction of permanent U.S. military installations in Iraq; and (2) production sharing agreements for Iraqi petroleum resources.

Limits the total number of personnel at the U.S. embassy in Iraq.

Authorizes the President to: (1) support the deployment of international stabilization forces in Iraq; (2) provide assistance for an Iraqi reconstruction corps, mine and ordinance clearing, cultural and historical restoration, and for an Iraqi institute of peace; and (3) establish international funds to redevelop Iraqi civic and health institutions.

Revises authorities respecting the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

Provides for compensation of Iraqi noncombatant civilian casualties.

Provides funding availability for veterans health care.

Establishes the Joint Select Committee to Review the Origins and Conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

The Concept is called Cape Care



CAPE CARE The Cape Care model

How do you spell relief?

For visionary Province-town physician Brian O’Malley, the letters spell Cape Care.

This proposed “single-payer” health insurance program, endorsed by 10 town meeting votes, could bring relief from worry for thousands of Cape Codders without year-round health insurance. It could also relieve doctors, dentists and clinics of the paperwork that consumes up to a third of every health-care dollar. Most important, it could relieve the whole system of the pressure of ever-rising costs.

The Cape Care working group is comprised of medical professionals and citizens, including Chamber of Commerce executive Wendy Northcross and Barnstable County Human Services chief Len Stewart, whose constituents struggle every year with health-care costs. They believe there must be a better way.

A simpler way.

The problem has been that, to many Americans, “single payer” sounds a little too close to “socialized medicine.” That’s why the state’s ambitious new plan to try to get all state residents under some form of medical insurance, starting Jan. 1, fell back on the old model: many different insurance products and managed-care companies assigned a piece of the pie, with employers still responsible for insuring the bulk of workers, and traditional payments for the poor through state social-service conduits.

It’s complicated. And much more expensive than it need be.

One example from the Cape Care talking points jumps out: Under a single-payer system, insurance company systems would still be needed to process much-simplified claims. The difference would be their profit motive and their cost. According to O’Malley, when the “Blues” process Medicare claims under contract to the government, they work on a 4 percent margin. On their own commercial policies, it’s 25 percent.

This patchwork of handlers is one reason America spends so much more for health care, yet doesn’t assure humane universal coverage. According to the journal Health Affairs, U.S. citizens paid $5,267 per person for health care in 2002, 53 percent more than any other industrialized country.

Cape Care doesn’t promise that a county-wide, single-payer setup would halve the cost. Its financial model assumes that the same money we and our employers pay now in insurance premiums, out-of-pocket costs, deductibles, etc. would fund the new plan. What Cape Care does promise is universal coverage.

O’Malley isn’t shy about calling it “a social insurance system.” We already have examples of these in our towns: public schools and the fire department.

We’re not at the point of fully endorsing the Cape Care model until we see more details about how it would work and how the costs would be distributed, but we commend the grassroots effort and the working group’s desire to build consensus.



Health returns as hot issue in '08 race

Candidates shift focus to preventive care

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Healthcare, a major theme in the 1992 presidential campaign, has returned as a critical issue in the 2008 contest. But this time, contenders in both parties are placing new focus on preventive care as a way of improving public health and ultimately reducing the skyrocketing cost of medical care.

One presidential candidate wants to give earned days off to federal workers who exercise regularly and do not smoke, while another would press schools to ban junk food. Another candidate plans to reward people who undergo regular physicals and engage in healthy lifestyles with discounts in their health insurance premiums.

Mike Huckabee, former Republican governor from Arkansas, has led the charge for giving financial incentives -- including tax breaks and paid days off -- as rewards for healthy behavior.

Democrats Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico, and John Edwards, former US senator from North Carolina, are proposing similar ideas. Other presidential contenders have raised the issue on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.

While specialists say spending money on preventive care -- such as lowering childhood obesity rates through healthy school lunches and offering incentives to quit smoking -- may not make much of a dent in overall healthcare costs, the candidates say that preventative efforts can reduce painful, expensive-to-treat illnesses such as lung cancer and diabetes.

"Everything about the whole system is upside down," Huckabee said in a recent interview. "Doctors are rewarded for treating sick people, not keeping them well."

Candidates say they are committed to tackling the biggest health crisis: finding coverage for the 47 million Americans who do not have health insurance, a widening gap that the candidates say increases health costs for everyone.

Edwards, the only major party candidate so far to offer a detailed healthcare plan, wants to make health insurance mandatory nationwide, as Massachusetts has done for its residents.

But unlike in previous campaigns when candidates have focused almost entirely on the uninsured, the early presidential candidates are talking about promoting wellness as a way to avoid the high costs of treating cancers, heart disease, and other ailments.

"I think you're going to see a prevention component of virtually every candidate's healthcare reform" plan, said Drew Altman , president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a healthcare advocacy group. But he said the idea could not take the place of expanding health insurance coverage and controlling costs on a large scale.

"Nobody can pretend we can cover 47 million uninsured people without a huge outlay of money to do it," Altman said.

Among Democrats, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who tried and failed to pass a universal healthcare plan when she was first lady in the 1990s, have discussed preventive care in their early campaign appearances in New Hampshire. Neither has issued a detailed plan, although Obama said he would unveil his in the coming weeks.

The issue is personal to Huckabee, who as Arkansas governor dramatically changed his eating habits and began exercising after a doctor diagnosed him with Type 2 diabetes in 2003.

Huckabee shed 110 pounds, competed four marathons, and instituted a Healthy Arkansas Initiative to encourage state residents to stop smoking, lose weight, and exercise more. Arkansas state employees now receive discounts on their health insurance premiums in exchange for practicing good health habits.

Richardson, who recently announced his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination, has already banned junk food in New Mexico schools, installed school-based clinics that provide mental health services as well as medical tests, and reinstituted physical fitness classes in schools where it had been eliminated.

As president, Richardson said in an interview, he would give tax breaks to businesses that grant company time and on-site gym equipment to employees who want to exercise, and he would reward schools that eliminated foods such as chips, soda, and candy from their cafeterias.

"I believe we've got to focus more on preventive care, especially with kids," Richardson said. "In the long range, you get better health for all Americans."

While no lawmaker can force someone to lose weight or stop smoking, Huckabee said, governments can provide incentives that lead to behavioral changes. If elected president , Huckabee said, he would also give tax incentives to businesses that promote healthy habits, and he would allow federal workers to earn time off for good health behavior, the positive alternative to sick days.

Although elementary and secondary schools are largely under local control, Richardson asserts that the federal government has some control over school nutrition guidelines and funds some of it, giving the government leverage when it comes to school menus .

Edwards's healthcare plan is meant to cover all Americans by 2012 either through their employers or through a series of new "health markets," nonprofit plans run by states or groups of states. The health markets, offered to individuals and businesses that do not provide their own health coverage plans, would include lower health insurance premiums to individuals who take advantage of free checkups and enroll in "healthy living programs," an Edwards campaign spokeswoman said.

Healthcare specialists welcomed the candidates' ideas on preventive care but said the concept would not help slow the escalating cost of overall healthcare.

"I think they all feel the need to say something about [healthcare] costs. And who can argue against the logic of prevention?" said John McDonough , executive director of the Massachusetts-based Health Care for All. "The problem is, how do you do it in a way that makes a difference?"

Conducting numerous medical tests, for example, may catch some ailments early, he said, but on a mass scale the price of the tests may drive healthcare costs even higher.

Alan Sager , a Boston University health policy and management professor, said he worried the candidates "are talking about costs in ways that are politically safe and largely irrelevant financially."

Fast-growing healthcare costs will not be contained, he said, until lawmakers grapple with the more politically difficult issues of hospital payments, drug prices, and doctors' fees.

Huckabee said wellness programs would not only lower medical costs, but also increase Americans' productivity at work.

"This isn't just a feel-better" plan," Huckabee said. "It has real economic advantages. And it's something I've not only talked about; I've lived it."

Cape & Islands Health Insurance for All Becoming More Than Wishful Thinking
To Your Good Health - An Independent Health Care Newsletter
Vol. 13, No. 1, Page 3, Winter 2005
An essay by Brian O'Malley, MD

Can you imagine how secure we each would feel, living in a place where we had affordable, comprehensive health insurance, with full freedom of choice of our health care providers? That this insurance covered all acute and chronic care, both inpatient and outpatient, rehabilitation, preventive services, medications, supplies, and even long-term care. And that your family, and all your neighbors, were also covered.

And that, whether you worked for a small or large business, or ran one, or were self-employed, or retired - you would be equally covered. That both you, and your health care providers, would be freed to concentrate on maintaining your health - rather than worrying about the adequacy of your coverage.

In fact, every resident of Cape Cod and the Islands would have just this insurance, if a proposed social insurance program, currently referred to as Cape Care, were to be developed and adopted here.

It would cover all residents of the Cape and Islands with a non-profit health insurance program, governed and administered locally. The existing network of health care providers here on the Cape and Islands would maintain their existing ownership and governance. This program would simply provide a uniform insurance coverage, much like Medicare, for the great majority of their patients.

For people without health care insurance for any part of the year, it would bring the security of access to regular health care services, without barriers. For employed people, the security of coverage, independent of changes in their jobs. For those with coverage, the security of controls on the runaway costs.

And for the health care providers of the region, relief from the enormous paperwork burden - estimated to consume one-third of our income. Relief from the arbitrary coverage denials, the frustrations of the referral and prior approval processes. Relief from the multiple contracting demands of competing insurers.

The reduction in administrative expenses would fund the expanded coverage. Because we already pay in many, many ways for health care-associated costs, new money will not be required. We currently pay an extravagant price for our health care- more, in fact, than any other population on earth. Unfortunately, much of this spending doesn't actually buy any health care. Despite years of patches - futile efforts to cover all the people who remain without health care coverage - this goal remains unaffordable and unattainable.

The administrative costs of the growing tangle of programs amount to as much as 39% of the health care dollar in Massachusetts. Simplified insurance programs - including Medicare itself, and national health insurance programs - operate at 5% or lower overhead. Reduction to this level would save, literally, hundreds of millions of dollars each year for the Cape and Islands. Current health care expenditures and entitlements would be channeled, creating a health care fund that pays for all care. Simplified claims processing and a uniform set of procedures will ensure low operating costs for the system.

In addition to the administrative costs, further savings are expected. Two aspects of this proposed model address significant failings in the current market-based approach. The power of medications to effectively treat disease is becoming limited by their runaway costs.

Practicing physicians confront this dilemma daily. A rational drug formulary, developed with expert guidance and local control, would help control these costs. Instead of forcing each consumer to find and negotiate their own best 'deal', volume discounting for both covered medications and Durable Medical Equipment would give us collective strength - and substantial savings.

Finally, the most important cost saving of all, is that achieved by improvement in our collective health by reducing the burden of illness. Preventive health care and early detection services form a cornerstone in this effort. Ongoing care for chronic illness by skilled providers who know the individual patient - does reduce the long-term complications of disease. These services would be covered, and their access facilitated for all.

Information systems would link health care providers. And, taking guidance from the findings of the many in-depth community surveys conducted by the human service agencies of our three water-surrounded counties, our resources would be focused on the key needs of our people. One of the driving concepts is to use coverage as a policy tool to provide the health care services particularly needed in our community.

Groups of dedicated and knowledgeable people have been meeting for almost a year now, shaping and clarifying its vision. The Lighthouse Health Access Alliance, composed of health and human service professionals working on Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, has provided an important supporting role in this development. Over the next several years we will begin interim steps to provide health insurance coverage to those with the greatest unmet needs.

We currently envision a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organizational structure, with a Board of Directors, and professional administration. A separate Health Policy Advisory Board, of community representatives and health care providers, would be responsible for setting standards, coverage, preventive health services, etc.

In coming months, we will continue to study the many implications of such a program for the health and the economy of our region. Each and every one of us is a stakeholder in this discussion and this process. It will be up to us to shape it according to our collective vision. We have only to imagine the sense of security that could be ours with Cape Care, and believe sufficiently in our ability to succeed, to motivate our labors.

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Congress Concurs with the Majority of People Say No to Surge!


Today, Congressman Bill Delahunt released the following statement on House Con. Resolution 63, which passed the House by a vote of 246-182:

“This is a dangerously wrong-headed strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at a great cost. And if it's carried out it represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.”

This assessment the Bush escalation policy was made by the Republican Senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel – a decorated Vietnam veteran who originally supported the invasion of Iraq.

And I concur with his observation. But his conclusion should come as no surprise. After all, this Administration’s Iraq policy has been a series of mistakes and bad choices from the beginning.

The Bush/Cheney team was obsessed with Iraq. In fact, according to former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, their very first National Security Council meeting focused on Saddam and Iraq. Just days after President Bush was inaugurated. And a map, noting Iraqi oilfields and potential bidders for oil contracts, was presented for review. That was in February 2001. Months before 9/11!

We all remember that awful day in September 2001. When America was attacked by al Qaeda. Not Iraq. But by al Qaeda. Nevertheless, almost immediately, plans for attacking Iraq were initiated. With the Vice President as its most vigorous advocate. Secretary Powell is reported to have observed that the Vice President had “the fever” – war fever.

Former counterterrorism czar Dick Clarke has described how, even as the smoke was still rising from 9/11, the Administration began looking for ways to use it to attack Iraq.

The American people were told that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. That he was a clear and imminent threat. That he was an ally of al Qaeda. That if we did not invade Iraq, there could be mushroom clouds over American cities.

None of that was true. To the contrary, there was plenty evidence that the secular Baathists of Saddam Hussein’s regime and the religious fanatics of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda were rivals. In fact bin Laden had publicly condemned Saddam as an apostate who had corrupted Islam and repressed Muslims. There was little evidence that Saddam’s regime possessed nuclear or biological weapons, or – even if it did – that it would share such materials with an uncontrollable group of apocalyptic terrorists like al Qaeda.

But the Administration did not listen to those who knew what they were talking about. Professionals like Greg Thielmann, the Director of the strategic, proliferation and military issues office in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. He told me personally that in his professional opinion, after years of studying the issue, Saddam did not have a nuclear weapons program.

Instead, the Administration relied on the likes of Ahmed Chalabi. An embezzler who had been convicted in Jordan of bank fraud. Who is alleged to have provided Iran with information about US troop movements. And who is presumably still under investigation by the FBI.

Chalabi provided so-called “defectors” from Iraq who – surprise, surprise – said exactly what the Administration wanted to hear. The most notorious was code-named “Curveball” – how appropriate – and was the source of the now-discredited claim about a mobile bioweapons program. The German intelligence agency warned that the man did not live in Iraq and described him as an "out of control" and mentally unstable alcoholic. It later turned out that he was the brother of one of Chalabi’s top aides. But he was one of the primary sources for Secretary Powell’s statement at the United Nations that convinced many to support the war.

Furthermore, in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Administration told the American people that it would be easy. That we would be greeted as liberators. That Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction. And that peace and democracy would flourish.

None of that was true. The American people were sold a bill of goods. But those of us who raised doubts were ignored. Some even questioned our patriotism.

But the responsibility for this mess is not the President’s alone. It is shared by the preceding two Congresses, which abdicated their constitutional responsibility to oversee and review the conduct of the war and the occupation. We will never know if serious oversight and insisting on answers over the past four years would have made a difference.

But we do know that thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died. Billions of American and Iraqi taxpayer dollars have been wasted. The Middle East is on the verge of a war that could devastate the region and the global economy. And terrorist groups are multiplying because of Iraq. Some confuse the war on Iraq with the war on terror. But that could not be further from reality.

The fact is that the war in Iraq has severely damaged our efforts to fight al Qaeda and terrorism. That’s not just my judgment: that’s the consensus judgment of US intelligence agencies. In April 2006, they prepared a National Intelligence Estimate. It represents the consensus judgment of the entire US intelligence community. Here’s what it said:

“The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.

Meanwhile, the war in Iraq has done nothing to stop al Qaeda and its affiliates from launching attacks around the world. I refer you to a Dear Colleague letter sent by two of our Republican colleagues which clearly describes that reality. It includes a list of attacks that plainly demonstrates that terrorism is global in nature. While we are stuck in the sands of Iraq, radical Islamists are launching major assaults everywhere. Because this Administration, as a result of its bungled misadventure in Iraq, has hurt our efforts against terrorism.

Remember, we were attacked on September 11, not by Iraq, but by al Qaeda. Which was based in Afghanistan. And we responded, with worldwide support, by going to war against al Qaeda and liberating Afghanistan from al Qaeda’s allies, the Taliban. But then what happened? The Administration took its eye off the ball. And invaded Iraq. It’s as if we had responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico. Even though we had not yet defeated al Qaeda, the Administration pulled intelligence and Special Forces assets from Afghanistan in order to prepare for the invasion of Iraq. Now we are in danger of losing Afghanistan to al Qaeda and their Taliban allies.

Enough. As Senator Hagel said, this is “Alice in Wonderland…it is folly.” And the American people know it. It’s time to get back to fighting the terrorists. It’s time to concentrate on victory in the war on terror.

Oppose the escalation. Support the resolution.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
He still needs to sign on to HR 508 and co-sponsor this bill!
Call Bill about the Bill for war!

Washington, DC
2454 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-3111
Fax: 202-225-5658

Cape and Islands Office
146 Main Street
Hyannis, MA 02601
508-771-0666
Toll-Free: 800-870-2626
Fax: 508-790-1959

South Shore Office
1250 Hancock Street
Suite 802-N
Quincy, MA 02169
617-770-3700
Toll-Free: 800-794-9911
Fax: 617-770-2984

Send Congressman Delahunt an Email


URGE HIM TO SUPPORT HR-508!

Friday, February 16, 2007

How Iraq Resolution Dissidents Fare Politically at Home

New York Times -February 16, 2007


It was practically a party-line vote Friday afternoon when the Democratic-controlled House passed a non-binding resolution disapproving President Bush’s decision to increase U.S. troop strength in Iraq.

But it was not a perfect party-line vote. Among the 246 members voting for the resolution were 229 Democrats — and 17 Republicans. And while 180 Republicans provided the bulk of the votes against the measure, they were joined by two Democrats. (Six members did not vote and there is a vacancy in Georgia’s 10th District caused by the death on Tuesday of Republican Rep. Charlie Norwood.)

Assuming, probably safely, that the controversial war in Iraq will remain a central issue through the 2008 campaign season, members’ votes on this resolution will be talking points in many campaigns.

But only a handful of the 19 members who crossed party lines appear — at least at this very early phase of the 2008 campaign cycle — to face even the prospect of serious electoral challenges next year.

The two Democrats who voted no are both Southerners who projected conservative images and represent mostly conservative constituencies: Jim Marshall, a Vietnam War veteran from Georgia’s 8th District, and Gene Taylor, who represents southern Mississippi’s 4th District that gave more than two-thirds of its votes to Bush in the 2004 presidential elections.

Of these two, only Marshall is considered at this point as potentially vulnerable. Running in a district redrawn by Republican state lawmakers in a mid-decade redistricting, Marshall narrowly outlasted his Republican challenger, former Rep. Mac Collins, in 2006.

The 17 Republicans who backed the resolution come from a somewhat diverse range of political ideologies. The list includes some prominent GOP centrists, such as Michael N. Castle of Delaware’s at-large district and Mark Steven Kirk of Illinois’ 10th District. But it also contains Republicans with conservative voting records, such as Howard Coble of North Carolina’s 6th District and Ric Keller of Florida’s 8th.

This group also includes Rep. John J. “Jimmy” Duncan Jr. of Tennessee’s 2nd District and Rep. Ron Paul of Texas’ 14th, who is exploring a bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Though both overall have strongly conservative records, they are the only two Republicans in Congress today who voted against the 2002 resolution that authorized Bush to wage military operations in Iraq.

What connects most of these GOP members, regardless of their ideological orientation, is that most come from relatively “safe” Republican districts. Of the 17, 13 exceeded 55 percent of the vote in 2006, most by a wide margin. Bush ran ahead of the Democratic nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, in 14 of the 17 districts in the 2004 presidential election.

But there are a few pro-resolution Republicans whose districts produce some measure of sentiment against the Iraq war.

The three members in this crossover group who represent “Kerry-Republican” House districts — Delaware’s Castle, Illinois’ Kirk and James T. Walsh of New York’s 25th District — all had vote percentages in 2006 that were their lowest in any of their House re-election campaigns, as did Thomas M. Davis III of Virginia’s 11th District, which went just narrowly for Bush in 2004.

Also enduring closer than usual races in 2006 in districts that favored Bush by modest margins two years earlier were Phil English of Pennsylvania’s 3rd District and Keller, who represents Florida’s 8th District

CQPolitics.com senior reporter Greg Giroux has compiled the following information about the 19 House members who voted against most members of their own party on the resolution opposing the troop increase in Iraq. Each member of Congress is identified by his state and district; the vote percentage they received in their 2006 re-elections; and the result of the 2004 presidential election in the district.

House Republicans voting for the resolution of disapproval (17)

• Michael N. Castle, Delaware’s At-Large

2006 Vote: 57 percent

2004 President: Kerry 53 percent

Long a partisan swing state, Delaware recently has leaned increasingly Democratic. But eight-term Rep. Castle is a long-popular moderate who previously served eight years as governor.

• Howard Coble, North Carolina’s 6th

2006 Vote: 71 percent

2004 President: Bush 69 percent

After a pair of close races at the start of his 12-term career, Coble has cruised to easy wins in this central North Carolina GOP stronghold.

• Thomas M. Davis III, Virginia’s 11th

2006 Vote: 55 percent

2004 President: Bush 50 percent

His visible engagement on local issues and relatively moderate profile benefits seven-term incumbent Davis, who has long had ambitions to serve in the Senate. But a Democratic trend in the Northern Virginia suburbs he represents is making him less safe.

• John J. “Jimmy” Duncan Jr., Tennessee’s 2nd

2006 Vote: 78 percent

2004 President: Bush 65 percent

A member of a local political dynasty in east Tennessee, 10-term Rep. Duncan has name ID and a partisan cushion in this Republican stronghold.

• Phil English, Pennsylvania’s 3rd

2006 Vote: 54 percent

2004 President: Bush 53 percent

English, in his seventh term, combines GOP loyalties with some moderate overtones, including an outreach to organized labor. But in the anti-Republican mood of 2006, his vote share in his Erie-centered district dropped 6 points from two years earlier.

• Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland’s 1st

2006 Vote: 69 percent

2004 President: Bush 62 percent

Though not exactly a maverick, this mild-mannered former teacher, now in his ninth House term, has distanced himself from party leaders before, especially on environmental issues.

• Bob Inglis, South Carolina’s 4th

2006 Vote: 64 percent

2004 President: Bush 65 percent

Straying from the party line is a relatively rare thing for the conservative Inglis. One of the few House members to stick to a term-limit pledge in the 1990s, he lost a Senate race in 1998 but returned to win an open House seat in 2004 and now is in his fifth term overall.

• Timothy V. Johnson, Illinois’ 15th

2006 Vote: 58 percent

2004 President: Bush 58 percent

Johnson, a moderate Republican in his fourth term, has a largely rural eastern Illinois district that is Republican enough to consistently provide him with comfortable margins.

• Walter B. Jones, North Carolina’s 3rd

2006 Vote: 69 percent

2004 President: Bush 68 percent

The namesake son of a late conservative Democratic House veteran, Jones had to explain his early and vocal criticism of Bush’s handling of the war to his strongly conservative constituency in 2006, but won a seventh term with ease. The district contains the Marine Corps’ massive Camp Lejeune installation.

• Ric Keller, Florida’s 8th

2006 Vote: 53 percent

2004 President: Bush 55 percent

After having to battle for a fourth term in 2006 in an Orlando-area district, Keller is likely to face another Democratic initiative to oust him next year.

• Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois’ 10th

2006 Vote: 53 percent

2004 President: Kerry 52 percent

An image as a leading House GOP moderate, combined with strong intellectual skills and a background in foreign policy, appeared to give Kirk political security in Chicago’s northern suburbs. But his percentage dropped sharply as he bid for a fourth term in last year’s tough political atmosphere, and Democrats may try to probe his vulnerability.

• Steven C. LaTourette, Ohio’s 14th

2006 Vote: 58 percent

2004 President: Bush 52 percent

Bush’s 2004 showing among LaTourette’s northeast Ohio voters suggests this is close to a swing district. But a weak Democratic recruiting effort in 2006 gave the party little chance of seriously testing the incumbent as he won a seventh term with ease.

• Ron Paul, Texas’ 14th

2006 Vote: 60 percent

2004 President: Bush 67 percent

A physician and former Libertarian Party presidential nominee, Paul has the nickname of “Dr. No” — earned mainly from his contrarian opposition to nearly all spending bills — that extends to some military issues he views as foreign entanglements. In his ninth full term over three separate tenures, Paul has taken a tentative step toward entering the 2008 GOP presidential race.

• Tom Petri, Wisconsin’s 6th

2006 Vote: 99 percent (no Democrat ran)

2004 President: Bush 56 percent

Now in his 14th full term, Petri has had only one relatively close re-election contest and has run several times without Democratic opposition. So he has the latitude now and then to differ with his party.

• Jim Ramstad, Minnesota’s 3rd

2006 Vote: 65 percent

2004 President: Bush 51 percent

Ramstad’s relatively moderate views and strong personal popularity have made Democrats view him as virtually untouchable after nine election victories. But Bush’s narrow lead here in 2004 suggests Democrats would have a shot in this suburban Twin Cities district should Ramstad ever retire.

• Fred Upton, Michigan’s 6th

2006 Vote: 61 percent

2004 President: Bush 53 percent

In his 11th term, Upton has a generally conservative record, but has stood apart on some issues ranging from the environment to gun control to fiscal issues — and now the Iraq War.

• James T. Walsh, New York’s 25th

2006 Vote: 51 percent

2004 President: Kerry 50 percent

Based on the 2006 results, Walsh may be highest on the Democrats’ 2008 target list among Republicans who broke with their party on the Iraq resolution. After being bolstered for years by his seat on the Appropriations Committee, Walsh faced the political fight of his career in 2006 before narrowly prevailing to win a 10th term.

House Democrats voting against the resolution of disapproval (2)

• Jim Marshall, Georgia’s 8th

2006 Vote: 50.5 percent

2004 President: Bush 61 percent

Marshall’s break with the Democratic line on the Iraq resolution wasn’t a new thing: He has been more supportive of Bush’s Iraq policy than most Democrats throughout the conflict. His success at projecting an image as a conservative Democrat was vital to his win for a third term in 2006, when he had to overcome former GOP Rep. Mac Collins and an unfavorable redistricting map.

• Gene Taylor, Mississippi’s 4th

2006 Vote: 80 percent

2004 President: Bush 68 percent

His consistent record as one of the most conservative House Democrats has enabled Taylor to grow deep roots in this southern Mississippi district since winning a 1989 special election, even though the 4th otherwise has a strong Republican edge.

© 2006 Congressional Quarterly

Congress Concurs with the Majority of People Say No to Surge!

House OKs measure opposing troop surge

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent 3 minutes ago

The Democratic-controlled House issued a symbolic rejection of President Bush's plan to deploy more troops to Iraq on Friday, opening an epic confrontation between Congress and commander in chief over an unpopular war that has taken the lives of more than 3,100 U.S. troops.

The vote on the nonbinding measure was 246-182.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high to recycle proposals that have little prospect for success," said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), leader of Democrats who gained power last fall in elections framed by public opposition to the war.

"The passage of this legislation will signal a change in direction in Iraq that will end the fighting and bring our troops home," she vowed.

Bush's Republican allies said repeatedly the measure would lead to attempts to cut off funds for the troops. Outnumbered, they turned to Rep. Sam Johnson (news, bio, voting record) of Texas to close their case — and the former Vietnam prisoner of war stepped to the microphone as lawmakers in both parties rose to applaud his heroism.

"Now it's time to stand up for my friends who did not make it home, and for those who fought and died in Iraq already," he said. "We must not cut funding for our troops. We must stick by them," he added, snapping off a salute as he completed his remarks to yet another ovation.

Bush made no comment on the developments, and his spokesman said the commander in chief was too busy to watch the proceedings on television.

After a secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Bush said the Iraqis were reporting progress: providing troops to fight alongside Americans, making sure that no ethnic or religious factions are ignored in the security operations, providing $10 billion toward reconstruction and working on an oil revenue-sharing law.

The developments in the House marked the first vote of the new Congress on the war. Roughly 400 of 434 lawmakers spoke during four days of a dignified debate — an unusual amount of time devoted to a single measure.

Moving quickly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., has called a test vote for Saturday on an identical measure, and several presidential contenders in both parties rearranged their weekend campaign schedules to be present.

Republicans said in advance they would deny Democrats the 60 votes they need to advance the resolution, adding they would insist on equal treatment for a GOP-drafted alternative that opposes any reduction in funds for the troops.

The developments unfolded as a new poll showed more than half those surveyed view the war as a hopeless cause.

A sizeable majority, 63 percent, opposes the decision to dispatch more troops, although support for Bush's decision has risen in the past few weeks from 26 percent to 35 percent, according to the AP-Ipsos poll.

The House measure disapproves of Bush's decision to increase troop strength, and pledges that Congress will "support and protect" the troops.

Bush has already said passage of the measure will not deter him from proceeding with the deployment of another 21,500 troops, designed primarily to quell sectarian violence in heavily populated Baghdad.

Already, troops of the Army's 82nd Airborne have arrived in Iraq. Another brigade is in Kuwait, undergoing final training before proceeding to Iraq. Three more brigades are ticketed for the Baghdad area, one each in March, April and May.

In addition, the Pentagon is sending two Marine battalions to Anbar province in the western part of the country, the heart of the Sunni insurgency.

Bush and his allies in Congress calculated days ago that the House measure would pass, and increasingly have focused their energy on the next steps in the Democrats' attempt to end U.S. participation in the war.

"I'm going to make it very clear to the members of Congress, starting now, that they need to fund our troops," Bush said earlier this week, a reference to legislation that requests more than $93 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As developments on Capitol Hill went forward, the White House sought to play down the impact of the debate and vote. The president himself made no comment on it — with his spokesman saying he was too busy to watch — and turned instead toward Iraq. He reported after a secure videoconference with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that progress is being made.

The president said that the Iraqi leader briefed him on several recent steps by his government: providing troops to fight alongside Americans, making sure that no ethnic or religious factions are ignored in the security operations, providing $10 billion toward reconstruction and working on an oil revenue-sharing law.

"I was pleased that he's meeting benchmarks that he has set for his government," Bush told reporters. "That's good news for the Iraqi people. And it should give people here in the United States confidence that his government knows its responsibilities and is following through on those responsibilities."

Democrats have made clear in recent days they will use Bush's spending request to impose certain standards of readiness, training and rest for the troops.

"That stops the surge (in troops) for all intents and purposes, because ... they cannot sustain the deployment," Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., said recently.

Republicans pointed to his remarks repeatedly during the day as evidence that despite their claims to the contrary, Democrats intend to cut off funds for the troops.

"This is all part of their plan to eliminate funding for our troops that are in harm's way. And we stand here as Republicans...committed to making sure our troops in harm's way have all the funds and equipment they need to win this war in Iraq," said Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, the Republican leader.

HR 63 VOTE RESULTS

Congress Concurs with US To Say No to the Bush's Surge!



Vote Results : Yea: 246 Nay: 182

To watch your congresspeople floor speech click here: C-Span

H.CON.RES.63

Title: Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.
Sponsor: Rep Skelton, Ike [MO-4] (introduced 2/12/2007) Cosponsors (2)
Related Bills: H.RES.157
Latest Major Action: 2/12/2007 Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 157 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 63. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit. Debate on the resolution shall continue 1) not beyond midnight on Tuesday, February 13, 2007, equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader or their designees; 2) not beyond midnight on Wednesday, February 14, 2007, equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader or their designees; 3) 12 hours of debate commencing on Thursday, February 15, 2007, equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their designees.

Auditors: Billions squandered in Iraq War












By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer Fri Feb 16,
WASHINGTON


- About $10 billion has been squandered by the U.S. government on Iraq reconstruction aid because of contractor overcharges and unsupported expenses, and federal investigators warned Thursday that significantly more taxpayer money is at risk.

The three top auditors overseeing work in Iraq told a House committee their review of $57 billion in Iraq contracts found that Defense and State department officials condoned or allowed repeated work delays, bloated expenses and payments for shoddy work or work never done.

More than one in six dollars charged by U.S. contractors were questionable or unsupported, nearly triple the amount of waste the Government accounting Office (GAO) estimated last fall.

"There is no accountability," said David M. Walker, who heads the auditing arm of Congress. "Organizations charged with overseeing contracts are not held accountable. Contractors are not held accountable. The individuals responsible are not held accountable."

"People should be rewarded when they do a good job. But when things don't go right, there have to be consequences," he said.

Also testifying Thursday were Stuart Bowen, the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, and William H. Reed, director of the Defense Contract Audit Agency.


The appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee came as Congress prepares for a showdown with President Bush next month over his budget request of nearly $100 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


So far, the Bush administration has spent more than $350 billion on the Iraq war and reconstruction effort.

The Army, which handles most of the Iraq contracting, said Thursday it had not reviewed the latest contract figures.

"The U.S. Army, along with the Departments of Defense and State, continue to help thousands of Iraqis daily with reconstruction projects to provide them with better lives," said spokeswoman Mary Ann Hodges. "We look forward to examining its findings and applying some of its recommendations in the future."

Senate Democrats said recently cited cases of waste were "outrageous rip-offs of the American taxpayer" and introduced legislation Thursday to stiffen punishment for war profiteers and cut down on cronyism in contracting.
According to their testimony, the investigators:

_Found overpricing and waste in Iraq contracts amounting to $4.9 billion since the Defense Contract Audit Agency began its work in 2003. Some of that money has been recovered. An additional $5.1 billion in expenses were charged without proper documentation.

_Pointed to growing Iraqi sectarian violence as a significant factor behind bloated U.S. contracting bills. Iraqi officials, they said, must begin to take primary responsibility for reconstruction efforts. That is an uncertain goal, given the widespread corruption in Iraq and the local government's inability to fund projects.

Urged the Pentagon to reconsider its growing reliance on outside contractors in wars and reconstruction efforts. Layers of subcontractors, poor documentation and lack of strong contract management are rampant and promote waste even after the GAO first warned of problems 15 years ago.

Walker complained that GAO investigators have difficulty getting basic detail about reconstruction contracts such as expenses and subcontractors involved because many Pentagon divisions fail to consistently track or fully report them.
"It's absolutely essential if Congress wants to make an informed decision on authorizations and appropriations that we get this information," he said. "We're talking about billions of dollars and thousands of American lives at stake."
Rep. Henry Waxman D-Calif., the committee chairman, has pledged scores of investigations of fraud, waste and abuse — with subpoenas if necessary — on the administration's watch.

Of the $10 billion in overpriced contracts or undocumented costs, more than $2.7 billion were charged by Halliburton Co., the oil-field services company once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney.

Noting that auditors still have $300 billion of Iraq spending to review, Waxman said the total amount of waste, fraud and abuse "could be astronomical."
"It's no wonder that taxpayers all across our country are fed up and demanding that we bring real oversight to the 'anything goes' world of Iraq reconstruction," he said.

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., the top Republican on the panel, pointed to ongoing, "systemic" problems in Iraq contracting. "This much is clear: Poor security, an arcane, ill-suited management structure, and frequent management changes have produced a succession of troubled acquisitions," Davis said.

Bush Budget To Cut US Veteran Health-Care Funds In 2009, 2010






By Andrew Taylor
An AP NEWS ANALYSIS
WASHINGTON (AP)--President George W. Bush's administration plans to cut funding for veterans' health care two years from now - even as badly wounded troops returning from Iraq could overwhelm the system.

Bush is using the cuts, critics say, to help fulfill his pledge to balance the budget by 2012.
After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly - by more than 10% in many years - White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.

The proposed cuts are unrealistic in light of recent VA budget trends - its medical care budget has risen every year for two decades and 83% in the six years since Bush took office - sowing suspicion that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better.

"Either the administration is willingly proposing massive cuts in VA health care," said Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, chairman of the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "Or its promise of a balanced budget by 2012 is based on completely unrealistic assumptions."
Edwards said that a more realistic estimate of veterans costs is $16 billion higher than the Bush estimate for 2012.

In fact, even the White House doesn't seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don't represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed.

The veterans cuts, said White House budget office spokesman Sean Kevelighan, " don't reflect any policy decisions. We'll revisit them when we do the (future) budgets."
The number of veterans coming into the VA health-care system has been rising by about 5% a year as the number of people returning from Iraq with illnesses or injuries keep rising. Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans represent almost 5% of the VA's patient caseload, and many are returning from battle with grievous injuries requiring costly care, such as traumatic brain injuries.

All told, the VA expects to treat about 5.8 million patients next year, including 263,000 veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.
The White House budget office, however, assumes that the veterans' medical services budget - up 83% since Bush took office and winning a big increase in Bush's proposed 2008 budget - can absorb a 2% cut the following year and remain essentially frozen for three years in a row after that.

"It's implausible," Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said of the budget projections.
The White House made virtually identical assumptions last year - a big increase in the first year of the budget and cuts for every year thereafter to veterans medical care. Now, the White House estimate for 2008 is more than $4 billion higher than Bush figured last year.
And the VA has been known to get short-term estimates wrong as well. Two years ago, Congress had to pass an emergency $1.5 billion infusion for veterans health programs for 2005 and added $2.7 billion to Bush's request for 2006. The VA underestimated the number of veterans, including those from Iraq and Afghanistan, who were seeking care, as well as the cost of treatment and long- term care.

The budget for hospital and medical care for veterans is funded for the current year at $35.6 billion, and would rise to $39.6 billion in 2008 under Bush's budget. But the budget faces a cut to $38.8 billion in 2009 and would hover around that level through 2012.
The cuts come even as the number of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is expected to increase 26% next year.

In Bush's proposal to balance the budget by 2012, he's assuming that spending on domestic agency operating budgets will increase by about 1% each year.

Democrat Leadership React To Mashpee Wampanoag Federal Recognition


Mashpee Wampanoag tribe receives final recognition as a sovereign nation

PRESS RELEASE
MASHPEE - The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe on Thursday became a federally recognized sovereign nation, a decision that marks the end of a 32-year effort to gain such status and the beginning of a new era for tribal members.

The tribe received word at 5 pm Thursday from the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs reaffirming its March 2006 ruling that the tribe had met all seven criteria necessary to become a federally recognized tribe.

With this ruling, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe becomes the 564th tribe recognized by the federal government and the first to be recognized during the Bush Administration.

The Mashpee-based tribe is the second tribe recognized in Massachusetts. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) on Martha's Vineyard was recognized 20 years ago. Today's positive finding for Mashpee officially takes effect in 90 days. "Without recognition and with economic pressures on the Cape, our tribe would have dissolved into the landscape," said Tribal Council Chairman Glenn Marshall. "Recognition as a sovereign nation has saved the tribe that met the Mayflower."

Indian tribes recognized as sovereign nations by the federal government have access to federal funds for benefits and services, such as housing, health care, children and elder services, education and environmental protection. The tribe also plans to identify land for the federal government to take into trust.

"I have been proud to be Chief of this tribe many times in our history, and today that pride is greater than ever," said Tribal Chief Vernon "Silent Drum" Lopez. "Our story has been told for generations, and today we add a new chapter. The history of our tribe could not be complete without our sovereignty, and today we can celebrate and move forward."


Nathaniel Philbrick, author of the acclaimed book "Mayflower," offered his congratulations to the tribe and said, "This is a truly historic occasion. As a resident of the Cape and Islands who has spent many years examining the events of the past, all I can say is, 'It's about time!' Congratulations to the Mashpee Wampanoag people."

Today signals the end of the comment and approval process sparked by the March 2006 federal preliminary approval. The Mashpee tribe first sought federal recognition in 1975, but the petition did not reach "active status" until October 2005, under a court ruling stipulating a final decision must be announced by March 31, 2007.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Indians' history dates back more than 5,000 years, according to archaeologists, who acknowledge an unbroken continuum of habitation from that time to the present day. The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe met the Mayflower and aided the Pilgrims at the first Thanksgiving in 1621 after the terrible winter of 1620-1621. Once known as the South Sea Indians and later as the Praying Indians, the Mashpee nourished the Pilgrims, came to their aid and supplied them with much of the food for the first feast. In addition to a long history of contributions to the nation, members of the Mashpee Tribe have fought in every American conflict since the Revolutionary War and continue to serve our nation heroically to the present day.

(Published: February 15, 2007)

Democratic Leaders Reaction

''I extend my congratulations to the Mashpee Wampanoag on the recognition they received today from the federal government. For a tribe that greeted the Pilgrims when they landed on the shores of Massachusetts, this recognition is long overdue. I look forward to working with the tribe to move Massachusetts forward.''

- Gov. Deval Patrick


''The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has been extremely patient, waiting over three decades for this moment, and I congratulate them on their federal recognition. I'm pleased that the tribe will now have access to a range of essential federal services including education, social services, housing and health benefits.''

- Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.


''Today's announcement from the United States government, a moment for which we have all waited so long and for which we have all worked so hard, is a milestone for the Tribe, our community and our nation. Let us reflect for a moment on what has happened today. Let's be clear. Aside from the legalisms - for anyone who reads history - the BIA decision does not confer tribal status. The decision confirms tribal status. The decision is a vindication of fundamental civil rights. It honors the memory of generations of tribal members. It embraces the common heritage of fellow citizens of Mashpee and towns throughout eastern Massachusetts.''

- U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass.


''I'm very happy for them. I think it's good news for the tribe, and it's also good news for the Cape. They will be bringing a lot of services to Cape Cod that will benefit everyone and improve the overall quality of life for everyone.''

- Rep. Matthew Patrick,

D-Falmouth, whose district includes part of Mashpee

''Without the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, the Pilgrims would not have survived their first winter. This tribe is an invaluable part of the unique fabric that makes Massachusetts what it is today. The decision by the federal government to grant tribal recognition to the Mashpee Wampanoag corrects an injustice that has gone on far too long.''

- Sen. Therese Murray,

D-Plymouth

''It's historic, well deserved, and long overdue in my opinion. This is a tribe that greeted the people who came off the Mayflower. There is just no question that if anybody deserves recognition, it was the Wampanoag of Mashpee.''

- Sen. Robert O'Leary,

D-Barnstable


Thursday, February 15, 2007



Dear Friends,


According to House Minority Leader John Boehner, I'm a "terrorist sympathizer," and you probably are too.
Just days ago on the floor of the House of Representatives, the Republican leader claimed that "al Qaeda and terrorist sympathizers around the world are trying to divide us here at home. Over the next few days, we have an opportunity to show our enemies that we will not take the bait."
This isn't the first time Republicans have linked Democrats with terrorists at the time of an important vote. In fact, it's become the norm.
In October 2004, then-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert claimed that al Qaeda "would like to influence this election" and would be more comfortable if John Kerry were elected.
This past August, Vice President Cheney claimed that anti-war voters in Connecticut were encouraging "al Qaeda types" to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay the fight and complete the task."
And just days before our landslide victory in the November midterm elections, President Bush claimed that "the Democrat[ic] approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."
Put a stop to the slander. Help the Democrats pass the House Iraq resolution, and help wavering Republicans stand up to this rhetoric:
http://www.democrats.org/noescalation
The "bait" that Boehner refers to is the House Democrats' war resolution that Governor Dean emailed you about on Tuesday -- a vote of no-confidence in the president's plan to escalate the war in Iraq.
You see, with 70% of the public opposing escalation and potentially 60 Republicans crossing party lines, the Republican leadership is resorting to desperate measures to try to fool the American people and stop this damning vote.
Support the Iraq resolution -- and tell Boehner that we aren't buying his publicity stunts:
http://www.democrats.org/noescalation
The Republicans know the mess they're in. In a desperate letter to their Republican colleagues, Congressmembers John Shadegg and Peter Hoekstra wrote:
"The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily. If we let Democrats force us into a debate on the surge or the current situation in Iraq, we lose."
Why are Republicans scared of a debate on America's top issue? And why can't they stand up to the Democrats on the current situation in Iraq?
Because it wasn't the Democratic Party that led us into a war on false pretenses. Democrats didn't alienate our global allies by ignoring diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful resolution. Democrats didn't reject the advice of our military leaders, who recommended we change the course. And Democrats didn't decide to put more of our troops in harm/s way to interfere in a bloody civil war with no end in sight.
The Democrats didn't start this war, but we're working to end it -- and the House resolution is an important first step to changing the course and bringing our brave men and women home.
Support the Iraq resolution today:
http://www.democrats.org/noescalation
Don't let John Boehner imply that we are terrorist sympathizers. Don't let the Republican leadership continue these publicity stunts.
While they try, we'll be busy fighting back and governing.
Sincerely,
Tom McMahon

Democrats To Focus On Iraq War Funding Battle

Democrats To Focus On Iraq War Funding Battle

(AP) WASHINGTON Democrats, expecting House passage Friday of a resolution opposing President Bush's military buildup in Iraq, are turning their sights on an even loftier target � the Pentagon's multibillion-dollar budget.

Congress next month is to consider Bush's request for nearly $100 billion more for the war, a request that promises to become a new battleground over his Iraq policy.

The House this week has been debating a nonbinding measure that expresses support for the troops in Iraq but opposes the president's decision to send an additional 21,500 troops there. A small group of House Republicans said Wednesday they disagreed with Bush's plan.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said the Democratic resolution was the first step in a longer campaign to end U.S. participation in the nearly four-year-old conflict.

In a letter to the president on Wednesday, Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said, "thousands of the new troops" being sent into Iraq "will apparently not have the armor and equipment they need to perform the mission and reduce the likelihood of casualties."

Demanding that troops meet certain requirements before being sent into harms' way was an idea initiated by Rep. Jack Murtha, the top Democrat on the House committee that oversees military spending.

Murtha, a war veteran who advocates pulling troops out of Iraq, has said he wants to forbid the Pentagon from sending additional troops "unless they have adequate training and unless they have adequate equipment."

Murtha, D-Pa., said he believes the Army may have no units that can meet those standards, meaning Bush's attempt to send more troops to Iraq would be checked. Congress also could try to slow the deployment of additional troops by curtailing the Pentagon's practice of extending the duty tours of personnel who have reached the end of their scheduled time in the war zone.

As the House debated the Democratic resolution for a second day Wednesday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said protective gear for troops in Iraq was not a problem.

"Obviously, we are not going to put any force into theater that isn't properly trained and equipped," Schoomaker said.

Bush has asked for $93 billion in additional spending to finish paying for the war through Sept. 30, and Democrats could rewrite the legislation to require that troops sent to Iraq be fully equipped.

Supporting the troops, "means giving them the equipment they need, whether you agree with the mission that they are on or not," Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters after meeting with Bush at the White House.

Pelosi's remarks came as Bush shrugged off Democrats' attempt to pass a resolution declaring congressional opposition to the troop buildup and he turned his sights on the $93 billion spending request.

"I'm going to make it very clear to the members of Congress starting now," Bush told a news conference. "They need to fund our troops, and they need to make sure we have the flexibility necessary to get the job done."

Democrats took control of Congress after elections last fall that were shaped in large measure by public opposition to the war, which has cost the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops.

The House was to continue debating the measure Thursday, with a vote Friday, when it was expected to pass.

The resolution picked up steam Wednesday after more than a half a dozen House Republicans said they would vote for it.

Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla., said he approached his decision "with a great deal of angst and humility," but ultimately could not stand behind the president's plan.

"I have listened to what our most well-respected four-star generals have to say about this matter," he said. And many "said that sending more troops into Baghdad is not the answer."

Rep. Jim Marshall, D-Ga., announced he would oppose the Democratic resolution. While Marshall is concerned that Bush's Iraq strategy won't work, the Vietnam War veteran said he was gravely concerned about the impact it would have on troop morale.

Reid has announced plans to try for a vote in the Senate on an identical bill in the next few weeks. Prospects there are uncertain because Republican leaders have said they will demand a vote on an alternative measure promising not to cut funds for troops in the field.

Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who do not support sending more troops to Iraq, said Wednesday they would oppose adjourning for next week's recess until the Senate is able to debate the issue.

Edwards calls for stronger action to end war



Says Congress has power to end conflict
McClatchy Newspapers

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards stepped up his anti-war opposition Wednesday, calling for Congress to cut off funding for any troops in Iraq beyond the 100,000 troop level.

Edwards said such a move was the only way to prevent President Bush from putting another 20,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. He also called for withdrawing all combat troops over the next 12 to 18 months.

"We don't need debate," Edwards, a former senator, said in a statement released by his campaign headquarters in Chapel Hill. "We don't need non-binding resolutions. We need to end this war, and Congress has the power to do it. They should use it now."

Edwards's comments come at a time when the U.S. House is debating the president's war policy. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll released Tuesday found overwhelming support for congressional action to cap the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and set a timetable to bring them home by the end of next year.

Edwards has been positioning himself as the leading anti-war figure in the Democratic presidential primary. In what has been seen as an attack on his Democratic primary opponents, Edwards has said "silence is betrayal" on Iraq.

He has said that his own vote as a North Carolina senator to authorize the war was a mistake.

Edwards says there is only a political solution to the war in Iraq, in which all parties and regional powers are involved in mapping the country's future.

Edwards' plan would:

-Cap funding for troops at 100,000 troops and begin the immediate draw down of 40,000 to 50,000 combat troops.

-Prohibit funding to deploy US troops to Iraq that do not meet readiness standards.

-Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in 12 to 18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases.

After withdrawal, Edwards said, the U.S. should keep sufficient forces in the region to contain the conflict and "ensure that instability in Iraq does not spill over and create a regional war, a terrorist haven or spark a genocide.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Proposed By-Laws as taken from the State Committee




Proposed By-Laws (Working Document)

BYLAWS OF THE HARWICH
DEMOCRATIC TOWN COMMITTEE

Town, Ward and other Democratic Committees may adopt by-laws and other rules of procedures, in accordance with National rules, the Charter and these by-laws. In the absence of the adoption of such by-laws, said committee(s) will be governed by model by-laws, recommend by the Field Services committee, and as adopted by the State Committee, if any.

Article I - NAME

This organization shall be known as the Harwich Democratic Town Committee, herein after called the Committee.

Article II - PURPOSES

This committee is organized and constituted under authority of and in accordance with the provisions of the General Laws of the Commonwealth, and shall have as its purposes the following: to foster and advance the ideals and aims of the Democratic Party; to work and organize for the success of the Democratic candidates of the District, County, State and Nation; to do all things necessary and incidental to the building and strengthening of the Democratic Party in Massachusetts and within Town of Harwich (Jurisdiction).

Article III - MEMBERSHIP

A........ The Harwich Democratic Town Committee shall consist of thirty five (35) [or number designated and reported to the Massachusetts Secretary of State prior to Presidential Primary elections] registered Democrats in Harwich, who shall have been elected at the Presidential Primary for a period of 4 years together with those elected to membership by the members of said Committee, in conformance with the provisions of law.

B........ The Committee, following the election of its members, shall meet and organize, chose a Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer, Affirmative Action and Outreach Advisor, and such other officers as it may decide to elect. At such meeting the Committee may add to its elected members provided it does not exceed the total allowed by law as found on file with the Secretary of State’s Office.

C........ The Committee may, by vote at any meeting, authorize the appointment of associate members. Associate members shall not have the right to vote but shall have such other powers and duties as the Committee may determine.

D........ Any duly elected member of the Committee who changes residence from the community during the said four years shall cease to be a member of the Committee at that time.

E........ Vacancies shall be filled by vote of the Committee. Associate members, if any, shall be the candidates first considered for filling the vacancies.

F......... With respect to current numbers of the town committee who served as such for 20 or more years or current members of any ward committee who have served within such city for 20 or more years, said member's elected position on the town or ward committee shall be vacated after the member has served over twenty years and he or she becomes a voting member of the town/ward committee.

G........ Members may be removed in conformity with Section II of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Article IV - OFFICERS

A........ The officers of this organization shall consist of a Chairperson (or co-Chairs), Vice Chairperson (one or more), Secretary, Treasurer and Affirmative Action and Outreach Advisor. These officers shall be elected at the Committee organizational meeting and shall Serve for a term of two years, at the end of which new elections for officers shall be held. (The Chair(s) and Vice Chair(s) shall not be of the same sex)

B........ There shall be an Executive Committee consisting of the officers of the Committee and others elected.

C........ In the event of death, resignation or the permanent removal from the Harwich Democratic Committee of any of the above named officers, their places shall be declared vacant and be filled at the next regular meeting of the Committee. A statement of such changes in the officers of the Committee shall be sent immediately by the Secretary of the Committee to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, to the Secretary of the Democratic State Committee and to the town/city clerk.

Article V - CHAIRPERSON

The Chairperson shall, in addition to the duties required by law, preside at all meetings of the Committee and shall have general charge and supervision of all Committee activities. He/She shall have the power to appoint all standing committees and such other special committees as are created from time to time. He/She shall have the power to call all special meetings of the Town/Ward Committee and all regular meetings at such time or times as may seem to her/him to be advisable, subject only to the vote of the Committee in fixing the number of regular meetings to be held during the course of the year.

Article VI - VICE CHAIRPERSON

The Vice Chairperson shall preside at all meetings of the Harwich Town Committee in the absence of the Chairperson. She/He shall perform all duties and have the powers of the Chairperson in the case of her/his temporary absence.

Article VII - SECRETARY

The Secretary shall keep a record of all proceedings of the Harwich Town Committee and shall issue notice by mail to each member of each meeting of the Committee at least seven days prior to the date of the meeting. The Secretary shall, within ten days after the organization of the Committee, file with the Secretary of the Commonwealth, the Secretary of the Democratic State Committee and the Harwich Town Clerk, a list of the officers and members of the Committee; and shall immediately file with the same officials a statement of the changes in the organization or membership of the Committee thereafter.

Article VIII - TREASURER

The Treasurer shall have the custody of all funds belonging to the Committee and shall pay all orders subject to the approval of the Chairperson and shall procure and file vouchers for all such payment. No expenditures of funds of the Committee shall be made by the Treasurer outside the regular activities or expense thereof except upon the approval of a majority of the Committee at a special or regular meeting. She/He shall submit a report of the financial condition and transactions of the Committee at all regular meetings. A detailed report shall be provided at least semiannually-annually. Additionally, the Treasurer will file reports with the appropriate state and local offices with regard to fundraising.

Article IX - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND OUTREACH ADVISOR

The Affirmative Action and Outreach Advisor shall be responsible for developing strategies and activities to expand participation in the Committee of the Party’s Affirmative Action target groups.

Article X - CALLING A MEETING WITHOUT CONSENT OF CHAIRPERSON

A........ In the event of a refusal of the Chairperson of the Committee to call a meeting of the Committee, a majority of the executive committee may, in writing, order the Secretary of said Committee to call a meeting of the committee.

B........ Said executive committee shall have the power to act upon all matters pertaining to the Committee arising between the meetings of said Committee.

C........ Seven members of the Committee can request a meeting by a petition in writing to the Secretary and the Secretary shall call such meeting within two weeks.

Article XI - QUORUM

One third of the members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business.

Article XII - BY LAWS COMMITTEE

There shall be a By Laws Committee appointed by the Chairperson from the duly elected members. The Chairperson shall designate the Chairperson of the By Laws Committee.

Article XIII - CHANGES IN THE BY LAWS

A........ These By Laws may be amended or repealed at any regularly called meeting of the elected members of the Committee, provided such proposed change is in writing and is signed by the elected member proposing it and is in the hands of the Chairperson before the call of the next meeting, at which such proposal is to be acted upon. The proposed by law change shall be sent to all members with the announcement of the meeting and must be notified at least 30 days in advance. Bylaws can be changed by majority vote of committee.

B........ Such proposed changes in the By Laws shall be referred forthwith by the Chairperson to the By Laws Committee which shall make a report with its recommendations at the same meeting, if possible, but no later than the following meeting. A majority of the elected members present and voting shall be necessary to overturn the report of the By Laws Committee or to approve the change in the By Law. By Law change proposals which contradict the provisions of the Massachusetts Democratic Sate Party Charter cannot be considered.

C........ Unless and until amended or repealed by the elected members, these By Laws shall continue in effect from year to year and no formal motion shall be necessary at any meeting of the Committee in order that they continue in force.

Article XIV - ORDER OF BUSINESS

The order of business at meetings shall be as follows:

1. Calling the roll of officers and members and announcement of quorum (sign-in sheets may be used in lieu of roll call).

2. Reading the minutes of the previous meeting.

3. Treasurers Report

4. Reports of officers and committees.

5. Reading of communications addressed to the Committee.

6. Old or unfinished business.

7. New business.

8. State Committee Reports

9. Speaker

10.Adjournment.

The order of business may be waived by a two thirds vote of the elected members present and voting.

Article XV - MEETINGS

Regular meetings of the Committee shall be held at least four times in non election years and six times in election years, at least once each quarter.

Article XVI REMOVAL OF LOCAL MEMBERS

Members and officers pledge themselves, as elected officials, to perform diligently and honorably their duties or resign. Members of town and ward committees may be removed by procedures guaranteeing adequate notice and due process and by a majority vote of the entire membership of the committee of which he or she is a member for:

a. ...... Failure to attend at least half of the regularly scheduled committee meeting during any calendar year.

b......... Public support for or financial contribution to an opponent of a nominee of the democratic part which nominee publicly supports the platform of the Democratic party as adopted at the most recent state and national Democratic convention

c. ....... Unauthorized use of the Party name or resources

d......... Conviction after appeals are exhausted of a criminal offense other than a misdemeanor.

A member must be given an opportunity to resign before notice of the hearing on the question of removal is given to the membership of the committee.

A member removed under this section shall have 30 days to appeal to the Judicial Council (State Committee), and the vacancy may not be filled in such case until the final decision of the Judicial council is made.




_____________________________