Via email:
Democrats are pulling out all of the stops to grease the wheels for their "slow-bleed" strategy, a plan to undermine our generals and hamstring our troops that has drawn a blunt veto threat from the White House. Democratic leaders are loading up the emergency war spending package with BILLIONS in unrelated spending that has nothing to do with winning the war on terror - and while many Democrats oppose the scheme, others are taking the bait. According to The Politico:"Democratic leaders have also added billions in funds not related to wartime spending in a bid for more support.
"That additional money was attractive for at least one lawmaker, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), an Out of Iraq Caucus member. ...
"'That's pretty vital for our district, so we'll be voting for the bill,' Langone said."
And when offering "goodies" hasn't worked, Democrats have turned to another tactic: the threat of retribution. The Hill chronicles threats by Democratic leaders to strip committee seats from those who vote against the "slow-bleed" plan:"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is holding the implied threat of lost committee seats over the heads of Democratic Caucus members who may vote against her $124 billion Iraq war supplemental bill. ...
"The Speaker pointedly reminded Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), a leading opponent of the bill, that she had appointed her to the Appropriations Committee ...
"The message was simple, the lawmakers said: Pelosi could also remove Lee from the panel."
Committee seats aren't the only things Democratic leaders have threatened to take away -- they're also promising to take away pork if Members don't fall in line. One House Democrat said told The Politico that "Democratic leaders ... have threatened to block requests for new funds for his district":"One congressman, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution from leaders, bristled at how aggressively he was being pressured to vote for the bill ...
"The congressman also noted that Democratic leaders had 'made clear' to him that they might yank funding requests he had made for projects in his district if he did not support the measure."
Even with all of the sweeteners and the threats, Democrats remain divided over the strategy, which is currently slated for a House vote tomorrow. According to the Washington Post:"One of the Democrats' chief designated vote counters, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), is actively working against the Iraq war spending bill. The leadership's senior chief deputy whip, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), spoke passionately against it on the House floor. And one of the whip organization's regional representatives, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), is implacably opposed."
Yesterday, House Republicans filed a "discharge petition" to force a vote on legislation by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) that ensures Congress will fully fund American troops in harm's way. If this petition receives 218 signatures from House Members, the Johnson bill will be brought to the floor for consideration.
House Republicans will continue to stand united in this debate, and will oppose efforts by Democrats to undermine the ability of General Petraeus and our troops to achieve victory in the Global War on Terror.
Meanwhile, House Republican Leaders penned the following letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) today, officially requesting (1) an open rule for debate on the supplemental appropriations bill and (2) that time for debate be as extensive as that provided for the non-binding disapproval resolution last month.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, The Capitol
Washington , D.C. 20515
Dear Madam Speaker:
We write to you today to request your support for an open and extended debate on the war spending bill that is expected on the floor later this week.
During the 109th Congress, the House of Representatives considered war supplemental appropriations bills under open rules, as is the long-standing practice and tradition of the House Appropriations Committee. In addition, the bill combines critical funding for our military and intelligence personnel with controversial changes to strategic policies and $21.3 billion in spending above the President's request, of which $9.3 billion is not for activities directly associated with the Global War on Terror. The hybrid nature of the bill necessitates a comprehensive and public debate.
Last month, the House of Representatives considered for four days a non-binding resolution concerning a tactic in the larger strategy in Iraq . Members of the House were denied any opportunity to amend this non-binding resolution. Instead, the Democratic leadership made a commitment at the time to allow all Members of the House an opportunity to express their proposed alternatives at a later date.
We believe that an open rule for consideration of the supplemental is the only way the House should debate this binding bill. The war spending bill presents an appropriate opportunity for the Democratic leadership to fulfill its commitment by affording all Members the opportunity to amend the bill, and we hereby request that you do so. Furthermore, given that four days were devoted last month to the non-binding resolution on Iraq, we believe similar time should be made available for debate on this binding bill, which would set a mandatory timetable for surrender and withdrawal from Iraq.
Sincerely,
Rep. John A. Boehner
Rep. Roy Blunt
Rep. Adam Putnam
Rep. Jerry Lewis
Rep. David Dreier
Rep. Duncan Hunter Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen
Rep. Pete Hoekstra Rep. Steve Buyer
