Congressional Updates

Archives

Return to Homepage

Nine Heroes in Congress Make a Stand for Peace

Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2007-03-23 18:11. Congress

Here are the results of the March 23, 2007, vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to give Bush and Cheney over $100 billion more for war. The bill passed with exactly the 218 votes required. Almost all of the Republicans and six Democrats voted No for the wrong reasons. One Democrat voted "Present". But eight Democrats voted No because they oppose further funding of this war. These eight are the beginning of a movement for peace, and the first indication that some Democrats, even under the most intense pressure not to, will be willing to oppose Speaker Pelosi when she takes the wrong stance. This will be required if a movement for impeachment is ever to take hold in Congress. Here are the eight with links to contact and thank them:

Thank Dennis Kucinich, John Lewis, Barbara Lee, Mike McNulty, Mike Michaud, Maxine Waters, Diane Watson, and Lynn Woolsey.

And thank Libertarian Ron Paul.

About the heroes:

Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has been a leader against funding the war. He made this statement on the floor prior to the vote, and this statement the day before, as well as this one. He urged everyone to lobby their congress members for No votes. On March 21, he made this statement, and this one on March 19. Kucinich is the sponsor of this bill to defund the war. Here is his website, and his presidential campaign website.

John Lewis of Georgia has been a leading advocate for civil rights and peace for many years. He gave a remarkable speech on the floor in the lead up to the vote, for which the Backbone Campaign presented him with a Backbone Award. Here is his website.

Barbara Lee of California is the Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus and the author of an amendment that would have limited all funding in the bill to a withdrawal. She is the sponsor of this bill to prevent an attack on Iran. Here is her website.

Mike McNulty of New York is less well known to the national peace movement. He quietly made the right vote and released this statement explaining that his brother had been killed in Vietnam and that he did not want to fund a similar war. Here is his website.

Mike Michaud of Maine is also little known to the national peace movement. But he has cosponsored a number of good bills aimed at ending the war, including Jack Murtha's bill for redeployment, Abercrobie and Jones' bill for withdrawal, Lee's and Allen's bills for no permanent bases, Woolsey's bill for a withdrawal plan, Price and Miller's bill for a withdrawal plan, and Evans' bill to fund VA health care. Michaud also voted against a war funding bill in 2004. On the Iraq section of his website, Michaud states his support for bills to end the war, oppose the recent escalation, ban permanent bases, and demand accountability for war spending. Here is his website.

Maxine Waters of California is the chair of the Out of Iraq Caucus and a leader of the peace movement. In recent weeks and on the day before the vote, she has participated in conference calls with the peace movement organized by United for Peace and Justice. In February, she made this statement against the escalation of the war. Here is her website.

Diane Watson of California has been a voice for peace. Her statements over the years on Iraq can be found here. Here is her website.

Lynn Woolsey of California is, along with Barbara Lee, a Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus. She has appeared frequently in the print and broadcast media in the days leading up to the vote as a clear voice for opposing the funding of the war. Here is a video of her speaking at a peace rally the weekend before the vote. Here is video, audio, and transcript of a debate she took one side of on Democracy Now! Woolsey is the sponsor of this bill to defund the war. Here is her website, which includes videos of her floor speeches. She made this statement on the day of the vote.

And number nine...
Libertarian Ron Paul, of Texas, while no progressive on most issues, voted No for many of the right reasons.

 
Published on Friday, February 16, 2007 by Agence France Presse
US House Delivers Stinging Rebuke to Bush Over New Iraq Strategy
 

The US House of Representatives delivered a stinging rebuke to President George W. Bush over his new strategy on Iraq, in a rare wartime blow to the country's commander-in-chief.

How Did Your US Representative Vote?

Roll Call 99 - H Con Res 63 - 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
The terse text of the non-binding resolution was adopted by the Democrat-controlled House, also winning the support of 17 of the 201 Republican members.

A total of 246 of the current 434 House members voted for the motion, which says "Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007" to send an additional 21,500 troops to Iraq.

It adds that "Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States armed forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq."

The vote came at the end of a week of debate, the most serious organized on the Iraq war since the US-led invasion in March 2003, in which all members of the House had a chance to voice their opinion.

For the new Democratic Party majority, Friday's vote finally gives voice to the voters who swept them to power in both chambers of Congress in November elections amid a wave of anger over the Iraq war, which has claimed more than 3,100 US lives.

It presages a rare Saturday session of the upper chamber of Congress, the Senate, which will hold a key procedural vote on whether to kick-start its own debate on a similar motion.

The American electorate "voted for a new direction in our nation -- including a new direction for the war in Iraq," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said ahead of Friday's vote.

He called on his fellow lawmakers to "demonstrate that we not only have heard the voters' message but also that we have the collective will to send one of our own."

The White House has mounted a broad campaign to explain Bush's new plan to lawmakers and has appealed to Congress not to use its power over the budget to cut off funding for the war.

"The important debate will come when we talk about whether or not Congress will provide the needed support for our troops," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

Bush told a news conference Wednesday: "I am going to make it very clear to the members of Congress ... they need to fund our troops."

In the coming weeks, Congress will have to debate and vote on the budget for the "war on terror," beginning with an outlay of more than 93 billion dollars for 2007.

The debate over financing the war has essentially begun. Under the US constitution, the president is the military commander-in-chief and in charge of foreign policy, but Congress holds the purse strings.

The left wing of the Democratic Party as well as a Democratic presidential contender for the 2008 election, former senator John Edwards, have been pushing Congress to cut war funding.

So far the Democratic establishment has signaled its reluctance to cut funds for the US troops already deployed in Iraq.

But Jack Murtha, chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee and one of the fiercest critics of the Iraq war, has announced he would condition the release of additional funds in a way that would hamper future troop deployments.

Lawmakers must "deny the president the ability to send more US troops into Iraq and to insist instead on restoring our military readiness," Murtha told the activist group Moveon.org.