|
|
|
 Editorials | Issues | January 2008 
Bush Veto a Blow to "Wounded Warriors"
 Maya Schenwar & Matt Renner - t r u t h o u t
go to original
 |  | This action could result in misery and even death for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Veterans' Rights advocates |  | |
The Bush administration's veto of a broad-ranging defense policy bill this week will delay a long list of benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.
Bush did not veto the Defense Authorization Bill of 2008 outright, according to White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. Instead, he used a maneuver called a "pocket veto." Essentially, a pocket veto is a way to kill a piece of legislation while Congress is adjourned. In allowing a bill to expire by refusing to sign or veto it, a president can effectively force Congress to restart its legislative work from the beginning.
House and Senate leaders contend that this attempted pocket veto is illegitimate and that they will act as if Bush had issued a standard veto. According to spokesmen for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader of the Senate Harry Reid, Congress was not out of session, because the Senate was in "Pro Forma" session and the House had left specific instructions for communications with the executive branch. They plan to hold a veto override vote when the House and Senate convene later this month. This disagreement is key because a pocket veto could delay the bill for much longer than a traditional veto. The bill had overwhelming bipartisan support, and a traditional veto could be overridden quickly.
The Bush administration claims that a provision that would allow lawsuits against the new government of Iraq for crimes committed by Saddam Hussein's regime prompted the unexpected veto. Specifically at issue is Section 1083 of the bill, which would allow victims of terrorism and torture to sue foreign governments for compensation.
In a Memorandum of Disapproval issued by the White House on December 28, Bush referred to Section 1083 of the bill as "a danger to Iraq's progress," because it would allow people harmed by Hussein to sue the government of Iraq and potentially "weaken the close partnership between the United States and Iraq during this critical period in Iraq's history."
In the memo, Bush also claimed that by freezing Iraqi assets, the provision could have negative consequences for the US economy. "By potentially forcing a close US ally to withdraw significant funds from the US financial system, section 1083 would cast doubt on whether the United States remains a safe place to invest and to hold financial assets."
A Hardship for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans
The vetoed Defense Authorization bill, not to be confused with the defense spending bill passed in November, does not allocate funding, but addresses a potpourri of defense-related issues, from missile defense to naval research to supplies for troops in Iraq.
Normally, a veto in any form is frustrating for Congressional leaders. But, according to Veterans' Rights advocates, this action could result in misery and even death for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
At a time when veteran suicides are skyrocketing, delaying the passage of the authorization bill is "unconscionable," according to Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense, a nonpartisan veterans' advocacy organization.
"Americans are outraged that our wounded, injured and ill veterans are waiting months or longer while the politicians dither about," Sullivan said, continuing, "Don't they know our veterans are dying while they fail to do their jobs?"
Twenty percent of the 224,000 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans who have filed a disability claim with the VA are still waiting for an answer, according to VA data.
The vetoed bill contained the Dignified Treatment for Wounded Warriors Act, which would have expanded health care availability for members and veterans of the armed services. It would have provided five years of free medical care to all Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, who currently receive only two years. The bill also would have paved the way for expedited access to mental health care for returning veterans, who currently face a lengthy application process and waiting period for services. In addition, the bill included a three and a half percent pay raise for US troops.
The White House has stressed that its veto will not jeopardize benefits for troops and veterans, since they will be compensated retroactively once the bill is enacted.
However, Sullivan noted that the time between the veto and the bill's enactment could be a matter of life or death for many veterans. A veteran discharged on December 31, 2005, whose health benefits have expired as of Monday, is currently without free health care until legislation is passed.
"A retroactive benefit is no good for a dead veteran and his or her family," Sullivan said.
Pocket Veto Rules
The disagreement over Bush's attempted pocket veto is technical, but quite important in this situation. If Bush legitimately used a pocket veto, the bill would have to undergo the legislative process all over again, further delaying its enactment. If, instead, the bill was halted by a traditional veto, Congress has an opportunity to override the veto quickly, putting the bill back on track as soon as it reconvenes.
Under a normal veto, the bill would be returned to Congress, where representatives and senators would be given the opportunity to override the veto with a two-thirds approval vote in both bodies. With a pocket veto, there is no way to override the president, and Congress must resubmit the legislation, hold new votes, and eventually resubmit the bill to the president for his approval before it becomes law.
"They can say that it wasn't a veto until they're blue in the face, but the fact is that we were in Pro Forma session and the House was able to receive messages, so this was a regular veto," Jim Manley, spokesman for Reid told Truthout.
The Senate has been holding "Pro Forma" meetings where one member of the body opens the floor briefly every two or three days to prevent the president from making recess appointments. The House instructed the House clerk to receive communications from the executive branch during the recess.
According to Ohio State University Law Professor Peter Shane, the fact that the House had a communication mechanism in place sufficiently prevents Bush from using a pocket veto under legal precedent set by the Washington, DC, Circuit Court. Shane pointed out that the actual case that set the precedent (Kennedy v. Sampson) was thrown out by the Supreme Court in 1987 on "unrelated procedural grounds" but added that "the approach of the DC Circuit is clear and, unless they would now take a different direction, the president cannot pocket veto a bill that originated in the House if the House currently has someone appointed to receive his veto message."
However, the Democrats have not mounted significant challenges to the Bush administration in most confrontations over constitutional procedure or law.
Matt Renner is an assistant editor and Washington reporter for Truthout.
Maya Schenwar is an assistant editor and reporter for Truthout. |
| |
|
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us