But first the reason I consider Representative Tubb Jones to have been a valued public servant reaches beyond her being a reliable liberal supporter who was a valued member of the House Ways and Means Committee. That powerful committee deals with social security, medicare, welfare, taxes and trade. Tubb Jones spoke out on matters beyond her Committee work. She had the guts to challenge the voting irregularities in the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio. In that setting she courageously raised issues many elected officials wanted to be swept under the rug.

Representative Tubb Jones was an institutionalist. That ranks highest in my book. When called on by Speaker Pelosi she was willing to step up and chair the Ethics Committee that oversees her colleagues. Not a pleasant responsibility. This is not a Committee with a long line of volunteers. 

Its previous Democratic Chairs, going back to the late 1970s to the early 1990s, also stepped up to meet their responsibilities. Quickly coming to mind are Lee Hamilton (D-Ind), Lou Stokes (D-Ohio) and Jim McDermott (D-Wash). They all met their responsibilities well. She held the seat that Lou Stokes held for decades.

Representative Tubb Jones did not have a chance to serve long as Chair but “step up” she did. She was going to have to face “dicey” issues including an examination of issues surrounding her Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY). Rangel is the Chairman the Ways and Means Committee that Tubbs Jones served on. Rangel asked for the inquiry after the New York Times exposed what appears to be favorable treatment in a New York city apartment complex, Rangel’s residence. Tubb Jones was confronted with no easy task.

Now my story. I was working the House this spring on an anti-Iraq war vote. A good spot to button hole legislators on sunny warm days is near the chamber as they walk from their offices enjoying the balmy air. Walking by was Chairman Rangel talking with Tubb Jones. Both were strong Hillary Clinton supporters. Rangel and  I waved to each other as I overheard Tubb Jones telling him that she never went to so many places she had never been to in America while campaigning for Senator Clinton. These were the different primary states outside of Ohio. They included Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Virginia, California, Texas. She had conveyed that she got to see so much of the country that she wouldn’t otherwise had.  It brought to mind Tip O’Neill’s classic aphorism: “all politics is local.” Here is this accomplished person and she had not had a chance to see much of the US. I am glad she did.

She will be missed for her colorful dress and for being a “workhorse” and instituionalist, the essence of a valued public servant.

As a participant in successful efforts to strip House Democrats of seniority who supported Goldwater in 1964, and strip three unfair and arbritrary Committee Chairman of their posts after the House Democratic landslide in 1974 (post Watergate) , I can attest to the precise reasons for stripping legislators of their chairmanships and seniority.

Lieberman’s views on the Iraq war, and his Iran bellicosity, are not a reason. Even his outrageous connection with Reverend Hagee does not per se sink Lieberman. Even McCain rejected Hagee’s endorsement after his anti-Catholic comments were . Hagees tepid apology to Catholics does not reduce the virulence of his essential bigotry. Lieberman’s occassional liberalism (pro-choice, opposed Alito’s confirmation, his leadership on global warming and DC’s right to vote for representation in the House) do not mitigate his actions in support of McCain for President.

Where Lieberman has reached the point of no return is his endorsement of McCain for President. The endorsement alone puts Lieberman over the line. His active campaigning for him serves to emphasize his endorsement. To speak at the Republican convention serves to remind the rest of us that Lieberman will soon be as forgotten as Zell Miller, the Georgia Democratic Senator who spoke to the Republican convention in 2004 in support of Bush over Kerry.

 Lieberman wants to save his Chairmanship. So he has contributed $100,000 from his political fund to elect Senate Democrats. He is trying to buy his way out of a mortal political sin. No sale, Lieberman. That money, and even future money, does not forgive his support of McCain for President. The people of Connecticut can elect whomever they choose. That does not mean that that official is entitled to the benfits of the Democratic caucus. That is what House Democrats established in 1964 and 1974. Senate Democrats should follow suit.

True, right now Lieberman has a whip hand. If he leaves the caucus and votes with the Republicans to organize the Senate, Cheney breaks a 50-50 tie. That would mean Lieberman will have broken his unambiguous pledge to Connecticut voters that he would vote with the Democrats to organize the Senate. To break the pledge would make Lieberman’s legacy that of a liar or a Benedict Arnold.

 Next year hopefully there will a different scenario If the Democrats reach the magic number of 52 Lieberman should be treated as Wayne Morse was when he supported, as a Republican, Stevenson over Eisenhower in 1952. Lieberman would lose his Committee Chairmanship (Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs),  and all Committee assignments from the Senate Democrats. If Republicans wanted to give him Committee assignments that is the Republican Conference’s decision. Otherwise he gets last choice and goes to the bottom of the list.

Will Senate Democrats pass the easy test of disciplining Lieberman? That’s far from clear. They are likely to have to be shamed into exercising their basic party responsibilities. 

The Center also reported that 3/4 of the Hispanic voters who voted for Clinton in the primaries are inclined to vote for Obama. Only 8% of Clinton’s Hispanic voters support McCain.  At this point Obama is doing better among Hispanic Clinton voters than among white non-Hispanic voters. Added to the mix is an increasing identification by Hispanics with the Democratic Party.

We all know the challenges of registration, getting people to the polls, overcoming the harassment and obstacles to voting by Hispanics and African-Americans that takes place in too many polling places. political centrality of organized efforts in many states.

More than any campaign in my living memory–I go back a long way working precincts for Stevenson in 1952– this organized political effort shows the election is a beginning not an ending. In my own organizing and advocacy work, I know that the importance of organized activity between elections is well understood by the Mexican and Central American communities, fresh participants in USA politics. Even if the margin doesn’t stay at 66-23, McCain is not likely to be close to the 35% he needs. What’s more the voter turnout by Hispanics will likely be substantially greater than in the past. These represent hopeful signs based on organized action.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn), who chairs the Senate’s counterpart committee,  played a key role in working with his Republican counterpart Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala) to over come the perennial Republican filibusters. These filibusters are designed to obstruct public problem solving.

The Low Income Housing Coalition, mayors and social service agencies have spent the whole 21st Century lobbying to address the gap between available affordable housing and the needs of low income families and individuals. The gap runs into the millions.

 Yes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were rescued. But the real innovation, as Frank and Dodd are quick to point out, is establishing by law the National Housing Trst Fund. Frank and Dodd creatively by-pass the annual Congressional appropriations process–a process that is often unrelaible for economically at risk families and is therefore no friend of low income families. The funding for the Housing Trust Fund will come from tapping into a portion of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s profits. That will lead to a reliable flow of funds for affordable housing.

Sheila Crowley, who heads the Low Income Housing Coalition,  says  this is the first low income housing program to become law since 1974  “to serve extremely low income families.”  That’s worth blaring trumpet blasts across our land.

Miracles happen because of the skill of professional politicians serving creatively in the Congress. Hats off to Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. who in columnist David Broder’s words show “both professionalism and conscience” and thereby made a difference that will improve the lives of many poor people.

The House and Senate have made two other matters abundantly clear: the Iraq War has neglected our efforts in dealing effectively and resolutely with Al Queda; it has also given the Taliban an added and unnecessary advantage in Afghanistan.

As long as Bush is President there are no serious limitations on his authority because of his veto power.  Nearly all House and Senate Republicans support the President’s veto when exercised. Only a new President, with a different Iraq  and national security policy, can lead the US government to give up the folly of its ways.

A majority of the House repeatedly, and the Senate once, voted for a date certain orderly redeployment of troops from Iraq. In addition,  the House in its approval of the Defense Authorization legislation in 2008 established its support for a major overhaul of our Iraq and national security policy. That legislation has not been considered on the Senate floor. 

Here’s what the House did in broad outline:

1. Said no to privatizing the war. It barred contracting out inherent governmental functions in combat areas. Embedded in the policies that have been approved are serious accountability requirements for military contractors and their employees.

2. Status of forces agreements (SOFA) negotiated between the US and Iraq’s government, dealing with the defense of Iraq internally or externally, have no legal effect unless the agreement is a treaty that the Senate has given its advice and consent to and/or is specifically authorized by an Act of Congress.

3. Barred contractors and their employees from interrogating prisoners. Torture is no longer privatized thereby, if enacted, would end our Pontius Pilate policy of approving torture. 

4. Insist on setting high standards for the government by ruling out torture. In doing so, the House followed the example set by Senator Obama in his pioneering work in the Illinois state legislature: he led the fight to require the video taping police interrogations in felony cases. The House approved legislation requiring videotaping and electronic recording during detainee interrogations that the Defense Department (DOD) controls.

4. DOD is barred from using funds authorized by the legislation for propoganda. The enforcemnt mechanism calls for oversight by the hard-hitting DOD Inspector General (IG) and the General Accounting Office (GAO). (In my experience the IG offices and GAO have provided stellar examples of public service even when the rest of the government, particularly DOD and the Justice Department, have abused power and lied.)

5. The House adopted a whole host of health amendments that protect the women and men serving in our armed forces. Protections and benefits run after discharge. These protections include addressing the disturbing number of Iraq war related suicides.  

6. The Senate Armed Services Committee legislation focused on broad strategic matters in addition to dealing with the legislation’s details. The Senate Committee’s focus shows a fundamental disapproval of the direction Bush-Cheney has taken our government. It called for changes in three broad areas: (a) provide our armed services with  resources, training and technology so that combat and stabilizing operations can succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan; (b) recognize that the readiness of the military to perform necessary missions to prevent and protect has been seriously neglected; (c) transform leadership in DOD to deal with threats to our security in the 21st century. These include countering threats from non-state actors and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

The House and Senate have laid the basis for a policy from a new President that will lead to cooperation between the President, DOD and most of the Congress. The House and Senate provide a valuable lesson.  Congress, in a new Administration can initiate constructive policy steps that are based on feedback it knows how to receive– a feedback that often doesn’t get through complex bureaucracies. such as DOD.

The policy will work only if the new President is committed to a new direction in Iraq. That policy has to be based on an orderly withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. That withdrawal enables us to meet our responsibilities to the Iraq people and its refugees in that country’s rebuilding efforts.

All of the Senate Democrats, and a majority of the Senate Republicans, supported the GI Bill over Bush’s objections. The bill additionally included social safety net support for Medicaid, unemployment insurance and Katrina recovery monies.

The Senate floor reminded me of John Kenneth Galbraith’s astute 1960 book “The Liberal Hour.” Galbraith observed that in the sixth year of a Senate term Republicans cast liberal votes. They hope voters will have amnesia about their five years of casting their lot with conservatives. Ever fearful of the November elections, most Republican Senators abandoned Bush and his weak political condition. Today Bush has a lower approval rating than Truman at his lowest point and Nixon when he resigned.

The vote on Iraq war spending had encouraging news. A majority of Senate Democrats opposed the funding including the Senate’s Democratic leadership–Reid, Durbin and Murray. Last year on a similar vote only 11 anti-Iraq war Senators voted against the Iraq War. This time the vote included 24 Democratic Senators, one Republican and one Independent (Sanders, Vt) who caucuses with the Democrats. Actually the total of announced opponents was 28–Senator Obama missed the vote because he was campaigning in Florida and Senator Kennedy is ill.

The Senate disappointed anti-war opponents because Senator Reid did not structure votes to create a legislative date certain to begin and end a safe and orderly deployment of troops from Iraq. Senate Republicans objected to such a vote. Even though it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster such a vote would have had the support of all, or nearly all, the Senate Democrats and would have tested the seriousness of Republicans in their pursuit of “the liberal hour.” It would have been a valuable vote to take into the fall campaign.

The Bush Administration will argue that money for the troops will run out. That argument is without merit. The military pipeline has money until at least some time in July. In addition, legislation can be quickly enacted to enable the Army to borrow money from the Navy and Air Force. Speaker Pelosi is fully aware of all this and refused to rush the Senate bill to the House floor.

The Memorial Day recess will enable conversations to take place among anti-war legislators and advocacy groups on next steps. Stay tuned.

The House used its appropriations power to limit Bush’s unrestrained war policies and set a time limit for troop withdrawal. It took an additional step by ending Iraq war funding. Most House Republicans refused to fund a war they support thereby adding to the no-confidence vote. The House expanded the GI Bill and paid for its expansion by asking rich people to pay an addition half a percent more on their taxes.

This note will discuss the legislation’s provisions, analyze the House votes and discuss why the Bush demagoguery on these issues has no merit.

The House Democratic leadership, operating as a team, listened to its members to structure a way of the House working its will on key issues directly related to the Iraq War. What the leadership structured is a precise use of the power of the purse to choose priorities and set boundaries on the use of our tax dollars by an unaccountable and unrestrained President.

I. The Bill’s Provisions: The House leadership divided the legislation into three parts known as Amendments 1, 2 and 3.

Amendment1: This Amendment provided funds to continue the war until a new President can set new policies for troop withdrawal. This Amendment allowed those opposed to the war to vote no, those who voted yes would not be politically vulnerable by not supporting the troops (mostly marginal Democrats from rural districts that overwhelmingly supported Bush in 2004). Supporters of the war, most House Republicans, were expected to support the legislation. Instead most House Republicans voted present. That is they refused to fund the war they claim to support.

Amendment 2: This Amendment established significant ground rules limiting the President’s authority to wage an unrestrained war. It establishes four significant policies sharply drawing the line with Bush policies.

1. Sets a mandate for withdrawal of troops from Iraq starting 30 days after enactment and to be completed within 18 months. What this policy does is establish a framework for a supportive President to begin a process of orderly troop withdrawal that protects our troops during the withdrawal phase.

2. Rotates the troops by requiring sufficient rest periods of more than a year between the time they are stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan before they resume combat duty. This responds to the many examples of men and women having multiple times of service in combat zones with hardly any real time at home.

3. Sets specific policies barring President Bush from unilaterally binding the next Administration in committing troops to Iraq.

4. Makes the prohibition on torture by US personnel crystal clear.

Amendment 3: The heart of Amendment 3 recognizes the service of our women and men in Afghanistan and

Amendment 2 succeeded with the support of 94% of the House Democrats. It attracted 8 Republicans an increase of 4 in support of a deadline for withdrawal.

Amendment 3 had support from 97% of the House Democrats and 32 Republicans amounting to 17% of the House Republicans.

III. The Politics of It All

As a builder of House coalitions among liberal and moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans (an endangered group), I admire the work of the House Democratic leadership and the relevant committee sub-committee chairs. Ideas from many sources were drawn on including specific suggestions from Council for the Livable World and other anti-war groups.

Critical time was spent with Democratic House members listening to their concerns and structuring the process to enable House members to vote on all key issues. That is why it is a democratic process. Republicans have no cause to complain. In their day as a majority they did not allow key issues to be voted on.

The House Republican leadership and Bush will fire a steady drumbeat accusing the Democrats of abandoning the troops. That’s false.  In using the public funds for withdrawal of the troops the money when appropriated serves to protect the troops. Even if true that funds will run out in mid-June (a very debatable matter), absent any enacted legislation, the Pentagon has acknowledged that money can be borrowed from the Navy and Air force funds. On that matter Congress will not stand in the way.

This vote represents the panic House Republicans have in losing three straight bye elections in rock ribbed Republican House districts. Cheney’s presence in Mississippi campaigning for the defeated Republican adds to the panic. Old Rovian tactics of linking the conservative Democrats to Obama and Pelosi failed. Panic is palpable.

Above all it represents a triumph among House opponents of the Iraq war who recognize this disastrous and costly mistake. A strong majority of House officeholders want to take prompt action to begin to protect our troops, save Iraqi lives and strengthen our security by ending this disaster.

The real sinners are the President and Vice-President who have created these war policies that kill our young people, wound them physically and emotionally. We owe these young people immeasurably. Keith Olbermann we need you tonight.

That same Bush and Cheney have created a mindset in government that makes Dickens characters look generous. Veterans Secretary Peake don’t just blame the hapless psychologist. Change the policy and attitudes so that we act on what the recent Rand study found: 300,000 US military personnel who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan have PTSD.

Chairmen Akaka and Fillner get Peake and OMB Director Nussle before your Committee and make them change the polcies so that we recognize PTSD and act on that recognition

Acting as it did on Iraq policy, the House has once more stood up to President Bush’s reckless policies and provided a carefully drawn alternative that protects civil liberties and at the same time protects national security.

Of course presidential vetoes cannot be overridden because House Republican are joined at the hip to the Bush Administration.

Here’s what the House did. It shows that a majority wants something fundamentally different from the Bush Administration:

1. Said no to warantless surveillance.

2. Said no to giving the telephone companies absolute retroactive immunity for their participation in working with the Bush Administration to engage in warantless surveillance.

3.  Insisted that the telephone companies may be sued by those observed. The companies would have to present their case to a federal judge to show why they shouldn’t be sued. The policy says there’s no free ride for the telephone companies.

The House went into a secret session as Bush Administration supporters tried to use the specter of national security as an act of intimidation. Veteran House member David Obey (D-Wis) talked about the “mumbo-jumbo” of these sessions and that “they demonstrate almost total uselessnes.”

House Judiciary Chairman Conyers (D-Mich) asked how can you give “retroactive immunity for something you don’t know what you are giving it for.”

Putting together a majority on national security matters is always demanding. It requires skill and patience. The Administration and House Republicans were determined to thwart the majority. They failed.

Majority Leader Hoyer (D-Md) provided the key leadership that refused to fold to the President’s and Vice-President’s pressures and scare tactics. By not folding, by insisting that immunity should not be provided, by holding numerous meetings, by standing firm on the inside Hoyer showed that a majority can be forged that protects security against terrorists and protects civil liberties at the same time. That’s leadership 

Obey put it directly to President Bush by saying on October 2 that the Approproiations Committee will not report out any war supplemental spending bill this year until the President makes far reaching changes in its Iraq War policy.

Obey has demonstrated the power of the congressional veto.

Look at what’s happened in Congress in 2007: a strong Senate majority in September supported US valiant fighting women and men by insisting that they receive adequate downtime between deployments–downtime equal to the time they serve in Iraq. Only a filibuster prevented the majority from acting.

In July the House passed legislation that calls for US troops to start being withdrawn in 120 days and have combat troops out by April 1.

In the spring the Senate narrowly voted to support a date for withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq by March 31, 2008.

A majority of the Congress has cast votes to withdraw our troops from combat by a date certain and to in effect change our mission.

All Bush can do is say no to Congress. He reminds me of the Soviet Communists always saying nyet at the UN at the height of the Cold War.

Obey has challenged Bush’s exercise of the Imperial Presidency. Obey says yes to supplemntal funding if Bush will rotate the troops, carry out a serious broad scale diplomatic offensive that involves other countries in the region and establishes a firm goal to end US combat involvement in Iraq.

A majority of Congress wants to find a practical way to end our military combat and pursue our help  for refugees and people who have helped the US. The President, anyway it’s dressed up says, no to real change. Obey rightly says to the President change the Iraq policy or no more money to carry out the status quo.

Let’s savor what has happened. Obey has given the anti-Iraq war side an upper hand in dealing with the President!