Sullivan on recent Bush authorization veto

[Guest guest]

Bush Veto a Blow to " Wounded Warriors "

By Maya Schenwar and Matt Renner

t r u t h o u t | Report

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010308R.shtml

Thursday 03 January 2008

The Bush administration's veto of a broad-ranging defense policy

bill Monday night 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 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

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

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 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.

Meryl Nass, MD

Mount Desert Island Hospital

Bar Harbor, Maine 04609

207 288-5081 ext. 220

http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com

http://www.anthraxvaccine.org