2005 BLACKBURN REPORT
TO: Tennessee 7th District
FROM: Representative Marsha Blackburn
DATE:
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
RE: Illegal Immigration
Federal Spending and Deficit
Sales Tax Deduction and Tax Relief
War on Terrorism and Iraq
Illegal Immigration
In the almost three years that I've served in the U.S. House of Representatives, I've given speech after speech on the floor of the House calling for an overhaul of our border policies.
I've talked with the President on several occasions and shared with him the concerns Tennesseans have expressed to me regarding an illegal immigration crisis that is making a sham of our laws, running up government spending, and providing easy access routes for terrorists.
We're spending massive amounts of federal, state, and local taxpayer dollars on medical care and public school access, to name just two areas, for illegal aliens. We have a job market that is distorted by an influx of illegal labor that depresses wages. And every American knows that our immigration policies failed on September 11th.
I've testified before the House Judiciary Committee asking for a massive overhaul of our border security and I've introduced legislation to ensure that those companies knowingly hiring illegal immigrants actually pay the fines that are already in law -- in many cases they simply negotiate these fines down to nearly nothing.
I've also introduced a bill requiring that federal contractors verify their employees' identity using a free, pre-existing social security database. This would protect our sensitive federal facilities and military installations from infiltration by those in this country illegally, yet working for a private contractor
I was a strong supporter of legislation we passed to restrict illegal immigrant access to valid state driver's licenses and increase funding for border agents. Just like I fought in the State Senate to prevent Tennessee from issuing licenses to illegal aliens.
But in my opinion, the time is overdue for us to mobilize a significant security campaign along our borders. I listened to the President's speech the other day with much hope that he would finally make this a priority issue, but I've been disappointed at the emphasis on a guest worker program and what is effectively an amnesty provision.
Yesterday, Tuesday, November 29th, I joined with House Armed Forces Chairman Duncan Hunter (CA) to cosponsor the TRUE Enforcement and Border Security Act, H.R. 4313.
This bill would:
(1) create a border security fence;
(2) allow states and local authorities to enforce immigration laws;
(3) require the Department of Homeland Security to implement a computerized entry-exit system;
(4) authorize thousands of Border Patrol agents;
(5) increase penalties and prevent employers from employing illegal immigrants through a verification system (this is similar to the legislation I introduced)
(6) prevent illegal immigrants from claiming Social Security and the Earned Income tax Credit; and
(7) increase penalties for forged immigration and identity documents.
I think these are very reasonable aims. We have to first secure the border. If that requires physical barriers, working surveillance equipment, and more border agents - so be it. We should not grant amnesty and we have no business discussing a guest worker program until we can secure our borders.
I'm attaching an article at the end of this newsletter that ran in the Nashville Tennessean on Tuesday, November 29th regarding this subject. I will continue pushing this issue in Washington and I hope you'll continue to contact me with your thoughts and concerns regarding America's illegal immigration problem.
Federal Spending and Deficit
Just two weeks ago the U.S. House passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Fiscal conservatives like me marked this victory as a small step in the right direction. We cut $50 billion in projected spending -- essentially that means in our 2006 budget we found $50 billion in savings.
Now, the far left in the House absolutely opposed this bill because they claimed it was too much. But what I believe is "too much," is how much the federal government is spending -- we cut $50 billion out of a $2.4 trillion yearly budget. That puts this in perspective, but it makes the opposition from the far left in the House that much more puzzling.
I was extremely disappointed when the vote showed that not one single Democrat supported this legislation. There were quite a few moderate members of the Democratic Party I had hoped would join us, but sadly their leadership in the House made it clear they would consider voting for this measure an unacceptable act. I believe that some of them regret that vote now.
One issue that was talked about a great deal on national news programs was the Medicaid reform component of the Deficit Reduction Act. This bill reduced the growth of Medicaid in 2006. That's true. But those on the far left opposing the bill were saying this legislation was an awful cut in Medicaid spending.
The truth is that Medicaid was supposed to growth by 7.3% next year -- more than the rate of inflation -- but we slowed it to 7.0% growth. That's no cut, it's still growing. Some question why we did this. Well, we are spending more than 54% of our budget on what are called mandatory entitlement programs like Medicaid and that number rises to 61% when you include interest payments on our debt. So in order to impact the bottom line you have to look at these mandatory programs. That's the reality of our budget and there's no point in hiding from that or lying about it.
In addition, the Medicaid Reform was especially important for states like Tennessee. A bipartisan group of the governors from across the nation asked for a significant number of items which would allow them more flexibility in managing state Medicaid programs so that their systems -- like TennCare -- can root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and prevent the collapse of the system. Our own governor had repeatedly asked for reforms like those in the Deficit Reduction Act.
As we look forward to January, I hope we build on this victory and continue reducing spending. I introduced three across the board cut bills for all non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary spending. This would be the roughly 39% of the budget that is not tied up in mandatory spending minus defense and homeland security.
I've got 1%, 2%, and 5% bills because I believe every member of Congress should be able to support at least a single percent decrease in spending -- but I'd like to see the 5% enacted. This will be a tough, tough battle given what we just saw with the deficit reduction act, but I've been chairman of the House task force targeting waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending and I know there is ample room to reduce waste.
In order to reduce a deficit you have to do two things -- 1) reduce spending, 2) grow your economy. Without both components you can't cut into the deficit that exists. That's why we've supported tax relief and reform. And we've seen that tax relief work, with more than 3 million jobs created and booming economic growth of 3-4% each quarter fro several years. We weathered recession and the economic impact of 9-11, and we increased needed military spending. At the same time we've seen tax revenues dramatically increase with economic growth and that has reduced the expected deficit by nearly $150 billion over the past two years.
But -- we have to do much better on the spending side of the equation. And that's where I'll continue to focus. I'm attaching a few articles at the end of this newsletter for your review.
Sales Tax Deduction and Tax Relief
As most of you know, in 2003 I came to Congress and set to work on restoring the federal sales tax deduction.
Tennessee and sales tax dependent states had lost the deduction nearly 20 years ago. I cosponsored a bill to restore this provision, and with a lot of hard work and the help of some great members from other sales tax states the provision was attached to a larger tax bill. The bill passed and our ability to deduct our local and state sales tax payments was restored for two years.
The deduction expires after the April 2006 federal filing deadline, but we were able to get another year extension into the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act of 2005, H.R. 4297.
H.R. 4297 extends many of the tax relief elements we passed earlier in this decade, including reductions in capital gains and dividend taxes that have helped fuel economic growth. Small business expensing provisions would also be extended so that our tax policies aren't stifling small business growth and expansion.
We've heard that the left in Washington is opposed to this tax relief, but I hope unlike the Deficit Reduction Act that Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will not force Democrats to vote against our sales tax deduction. This is a good bill for Tennessee and for promoting economic growth -- which as we know, is good for reducing the deficit. I've included an article from our successful fight for the restoration of the deduction in 2004 at the end of this newsletter for your review.
I am also pleased that the Ways & Means Committee included an important provision in the tax relief bill for songwriters trying to sell their collection of works, or "catalogue."
Today, when a songwriter and music publisher sell this "catalogue," music publishers are able to claim the Capital Gains tax rate while the songwriter must pay ordinary income and self-employment taxes on the same sale. Even though the publisher and the songwriter are equal business partners and selling the same product, the songwriter must pay a higher tax rate.
As we all know, Tennessee has a significant number of songwriters -- they're a pretty large community of small business owners in our 7th District -- and they contribute a great deal to our state's economy. This tax relief bill not only includes our sales tax deduction, but it includes a provision I've worked to put on the table that would correct this unfair policy by allowing our songwriters to claim the Capital Gains tax rate.
There is a lot of work ahead to assure that this is signed into law, but it is a very important step in the process.
War on Terrorism and Iraq
America went to war in Afghanistan to defeat terrorism. We went to war in Iraq not just to remove Saddam Hussein but to strike a blow against Middle Eastern terrorism, plant the seed of change in that region and send a message that we would no longer tolerate the oppression of millions. Today we continue to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both nations are the front line in this war. They are the battlegrounds we chose to fight on, rather than in our streets in our cities.
There can be no backing out of this war. We are there and we have a reason for being there. Those calling for an immediate withdrawal must have no conception of what that would do to Iraq, the Middle East, and our security. Regardless of the constant barrage of negativism from a media that opposes this war, we are making progress. A week or so ago a member of Congress was on Meet the Press with Tim Russert and he said repeatedly that we were making "no progress in Iraq." That's simply not true. Ask our men and women in uniform who are serving there. They often say it best.
Yesterday, Wednesday, November 29th, another Democrat, this time it was Senator Joe Lieberman, wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and said, "I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there."
Here are just a few examples:
· To date, U.S. forces have turned over control of 29 military bases to Iraqis.
· An Iraqi police battalion assumed control of the Baghdad airport road in April, and the number of attacks has declined sharply.
· Well-known Haifa Street in Baghdad is under the control of an Iraqi army battalion and is largely peaceful.
· The Shi’ite areas of Najaf, Karbala and Sadr City – the scenes of a number of battles last year – are largely peaceful.
· In Tall Afar in northern Iraq, 5,000 Iraqi troops took a key role in liberating and securing what had been a base of operations for extremist and terrorist networks.
· In August 2004 five Iraqi army battalions were effectively “in the fight”; today there are 95.
· In July 2004 there were no ready operational Iraqi army division or brigade headquarters; now there are seven operational division and 31 operational brigade headquarters.
· In July 2004 there were no ready special police commando, public order or mechanized police battalions under the Ministry of Interior; 28 such battalions are conducting operations today.
· Last year there were 96,000 trained and equipped Iraqi Security Forces; now there are more than 212,000.
· The forces’ growing experience has allowed them to take over responsibilities in several areas of the country, including 87 square miles in Baghdad, one entire province, and 450 square miles of territory in other places.
· The security forces still face challenges –they must develop their logistics and administrative capacity, and they must overcome the legacy of the Saddam-era military, which punished initiative and centralized virtually all decision making.
Progress is being made. Senator Lieberman is right. President Bush is right. Secretary Rumsfeld is right. We are making progress. I will include Senator Lieberman's op-ed below for your review and an article detailing the House debate on the resolution calling for an immediate withdrawal.
The vision is this -- a nation in the heart of the Middle East that does not give aid and comfort to terrorists. That is what we're fighting for and it is of strategic importance to our national security.
God Bless,
Marsha
ARTICLES FOR YOUR REVIEW
Nashville Tennessean
Tennessee Democrats vote against cuts, cite tax benefits
By BILL THEOBALD
Tennessean Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- Tennessee's fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democratic House members refused yesterday to sign onto legislation cutting about $50 billion in federal spending over five years.
The cuts in spending for Medicaid and other social programs aren't what bothered them. They're upset about separate legislation that would extend tax breaks, many for wealthy Americans, at a cost of $70 billion.
"The spending cuts won't even pay for those tax cuts," said Rep. Jim Cooper, D-Nashville. "So the monster deficits are continuing."
Also voting against the budget-cutting bill, which passed 217-215 were Reps. Lincoln Davis, D-Pall Mall; Rep. Harold Ford Jr., D-Memphis; Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Murfreesboro; and Rep. John Tanner, D-Union City.
Voting for it were Reps. Marsha Blackburn, R-Brentwood; Bill Jenkins,
R-Rogersville; and Zach Wamp, R-Chattanooga.
"You'd have thought we were eliminating government altogether rather than just slowing its rate of growth if you listened to the Blue Dogs," Blackburn said. "We voted to trim the DC bureaucracy, and they voted to fatten it."
Cooper said he might have voted for the bill without the tax cuts. He again called on Congress to delay and rewrite the expensive Medicare drug benefit that senior citizens are signing up for now.
While not offering a specific budget plan, the Blue Dog Coalition, which includes 36 Democrats, has adopted a general 12-point platform that includes a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, pay-as-you-go budgeting and spending caps.
###
Wall Street Journal
JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL
Pelosi's Poodles
"Blue Dog"
Democrats go to obedience school.
Monday, November
21, 2005 12:01 a.m.
Let's stipulate
that everyone in Washington has done a horrible job in restraining federal
spending, which is up 33% since 2001. Federal largesse now exceeds $22,000 per
household, in inflation-adjusted terms a level of profligacy not seen since
World War II.
Out of control spending finally became an issue last September after Hurricane Katrina. Rep. Todd Akin, a Missouri Republican, said many of his colleagues were shocked when their leaders asked them to vote for $62 billion in hurricane relief "even though we knew a lot of the money may go to waste." The House Republican leadership refused to let some conservatives bring a bill to the floor to offset some of the emergency spending by cutting other government programs.
The negative publicity over Katrina spending and egregious pork-barrel projects in the federal transportation bill, symbolized by the now-cancelled "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, prompted a public outcry. Suddenly, President Bush and GOP leaders began siding with taxpayer groups in recognizing the need to begin putting the brakes on spending.
The road back will be difficult, especially since 54% of federal spending goes for entitlement programs ranging from food stamps to Medicaid. Those programs are on automatic pilot and likely to double in cost over the next decade. The new prescription drug benefit that began accepting enrollees this month will only add to that burden.
This month, the Senate moved a budget bill under a process called reconciliation that would slow the growth of entitlements by $35 billion over the next five years, or 0.2% of projected federal spending over that time . The House proposed somewhat bigger cuts, some $50 billion over five years. But even that miniscule adjustment proved too much for two blocs of House members: about two dozen moderate Republicans and the so-called Blue Dog Democrats, a group of 36 centrists who profess to care about the size of the federal budget and deficit. With Republicans holding only a 30-seat majority in the House, members of the two groups can determine the fate of all legislation.
Last week, they did precisely that. Last Thursday the House rejected by 224-209 a bill that would have slightly trimmed health and education spending for the coming year. A total of 22 Republicans, almost all moderates, broke ranks to defeat the bill. Not a single Democrat voted for the bill. The next day, the House finally passed a five-year budget plan, 217-215. Again every Democrat opposed it, as did 14 Republicans, all but two of them moderates.
Media attention has focused on the GOP moderates, generally portraying them as finally standing up to their leadership by opposing heartless cuts in social programs. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, a rural New York Republican, was quoted as calling the original package of budget cuts "far too high" and complaining that GOP leaders were trying to "clone" everyone in the party into one mold. Despite his rhetoric, he provided a critical vote to pass the budget last Friday after he was promised more money for low-income energy assistance along with the promise of an extension for one of several federal programs that subsidize dairy farmers when prices drop.
Much less attention has been paid to the role of the Blue Dog Democrats, who have voted in lockstep with the rest of their party to oppose all spending cuts. The Blue Dogs talk a great game. They properly excoriate the Bush administration's fiscal record and have proposed a 12-step plan to control spending, which includes such sensible ideas as honest budget accounting. Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee has bravely called for delaying or ending the new prescription drug entitlement.
What the Blue Dogs haven't done is provide votes for any slowdown in federal spending. They complain they haven't been consulted by GOP leaders, and there is some truth to that. But the unmistakable impression is that they are now putting short-term partisanship ahead of good policy by trying to make the House ungovernable. It's not that Blue Dogs haven't provided votes to pass bipartisan legislation in the past. When a bankruptcy reform bill came up this year, 73 Democrats voted in favor. Forty-two Democrats voted to repeal the estate tax permanently, and 50 Democrats backed class-action lawsuit reform. But on the budget? Nada, zip, not a one.
That is a far cry from 1997, when the House was even more closely divided and the last time Congress tried to pass a budget under the reconciliation process. At that time 51 Democrats voted for a budget that contained far deeper reductions in domestic spending. Twelve of those 51 were Blue Dogs who are still serving in the House.
Blue Dogs like California's Rep. Dennis Cardoza claim the times are different because the GOP budget blueprint will now actually increase the deficit. That's because Republicans plan to make some of President Bush's tax cuts permanent, thus expanding the deficit overall. But Republicans reply that separate votes are held on the budget cuts and tax policy. "There is no arguing that the reconciliation bill reduces the growth in federal spending by $50 billion," says Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. "That's an up-or-down vote no Democrat would vote in favor of." She also points out that the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends the Blue Dogs are balking at extending helped create three million new jobs in the past two years and helped bring in a revenue stream that has knocked $95 billion off of this year's anticipated deficit. By their actions, the Blue Dogs are unwilling to vote for spending restraint while at the same time they oppose growth-oriented tax cuts. That's a recipe for a much bigger deficit in the long run.
One reason for their reluctance to cross the aisle and back any GOP budget is party pressure. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, furious that Blue Dogs provided the critical votes that passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement earlier this year, has laid down the law on party discipline. While it has never been made explicit, House Democrats I spoke with are convinced they will lose committee assignments if they vote for a GOP-backed budget. How else to explain the complete unanimity of opposition from House Democrats?
The spending restraint that Congress is attempting now is both late and puny. But it is a start. It is being thwarted by two groups of members acting out of short-term expediency.
GOP moderates, including some from marginal districts, have convinced themselves that they can't sell their constituents on the radical notion that entitlement spending should be held to growth of 6.3% a year instead of 6.4%.
Blue Dog Democrats, catching the scent of Republican disarray, have decided to exploit their advantage. That's understandable for a party that's been out of power in Congress for the last decade. But the Blue Dogs shouldn't claim it has anything to do with principle or a desire to begin holding down federal spending.
Democratic leaders like Ms. Pelosi have plans to expand the federal government that even spendthrift Republicans can't keep up with. If the Blue Dogs won't oppose their liberal leaders by voting for modest spending restraint now, they don't inspire any confidence that they will buck them if their party takes the House and liberal interest groups start demanding their turn at the federal through.
Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
###
Proposal would resume sales tax deduction
By CHANTAL ESCOTO
The Leaf-Chronicle
Tennesseans could soon get a break on sales taxes that would put nearly $1 billion back in their pockets.
Legislation moving in Congress would allow state residents to once again deduct sales tax payments on their federal tax returns.
According to U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, 7th District, the change could come into effect as soon as the 2005 returns. The legislation, co-sponsored by Blackburn, has been attached to the American Jobs Creation Act, H.R. 4520.
"We fought and won a battle for tax fairness in Tennessee, and today we're fighting the battle in Washington," Blackburn said in a press release. "I came to Congress with a tremendous awareness of this issue, and I've put that knowledge and energy into making a federal sales tax deduction a reality for our state."
The law would reinstate the deductibility that residents enjoyed up until it was rescinded by Congress in 1986. Currently, the state sales tax rate is 7 percent with a county add-on of 2.5 percent, making the total sales tax in Montgomery County 9.5 percent. It is unknown if the county sales tax also would be withheld on annual tax returns, but Blackburn officials say the legislation would not affect state revenues.
Judy Howard remembers those days when you could write off the interest on your car and charge cards.
"It used to be you could get back the sales tax on everything you bought," Howard said. "If it's going to put more money in my pocket, then I'm going to spend more, and it will go into the community. It would help pay for education."
Her friend Bonnie Erspamer agrees.
"Since we do have such a high state sales tax, if we could withhold that from our federal income tax, it would do a lot for the economy," Erspamer said. "I think it's a wonderful idea."
The bill allows taxpayers to work from a table of average sales tax deductions -- similar to a state income tax table -- or provide receipts. The latter would benefit the taxpayer who has made a large purchase of an automobile or other big-ticket item.
The $3.6 billion provision will require reauthorization for fiscal year 2007 but is the most progress on tax breaks in nearly 20 years, Blackburn said.
State income taxes are already deductible on federal returns, but for states that rely instead on sales taxes -- such as Tennessee -- no such provision exists.
"This is about fairness for taxpayers and a state's right to choose its own tax structure," she said.
In states that have both income and sales taxes, residents would have to choose which one to write off.
The bill is scheduled to go to a House committee this week for changes, then it should move to the floor for a full vote next week. From there, the act should head to the Senate, which is expected to approve it.
Originally published Monday, June 7, 2004
###
|
Consumer Confidence Up As Gas Prices Fall |
|
By ANNE
D'INNOCENZIO
AP Business Writer
NEW YORK
Consumer confidence soared in November as declining gasoline prices contributed to a stronger-than-expected reading that could bode well for the holiday shopping season.
The Conference Board said Tuesday that its Consumer Confidence Index rose to 98.9 this month from 85.2 in October. Analysts had expected a reading of 90. The better-than-expected results reversed a two-month decline.
"A decline of more than 40 cents in gasoline prices this month and the improving job outlook have combined to help restore consumers' confidence," Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center, said in a statement.
"While the index remains below its pre-Katrina levels, the shock of the hurricanes and subsequent leap in gas prices has begun wearing off just in time for the holiday season," Franco said.
Still, she warned, the holiday spending will be fueled by the bargains consumers have come to expect.
One component of the report, which examines consumers' views of the current economic situation, rose to 114.0 from 107.8. The expectations index, which measures consumers' outlook over the next six months, surged to 88.8 from 70.1 last month.
Economists closely track consumer confidence because consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of U.S. economic activity.
The Conference Board index is derived from responses received through Nov. 16 to a survey mailed to 5,000 households in a consumer research panel. The figure released Tuesday include responses from at least 2,500 households.
Consumers' assessment of present-day conditions improved in November. Those claiming business conditions are "good" increased to 25.5 percent from 23.3 percent. Those claiming conditions are "bad" decreased to 17.3 percent from 18.4 percent. Labor market conditions also appear to be improving. Consumers saying jobs are "hard to get" decreased to 23.2 percent from 25.3 percent, while those claiming jobs are "plentiful" was virtually unchanged at 20.8 percent.
Consumers' outlook for the next six months is considerably more upbeat, although not as optimistic as earlier this year. Those expecting business conditions to worsen decreased to 11.7 percent from 18.5 percent. Those expecting business conditions to improve rose to 18.8 percent from 14.1 percent.
The outlook for the labor market is also more optimistic. Those expecting more jobs to become available in the coming months increased to 14.2 percent from 12.3 percent, while those expecting fewer jobs fell to 17.7 percent from 24.0 percent in October. The proportion of consumers anticipating their incomes to increase in the months ahead improved to 20.9 percent from 17.4 percent last month.
###
House GOP Seeks Quick Veto of Iraq Pullout
WASHINGTON - House Republicans maneuvered for swift and
overwhelming rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for U.S. troops to
be pulled out of Iraq.
Furious, Democrats accused the GOP of orchestrating a political stunt by leaving
little time for debate and by taking the heart out of the resolution offered by
Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania.
For those reasons, House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi sent word to the rank-and-file to vote _ with the Republicans _ against
immediate withdrawal of American troops.
"We want to make sure that we support our troops that
are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We
will not retreat."
Democrats went to the House floor to denounce the
quick vote before Congress leaves Washington for two weeks.
"This is a personal attack on one of the best
members, one of the most respected members of this House and it is outrageous,"
said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., the chairman of the
House Armed Services Committee, responded: "This is not a stunt. This is not an
attack on an individual. This is a legitimate question."
GOP leaders decided to act little more than 24 hours
after Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with close ties to the military, said the time
had come to pull out the troops.
By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed
many Democrats in a politically unappealing position _ whether to side with
Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional
Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls
show want an end to the conflict.
Murtha offered a resolution that would force the
president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest
practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby
presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability
in Iraq through diplomacy.
But House Republicans planned to put to a vote _ and
reject _ their own resolution that simply said: "It is the sense of the House of
Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be
terminated immediately."
With stinging rhetoric, Democrats criticized the GOP
alternative. They said House Republican leaders killed Murtha's thoughtful
approach.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., called the move "nothing
short of disgraceful." And Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., yelled on the floor:
"This is not a debate on the Murtha resolution. This is an attempt to undermine
Jack Murtha!"
"It isn't about him, and it isn't about any of us.
It's about foreign policy and national security," Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.,
responded.
Most Republicans oppose Murtha's call for withdrawal,
and some Democrats also have been reluctant to back his position.
Still, a growing number of House members and
senators, looking ahead to off-year elections next November, are publicly
worrying about a quagmire in Iraq. They have been staking out new positions on a
war that is increasingly unpopular with the American public, has resulted in
more than 2,000 U.S. military deaths and has cost more than $200 billion.
The House move comes just days after the
GOP-controlled Senate defeated a Democratic push for Bush to lay out a timetable
for withdrawal. Spotlighting questions from both parties about the war, though,
the chamber then approved a statement that 2006 should be a significant year in
which conditions are created for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces.
"Our troops have become the primary target of the
insurgency," Murtha said Thursday. "They are united against U.S. forces and we
have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised.
It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."
A U.S. field commander in Iraq countered the position
of the congressman who usually backs the Pentagon.
"Here on the ground, our job is not done," said Col.
James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, when asked about
Murtha's comments during a weekly briefing that American field commanders give
to Pentagon reporters.
Speaking Friday from a U.S. logistics base at Balad,
north of Baghdad, two days before his scheduled return to Texas, Brown said: "We
have to finish the job that we began here. It's important for the security of
this nation."
Republicans chastised Murtha for advocating what they
called a strategy of surrender and abandonment. Democrats defended him as a
patriot, even as many declined to back his view.
"I won't stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha,"
said Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004. Also a
Vietnam veteran, Kerry was dogged during the campaign by a group called the
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who challenged his war record.
"There is no sterner stuff than the backbone and
courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience," Kerry said.
For his part, Kerry has proposed a phased exit from
Iraq, starting with the withdrawal of 20,000 troops after December elections in
Iraq. A Kerry spokesman said "he has his own plan" when asked if Kerry agreed
with immediate withdrawal.
As a Vietnam veteran and top Democrat on the House
Appropriations defense subcommittee, Murtha carries more credibility with his
colleagues on the issue than a number of other Democrats who have opposed the
war from the start.
With a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, Murtha
retired from the Marine Corps reserves as a colonel in 1990 after 37 years as a
Marine, only a few years longer than he's been in Congress. Elected in 1974,
Murtha has become known as an authority on national security whose advice was
sought out by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.
A service of the Associated Press(AP)
###
WALL
STREET JOURNAL
Our Troops Must Stay
America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.
BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.
Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.
There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.
It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.
Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.
In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.
None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.
The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.
Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.
The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.
Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.
We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.
Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.
The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.
These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.
I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."
Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.
Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut.
###