Note that in regard to the Barbara Lee amendment, the vote was strickly along party lines, with Democrats all voting NAY and Republicans voting YEA.

In other words, Democratic leadership wants unity over the Iraq part of the supplemental, and Republicans want to sow division among the ranks of Democrats. Of course that makes perfect sense to the political savvy, but the public who want a responsible troop withdrawal with funding for reconstruction who have supported Barbara Lee’s amendment have been told to go to hell, you don’t matter. By sending this out, I am sure I will be told once again, as I was in regard to Arcuri’s support for the Military Commissions Act during the campaign, that I am only playing into the Republican strategy.

D#&n it. The amendment should at least get a vote in Congress. I was told the the rules committee report is a recommendation that is voted on my the entire House, but from the looks of it, the Dems are going to tow the line, and we won’t get a vote.

Arcuri may be off the hook in regard to his vote on the rules committee because of this political circumstance. Can you imagine being the only Democrat to vote with the Republicans? Even Maurice Hinchey, one of the most principled politicians I have met, wouldn’t vote that way. But, it should now be clear that the Democratic majority in Congress has failed us, as has moveon.org, which complied with the wishes of the Democratic leadership by ignoring the Lee amendment in their recent poll. I have un-subscribed from moveon.org and let them now why.

We need to be in the streets on this.

Text below is copied from [Report No. 110-64] on the rules committee web site. I have added a column with party affiliation. http://www.rules.house.gov/SpecialRules_details.aspx?NewsID=2561

Rules Committee Record Vote No. 71

Date: March 21, 2007 Measure: H.R. 1591 Motion By: Mr. Dreier Summary of Motion: To make in order and provide appropriate waivers for an amendment by Reps. Lee (CA)/Clarke (NY)Watson (CA)Woolsey (CA)Waters (CA), #53, which limits the use of funds for the war in Iraq to two purposes: to protect the troops on the ground and to bring them home. Funds for diplomatic efforts and social and economic activities are not affected. Results: defeated 4-9

Vote by Member:

MCGOVERN NAY (DEM-MA-3rd) HASTINGS (FL) NAY (DEM-FL-23rd) MATSUI NAY (DEM-CA-5th) CARDOZA NAY (DEM-CA-18th) WELCH NAY (DEM-VT-At-Large) CASTOR NAY (DEM-FL-11th) ARCURI NAY (DEM-NY-24th) SUTTON NAY (DEM-OH-13th) DREIER YEA (REP-CA-26th) ranking member DIAZ-BALART YEA (REP-FL-21st) HASTINGS (WA) YEA (REP-WA-4th) SESSIONS YEA (REP-TX-32nd) SLAUGHTER NAY (DEM-NY-28th) chair

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=177683

This is an important blog post on the Nation magazine web site. I have copied it below, but go to the link for comments. Here is my comment (not posted yet):

Rep. Michael Arcuri is on the house rules committee, which is chaired by Rep. Louise Slaughter (Rochester).

Rep. Arcuri, as a member of the rules committee, should facilitate in any way he can preparing the Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters amendment for consideration by the House prior to a final vote on the supplemental Iraq appropriation bill. He should urge Rep. Slaughter in this regard.

I called Rep. Arcuri’s office this morning and asked that my comments be relayed to legislative director Sam Marchio.

My message is that Rep. Arcuri, as a member of the rules committee, should facilitate bringing the Lee, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters amendment forward. Regardless of his own personal views on the supplemental, he can do at least this much for his constituents, many of whom support and have been advocating for the Lee, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters amendment.

I pledged to check the record and see exactly how the rules committee handled this.

I have been advised by local Democrats to give Michael Arcuri more time as he is new to office. However, I believe that now that Rep. Arcuri is on an influential committee, he can not duck this issue and needs to be held accountable.

–Cris McConkey,
Town of Enfield
Tompkins County

BLOG | Posted 03/21/2007 @ 12:04pm
The Bring the Troops Home Amendment
John Nichols
EMAIL THIS POST
PERMALINK
COMMENTS (21)

Anti-war Democrats Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters continue to strategize about trying to get the House Rules Committee to allow consideration of an amendment by Lee to the Iraq War supplemental appropriations bill that would use the power of the purse to force the withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors from Iraq by the end of this year.

The supplemental appropriations bill, as it is currently written, provides funding requested by President Bush for the continuation of the war — along with some soft benchmarks and timelines to which the president objects. Backed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, the bill is seen as a slap at Bush but not a clear plan for ending the war.

Lee and Woolsey, California Democrats who chair the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and Waters, another California Democrat who leads the bipartisan Out of Iraq Caucus, want more muscular langauge. And the Lee amendment provides it, requiring that funds be appropriated only for the continued protection of U.S. troops and contractors, pending and during a withdrawal process that would be required to be complete by December 31, 2007.

The Lee amendment also provides funding for diplomatic initiatives and for social and economic reconstruction initiatives within Iraq.

The supplemental appropriations bill is expected to be considered by the full House as early as tomorrow. Lee, Woolsey and Waters considered personally appearing before the Rules Committee to ask that the Lee amendment be prepared for consideration by the House prior to a final vote on the supplemnetal.

Pelosi and her allies have been cautious about allowing consideration of amendments. But some members of the Democratic caucus suggest that permitting consideration of the Lee amendment — which would draw broad support, though perhaps not a majority vote, from Democrats and anti-war Republicans — would make it easier for the speaker to attract support from anti-war Democrats for the supplemental.

The situation is fluid. Progressive Democrats of America, Peace Action and other groups are lobbying hard for consideration of the Lee amendment. Attention is focusing on Rules Committee chair Louise Slaughter, D-New York, a Pelosi condidante who is also a war critic.

Lee has been pressing her case, focusing on the fact that Democrats have already acknowledged the need to constrain the president’s warmaking. “If we believe that the occupation should end and we reject the President’s escalation scheme, which is what the House voted to do a month ago, we shouldn’t be funding them,” she says. “If we are not playing along with the charade that the escalation is working, there is no reason not to withdraw our troops by Christmas.”

Whether Lee and others will get a chance to vote for her amendment remains to be seen.

If not, progressives will have to decide whether to make a difficult vote for Pelosi’s proposal — with an eye toward the value of challenging the Bush administration on the war. or an equally difficult vote against it — with an understanding that, in doing so, they might be seen as handing Bush a victory in a fight with the Democratic leadership of the House.

———————————————————————

John Nichols’ new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders’ Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone’s Tim Dickinson hails it as a “nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the ‘heroic medicine’ that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to ‘reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.’”

–
This message is going out to folks who have expressed an interest in the politics of the 24th Congressional District represented by Michael Arcuri. If you do not which to receive further messages, reply and let me know you wish to be taken off the 24th list. If you wish to contact me by phone, my number is 607/387-9830. I reside in the Town of Enfield in Tompkins County and am looking for ways to connect with folks on a variety of issues throughout the 24th.

Glad to see Arcuri making the right choice. A university ought to have the freedom to decide whether to accept a military presence without risking federal funding.

For Immediate Release: Contact: Press Office
March 16, 2007 (202) 479-7070

ARCURI SNUBs MILITARY RECRUITERS ON ANTI-DISCRIMINATION VOTE

Proposal Received Overwhelming Bipartisan Support from Over 300 Members of Congress… Arcuri Wasn’t One of Them

WASHINGTON, D.C. – A common-sense proposal to protect military recruiters from discrimination on college campuses apparently didn’t make enough sense to Michael Arcuri. In voting against the measure, Arcuri joined the ranks of radical left-wing groups that systematically oppose military recruiters at colleges and universities across the country.

The vote was simple and straightforward, but Arcuri still voted “No”:

(The motion) would bar federal agencies from awarding contracts to colleges and universities that either prohibit on-campus military recruitment or otherwise do not provide military recruiters access to campuses and to students… that is provided to any other employer.
(Office of the House Clerk, 3/15/07)

Military recruiters are often targets of discrimination on college campuses and are met with protests and harassment. The measure Arcuri voted against, House Roll Call Vote 155, prohibits federal agencies from awarding contracts to colleges and universities that bar military recruiters from gaining the same access to students as any other employer.

Why won’t Michael Arcuri provide our military with access to the necessary resources to recruit, protect, and defend America?

###

So, the RNCC is against the First Amendment and Arcuri is for it.

Joseph Lieberman
independent me-first man
Democrat no more

Don’t worry. I plan to stick with my day job.

For an earlier version of this same stance (in opposition to the Surge, on the House floor), try http://www.truemajorityaction.org/iraqdebate/search_doc.php?mainframe=http://www.truemajorityaction.org/iraqdebate/docs/iraq_daythree.html&findthis=ARCURI
Money quote from that refusal to accept continuing escalation: “Let me be clear, perfectly clear. Everyone in this Chamber, Republicans and Democrats alike, support our brave men and women serving in the Armed Forces. Simply because we believe the best way to support our troops is to bring them home does not mean that we don’t stand behind them. In fact, I think it means a greater commitment of support to them.”

I’ve heard one message all along: bring the troops home as soon as possible. That just means that I think “You did it!” was a headline for the day after the election, not a day after a particular Senate vote on a particular bill that was “symbolic” in that it could not survive the threatened Bush veto.

Mike also, BTW, has some really progressive ideas about renewable energy and energy conservation…. and is on the Transportation Committee, where he can implement them.

Can I call you Bill? Verily?

The full vote yesterday was in the Senate, not the House of Representatives, where Arcuri sits. In the House yesterday, the Appropriations Committee voted, not the general body.

I had initially understood that the full House vote would be yesterday. I was wrong about that – see the correction at the bottom of yesterday’s article.

It’s not clear whether the House legislation will come up for a vote at all now that the Senate has dropped the ball.

Hinchey is truly fantastic – the anti-Arcuri of the Democratic Party. I look forward to hearing him.

Of course, the bad news is that the bill did not pass (although it would not have been veto-proof in any case). The culprit? That “independent,” Joe Lieberman. As difficult as it can be to hang together as Democrats when we all have our own opinions, this is a very good lesson in how we can, otherwise, hang separately.

Me, I give the credit for Mike Arcuri’s vote yesterday, as well as the vote coming up at all, to the folks who stood by our Democratic party and elected him to office, to make a majority in Congress. Of course, that is the same folks that Jonathan is thanking, for the most part. The “independent” guy was not so reliable for us, though, Jonathan.

Now, here is a thought: do you suppose that Mike might have just a little soft spot in his heart for the people and party who helped him get there? Could be– would be only human. They send me email.

Want to see another great Dem talk about “Restoring Balance: The Promise of the New Democratic Congress”? Congressman Maurice Hinchey will be speaking at the Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga St., at 12:30pm on Saturday– timed just nicely with the rest of the day’s peace-promoting events. Open to the public– Hinchey was one of the earliest and strongest voices to call for a change in direction in Iraq; come hear where he thinks we can take it from here, now that the Republicans no longer control the agenda.