June 21, 2007 meeting at the offices of Senator Maria Cantwell in Seattle organized by Southend Neighbors for Peace & Justice (SNPJ). L-R: Bruce Berglund, Rebecca Dare, June Schumaker, Elizabeth Desimone, Bill Opfermann (SNPJ members), and Shakti Hawkins, State Outreach Director for U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell. Photo by Noemie Maxwell.

I joined with several members of Southend Neighbors for Peace & Justice (SNPJ) to meet with Senator Cantwell's Outreach Director, Shakti Hawkins, last Thursday.  Jonathan Hale, Legislative Counsel for Senator Cantwell, joined us by phone from his office in Washington D.C. for about 20 minutes. The topic was the continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq.

We are now at another turning point.  The supplemental bill that passed in May appropriated funds only through late 2007. Bills authorizing and providing funds for the occupation beyond that time will be voted on soon.   Our group wanted to know Senator Cantwell's position on these new bills.  And we wanted to encourage her to stand up to the President and her Republican colleagues and refuse to continue funding the failed occupation.

Hale began the meeting with an update on the current status of legislative actions on Iraq.  Before the recess, he said, the Senate will address energy and immigration first, and then the defense authorization bill.   Later this summer, after the recess, the Senate will consider the defense appropriations bill. Senator Cantwell is planning to support a number of amendments to the authorization bill, he said.  At least one of these, sponsored by Senator Dodd, would set a deadline for the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq.  He mentioned other amendments, now in various draft stages, sponsored by Senators Byrd and Feingold. (1)  Hawkins provided a paper copy of the discussion draft for the Dodd amendment, and I've reproduced that at the end of this post.

Senator Cantwell and other Democrats have been working on building a large enough majority for support of a deadline for withdrawal of most combat troops from Iraq to overcome the kind of filibuster we saw with the last supplemental bill, Hale said.  We have continuously been working on getting more Republicans to come to our side.

Rebecca Dare: Has the Senator changed her position on Iraq?

Jonathan Hale:  Over time her position has evolved.  As you know, she supported the Feingold amendment. (2)

Elizabeth Desimone: Why are we still there?  We haven't made a difference.

Jonathan Hale:  It's now a question of convincing enough Republican Senators to come to our side.  We are seeing changes in the Senate, and we'll continue to act.

Noemie:  Has the Senator committed to voting against new appropriations if they don't include a time table for withdrawal?

Jonathan Hale:  We want all U.S. combat troops to come home.  This is what we'll be addressing with the authorization bill.  But while Washington soldiers are on the ground we need to ensure that they have the necessary equipment and supplies and other support.  We can't cut this off.  The last vote on the supplemental was difficult for Senator Cantwell. But she was committed to ensuring that the troops have what they need.

Elizabeth Desimone: If the Senate had just not voted for the appropriations bill without the Feingold amendment, wouldn't that have meant that the soldiers would have had to come home because of Bush's veto?  

Jonathan Hale: Not at that point.  The administration still has enough money in the pipeline to move it around regardless of the vote of the Senate, regardless of the law.

Noemie:  But, for me, this is the central issue.  The executive branch is overreaching its authority in so many ways and the legislature needs to stand up to this.  I believe that democracy is threatened.  I want the people's representatives to exert their rightful power.  Simply saying that the President will defy Congress is not enough.  I think that people are looking for real leadership.

Jonathan Hale: (My notes are unclear at this point.  My memory is that Hale understood the point that I was making but that the only viable option now is to have enough Republicans to override a veto.)  This is a terrible thing.  American soldiers and Iraquis are dying every day.  More and more Republicans are on our side.  We need 6 votes to break cloture.  

Bill Opfermann: There is this concern that if Democrats stand up to the President, that means that they will not be supporting the troops.  But if the Democrats continue to put forth bill that the president vetoes, doesn't that reflect poorly on the President, not on the Democrats?

Jonathan Hale: The decision to vote for the supplemental had more to do with the security and welfare of the troops, rather than those considerations.

Bill Opfermann: But if you're saying that the President will fund the occupation ayway, why not let them take the fallout?  The Democrats would have the support of the American people if they stood up to this.

Bruce Berglund: I have a problem with "it takes time".  People are dying.

June Schumaker: I hear on the radio almost every day that Iraq should be considered for the long haul-- that we should just accept that we'll be there for 15 -20 years.

Jonathan Hale:  This is costing the United States $8 to 10 billion per month.  This involves cuts to domestic programs and it's a tremendous economic drain. Even if there were people in D.C. who would vote for us to stay there 10 years more, it would not be sustainable.  

Rebecca Dare:  But it seems like we're planning to be in there for the long term.  We've got all those bases over there and we're building more.   What is the senator's position on these permanent bases?

Jonathan Hale:  The Senator opposes permanent bases in Iraq and co-sponsored an amendment to prohibit funding for them.  (3) But the administration does not always follow the law.

Rebecca Dare:  They're still building the bases.

Jonathan Hale: There are a number of ways in which it appears that this administration is not following the law.  (Hale mentioned, among other things, the president's frequent use of signing statements to avoid implementing laws.)

Rebecca Dare: A lot of people suspect that the Democrats are voting this way because they have something they want to get out of being in Iraq.  Otherwise, what could be the explanation -- people just don't get it.  They don`t get why the legislature can't stand up on this.

Jonathan Hale: Most Democrats want the war to be over, most Democrats want us to be out of Iraq.

Noemie Maxwell: We're looking for the Democrats to take on leadership.  This is an extraordinary situation, and we need the Democrats to show extraordinary leadership to meet it.

June Schumaker: Why hasn't Bush been impeached?

Jonathan Hale: (My notes don't make much sense here.  Hale did not address the impeachment issue in depth.  He discussed the need for the Iraqis and other nations in the region to engage in finding solutions for Iraq.)

Bruce Berglund:   We may not have enough votes for impeachment.  But the Democrats should keep it on the table.  Even as a PR move.  People will get behind them on this.

Elizabeth Desimone: We will get out in the streets to support the Senator if she takes a stand.

Jonathan Hale: I'll tell the Senator.

Rebecca Dare:  We're concerned about the Iraqi refugees.

Jonathan Hale: We've got an immigration bill on the floor.  There may be an amendment on that.  The Senator is aware of the responsibility that the American people have.  Senator Kennedy is a focused on addressing the Iraqi refugee situation.

Bill Opfermann: Why did we go to war in the first place?  Democracy?  Weapons of mass destruction? None of these reasons turn out to have any foundation.

Jonathan Hale: The Senator has said that if she knew then what she knows today, she would not have voted to give the administration the authority to go to war.  All the Senators were concerned about WMDs.  We were given bad information.

Bill Opfermann: We were getting information at the same time, though -- and we understood that what the administration was saying (was not reliable).  Whe weren't the Senators seeing what we saw?

Jonathan Hale:  It was more of a matter of the information that they did get (I understood from Hale at this point that there was national security information that legislators were seeing that the general public was not seeing -- that the situation really did look different for legislators than it would have for other citizens.)

Bill Opfermann:  It's so frustrating.  We've been trying to be heard for years.  It was like we were not being listened to.

Jonathan Hale:  Hopefully, people in D.C. have learned to be a lot more skeptical of the information that comes from this administration.  We have a whole host of problems we are dealing with on the horizon, for example the situation with Iran.

Bill:  You may have the sense that the Democrats will get blamed for not supporting the troops if they stand up to the President.  But the public is more than dissatisfied with this President and the course of this occupation -- it's disgusted.   impeachment should be out there.  It's not a threat.  It's a right.  We know you're doing a great job.   We know it takes a lot to be in your position...

Jonathan Hale:  People in Washington D.C. -- on both sides -- are aware of the rising frustration.  The legislative branch has an oversight role.  We are looking into these matters of domestic surveillance, the firings of US attorneys, corruption in Iraq, massive corruption in supposed reconstruction efforts- reconstruction that hasn't occurred.  There has been a lack of this oversight under the Republicans.  We are moving on this now.

Bill Opfermann:   We're here to support these efforts.  We're willing to do doorbelling, letter writing.  We're here to support the Senator in getting us out of this occupation and holding the administration accountable.

Jonathan Hale:  That is appreciated.

We spoke with Hawkins for another 20 minutes or so, discussing a broad range of issues. A recurring topic was how legislators get information to understand what their constituents are thinking and on which to base decisions.  We expressed concern over the reliability of information from traditional media and the influence of special interests given the way campaigns are financed.

Hawkins noted that constituent communcations are given serious priority by the Senator. Tallies of calls and emails on issues are kept and relayed to the Senator in briefings from staff.  (She mentioned that it is important, with petitions and group letters, to include the address of each person who signs.)  

Bruce Berglund asked if the Senator had a good idea of how much money corporations in the military industry have contributed to her campaigns.  Hawkins responded that the Senator does not take campaign contributions from corporations or PACs.

Hawkins noted that the Senator is known for following multiple news sources and is very concerned about media issues.  'If you want to hear Maria get worked up about something,' said Hawkins, get her talking about media access. The Senator has been working with Reclaim the Media on some of these issues, including the threat to low powered stations, which are vulnerable to losing their places in the spectrum.  For example, Mercer Island High School, which has been broadcasting on the same frequency for 40 years, was recently being steamrolled by a national franchise and Maria defended it.  Interestingly, that station was founded in the 1960s by Washington State Representative Fred Jarrett when he was a student there. (Also see the Washblog story, Maria Cantwell Stands up for KYRS FM.)

The Telecommunications Act was up for reauthorization last session, Hawkins said. But it was 1,700 pages long, contained "many awful things", and didn't get the votes to pass.  It will be going through the Senator's committee this time around.

June Schumaker voiced concern over depleted uranium which, in addition to inflicting horrific health impacts, is making large areas of Iraqi agricultural land unfit for growing food.  Hawkins noted that the Senator introduced an amendment on DU, which became law, and that the the 36th District Democrats were instrumental in bringing her attention to the issue.

Hawkins noted that the Senators were planning to work through the upcoming weekend, which was the last before the recess.  There is a sense of urgency to complete the work that needs to be done in the short time remaining before recess.

1. CNN and other media have reported that Harry Reid and Carl Levin also have timetable amendments in the pipeline.


2. Cantwell (and Murray) supported the Feingold-Reid amendment (Amendment #1098) which was attached  to the Water Resources Development Act of 2007.  It would have completed the withdrawal of combat troops by March 31, 2008.  Here's the roll call for that vote.  In contrast, neither Cantwell nor Murray supported the very similar 2006 Kerry-Feingold amendment in May 2006, which would have withdrawn combat troops this summer, effective July 31, 2007. Here's the roll call for that amendment.
3. Amendment 4851 to the 2007 Defense Appropriations bill (HR 5631) was sponsored by Senators Biden and Cantwell.  This amendment can be found at The Thomas Guide.  It prohibited the use of funds for establishing United States military installations in Iraq or exercising United States control over the oil resources of Iraq.  However, the amendment does not outlaw these activities, per se.  It makes it illegal only to use the funds appropriated in that particular bill for those purposes.  Also see Senator Biden's announcement.

----Discussion Draft -- provided by Cantwell's staff as an example of one of the amendments now under discussion IN THE SENATE OF THE UNTED STATES--110th Cong., 1st Sess. s.1547 To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for militaryconstrution, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to presecribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. AMENDMENT intended to be proposed by Mr. DODD Viz: At the end of title XV, add the following: SEC. 1535. REDEPLOYMENT REQUIREMENTS AND SPENDING RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO MILITARY OPERATIONS IN IRAQ. (a) REDEPLOYMENT OF UNITED STATES COMBAT FORCES.---- (1)  REDEPLOYMENT REQIRED.--The Secretary of Defense shall begin the phased redeployment of members of the Armed Forces from Iraq not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and sall redeploy all such forces, except those who are essential for the limited purposes set forth in paragraph (2), by March 31, 2008. (2)  EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED PURPOSES.--The requirement to redeploy forces under paragraph (1) does not apply to forces essential-- (A) to conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organiztions (B) to provide security for United States infrastructure and personnnel; or (C) to train and equip Iraqi security forces. (b)  AMED FORCES READINESS.--Upon completion of the redeployment required under subsection (a) funds authorized to be appropriated by this title for Operation Iraqi Freedom may be available to be expnded in accordance with the lists of program priorities or requirements not included in the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 submitted to the Committees on Armed Forces of the Senate and the House of Representatives by the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Com andant of the Marine Corps, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Chief of Naval Operations.  Such amounts may not exceed-- (1) $1,000,000,000 for the National Guard Reserve Equipment Account; (2) $10,288,000,000 for the Army; (3)$3,189,600,000for the Marine Corps; (4) $16,943,600,000 for the Air Force; and (5) $5,657,000,000 for the Navy. (c)  LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS IN EVENT OF FAILURE TO REDEPLOY FORCES.--Twenty-five percent of the funds approprioated or otherwie made available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 20087 for activities in Iraq may not be obligated or expended if the number of members of the Armed Forces deployed in Iraq asof December 31, 20007, is not fewer than 50,000 less than the number so deployed as of [June 18, 2007], unless the President certifies to the congressional defense committees that it is stillpossible to redeploy all such forces, except those who are essential for the limited purposes set forth in subsection (a)(2), by March 31, 2008. (d)  REPORT.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 30 days thereafter until April 30, 2008, the Secretaryof Defense shall submit to the congressional deense committees a report on the status of redeploymenty efforts under this section. (e)  RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting funding for personal protective equipment or other equipment or materiel necessary for improving the safety of members of the Armed Forces. --Discussion Draft --