No Permanent Bases ammendment removed in Conference Comittee..WTF?

[Clarkie1]

No Permanent Bases: Passed Both Houses, Removed in Conference Committee
Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2006-06-09 05:20. Congress
By David Swanson

When the House and the Senate pass similar but not identical bills, they create a conference committee to work out the differences. When they both passed amendments to the "emergency supplemental" spending bill stipulating that none of the money could be used to build permanent bases in Iraq, the conference committee, behind closed doors this week, resolved that non-difference by deleting it.

This would appear to be a blatant violation of the rules of Congress and an unconstitutional voiding of the will of the people as expressed by their Representatives and Senators. But it can't appear that way to a people that knows nothing about it. And it does not appear that way at all to the journalists who inform the public of its government's doings. Even the minority members of the conference committee and the leaders of the minority party in Congress seem entirely comfortable with this course of events, although Congresswoman Barbara Lee has denounced the Republicans for it.

The House was the first to pass the "no permanent bases" amendment, back in March. Only one media outlet in the nation reported on the matter, the San Francisco Chronicle, which wrote:

"Lee's amendment, which would bar the use of any funds in the new spending bill to establish permanent bases, passed on a voice vote, with no one speaking in opposition. President Bush and some top administration officials have said the U.S. military has no interest in permanent bases, the prospect of which is among the causes of anti-American unrest in Iraq. Leaders of the Republican majority also may have chosen to avoid a debate and recorded vote on Lee's proposal because they didn't want to go on record endorsing a permanent military presence in Iraq when polls show Americans oppose the war. Opponents also may try to strike the amendment when leaders of the House and Senate reconcile their bill for final passage. 'In adopting this amendment, we can take the target off our troops' backs by sending a strong and immediate signal to the Iraqi people, the insurgents and the international community that the United States has no designs on Iraq,' Lee said on the House floor."

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/11672

[TransitJohn]

1. K & R eom

[Terran1212]

2. See Barbara Lee's comments on the move

It's on her website under the comments on the debate


She wins kudos for being the only Congressman to rail against this.

[Clarkie1]

6. Thanks, I will check that out. n/t

[annabanana]

3. That huge "non-permanent" palace of an "embassy"

That is being built as we speak must be the gorilla in the room...

[journalist3072]

4. Let's welcome the people of Iraq!

The Republicans want Iraq to be the 51st state.

So welcome, people of Iraq. You're part of America now.

[Rex]

5. Just more proof that the law of the land applies only to people

and not institutions like Congress. Gosh, we all agreed to it but profit can be made so fuck it...this is the Cut & Paste Congress. :eyes:

[rman]

7. In this case they "worked out" (emphasis on "out") what the bills

have in common, so that "no permanent bases" becomes "permanent bases".

Makes perfect sense in an up-side-down world.

[gratuitous]

8. A violation of the rules, merciful heavens!

And unconstitutional to boot. But who will enforce the rules? Who will insist that the Constitution be followed? Not the administration, that's for sure. And their congressional lickspittles will decline to stand up for their co-equal standing under the law. Again. Otherwise, you're a cut-and-runner, and soft on terrorism!