The Silver Lining of the Supplemental

Yesterday, Congressional Democrats ended a nearly 5-month cold war with the Bush Administration by approving supplemental Iraq war funding absent a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal.

The anti-war netroots at Daily Kos and practically everywhere else on the internet are now in a tizzy, declaring "if the supplemental bill passes, it most probably means that Mister Bush has all the money he needs to continue this bloody disaster for the next 16 months." Even the New York Times is riddled with language about how the Dems "relented" and made a "wrenching reversal."

But as Erik noted in his recent blog, the media has a curious affinity for black-and-white half-truths, and for declaring "game over" in the third inning. Congressional leaders will have other, better opportunities to duke it out on a number of funding bills in coming months, including Department of Defense Appropriations. Furthermore, there's more to this emergency spending bill than the timetable issue.

For starters, this is the first bill that begins to address the urgent needs of the fastest growing refugee and internally displaced populations in the world. It provides funding for lifesaving humanitarian assistance and protection to help those displaced by the conflicts in Iraq and Darfur. Secondly, it restores funding for development NGOs that have successfully partnered with local Iraqi leaders to help them rebuild their war-torn communities. Third, the bill provides some of the assistance that Iraq desperately needs for an economic and political solution -- something that neither troop surges nor withdrawals are likely to produce alone.

No, we didn't get as much as we would have liked, but EPIC and our Iraq Peace and Development Working Group (IPDWG) allies lobbied hard and won $85 million above the President's request for Iraqi refugee/IDP assistance and restored $50 million of funding for USAID's Community Action Program (CAP) and the Marla Ruzicka War Victims Fund.

Even if you're among the "support our troops, bring them home" crowd and you buy the Daily Kos' 16-month-bloodbath prophecy, you ought to know this funding is crucial for protecting our troops. As long as they're over there, the best way we can help them is by stabilizing Iraq through political, civil and economic projects. Employed Iraqis with ownership of and interest in community projects, such as those funded by CAP and highlighted in our "Overlooked Successes" conference, aren't strapping bombs to their chests and going after Americans. And what you may not have heard is that these moderates do have an influence on those who are causing trouble - popular support is key to movements such as Moqtada al-Sadr's.

The sooner we get moving on economic, political and civil solutions, the less justification this Administration will have for maintaining or augmenting troop levels.

Also present in the approved bill are benchmarks. We're planning a series of blog entries here giving you details on each one, but for now suffice it to say we've been calling for benchmarks for years. Of course, benchmarks on U.S. progress rather than focusing entirely on the Iraqi side of the equation would have been nice. But you know how it is in Washington - baby steps, baby steps.

The bottom line is that U.S. troop levels are just one part, one question in the debate over Iraq's future. The media needs to be careful not to over-focus on that question at the expense of the needs of the Iraqi people.

Bush Vetoes Supplemental Spending Bill

As promised, President Bush vetoed Congress' $124 billion emergency supplemental yesterday, sending congressional Democrats back to the drawing board on the crucial spending legislation.

Since the president largely rejected bill because of its Oct. 1 deadline for beginning troop withdrawal, congressional leaders are now discussing new legislation that would remove the timetables but include specific benchmarks created to urge Iraqi leaders to reduce the violence. Increasingly perturbed by the president but unwilling to back a withdrawal plan, Republicans in the House and Senate seem primed to support a plan that includes benchmarks for Iraq's government, the LA Times speculates.

CNN reports: "'I do think there are some kinds of benchmarks that might well achieve bipartisan support and might actually even conceivably be helpful to the effort in Iraq,' the Kentucky Republican [Senator Mitch O'Connell] said. 'And that's what we're going to be looking for.'"

The benchmarks being discussed include passing laws on revenue sharing for oil output, national reconciliation, and sectarian violence. Interestingly, these are measures that President Bush himself has repeatedly urged Iraq's government to undertake.

The question remains as to how long the new legislation will take to be drafted, passed and implemented. As our leaders here in Washington continue to debate the bill -- and, as many argue, they continue to play out their partisan theatrics -- 100,000s of Iraqis continue to suffer. In addition to supporting our troops, the bill provides desperately-needed funds for relief and aid for millions of Iraqi families. While EPIC is urging Congress and President Bush to increase funding for this important work, we are also articulating the need to implement this legislation in a timely and efficient manner -- keeping partisan politics off the table.

After all, every day that passes means countless more innocent lives lost.

Hope for Compromise

Tension continues to mount in Washington, D.C. as the Senate voted 51-46 today in favor the 2007 supplemental spending bill, which includes a goal for troop withdrawal set for next year. Today's Senate vote follows the bill's narrow passage in the House by a 218-208 vote. Both votes were divided largely along party lines.

Although the measure passed both chambers of Congress, the White House is reiterating President Bush's intent to veto. To override a Presidential veto, Democrats would need 67 votes in the Senate and 290 in the House -- much more support than was secured for this week's votes.

In the midst of all this contention, it is leaving some people to wonder if common ground on Iraq is even possible. The spending bill is crucial, as funds for operations in Iraq will soon run out. For example, U.S. funding for some critical development programs that support Iraqi civil society organizations is expected to run out in June. Which brings us to the question: Can the parties involved reach a compromise?

According to recent precedent, the answer is yes. After 9 months of reviewing all of the available facts and thoughful deliberation, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group was able to reach a consensus. Released on December 6th of last year, the 84-page report provides an honest assessment of the situation in Iraq and outlines key recommendations for a responsible way forward. For more on this report, check out our blog from last December.

Despite pledges from Congress and President Bush to "consider" the recommendations, the Iraq Study Group Report was quickly tabled by both sides. But in the midst the current debate over the FY 2007 supplemental, the report -- and particularly the attractiveness of its bipartisan recommendations -- has begun to resurface. As one barometer, here's a sampling of editorials and op-eds that have appeared on the opinion pages of the Washington Post and New York Times (including op-eds by both of the co-chairs of the Iraq Study Group report):

Standoff on Iraq
Washington Post editorial
Monday, April 16, 2007

A Partnership on Iraq
By Lee H. Hamilton
The Washington Post
Sunday, March 25, 2007; Page B07

A Path to Common Ground
The Iraq Study Group Plan Could Break the Logjam
By James A. Baker III
The Washington Post
Thursday, April 5, 2007; Page A17

Back to Baker-Hamilton
By David Ignatius
The Washington Post
Wednesday, April 4, 2007; Page A13

What About Those Other Iraq Deadlines?
By Leon E. Panetta
The New York Times
Wednesday, April 4, 2007

And They Suffer in the South Too...

Last week I discussed the difficulties internally displaced people (IDP's) were having in the Kurdish north of Iraq; entry restrictions are strict, cost of living is prohibitively high and little to no aid is allocated for those who have fled their homes with little more than the clothes on their back.

Unfortunatly, the Refugees International report I referenced is one of the only places in which the IDP situation is discussed at length. Most U.S., U.N. and even Iraqi institutions fail to even acknowledge that there is an IDP crisis.

The RI report, however, seems to have created a little bit of momentum. Yesterday IraqSlogger published a piece detailing the plight of IDP's in the south of Iraq. According to local officials in the southern provinces, there are nearly a million displaced people in urgent need of food, medicines and municipal services. And unlike the Kurdish north, which is protected by its own security forces, much of the south is plagued by violence. Thus even though aid may be available, often times it cannot be delivered due to security concerns. The south is also considerably poorer than the north and so can offer few jobs to the massive influx of IDP's.

Fareed Abbas, a spokesman for Najaf-based NGO the Muslim Organisation for Peace (MOP), said the central government was unwilling to provide sufficient funds to develop sanitation, education and electricity projects in the southern provinces:

“We have appealed dozens of times to the central government to help in such critical circumstances but we haven’t got any response yet. Instead, over the past few months, their assistance has decreased considerably, leaving people without support and infrastructure."

Dr. Aziz Ali Baroud, a physician at Najaf Main Hospital, explains that the health care system cannot cope with the dramatic increase in people:

“At least one person dies in our hospital every day due to lack of assistance or medicines. If you add all the people dying for the same reason in all the hospitals in the southern provinces, the number becomes very serious."

-----------
Only recently did the U.S. and international community acknowledge the refugees crisis. It took intense lobbying, multiple public awareness campaigns, tens of op-eds and several Congressional hearings, but eventually the scope and implications of the crisis were appreciated by one and all: The State Department created a displacement task force, the U.S. upped its quota for accepting Iraqi refugees, the Senate included $65 million in their version of the supplemental to deal with the crisis and the international community collectively provided millions more.

With tens of thousands of Iraqis being displaced within Iraq every month, I can only hope that it will not take as long to begin effectively addressing the crisis now that people are becoming aware of its scope. It is a good sign, however, that the Senate version of the supplemental provides $65 million for just Iraqi IDP's alone. We can only hope that whatever ultimately happens to the Senate version -veto or no veto- this provision makes it through to the final spending bill.

The Senate Supplemental- Fact Sheet and Why EPIC Did Not Oppose It All Together

Threw together this resource for work and thought it might interest a few of you out there.

After going through the entire Senate version of the supplemental S.965 and the committee report here are all funds I could find being appropriated for relief and development in Iraq:

• $100 million for CAP, of which $5 million is for the Marla Fund
• $65 million for Iraq refugees including $5 million specifically for Iraqi scholars
• $65 million for Iraqi IDP’s as part of International Disaster and Famine Assistance
• $55 million to replenish US Emergency Refugees and Migration Assistance Fund (could be used for Iraq)
• Sec. 1711 seems to relax the restrictions for Iraqis seeking refuge in the U.S.
• $5 million for Iraqi civilians who have suffered losses as a result of the military operations
• $384 million for the Community Stabilization Program [CSP]
• $100 million to restart state factories
• $385 million for democracy, governance, human rights, and rule of law programs in Iraq including: $40 million for Human Rights; $10 million for Women’s Programs; $20 million for Support for Medial and $200 million to continue Democracy Programs, Civil Society and Political Party Development
• $70 million for Private Sector Agribusiness development
• $20 million for Financial Markets Development and Strengthening
• $456.4 million for CERPs
• $1 billion for PRT’s according to Senate Appropriations Summary of the bill

Also, a few people have written in asking why EPIC supports the supplemental, as much of the funding is appropriated for the military surge. Some have suggested that only once troops have withdrawn from Iraq, should we appropriate funds for reconstruction and aid. The point is that the people of Iraq cannot wait through the months of political debate on the Hill that would be needed to reverse current Administration policy. We have a humanitarian emergency on our hands. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are fleeing their homes every month while those who can’t leave are suffering from an inadequate public health system, 60% unemployment rate and a security situation that fails to guarantee them even a tomorrow.

Congress will pass a supplemental spending bill in some form or another to support the troops that are already there. This much is clear. The number of votes needed to oppose the bill simply aren't there. Whether they add restrictions, timelines, etc is not our primary concern, though we are certainly against further fighting in Iraq. This Administration has been wrong to seek a military solution to the problems of Iraq. We have repeatedly stated this, and gone even further by suggesting effective solutions to the crisis, namely relief and development. Our main concern is the people of Iraq who are suffering greatly due to this Administration's short-sighted policies and failed initiatives. All we are asking is that Congress appropriates a small percentage of the supplemental funds to help the people of Iraq. I’m looking through the House version now and it includes $25 million for spinach producers (p. 291) and $60 million for salmon fisheries (p. 216) among other expenditures extraneous to Iraq. Surely we can include something for millions of Iraqis.

The Supplemental on the Hill

The House just passed its version of the Supplemental. Total came out to $124 billion- about $20 billion more than was asked for by President Bush. The Washington Post explains:

"[The bill] grants $25 million to spinach farmers in California. The legislation would also appropriate $75 million for peanut storage in Georgia and $15 million to protect Louisiana rice fields from saltwater. More substantially, there is $120 million for shrimp and menhaden fishermen, $250 million for milk subsidies, $500 million for wildfire suppression and $1.3 billion to build levees in New Orleans.

“…The legislation pays more heed to a handful of peanut farmers than to the 24 million Iraqis who are living through a maelstrom initiated by the United States, the outcome of which could shape the future of the Middle East for decades.”

Beyond providing emergency spending, the bill also sets binding benchmarks for progress in Iraq, establishes tough readiness standards for deploying U.S. troops abroad and requires the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of August 2008.

Yesterday the Senate Appropriations Committee approved, by a voice vote, a version of the FY2007 Supplemental that totals $121.664. The legislation also calls on the President to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 120 days of its enactment, though unlike the House version it is not a firm requirement. The Senate version goes further than the House version in supporting development in Iraq (for example it fully funds the CAP program); however, there is still falls millions of dollars short of what is needed to effectively help the people of Iraq.

On that note, consider calling your Senator and letting him know just that. EPIC has set up a little action center with talking points, fact sheets and every thing else you might need to call your Senator in support of increased funding for humanitarian aid and economic development. Feel free to add this nifty banner I made to your blog, website, or wherever else if you support relief and development in Iraq.

$20 Billion More? Ok, but Still Ignores Needs of Iraqis

The Wall Street Journal reports on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's proposed new spending bill.

Here is the breakdown:

• $4.0 billion defense spending, including $1 billion for military operations in Afghanistan
• $3.1 billion relocation of U.S. troops from overseas bases being closed in Europe and Asia
• $2.5 billion homeland security
• $1.7 billion veteran's healthcare
• $8.7 billion domestic spending including farm disaster aid, and Gulf Coast recovery

In all, she hopes to add $20 billion to the administration's $99.6 billion 2007 supplemental request. The bill also sets a timeline for withdrawal. From the press release:

To pressure Iraqi leaders to make the compromises necessary to end the chaos that has resulted from their lack of performance to date, the proposal establishes a timeline for ending U.S. participation in Iraq’s civil war.

• By July 1st, 2007 the President must certify that Iraq is making meaningful and substantial progress in meeting political and military benchmarks including a militia disarmament program and a plan that equitably shares oil revenues among all Iraqi factions. If he does not certify - troops must begin immediate redeployment and U.S. troop involvement in the Iraq civil war must be completed by December 2007 (180 days).

• By October 1st, the President must certify that Iraqis have achieved key benchmarks. If he does not make the second certification, troops must begin immediate redeployment to be completed by March of 2008 (180 days).

• Even if he makes both certifications, the Administration must start redeploying the U.S. Military from Iraq by March 1, 2008, and complete the redeployment by August of 2008 (180 days).

The bill also prevents the President from initiating offensive military operations against Iran without the approval of the Congress.

I certainly can't fault Pelosi for what she has included in this bill: it is apparent to all that more attention needs to be paid to Afghanistan, U.S. veterans must be taken care of properly, and current U.S. soldiers should certainly receive all the proper equipment they need.

As the press release states, "This bill meets every possible obligation for our troops..." But what about the Iraqis? The misguided policies of the U.S. have been instrumental in creating the current crises in Iraq including a 60% unemployment rate, and a displaced population of 3.7 million. Pelosi suggests an addition of $20 billion to an already bloated war budget and could not think to include at least $428 million for economic and humanitarian assistance?

Hopefully Congress will heed the call of those 40 organizations and include these funds in the 2007 Supplemental. And while I am sure everyone would like the U.S. to withdraw its troops from Iraq, we should not set timelines that ignore political and economic progress in Iraq. Instead our withdrawal ought to be contingent on these two factors. In other words when we withdraw our troops from Iraq, it must be done responsibly.

Just 0.4% More Could Save Millions of Iraqis

Yesterday Emily mentioned that EPIC and 40 other NGOs including Amnesty International, Mercy Corps, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Iraq Foundation and Refugees International had sent a letter to Congress urging members to amend President Bush's $99.6 billion 2007 Supplemental to include more money for development projects and humanitarian crisis response.

The letter was initiated by the Iraq Peace and Development Working Group (IPDWG), a newly-formed NGO working group advocating policy improvements to reduce human suffering and conflict in Iraq.

One would think that a sum as large as $99.6 billion would adequately cover all facets of our involvement in Iraq, but an overwhelming majority of the request ($93.4 billion) is on behalf of the Department of Defense, once again demonstrating this administration's over-reliance on a military solution to the conflict in Iraq.

Bush has requested $5.99 billion of the remainder for the State Department. Of this sum, $2.3 billion is ear-marked for foreign assistance for Iraq. Secretary Rice broke this figure down further in her February 27th testimony to Congress. The aid-related numbers:

• $428 million for democracy programs to support greater engagement with political parties, civil society organizations and national political institutions such as parliament.
• $60 million for humanitarian programs to support the growing number of displaced people within Iraq who have fled areas due to sectarian violence.

Let's start with the last figure: $60 million to aid and resettle displaced Iraqis who have fled from the violence. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) approximately 3.7 million Iraqis, or 1 out of every 8, have been displaced by violence, with tens of thousands more fleeing every single month. While the figure is certainly a great improvement, it falls far short of what is needed to even begin to adequately address the displacement crisis. Several NGOs party to the letter who have operations on the ground in Iraq conducted a needs assessment and determined that at least $290 million would be needed to address the effects of the crisis.

With $290 million the U.S. will be able to:

• assist refugee-hosting countries with strained social services
• fund local NGO's to take care of basic needs of refugees
• fulfill 50% of UNHCR's funding appeal and 20% of the International Committee for the Red Cross' appeal
• resettle 20,000 Iraqis over FY07 and FY08
• assist internally displaced people (IDP's) with housing, food, healthcare, etc

Likewise the $428 million for democracy building is an improvement, but as the letter notes the Community Action Program (CAP) is still not fully-funded, despite it being one of the few successfull programs in Iraq. In the supplemental the administration asked for $50 million for CAP, a 50% decrease from previous years. The NGO letter asks that Congress restore full funding to CAP by granting it an extra $50 million. In addition, the letter also asks for an extra $100 million to support Iraqi civil society, conflict resolution and peace-building strategies, and the advancement of human rights and rule of law. All together, the letter asks for $440 million to address this critical funding gap for relief and development projects.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, approximately $30 billion has been spent to date on foreign aid and diplomatic operations in Iraq. Unfortunatly, as the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction has found, much of this money has been wasted due to a lack of proper oversight. For more on this see these previous postings:

The CBO report notes that to date no funding has been provided to promote local economic development nor to assist local governance in 2007. I suppose just the fact that the supplemental includes funding for such projects is somewhat reassuring. However, it is clear to the 40 national organizations that signed the letter that more money, at least $440 million, is needed to ensure they can be effective.

That is an increase to the current supplemental of only 0.4%. Surely the futures and lives of millions of Iraqis are worth an extra 0.4%.