Democrats To Widen Conflict
With Bush
Some on Both Sides See Plans as Risky
|
o |
 |
|
Representative Steny Hoyer, the majority leader |
|
|
WASHINGTON (By Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post) April 2, 2007 —
Even as their confrontation with
President Bush over Iraq escalates, emboldened congressional Democrats are
challenging the White House on a range of issues — such as unionization of
airport security workers and the loosening of presidential secrecy orders —
with even more dramatic showdowns coming soon.
For his part, Bush, who also finds himself under assault
for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the conduct of the Iraq war and
alleged abuses in government surveillance by the FBI, is holding firm.
Though he has vetoed only one piece of legislation since taking office, he
has vowed to veto 16 bills that have passed either the House or Senate in
the three months since Democrats took control of Congress.
Despite the threats, Democratic lawmakers expect to open
new fronts against the president when they return from their spring recess,
including politically risky efforts to quickly close the prison at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; reinstate legal rights for terrorism suspects; and
rein in what Democrats see as unwarranted encroachments on privacy and civil
liberties allowed by the USA Patriot Act.
"I suppose there's always a risk of going too far," said
House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), "but the risk of not going is
far greater."
Backed by a unified party and fresh from a slew of
legislative victories, Democratic leaders appear to believe there is hardly
any territory they cannot stray onto, a development that has Republican
political operatives gleeful and some Democrats worried. Rep. Tom Cole
(Okla.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, warned
of a "political price" at the polls: "If they let their constituents and
their ideology drive them past the point where the American people are
comfortable, they will find how quickly the voters will react."
Leon E. Panetta, who was a top White House aide when
President Bill Clinton pulled himself off the mat through repeated
confrontations with Congress, sees the same risk. He urged Democrats to
stick to their turf on such issues as immigration, health care and popular
social programs, and to prove they can govern.
"That's where their strength is," Panetta said. "If they
go into total confrontation mode on these other things, where they just pass
bills and the president vetoes them, that's a recipe for losing seats in the
next election."
But even conservative Democrats insist their party is in
no danger of overreaching its mandate from the November elections. Rep.
Baron P. Hill (Ind.), a conservative Democrat who squeaked out a victory in
November against the Republican who had taken the seat from him two years
earlier, said he was concerned early on that Democratic leaders would mount
a "witch hunt" against Bush and his policies. But, he said, they are far
from any witch hunts.
The view is decidedly different from the White House. In
three months, Democrats have pushed back hard on the Bush legacy. A
House-passed bill would require the government to negotiate prices for
prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries, highlighting what Democrats
consider a shortcoming of the president's landmark Medicare prescription
drug law. Bush has promised a veto.
A Senate-approved measure would allow screeners at the
Transportation Security Administration to unionize, prompting a veto threat.
White House opposition to that in 2002 led to a legislative standoff over
the creation of the Department of Homeland Security that proved devastating
to Democrats, who were painted as soft on terrorism.
A bill to ease the public release of official papers from
presidential libraries also yielded a veto promise, although it passed with
overwhelming bipartisan support. The measure would reverse one of Bush's own
executive orders, which has helped keep reams of presidential documents
under lock and key.
Budgets passed by the House and Senate assume the
expiration of most of Bush's tax cuts in 2012, and Democrats are demanding
tough new standards for labor rights and environmental regulations as a
condition of extending the president's authority to expedite trade
negotiations.
The White House has also vowed to block two separate House
bills that would extend whistle-blower protections to national security and
to rail security workers.
But it is the legislation coming down the pike that
promises the real fireworks. Most Republicans are convinced the president
will win his veto standoff over House and Senate war spending bills that
would impose mandatory troop withdrawals from Iraq.
"It's going to be like the government shutdowns" of 1995
and 1996, predicted Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). "The Democrats' honeymoon is
fixing to end. It's going to explode like an IED."
That would slow their momentum as they challenge Bush on
the territory he has made his political fortune on: terrorism. But Democrats
are undaunted in their demands to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. They
also want to reopen last year's law creating military commissions to restore
the right of habeas corpus to terrorism suspects and to revise rules that
allow convictions to be based in part on evidence yielded by interrogation
methods that critics call torture.
"We have a very consequential and just system of justice.
To create a system that is a dual system but not just is not acceptable, and
that's Guantanamo," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). Democratic
leadership aides are most skittish about the Patriot Act, saying they would
only temper it by eliminating a provision that allows the indefinite
appointment of U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation and by tightening
the FBI's use of "national security letters" to obtain private information
about U.S. citizens.
For Republicans, such legislative gambits could prove to
be a political gift. When reports first surfaced of plans to close
Guantanamo Bay and send terrorism suspects to military prisons in the United
States, Republicans accused Democrats of planning to import terrorists to
U.S. soil. Even after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates suggested he could
support the idea, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) pressed the attack Friday.
"The idea that we would import dangerous terrorists, like
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, into American communities is dangerous," Hunter said
at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, of which he is the
ranking GOP member.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) has already raised the
specter of justice grinding to a halt as terrorists use their access to
federal courts under the right of habeas corpus to blitz the judicial system
with lawsuits.
And Cole, the Oklahoma Republican, warned Democrats not to
tamper with the national security laws that Bush secured after the 2001
terrorist attacks. "Americans don't want to reopen the programs that have
protected them since 9/11," he said.