House Falling Short on SCHIP Override, Pelosi Admits
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reversed her stance from a week earlier, appearing resigned Sunday that Democrats would not convince enough Republicans to pass an expansion of a children's health insurance program over President Bush's veto.
"Isn't that sad for America's children?" she asked on ABC's "This Week." Her second appearance on a Sunday talk show in as many weeks came days before the House is expected to vote again on the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Last week, Pelosi was far more optimistic about the chances of overriding Bush's veto, saying on "Fox News Sunday" that the Democrats needed "about 14 Republican votes" to reach the required two-thirds majority.
This week, it was Pelosi's Republican counterpart, House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio), who was facing questions on Fox, and he said he was confident that "we will have the votes to sustain the president's veto."
The White House has signaled it wants to find a compromise with Democrats over the program, but any agreement seemed distant today.
Pelosi said she has never heard from Bush about the program and she reiterated a point she made last week, that she is unwilling to support legislation that would cover fewer children than the current bill's 10 million.
The Senate already has a sufficient majority to override the veto, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) predicted on ABC that the White House and congressional Democrats would strike a deal.
"Neither side is going to leave these kids uninsured. It's become kind of a political football, which is really unfortunate. But the coverage is going to be provided in some way," McConnell said.
Pelosi Stands by Bringing Up Genocide Resolution
Pelosi also faced questions about a House resolution moving to the floor that would condemn what it calls the genocide of Armenians in 1915.
Turkish officials have vociferously opposed the resolution, and White House and some Republicans have argued that a resolution taking sides on the controversial issue would harm relations with Ankara at a time when our ally's help is needed in the war on terror. Supporters of the measure say it only repeats what Congress and presidents have said many times and is needed now because only a few remaining Armenians who saw the slaughter firsthand are alive today.
A similar resolution was pulled from the House floor in 2000 by then-Speaker J. Dennis Hastert after he was asked to do so by President Bill Clinton. Pelosi said she has not heard from President Bush about this bill, and she said she would bring the resolution to the floor.
"There's never been a good time. Certainly force protection of our troops is our first -- top priority when we are engaged in conflict. So that is an issue of great importance to all of us here," she said. "And, again, the survivors of the Armenian genocide are not going to be with us."
Boehner retorted: "Listen, there's no question that the suffering of the Armenian people some 90 years ago was extreme. But what happened 90 years ago ought to be a subject for historians to sort out, not politicians here in Washington. And I think bringing this bill to the floor may be the most irresponsible thing I've seen this new Congress do this year."
Meanwhile, Pelosi could not say whether the House will take up legislation this week to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. "We don't know," she said. "Every week we have more than one resolution holding the administration accountable for the conduct of the war in Iraq."
Pelosi also said she understands that antiwar voters are frustrated with the Democratic Party's inability to end the war, contributing to Congress's historically low job approval ratings. "I respect the dissatisfaction with the war and myself would not give Congress high marks on ending the war. We don't have a veto -- the pen to sign or -- not to veto. But we are doing all we can to change the debate," she said.
McCain: 'We're Getting the Traction'
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the one-time Republican frontrunner, said that as he campaigns around New Hampshire and Iowa as an underdog, he has been liberated "in a way."
Speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation," he said, "I think that this campaign is now heating up. People are paying attention, average voters, and I think we're getting the traction. But we've got a long way to go. It's a long, hard pull," he said.
He acknowledged that he is not living up to his hopes for Iowa, where polls show him in fourth or fifth place. "I've been trying to spend a lot of time in Iowa and do better there, which we're not doing as well as we should," he said.
He also went after the two front-runners for the GOP nomination - former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani and former Massachussetts governor Mitt Romney - and in particular criticized Romney's changing positions on a host of issues.
"Isn't consistency on fundamental issues an important factor in this race?" McCain asked. "And I don't think that consistency has been there."
Blackwater Chief Defends His Men, Company
Erik Prince, the founder and chief executive of Blackwater, the private security firm whose employees allegedly fired on and killed Iraqi civilians, discussed the controversy surrounding his company on CNN's "Late Edition."
Prince described the event as "a normal, run-of-the-day mission." He said Blackwater personnel were fired upon after a car bomb blew up nearby, even though U.S. military reports and reports by local Iraqis appear to contradict that.
"There was definitely incoming small-arms fire from insurgents," Prince said.
Prince defended his employees, saying, "They go through extensive training, government-dictated. The recruiting, the vetting, the résumé standards, psychological evaluations, criminal background checks, security clearances, hundreds of hours of training. Then they get there. They do similar work to what they were doing before in the U.S. military."
"In the ideal sense, we would be subject to the Iraqi law," Prince said, "but that would mean -- that would indicate that there was a functioning Iraqi court system where Westerners could actually get a fair trial. That's not the case right now, so we believe we are accountable under MEJA, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice."
He also said his company supports new State Department measures that would include video cameras installed in the company's armored vehicles and monitors to assess how the private contractors work.
Prince defended the general notion that the U.S. would employ such large numbers of contractors in Iraq for this type of work. "I think we have the finest military in the world, the U.S. does. Very great conventional forces, great special operations forces. But they can't be all things to all people all the time," the former Navy Seal said.
"And so as you go from a conventional operation, what they did to Saddam in 2003, now to a major contingency operation trying to rebuild the country, it creates a lot of gaps. ... And we are a gap filler. And we are temporary, and there's no ongoing legacy cost for the U.S. government. They don't have to have pensions and a lot of other costs that they are going to be paying for years to come for a force that's going to be stood up very quickly."
By Post Editor |
October 14, 2007; 2:00 PM ET
Previous: Pelosi Says House Close to Overriding Bush on SCHIP |
Next: It's "Meet the Candidates" Day
Posted by: dolfus | October 14, 2007 4:08 PM
In the article above, Prince claims that using mercenaries is cheaper because "... there's no ongoing legacy cost for the U.S. government." But in a paragraph above he states that his mercenaries are well-trained because "They do similar work to what they were doing before in the U.S. military." In other words, he's saying that they're almost all ex-US military.
Seems to me that military veterans are eligible for care at VA hospitals, even if they are wounded or injured as mercenaries instead of as active-duty soldiers. So isn't that a legacy cost?
Who it isn't a legacy cost for is Mr. Prince and his ownership coterie, who are waxing very fat off this war.
Posted by: seo | October 14, 2007 4:18 PM
The bottom line is, he promises to us USA military-type responsibilities for really low costs. Duh! Where does that come from?
1) No benefits from blood-thirsty US mercenaries (many ex-military who already have the benefits and so dont care) happy to shoot "sand-n_____s" (their term, definietely not mine!)
2) low benefits to those wannabe US armed forces members who couldn't make it b/c of educational and/or psych profiles (LOVELY!),
3) folks from Peru, Namimibia, SAfrica, etc. willing to take $1k/month (source: WPost) so willing to get a decent-for-their-country salary, and fresh from recent para-military experience, and who cares if they shoot Iraqis....
This is the very worst kind of profiteered, who has been encouraged by the very worst kind of people (those US govt officials anxious to avoid their real responsibilities, but EXTREMELY anxious to avoid any accountability!
Posted by: Bill | October 14, 2007 5:38 PM
The bottom line is, Blackwater Chief (who Defends His Men, Company) (who also Defends His Blood-Thirsty Men, Profiteering Company) Erik Prince, the founder and chief executive of Blackwater, the private security firm whose employees allegedly fired on and killed Iraqi civilians, promises to us USA military-type responsibilities for really low costs. Duh! Where could that possibly come from?
1) No benefit-personnel from mostly blood-thirsty US mercenaries (perhaps vid-game intensive? esp. many ex-military who already have their benefits and so don't care about that) more than happy to shoot up "sand-nig__s" (their term, definitely not mine!)
2) low-benefit mostly blood-thirsty personnel (definitely vid-game trained), via those wannabe US armed forces members who couldn't make it b/c of educational and/or psych profiles (LOVELY!),
3) mercenaries from Peru, Namibia, South Africa, etc. willing to take $1k/month (source: WPost) so willing to get a decent-for-their-country salary, and fresh from recent para-military experience, and by the way who cares if they shoot Iraqis....?
4) Anyone else willing to put themselves in good will's harm for really, really cheap, b/c they really, really believe this is the right thing to do, and of course an iraqi civ who looks at you the wrong way deserves to be put down on the spot, b/c they have fewer rights than an unneutered cat, or perhaps even than Rodney King....
5) a FEW, GOOD MEN.
This is the very worst kind of profiteer, who has been encouraged by the very worst kind of people (those US govt officials anxious to avoid their real responsibilities, but EXTREMELY anxious to avoid any accountability!
If anyone belongs in Abu Gharaib (no one does, but we can fantasize), it is Blackwater...
Posted by: Bill 2 | October 14, 2007 5:58 PM
There was a TV ad on about how the president vetoed the SCHIP bill it showed a bunch of SMALL children my question is where were the 21 thru 25 year old SCHIP kids at? Don't they film the truth??? Yeah right. Save your breath Nancy your true color is showing. Go back to congress you just might get that war started with Turkey yet! This does show how much you all care for the troops. This just might get a few more killed.
Posted by: sick of it all | October 14, 2007 7:08 PM
Let's keep Bush's veto firmly in mind when the 2008 elections come around...corporate america got more than it's share of perks & breaks & windfalls from the Bush administration and the Republican congress...now it's time for the common man to have a place set at the table.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 14, 2007 8:40 PM
Isn't it obvious? The repubs want to stop all dem bills from going through. Doesn't matter how good a bill may or may not be. Party over country.
Posted by: Alex | October 14, 2007 10:03 PM
Looks like Republicans are looking for another opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot for the 2008 election. Rubber-stamping Bush's veto of SCHIP just puts more of them on the fast-track to retirement (and lucrative lobbying jobs afterwards)
Posted by: windrider | October 15, 2007 7:52 AM
Isn't that sad for America's children?" she asked.
Hey Nancy, why not say what you mean -"isn't that sad for all the illegal aliens you tried to push on the American public"?
Posted by: Tom Jefferson | October 15, 2007 8:25 AM
HOW SAD FOR AMERICANS!
The Insurance industry and Big Pharma bedded down with a willing American admistration to see to it that the American people will never have the inalienable right to Universal Health care. This three way orgy results in millions of American's broken bodies, minds, spirits, loss of homes, businesses, and lives. It also affords obscene profits not allowed anywhere in civilized, developed nations. IT MUST BE STOPPED.
If SCHIP is the first step to providing AMERICAN citizens with this right, I applaud it.
If Congress were truly working in the interest of the American citizen they would have long ago passed Bill # HR 676 proposed by Rep. John Conyers that guarantees ALL American citizens health care.
Congress: Pass HR 676 for ALL American citizens, then there will be no need to fight for just a small piece of the pie.
Posted by: R. De Ferrary | October 16, 2007 10:26 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Expanding health care for children is a fine idea, but no one mentions that all the funding for the current SCHIP legislation is to be taxed from smokers. If an across the board tax increase was to pay for the program's extended coverage, many more people wouldn't be so anxious for the passage of the bill. Tobacco user have faced ever increasing tax hikes since the passage of the National Tobacco Settlement.