http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5121100846.html

Sen. Clinton Crafts Centrist Stance on War With Eye to 2008

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 12, 2005; Page A01

At a time when politicians in both parties have eagerly sought public forums to debate the war in Iraq, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has kept in the shadows.

Clinton has stayed steadfastly on a centrist path, criticizing President Bush but refusing to embrace the early troop withdrawal options that are gaining rapid favor in her party. This careful balance is drawing increasing scorn from liberal activists, frustrated that one of the party's leading lights has shown little appetite to challenge Bush's policy more directly and embrace a plan to set a timetable for bringing U.S. forces home.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) says she supports neither a definite timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq nor an open-ended U.S. commitment. (By Tim Roske -- Associated Press)

Clinton is confronting the Democratic Party's long-standing dilemma on national defense, with those harboring national ambitions caught between the passions of the antiwar left and political concerns that they remain vulnerable to charges of weakness from the Republicans if they embrace the party's base. But some Democrats say, the left not withstanding, her refusal to advocate a speedy exit from Iraq may reflect a more accurate reading of public anxiety about the choices now facing the country.

When Senate Democrats called on President Bush last month to explain the conditions and establish a schedule for redeploying U.S. forces, Clinton offered backroom advice on the language but let others take the lead on the Senate floor. When Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) called for redeploying all U.S. troops from Iraq over the next six months, the New York senator told reporters she was opposed. When her advisers were later asked whether she supports a two-year phased withdrawal advocated by a liberal think tank and embraced by Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, they demurred.

Faced with rising pressure to join the intensifying debate over an exit strategy and Bush's policies, the politician many think will seek the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008 chose as her medium a 1,600-word letter outlining her views, recently e-mailed to constituents and supporters.

In the e-mail, Clinton took responsibility for her vote for the 2002 resolution authorizing Bush to go to war, while leaving open whether she would have opposed it, given what is now known about faulty intelligence and mismanagement by the administration. She pummeled Bush for his conduct of the war itself but left murky how long she believes U.S. forces should stay in Iraq. As she told Kentucky Democrats earlier this month, "I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it."

Clinton's support for the war continues the pro-defense posture she has maintained in the Senate. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, she has courted Pentagon commanders and military families, and as a senator from New York on Sept. 11, 2001, her advocacy for the campaign against terrorists has been unwavering. But her decision to let others lead the debate over Iraq reflects what allies say is her innate caution.

Antiwar activists have been displeased. "Senator Clinton is demonstrating cowardice in the face of the right-wing noise machine," said Tom Mattzie, Washington director of the liberal group MoveOn.org.

But Clinton's refusal to embrace a quick exit strategy drew strong editorial support from the Buffalo News, which on Thursday praised her as a politician of conviction and conscience.

Some analysts call her approach a classic example of the kind of third-way triangulation -- putting herself at odds not only with the Republicans but also with much of her own party -- practiced by her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Others say she has been on target in her approach. "I think she's been very measured and very thoughtful and very consistent with her criticisms," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

Clinton's support for the war has prompted a challenge from Jonathan Tasini, an antiwar Democrat, in next year's Senate primary in New York. She remains overwhelmingly popular among Democrats in New York, so the challenge may be more an irritant that a real threat. But it could be a harbinger of a more significant challenge from the left to Clinton in 2008, if she decides to seek her party's presidential nomination.

Her advisers say she has adopted positions out of conviction and accepts the consequences of her actions. "She is doing what she believes," said Howard Wolfson, a communications adviser to Clinton. "The politics will either flow from that or they won't."

In Clinton's political circle, the bet is that her approach is good politics for a general election campaign, that support for the war in Iraq and the campaign against terrorism will inoculate her against Republican criticisms that the Democratic Party has been soft on defense. Neither the New York senator nor her husband has backed away from advocacy of seeing the Iraq mission through to a successful conclusion.

But the effort to put one foot squarely with those attacking Bush and another with those who say the United States cannot leave Iraq too soon has drawn criticism that she has adopted her position for reasons of political expediency, even among some Democrats who recognize the complexity of the choices facing them. "Hillary has made herself look political on this rather than principled," said Robert L. Borosage of the liberal Campaign for America's Future.

Clinton has traveled twice to Iraq and come back both times critical of the president and steadfast in her advocacy for success in defeating the insurgency there. She gave a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003 on Iraq and terrorism counseling patience in the military struggle there. In February, she appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) from Baghdad. But as the debate has shifted to the question of withdrawing U.S. forces, she has let others take the lead.

Her e-mail was sent out the day before Bush spoke at the Naval Academy in Annapolis -- a decision that resulted in minimal media coverage and guaranteed fewer intrusive questions from reporters about how or whether her views have changed since her initial vote for the war.

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines called the use of the e-mail a routine way Clinton communicates with her constituents. "In advance of the president's Iraq address, she wanted to reiterate her repeated criticism of how the president has used his authority and prosecuted this war," he said in an e-mail message.

Democratic strategists said Clinton can weather a rift with the left over Iraq because of her long-standing relationships with so many liberal constituencies. They also said the use of the e-mail allowed her to respond to criticism from liberals in the party without giving conservative critics television footage to exploit.

"It had the least amount of impact, but it checked the box," said one Democratic strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity to comment freely about Clinton's strategy. "She's still going to be able to present herself as strong on national security. In no way can she be accused of cutting and running. But she's very deftly taken care of mounting criticism from the left."

The e-mail left some questions unanswered, however. On the question of the resolution in 2002 giving Bush authority to go to war, she said in her e-mail: "Based on the information that we have today, Congress never would have been asked to give the president authority to use force against Iraq."

That is a position she has taken for more than a year, but she went a step further in her letter, suggesting she and others would vote differently today: "And if Congress had been asked, based on what we know now, we never would have agreed, given the lack of a long-term plan, paltry international support, the proven absence of weapons of mass destruction and the reallocation of troops and resources that might have been used in Afghanistan to eliminate [Osama] bin Laden and al Qaeda, and fully uproot the Taliban," she wrote.

Two Clinton advisers, who would not speak for the record about her views, rejected questions about whether she would now oppose the resolution as hypothetical, arguing that any such interpretation was reading more into the statement than was intended. "She has long said . . . 'I don't regret my vote -- I regret the way the president used the authority granted to him,' " one aide said.

Given the opposition to Murtha's plan within the party, Clinton may not differ with many Democratic politicians who are pressing for a policy that marks 2006 as a transition year in Iraq but that hedges on how long to keep troops there. But she and her aides have been reluctant to offer any clues as to how long is too long, suggesting only that her patience is less than the president's.

Clinton has taken no explicit position on the plan put forward by the liberal Center for American Progress that Dean endorsed last weekend calling for withdrawing about half of U.S. forces in 2006 and the rest by the end of 2007. Aides said her e-mail speaks for itself.

Asked how she differs with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), who has been Bush's strongest supporter among the Democrats, Wolfson said, "That's a briar patch I choose not to throw myself into."

Back to Story - Help
Senators Unsure of U.S. Troop Withdrawal 48 minutes ago

Turnout will be the key to success for Iraq's first parliamentary election this week, but significant U.S. troop withdrawals may not be possible until after consensus is reached on a constitution months later, senators said Sunday.

"These are people who are actually running for office that will write laws for the Iraqi people," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C. "It will be a chance for the Iraqi people to chart their own destiny. That is a huge sea change."

But given ongoing violence in the country, "I don't think we are going to have any major troop withdrawals any time soon if we are really serious about protecting this infant democracy," Lindsey told NBC's "Meet the Press."

Selected voting begins Monday, with the main balloting on Thursday. The election will be the first under the new constitution ratified in an Oct. 15 referendum and will complete the steps toward democratization following the ouster of Saddam Hussein's government.

Last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he expected 20,000 U.S. troops to return home from Iraq after the elections, and he suggested that some of the remaining 137,000 forces could pull out next year.

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq said he believed the elections could be start of a significant reduction of U.S. troops. "Our hope and expectation is that violence and use of the military means will become less important," Zalmay Khalilzad told ABC's "This Week."

But Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), D-Del., said there could be difficulties if Iraqis fail to reach consensus on a constitution when they vote on it in about four months to six months.

"If it ends up being viewed as a document of division, where the Sunnis think they're out of the deal, then I think we're in real trouble," Biden said on ABC's "This Week."

In an op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said U.S. military involvement in the Middle East is necessary to promote global freedom and U.S. security

"Supporting the growth of democratic institutions in all nations is not some moralistic flight of fancy; it is the only realistic response to our present challenges," Rice wrote.

Separately, a Los Angeles Times report Sunday said that more than a year before President Bush declared that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear weapons material in Africa, the French spy service began repeatedly warning the CIA that there was no evidence to support the allegation.

The newspaper described what it said were previously undisclosed exchanges between the U.S. and France in 2001 and 2002. It quoted a retired top French counterintelligence official and a former CIA official.

The CIA declined comment Sunday.




Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Negotiators Say Differences Over Ban on Abuse Remain New York Times
The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, predicted on Sunday that Congress and the Bush administration would reach agreement this week over a proposal to ban torture of terror detainees, but lawmakers engaged in the negotiations said major differences remained. With Congress trying to finish its work for the year, Mr. Frist, Republican of Tennessee, said in a television interview that he expected the dispute over language banning "cruel, inhumane and degrading" treatment of prisoners would be resolved, clearing the way for approval of two stalled Pentagon measures. "I think an agreement will be reached and we will come to some understanding, which will allow us, in ways consistent with our values, that is legal, to get the appropriate information to protect us," he said on "Fox News Sunday." But other lawmakers and Congressional officials, appearing on television and in separate interviews, said that the White House and the members of Congress who insist on the language remained far apart. "We're not close to a deal," said Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who has been working on the issue with Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, on the NBC program "Meet the Press." One Senate official, who was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the negotiations, said the two sides remained at a virtual standstill. "It's very, very hard to predict what will happen," the official said. Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war who wrote the antitorture provision, expressed a similar view in an interview broadcast Saturday on CBS News. "We still have a difference," he said, "the same one we had from the beginning: whether people have immunity automatically for anything that they may have done, and unfortunately we have not made progress." The Senate has twice approved Mr. McCain's measure, which would make the Army field manual the standard for interrogations by all American personnel, and ban the use of cruel and degrading treatment. The House has not addressed these provisions. The White House originally threatened to veto both the military spending bill and the military budget bill if they contained the McCain language. But administration officials have since backed off that threat in light of strong support for Mr. McCain's measure in both chambers. The sticking point in talks between Mr. McCain and Stephen J. Hadley, President Bush's national security adviser, hinges on narrow language the White House is seeking that could make it harder to prosecute intelligence officers charged with violating torture standards. Mr. McCain is balking at agreeing to any exemption for intelligence officials, members of his staff say. Instead, he has offered to include some language, modeled after military standards, under which a soldier can provide a defense if a "reasonable" person could have concluded that he was following a lawful order about how to treat prisoners. Mr. McCain and Mr. Hadley spoke again by telephone on Saturday, said Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, who offered no details. "We're still in discussions with all the parties," Mr. Jones said Sunday. Mr. Graham indicated that he and others would be reluctant to agree to a broad exemption to the antiterror provision. "If we start allowing American political figures to waive the law, grant immunity or create exemptions from existing law that the international community has signed up to, what stops the next country from doing the same thing to our own people?" he asked on NBC. The dispute over the provision had tied up the Pentagon spending bill, usually one of the first approved by Congress each year, but Congressional leaders are determined to pass that measure before adjourning as early as the end of the week. It was also added to a separate Senate bill on Pentagon budget and policy, which also includes provisions on the legal rights of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as well as a call by the Senate for the Iraqi government to become much more responsible for its own security in 2006. On Sunday, Senate negotiators on the budget and policy measure sent the House an offer in an effort to resolve their differences with a hope of completing their work on Monday. John Ullyot, a spokesman for Senator John W. Warner, a Virginia Republican and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said tentative plans called for the House to vote on the bill on Wednesday followed by the Senate on Thursday.
Frist Says He Expects Agreement on Prisoner Abuse Ban Bloomberg
Transcript: Senate Majority Leader Frist on 'FNS' FOX News
Washington Post - Enter Stage Right - Minneapolis Star Tribune (subscription) - ABC News - all 485 related »

Back to Story - Help
Congress Expects Up to $1B Wartime Request By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Tue Dec 13, 6:06 PM ET



The Pentagon is in the early stages of drafting a wartime request for up to $100 billion more for Iraq and Afghanistan, lawmakers say, a figure that would push spending related to the wars toward a staggering half-trillion dollars.

Reps. Bill Young, R-Fla., the chairman of the House appropriations defense panel, and John Murtha, D-Pa., the senior Democrat on that subcommittee, say the military has informally told them it wants $80 billion to $100 billion in a war-spending package that the White House is expected to send Congress next year.

That would be in addition to $50 billion Congress is about to give the Pentagon before lawmakers adjourn for the year for operations in Iraq for the beginning of 2006. Military commanders expect that pot to last through May.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress has approved more than $300 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan, including military operations, reconstruction, embassy security and foreign aid, as well as other costs related to the war on terrorism, according to the Congressional Research Service, which writes reports for Congress.

Asked about the upcoming spending package, Young offered the $80 billion to $100 billion range. "That's what I'm told," he said.

Murtha mentioned the $100 billion figure last week to reporters, saying "Twenty years it's going to take to settle this thing. The American people are not going to put up with it, can't afford it."

The service branches recently presented their individual requests for future funding to top Pentagon officials.

"They were very ambitious," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, a Washington-based think tank, who has close ties to the Pentagon.

The Pentagon still must write a final proposal and the White House still has to sign off on the plan before including it in the budget President Bush will send Congress in February. That means the request ultimately could differ from what lawmakers, congressional aides and military analysts are told the services are seeking.

A Pentagon spokeswoman, Marine Lt. Col. Rose-Ann Lynch, said Tuesday that no decisions have been made regarding the next war-funding package, and that department officials will work with the service branches and combatant commands to assess needs based on conditions on the ground.

The administration long has contended that it can't put a price tag on future costs because of the unpredictable nature of war. Critics, mostly Democrats, have accused Bush of delaying his war spending requests for as long as possible to keep budget deficit projections looking smaller.

Such a large funding request — coming during a congressional election year — would present Republicans in the House and Senate with a high-stakes political predicament.

On one hand, GOP leaders could choose to sign off on the enormous amount of money — and anger fiscally conservative base voters who elected them to rein in government spending. Or, they could slice the Pentagon's request and leave themselves vulnerable to criticism that they are failing to support troops during wartime.

Thompson said $100 billion would not be surprising, given that bills containing war spending often escape close scrutiny and have turned into Christmas trees for the Pentagon's pet projects.

"The military hangs every wish, and every lost cause, onto the tree in hopes of getting it approved," Thompson said.

Analysts say they expect the services to seek a large chunk of money to replace equipment severely battered in Iraq. And, they say, even if large numbers of U.S. troops start returning home, as some administration officials have hinted, a lot of money still would be needed to relocate personnel and equipment.

Steven Kosiak, an analyst at the private Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, called the figures cited by lawmakers extraordinary but not inconceivable.

"The number is so high," he said, "that it suggests that there's a significant amount of money in there for costs not directly related to the cost of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan."



Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 14, 2005
House Approves Renewal of Patriot Act
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - Renewal of the anti-terrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act was approved overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives today, but the measure's prospects in the Senate remained uncertain.

The House voted for renewal of the law, 251 to 174. But senators who are worried that the bill does not strike the right balance between national security and personal liberty are threatening a filibuster, a stalling move that requires 60 of the 100 votes in the Senate to overcome.

This afternoon's vote in the House came six days after negotiators from both chambers reached a compromise agreement to extend the law. Under that accord, 14 of the 16 provisions that are to expire at the end of the year would be extended permanently. The compromise also provided for more judicial oversight and safeguards against abuse.

But as soon as the compromise agreement was announced it became clear that it faced a high hurdle in the Senate. Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, refused to endorse the accord, complaining that Democrats had been excluded from important negotiations.

And a group of three Republicans and three Democrats in the Senate vowed to work against the compromise version. "We still can, and must, make sure that our laws give law enforcement agents the tools they need while providing safeguards to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans," they said in a statement.

The six are Larry E. Craig of Idaho, John E. Sununu of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, all Republicans, and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Ken Salazar of Colorado, Democrats.

Mr. Sununu said the mounting support for a filibuster "sends a message that there are people across the political spectrum that think this bill doesn't do what it should, that it doesn't do enough to protect civil liberties." Mr. Sununu said he did not believe the Republican leadership could muster the 60 votes required to break a filibuster.

President Bush urged the Senate to pass the measure quickly. "The Patriot Act is essential to fighting the war on terror and preventing our enemies from striking America again," he said. "We cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment."

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader, was talking with White House officials about a one-year extension of the current law without any changes as a way around the threat of a filibuster, The Associated Press reported.

The prospects of a delay alarmed some lawmakers. "Renewing the Patriot Act before it expires in December is literally a matter of life and death," said Representative Ric Keller, Republican of Florida.

But many Democrats had a different reaction. "This bill should be rejected because it fails to strike the proper balance between the security we demand and the liberties that we cherish," said Representative Lloyd Doggett of Texas.

Sentiment in the House has generally favored tougher law enforcement measures than those embraced in the Senate. The Bush administration has favored the House version.

Some of the most controversial elements of the law would have to be reviewed again by Congress in four years, rather than the seven years originally favored by leaders in the House. Those provisions involve the government's ability to demand records from libraries and other institutions and to conduct "roving wiretaps" in surveillance operations.

Forty-four House Democrats joined 207 Republicans in voting for the bill, while 18 Republicans joined 155 Democrats and an independent, Bernard Sanders of Vermont, in voting against it.



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 15, 2005
House Defies Bush and Backs McCain on Detainee Torture
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - In an unusual bipartisan rebuke to the Bush administration, the House on Wednesday overwhelmingly endorsed Senator John McCain's measure to bar cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners in American custody anywhere in the world.

Although the vote was nonbinding, it put the Republican-controlled House on record in support of Mr. McCain's provision for the first time, at the very moment when the Republican senator is at a crucial stage of tense negotiations with the White House, which strongly opposes his measure.

The vote also likely represents the lone opportunity that House members will have to express their sentiments on Mr. McCain's legislation. The Senate approved the measure in October, 90 to 9, as part of a military spending bill. But until Wednesday, the House Republican leadership had sought to avoid a direct vote on the measure to avoid embarrassing the White House.

The vote was on a motion to instruct House negotiators, who had just been appointed to work out differences between the House and Senate spending bills, to accept the Senate position on the McCain amendment.

The House bill, providing $453 billion for military programs, has no provision like Mr. McCain's, but if the negotiators follow these instructions to the letter, the final bill passed by Congress will.

The House vote was 308 to 122, with 107 Republicans lining up along with almost every Democrat behind Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who sponsored Mr. McCain's language and who has become anathema to the administration on any legislative measure related to Iraq since his call last month to withdraw American troops from Iraq in six months.

"Torture does not help us win the hearts and minds of the people it's used against," Mr. Murtha said on the House floor. "Congress is obligated to speak out."

Unlike the tumultuous three-hour debate that Mr. Murtha's Iraq-related measure provoked last month, this measure met with just 10 minutes of statements to a nearly empty House chamber.

Mr. Murtha, a former Marine colonel who is the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said Mr. McCain's legislation was essential to standardizing American interrogation methods and sending a clear signal to the world that the United States condemned the abusive treatment of detainees.

"If we allow torture in any form," Mr. Murtha said, "we abandon our honor."

Representative C. W. Bill Young of Florida, head of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, was one of 121 Republicans who voted against Mr. McCain's language. One Democrat, Jim Marshall of Georgia, voted against it; 200 Democrats and one independent supported it.

Mr. Young was quick to point out that he was in no way endorsing torture as an interrogation technique, but said he opposed the measure because it wrongly bestowed the full protections of the Constitution to terrorists and tied the hands of Congressional negotiators.

Another Republican who voted against the measure, Representative Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, said he opposed it because he said laws already barred torture and abusive treatment.

"It's absolutely unnecessary," said Mr. Tiahrt, who is on the House Intelligence Committee.

It was unclear what effects the vote would have on the negotiations between Mr. McCain and President Bush's national security adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, and on the Congressional negotiators for the two military bills now in conference committee. A spokeswoman for the Arizona senator, Eileen McMenamin, said Wednesday night that he had no comment on the vote.

"I don't think it will have any effect on the negotiations," Mr. Young said.

Mr. Murtha said the vote bolstered his previous assertions that the military spending bill would include Mr. McCain's provision after the conference committee completed its work.

"It's going to be in there, period," Mr. Murtha said after the vote.

Earlier in the day, Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who is the senior member of the Appropriations Committee, echoed Mr. Murtha's prediction, telling reporters that Mr. McCain "wants it in there, and I think it will stay in there."

The negotiations over provision intensified on Wednesday. Early in the morning, Mr. McCain met in his office with Mr. Hadley. When asked whether the two had narrowed their differences, Mr. McCain told reporters: "We're still talking. We'll get this resolved one way or another. We have the votes."

Mr. McCain also attended the weekly Senate Republican policy lunch on Wednesday, but senators who attended the private gathering said that Mr. McCain did not address his colleagues and that the subject of his amendment did not come up.

After the lunch, however, Mr. McCain was mobbed by reporters seeking comment on his talks with Mr. Hadley. Mr. McCain was uncharacteristically tight lipped, saying he did not want to discuss details of the continuing discussions.

Two Senate Republican colleagues who voted for Mr. McCain's measure in October said Wednesday it was important for Congress to back the language.

"We need to have clear guidance, in law, that makes it very clear that inhumane treatment of detainees in American captivity is absolutely unacceptable," Susan Collins of Maine said. "This problem is hurting us around the world. It's contrary to our values, and we simply must have this as part of the final bill."

Senator John Thune of South Dakota said: "Because it has become such a high-profile issue here of late, not only around the country but around the world, I think it's in our best interests to address it. A strong unequivocal statement that we don't apply or tolerate torture in any form is probably right now a good thing to do."



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 15, 2005
House Renews Antiterror Law, but Opposition Builds in Senate
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - The House voted Wednesday to renew the broad antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act, but opposition was growing in the Senate, where members of a bipartisan coalition predicted they would block the measure by filibuster when it comes up for consideration on Friday.

Faced with the filibuster threat, the White House sent Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to the Republicans' weekly policy luncheon to assuage concerns that it does not strike the correct balance between safeguarding civil liberties and protecting national security.

Three Republican senators were already on record as opposing the reauthorization in its current form, and by the time Mr. Gonzales arrived in the Capitol, a fourth - Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska - had joined them, saying he had "many concerns" about the bill.

Mr. Hagel signed a letter Wednesday in which opponents say they are concerned about "government fishing expeditions targeting innocent Americans" and demand further restrictions on provisions allowing government searches and access to private and personal information including medical and library records.

The White House has made renewing the antiterrorism law a priority, but time is running short.

The current law, which greatly expanded the government's investigative and surveillance powers in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, is set to expire, and Congress is hoping to adjourn for the year this weekend at the latest.

"The Patriot Act is scheduled to expire at the end of the month, but the terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule," President Bush said Wednesday, in a statement urging the Senate to follow the House's lead. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without this law for a single moment."

The House passed the bill by a vote of 251 to 174. Forty-four Democrats voted for the bill, and 18 Republicans voted against it. Those Republicans included some of the most conservative members of the House - a sign, critics said, that members of both parties are uneasy about the bill. The critics are calling for a three-month extension of the current law to give both sides time to make changes.

"I think it sends a message that there are people across the political spectrum that think this bill doesn't do what it should, that it doesn't do enough to protect civil liberties," said Senator John E. Sununu, Republican of New Hampshire, referring to the House vote.

Mr. Sununu said he did not believe that the Republican leadership could muster the 60 votes required to break a filibuster. The senior Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, agreed.

"I don't think they have the votes," Mr. Leahy said in an interview on Wednesday, adding: "The recommendation I made to both Republicans and Democrats is just fix the bill. We can do that this week if the White House would cooperate."

But Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, rejected a short-term extension and called for his colleagues to approve the reauthorization, a conference report that was the product of weeks of House-Senate negotiations.

"Today's overwhelming bipartisan vote in the House for the Patriot Act - with the support of 44 Democrats, including members of the House Democratic leadership - shows that we can all unite to make America safer from terrorism while safeguarding our civil rights and civil liberties," Mr. Frist said. "Senate Democrats should follow the lead of their House counterparts."

In setting the vote for Friday, Mr. Frist may be betting that although critics dislike the extension, they dislike the idea of letting the law expire even more.

The vote is also laden with political implications for Democrats, who suffered at the polls in 2002 after defeating legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security. Republican backers of the bill are taking pains to remind Democrats of that, as did Ken Mehlman, the head of the Republican National Committee.

"Voters will react the same way in 2006 if Democrats block the reauthorization of the Patriot Act to appease the hard left," Mr. Mehlman said Wednesday in a statement.

Ever since its adoption in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Patriot Act has drawn vigorous complaints from advocates for civil liberties, who contend that provisions like those allowing the government to obtain a person's library and medical records infringe on basic constitutional rights.

The measure passed by the House makes permanent 14 of 16 provisions that were set to expire, while putting in place additional judicial oversight and safeguards against abuse. The House Republican leadership praised the vote, saying the bill is essential to national security.

"We need to stay tough on terrorism," Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois said in a statement. "This bill ensures that our law enforcement keep the tools they already have in place to root out and prosecute terrorists."

But critics, including the Senate Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, argue that the safeguards do not go nearly far enough. "The criticism we had about this legislation previously was because of 9/11, we rushed to judgment on a number of provisions in that bill," Mr. Reid told reporters Wednesday. "We certainly shouldn't do that this time."

Democratic aides say a majority of their caucus supports a filibuster. In addition to Mr. Hagel and Mr. Sununu, two other Republicans, Senators Larry Craig of Idaho and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have said they will vote to block the measure. The four signed on to a letter, circulated to senators Wednesday by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

"We still have the opportunity to pass a good reauthorization bill this year," the letter says. "But to do that, we must stop this conference report."



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news5/nyt55.htm

New York Times

December 15, 2005
Oversight
Senate Is Set to Require White House to Account for Secret Prisons
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - The Senate is poised to approve a measure that would require the Bush administration to provide Congress with its most specific and extensive accounting about the secret prison system established by the Central Intelligence Agency to house terrorism suspects.

The measure includes amendments that would require the director of national intelligence to provide regular, detailed updates about secret detention facilities maintained by the United States overseas, and to account for the treatment and condition of each prisoner. The facilities, established after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, are thought to hold two dozen to three dozen terrorism suspects, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is said to be the mastermind of the attacks.

An agreement reached Wednesday between Democrats and Republicans called for the measure to be approved by unanimous consent, but it was unclear on Wednesday night when a final vote might occur.

While the C.I.A. has provided limited briefings to members of Congress about the detention facilities, the information has generally been shared with only a handful of Congressional leaders, who are prohibited from discussing the information with their colleagues. The Senate measure would widen that circle considerably, by requiring the director of national intelligence to provide reports each 90 days to the House and Senate intelligence committees. Among other things, the reports would be required to address the size, location and cost of each detention facility; "the health and welfare" of each prisoner there, and whether the treatment of those prisoners had been humane.

The new Senate measure, part of a bill authorizing intelligence spending, is separate from an amendment by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, that is still being debated as part of a military spending bill. Both reflect a widening sense of unease in Congress about the treatment of prisoners captured and held by the United States as part of what the administration calls its war on terrorism. The McCain amendment would prohibit the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners in American custody anywhere in the world, including at secret facilities run by the C.I.A.

The Bush administration has never officially acknowledged that secret detention facilities exist, but the basic facts surrounding them have been described by current and former government officials. The location of the prisons in particular remains a carefully guarded secret, though the European Union is seeking information to confirm a report by The Washington Post last month that said that at least two were in Eastern Europe.

In a bow to that nuance, the Senate bill uses the phrase "if any" to describe the secret prisons and specifies that the reports about them remain classified, to minimize the prospect of public disclosure.

Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the top Republican on the Senate intelligence panel, agreed to include the amendments in a measure that was to be presented to the Senate for unanimous approval, Congressional officials said.

The new reporting requirement is not in a version of the intelligence bill that has been approved by the House, so the amendments to the Senate measure would have to be endorsed by a House-Senate conference committee, and then win final passage from the House and Senate before they could become law.

Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said she would seek to persuade the conference committee to approve the new requirement. "There is more information that should legitimately come to the full intelligence committee," Ms. Harman said in an interview.

No senator has publicly objected to the amendments, which were introduced by the two Senate Democrats from Massachusetts, Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry. Another measure included in the bill, also introduced by Mr. Kennedy, would require the White House to provide classified intelligence documents on Iraq that have until now been withheld from Congress.





Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

December 15, 2005
G.O.P. May Harness Arctic Drilling to Pentagon Budget
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 - With a budget-cutting measure stymied by stiff resistance to opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, Congressional Republicans began exploring Wednesday a new tactic to win approval of both $45 billion in cuts and the drilling plan.

Lawmakers and senior aides said they were seriously considering tacking the drilling proposal onto a Pentagon spending bill that is among those that must pass before Congress heads home in the next few days. The switch, they said, could clear the way for approval of the spending cuts sought by conservatives and the Arctic drilling plan that is a priority of Republicans and the Bush administration, provided they could defeat any filibuster.

"It's going to be on one bill or the other before I go home," said Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, a leading proponent of opening the Arctic plain to oil production.

As lawmakers grew more anxious about recessing for the Christmas holidays, Republican moderates in the House said they believed that the push for enacting the spending cuts by the end of the year was losing momentum and that the leadership was ready to postpone action until early next year.

"They are still scrambling," said Representative Sherwood Boehlert of New York, one of the Republicans who say they will not support the budget measure if the Arctic drilling plan is included. "They don't have it yet."

Any delay was going to run afoul of conservatives in the House and Senate who have latched on to the cuts as a way to demonstrate a renewed dedication to reducing federal spending. "Our members want to see this White House and this leadership work as hard on fiscal discipline as we have worked on expanding government," said Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, the chairman of a group of House conservatives.

In another year-end spending fight, the House voted 215 to 213 on Wednesday to approve a slightly modified version of a $142.5 billion health and education spending measure rejected a few weeks ago. The measure reduced spending on programs covered under the legislation by more than $160 million from last year and was the first cut in education spending in a decade. In an effort to win approval, its authors funneled more money to rural health care.

Democrats in the House and Senate denounced the measure as badly flawed, saying it illustrated the Republican approach of cutting programs for the needy while embracing tax cuts that benefit more affluent Americans.

Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said the vote was just the latest in a series of Republican decisions in recent weeks to reduce spending on Medicaid, food stamps, student loans and child-support enforcement.

"This Congress will be taking away $48 billion from those who need it most in order to provide tax cuts, 50 percent of which will go to the top 1 percent - those who need it the least," Mr. Obey said.

Republicans said the spending measure was both fiscally responsible and generous in many respects, enhancing programs like special education. "This is a lot of money - $142.5 billion," said Representative Ralph Regula, Republican of Ohio, the chairman of the subcommittee that produced the measure.

As lawmakers clashed over spending, the Emergency Campaign for America's Priorities, a group opposing the budget cuts, said more than 100 people had been arrested by the Capitol police for staging a sit-in at a House office building to protest the spending cuts for social programs.

Despite differences over health care policy and other aspects of the budget plan that would reduce spending by about $45 billion through a combination of cuts and revenue increases, the Arctic drilling push has been the chief impediment.

About 20 House Republicans have consistently said they would oppose it unless the oil plan was dropped, making it virtually impossible for the legislation to clear the House, since Democrats are united against it. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, said Wednesday that no Democrat had indicated any intention to break ranks, despite appeals from Republican leaders.

But Mr. Stevens and Senator Pete V. Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who is chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, have refused to abandon the drilling plan, which is as close to approval as it has ever been in two decades of debate. The idea of adding it to the Pentagon measure took on new urgency after House leaders suggested it might be the only way to win approval of both the budget cuts and the drilling initiative.

The military spending measure, already tied up in another dispute over treatment of terror detainees, is likely to be one of the final bills passed this year and could also contain aid for the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast as well as money for avian flu preparation, making it a difficult bill to resist.

Senate aides said they were trying to determine whether attaching the drilling provision to the Pentagon measure would prompt a filibuster and whether they could round up the 60 votes to break one. The budget measure had been the first choice of the drilling advocates, since it is exempt from filibuster under Senate rules.

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said he was willing to pursue any option to win approval of Arctic drilling. "I support opening ANWR to energy production to help increase our energy independence and protect our nation from terrorists taking our energy supplies hostage, and want to move it through the House and Senate however I can," Mr. Frist said in a statement.



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

December 16, 2005
House Votes for 698 Miles of Fences on Mexico Border
By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - House Republicans voted on Thursday night to toughen a border security bill by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to build five fences along 698 miles of the United States border with Mexico to block the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs into this country.

The amendment to the bill would require the construction of the fences along stretches of land in California, New Mexico, Texas and Arizona that have been deemed among the most porous corridors of the border.

The vote on the amendment was a victory for conservatives who had long sought to build such a fence along the Mexican border. But the vote was sharply assailed by Democrats, who compared the fence to the Berlin Wall in Germany. Twelve Republicans also voted against the amendment.

Representative David Dreier, Republican of California, hailed the fence as a necessary tool to ensure border security. Construction of the barriers is to include two layers of reinforced fencing, cameras, lighting and sensors near Tecate and Calexico in California; Columbus, N.M.; and El Paso, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, Laredo and Brownsville in Texas.

The border security bill, which cracks down on illegal immigration and now mandates the construction of the fences, is expected to pass the House on Friday.

"Border fences are a security tool with proven results," Mr. Dreier said. "This amendment allows us to target our federal resources where they are needed most: five specific border crossings with the highest number of immigrant deaths, instances of drug smuggling and illegal crossings.

The vote on the amendment came on a day when the tough border security bill survived an unexpected tactical challenge from several Republicans. The bill was criticized by some moderates because it does not grant millions of undocumented workers the right to work temporarily in the United States and by some conservatives who argued that the measure was not tough enough.

The unusual revolt highlighted the schism within the Republican Party over the volatile issue of immigration. Business leaders, traditional allies of the party, have lobbied fiercely against the bill, which contains strict employment verification requirements that many executives view as a burden.

Republican leaders stamped out the rebellion after an emergency meeting. But one Republican, Jim Kolbe of Arizona, said he and his allies would continue to try to stop the bill, which has been endorsed by the Republican leadership and some conservatives but attacked by business executives, church leaders and advocates for immigrants.

The bill would require mandatory detention of many immigrants, stiffen the penalties for employers who hire them and broaden the immigrant-smuggling statute to include employees of social service agencies and church groups who offer services to undocumented workers.

It would not create the temporary guest worker program that President Bush has urged to legalize the status of the 11 million illegal immigrants believed to be living in this country.

Seeking to sink the legislation, several Republicans took the tactical step on Thursday of voting against a rule that had to pass to allow the measure to go up for a vote. Some conservatives, who felt the bill was not tough enough, also voted against the rule.

"Unfortunately, the bill before us today does nothing to solve the real problems of immigration," Mr. Kolbe told lawmakers. "But we are going to go down this path, continue this charade, continue lying to the American people, continue pretending we are doing something to prevent illegal immigration.

In addition to Mr. Kolbe, six other Republicans voted against the rule: Representatives Fred Upton of Michigan, Christopher Shays of Connecticut, Jim Leach of Iowa, Heather A. Wilson of New Mexico, J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, and John Hostettler of Indiana.

Mr. Kolbe spoke as faxed letters from the United States Chamber of Commerce warned lawmakers that in its annual ratings of members of Congress, it would penalize any legislator who voted for the rule that would allow the measure to go to the floor for a vote. But by midafternoon, the party's leaders had beaten back the challenge, at least for the day. Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin, sharply criticized those expressing support for what many conservatives describe as an amnesty for illegal immigrants.

"This bill doesn't give amnesty to illegal aliens and it shouldn't because that would reward someone for breaking our laws," said Mr. Sensenbrenner, who introduced the border security bill as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

House GOP Bill Rejects Iraq Withdrawal By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 40 minutes ago



House Republican leaders drafted legislation on Thursday that rejects calls for withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq as "fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory" and said they would force a vote on Friday.

It would be the second time in five weeks that GOP leaders maneuvered for a vote on the war in the face of Democratic calls for a timetable for withdrawal.

Some Democrats accused Republicans of playing politics with the war and a group of their colleagues sent President Bush a letter describing what they believe should be the U.S. position in Iraq.

The GOP resolution expresses the commitment of the House "to achieving victory in Iraq."

It "honors the tremendous sacrifices" of U.S. forces and praises Iraqis for voting in parliamentary elections Thursday. The election is "a crucial victory for the Iraqi people and Iraq's new democracy, and a defeat for the terrorists who seek to destroy that democracy," the resolution says.

U.S. forces, the measure said, would be required in Iraq "only until Iraqi forces can stand up so our forces can stand down, and no longer than is required for that purpose."

The resolution seeks to put the House again on record as rejecting an immediate troop pull out.

Some House Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, have lined up behind calls by Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., for U.S. troops to start coming home.

In the Senate, several Democrats have said forces need to begin withdrawing after Thursday's elections, provided they are successful.

The House GOP resolution says, "Setting an artificial timetable for the withdrawal of United States Armed Forces from Iraq, or immediately terminating their deployment in Iraq and redeploying them elsewhere in the region, is fundamentally inconsistent with achieving victory in Iraq."

That is a veiled reference to the proposal Murtha put forth last month to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date" and establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region.

Seeking to kill momentum that was building behind Murtha's call for withdrawal, House Republicans forced a vote rejecting the immediate pullout of U.S. forces just before adjourning for Thanksgiving break. Democrats called the quick vote a political ploy that prevented thoughtful debate on Murtha's proposal

Ron Bonjean, a spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said House Republicans hope Democrats will stand with them in backing the fresh GOP resolution.

But Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, called the resolution a cheap political stunt. "Once again, the Republicans in the House are playing politics with the war and demeaning those who are serving our nation," the longtime war opponent said.

A Pelosi spokeswoman, Jennifer Crider, said Democrats sought changes "that would reflect the bipartisan spirit that a resolution like that should be offered with" but they were rebuffed.

House Democrats have been voicing disparate positions on Iraq in the weeks since Murtha announced his proposal, and some members have been taking steps aimed at building a consensus position.

On Thursday, a group of 26 party members — led by Rep. Ellen Tauscher (news, bio, voting record) of California — sent a letter to President Bush urging him to follow four principles they say should guide future policy in Iraq.

"Over the next twelve months the United States should stand down its military personnel and participation in Iraq as the Iraqi government takes increased responsibility for its political and security needs," the letter said.

Signatories included Democratic whip Rep. Steny Hoyer (news, bio, voting record) of Maryland and the senior Democrats on the Armed Services and Intelligence committees, Reps. Ike Skelton of Missouri and Jane Harman of California, respectively.



Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

--------------------
USA Patriot Act Faces Opposition in Senate
--------------------

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer

December 16 2005, 4:29 AM PST

WASHINGTON -- Several Patriot Act provisions that the Bush administration says are crucial in the fight to stop terrorism on U.S. soil may only be around for another couple of weeks.

The complete article can be viewed at:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wi...,0,973002.story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feingold Now Has Numbers on His Side
- By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, December 15, 2005


(12-15) 16:06 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --


In Congress, where numbers are everything, the math on the Patriot Act suddenly seems to be moving in favor of Sen. Russell Feingold.


He was a minority of one four years ago, when the Wisconsin Democrat cast the lone Senate vote against the USA Patriot Act in the traumatic weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks. The law, he said then, gave government too much power to investigate its citizens. Ninety-nine senators disagreed.


Now add more than two dozen senators to Feingold's side, including the leaders of his party and some of the chamber's most conservative Republicans, and the balance of power shifts.


The new Senate arithmetic that emerged this week is enough to place the renewal of major portions of the law in doubt. It was enough to inspire Senate Republican leaders to consider a backup plan in case Feingold's filibuster threat succeeded. Enough to prompt President Bush to dispatch Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Capitol Hill twice in two days to lobby on the accord's behalf.


No luck so far, said the chief Senate sponsor.


"We've got a battle on our hands," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told reporters after Gonzales had departed Wednesday.


Bush weighed in personally Thursday, urging opponents of the renewal to abandon the filibuster threats.


"That is a bad decision for the security of the United States," the president said. "I call upon the Senate to end the filibuster and to pass this important legislation so that we have the tools necessary to defend the country in a time of war."


Moments later, the senior Democrat on the issue, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., told reporters that more than 40 votes exist to sustain a filibuster in a test vote Friday. White House allies said they would rather see the law's 16 temporary provisions expire entirely than give opponents another three months or more to keep whittling away at them.


"A short-term extension is irresponsible," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., a day after his chamber passed the conference agreement, 251-174.


Feingold finds himself with some unlikely allies, including the Christian Defense Coalition. Notably, the National Rifle Association has not endorsed the Patriot Act renewal that was personally negotiated by Vice President Dick Cheney. The NRA's non-position allows its Senate supporters to oppose renewing the law in its entirety.


"Folks, when we're dealing with civil liberties, you don't compromise them," said Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, an NRA board member.


The breadth of support gives Feingold, a possible presidential candidate, new reason to keep an eye on still other numbers: polls for the 2008 presidential election.


"It's just very gratifying," Feingold said, grinning during an interview this week in his office. "We've stood the test of time. Our concerns were legitimate."


On the eve of the crucial test vote, the Senate awarded Feingold a coveted seat on the terror-fighting Intelligence Committee, replacing New Jersey Gov.-elect Jon Corzine.


The opposition that began with Feingold's one vote has bloomed into a bloc of Democrats and Republicans concerned about a range of powers the original act gave the FBI, and how they are used. This group prefers the curbs on government power passed by the Senate but rejected in a compromise with the House. Now, faced with an up-or-down vote on the accord, they say no.


Chief among their concerns are the National Security Letters that the FBI can use to compel the release of such private records as financial, computer and library transactions. The bill for the first time explicitly says the third-party recipients of NSLs — banks, Internet service providers and libraries — can hire lawyers and challenge the letters in court.


Feingold and his allies want more reports from the Justice Department on how NSLs and other tools in terror investigations are used. They also want to set limits on how long law enforcement officials can continue to use NSLs in terror investigations.


Bush's allies who want the renewal passed as agreed by House and Senate negotiators say most concerns raised by opponents are "more hypothetical than real," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said late Thursday.


In the last week, Feingold has attracted important allies, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., a possible presidential candidate in 2008. On Thursday he added another to his column: Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.


Whatever happens with the renewal, the mere debate is a boost for Feingold and any presidential aspirations he may nurture after next year's midterm elections — a development that carries some irony.


"People don't go to the well of the Senate and become the only senator to vote against something called the 'USA Patriot Act' five weeks after 9/11 because they're trying to get ready to run for president," Feingold said.


But four years later, during visits to the presidential proving grounds of New Hampshire and Iowa, Feingold says there's evidence his position has resonated with more than just the Democratic base.


"It's something that people like about me," he said. "We'll see where it goes."


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file.../w125539S92.DTL

Democrats threaten to filibuster Patriot Act
By Charles Hurt and Jerry Seper
The Washington Times
Published December 15, 2005


WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats say they will filibuster the extension of the USA Patriot Act, which passed the House yesterday on a bipartisan vote, despite some concerns that provisions of the bill trample civil liberties by giving law enforcement too much power.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said he will not demand that his entire caucus support a filibuster but said that he certainly would.


"Because of 9/11, we rushed to judgment on a number of provisions in that bill," he said. "We certainly shouldn't do that this time."

But Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican, said after the 251-174 House vote that the legislation "provides essential tools to protecting the American people and winning the war on terror by detecting, disrupting and dismantling terrorist activity before it occurs."

The real fight will be later this week in the Senate, when Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, plans to try to force an end to debate on the bill so it can be voted on before Congress adjourns for the year. The Patriot Act, which was modified in the bill now under consideration, expires at the end of the year.

Other key Democrats such as Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and ranking minority member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, also have said they will support a filibuster. Four Republicans -- Sens. John E. Sununu of New Hampshire, Larry E. Craig of Idaho, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska -- said yesterday that they will join Democrats in opposing the legislation, even helping block a final vote on its passage.

Mr. Leahy and Mr. Sununu drafted an alternate bill earlier this week that would extend the Patriot Act for three months until the civil-liberty concerns can be fixed.

By last night, the standoff had come down to a game of political chicken, with Republicans recalling Democrats' opposition to a Homeland Security bill that later was used against them with devastating consequences in the 2002 elections.

"Last week, Democrat leadership offered a cut-and-run strategy in Iraq," Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said. "Now they're siding with the ACLU instead of the Fraternal Order of Police in the war on terror."

If a filibuster succeeds and the two sides fail to reach a compromise that the House signs off on, the Patriot Act will expire. The campaign ads against Democrats would write themselves, Republicans said yesterday. But Democrats said they are confident that such a political strategy won't work this time.

"Republicans are spinning themselves so hard, they're forgetting that there's bipartisan opposition to this bill," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said.

The situation has made strange bedfellows of conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats. It's also forced some senators into political contortions.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, held a press conference yesterday to tout part of the bill she's worked on for years aimed at cracking down on the manufacture and sale of methamphetamine.

But Mrs. Feinstein said she still might filibuster the bill.

"I have not announced whether I'm going to vote for cloture or not," she said.

More than just politics is at stake. The Department of Homeland Security said yesterday that the Patriot Act is "a proven tool in the global war on terror."

"The Patriot Act breaks down barriers to information sharing, enabling law-enforcement and intelligence personnel to share information that is needed to help connect the dots and disrupt potential terror and criminal activity before they can carry out their plots," the department said.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the law had resulted in the arrest of more than 155 persons, 142 indictments, the seizure of more than $25 million in illicit profits and the closure of several unlicensed money-transmittal businesses.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) yesterday said it was disappointed that the House failed to "protect the liberty and freedom of innocent Americans when that body adopted flawed legislation to reauthorize the Patriot Act."

"With a vote likely later this week, we urge senators to stand firm in their commitment to our fundamental freedoms and reject this unsound bill," said Caroline Fredrickson, who heads the ACLU's Washington legislative office.

GOP Battles to Save Legislation on Patriot Act, Arctic Drilling

By Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 16, 2005; A10



House and Senate Republican leaders struggled yesterday to salvage major legislative priorities and spare President Bush embarrassing setbacks at a low point in his presidency.

Efforts to renew the USA Patriot Act and to allow oil drilling in an Arctic refuge hung by a thread in the Senate last night as the White House and GOP leaders implored rank-and-file Republicans to stand with them. A fiscal 2006 spending bill to fund health and education programs also stalled, with Republicans protesting an array of cuts.

In the House, meanwhile, an immigration bill designed to demonstrate the GOP's resolve to tighten border security instead revealed deep party divisions. The two chambers remained unable to agree on budget cuts that are intended to signal a new era of fiscal restraint. And Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said pending tax-cut legislation would be shelved until next year.

The scramble by Republican leaders highlights the growing nervousness of GOP lawmakers who see Bush battling low approval ratings as an election year approaches, and who are increasingly showing independent streaks. It also reflects the increasing effectiveness of the Democratic opposition, especially in the Senate, where the minority party is leading the revolt against the Patriot Act and Alaska drilling.

A major test of Republican mettle will come today when the Senate attempts to renew the Patriot Act, which Congress enacted after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The law makes it easier for the FBI to conduct secret searches, monitor telephone calls and e-mail, and obtain bank records and other personal documents in terrorism investigations. Key provisions of the law expire Dec. 31.

But a number of senators from both parties said the proposed four-year renewal does too little to protect civil liberties and privacy, and they are backing a filibuster that would prevent a vote on the extension unless 60 of the 100 senators agree to halt the stalling tactic. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and others urged Republicans to oppose the filibuster. But those pushing for another three months to negotiate the bill -- while the current law would stay in place -- expressed growing optimism last night .

On immigration, Bush and several House Republicans favor what they have called a balanced approach, with tough new provisions to secure the borders and clamp down on the hiring of illegal immigrants, as well as new avenues for foreigners to obtain work legally. But most House Republicans oppose such a guest-worker provision, which they maintain will turn into an amnesty program for illegal immigrants.

The dispute burst into public yesterday on the House floor when some Republicans threatened to scuttle the immigration bill unless they are given a chance to vote for a guest-worker program, while others said they would torpedo the legislation unless they are assured there would be no such vote.

Supporters of a guest-worker program threatened to side with Democrats on parliamentary votes scheduled for today that could derail the bill. But Republican leaders said they would stand firm against a guest-worker vote.

"I think we have to do this in steps," House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said. "And first, we have to convince the American people we can secure the borders."

Hastert got support for the House bill from a surprising source yesterday, the White House. Just weeks ago, Bush used a major policy address near the Mexican border to reiterate his call for a border security bill with a guest-worker program. Yesterday, in an official policy statement, the White House said it "strongly supports" the House bill.

"The Administration remains committed to comprehensive immigration reform, including a temporary worker program that avoids amnesty, and believes this bill is a positive step toward that goal," the statement said.

But the nation's business lobby, usually a close ally of the administration and GOP leaders, is pressing to kill the House measure because it would require businesses to verify that all of their workers are in the United States legally and would increase penalties for hiring illegal employees.

Adding a new twist, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said he would renew a long-standing bid to allow oil drilling in his home state's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Stevens has informed colleagues that he will add the drilling measure to the 2006 defense bill, produced by the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that he chairs.

Opponents of Arctic drilling include Democrats and some moderate Republicans, but Stevens hopes to win their support by stuffing the defense bill with Iraq war money, hurricane recovery aid, investments in pandemic flu research and subsidies to help low-income people pay their heating bills.

House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) said that shifting the Arctic drilling provision to the $453 billion defense spending bill from pending budget cuts could help to break a logjam on that measure. Senate negotiators said yesterday that Stevens would not allow the budget bill to move forward until the Arctic issue is resolved, a decision that could doom for the year around $45 billion in mandatory spending cuts, including to Medicaid, food stamps, the student loan program and agricultural subsidies.

But Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said Democrats would filibuster the defense spending bill if necessary, to block the drilling provision. "The defense appropriations bill -- the bill to take care of the fighting men and women of the United States -- is being held up because they can't figure out a way to grovel and satisfy the oil companies," Reid said.

Stevens conceded last night he was well short of the 60 votes needed to cut off a filibuster. He and other GOP allies predicted that support ranged from about 52 to 55 votes. "We'll just have to build from there," Stevens said.

Reid said he would urge Democrats to align against Stevens's maneuver as an affront to Senate rules.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also sharply criticized Stevens's effort as "disgusting." But asked how he would vote on such a bill, McCain said: "That's the dilemma. I'd have to look at the whole bill. I think it's disgraceful that I have to be put in that position."

Staff writer Charles Babington contributed to this report.


© 2005 The Washington Post Company

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/12/15/17819/002

VOTE ON CLOTURE TOMORROW
By Russ Feingold

I don't know if you were watching this morning but we had a useful debate over the provisions of the conference report that need to be fixed. As you know, the Republican leadership in the Senate, along with the White House, have been trying to mischaracterize this debate as a partisan issue. One of the things that was striking on the floor this morning was that our side had a variety of members, from all sides of the political spectrum, while just two Republicans took to the Senate floor to defend this conference report. It should be clear to both the President and Republican leadership that over the past four years, the American people have stood up and have demanded changes to this law to protect the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens.

Dec 15, 2005 -- 05:08:18 PM EST

This has been an uphill fight and it is still not over. The Senate is scheduled to vote on cloture - i.e., cutting off debate -- on the Patriot Act conference report tomorrow morning. This will be the crucial vote that will decide if the Patriot Act will be renewed as is, without the responsible and moderate changes that we made in the Senate bill earlier this year, or if the conference committee will go back to the drawing board and come up with a report that makes sense and protects our individual rights.
Again, this isn't about preventing the Patriot Act from being reauthorized. Nobody wants that and it's false to suggest that we do. Now is the time to do the right thing for the American people and for our constitutional rights and freedoms.

They need 60 votes to go forward with this bad bill and I don't think they will be successful. However, we still need your help. Please continue to contact your elected officials and let your voice be heard.

Deal on Torture Clears Way for Defense Bills By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

Congress accelerated work Friday on two stalled defense bills — including a $453 billion must-pass wartime spending measure — now that President Bush has agreed to a proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism detainees in U.S. custody.

In a reversal, the president bowed to pressure from the GOP-controlled Congress and accepted the proposal put forth by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., on handling foreign terrorism suspects and limiting interrogation tactics used by American troops.

Bush's reluctant endorsement Thursday came after months of opposition that included White House veto threats of any bill that contained the McCain provisions.

"This is the democratic system working," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday on CBS' "Early Show." "Senator McCain worked tirelessly with the administration to get to legislation that will allow us both to protect the American people ... and to do so within our laws and within our international obligations."

The proposal by McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has held up completion of two defense bills. Senate versions of the measure included the language, but the House bills did not.

House and Senate negotiators on both defense bills hoped to complete their work as soon as this weekend, and sought to finalize conference reports Friday. Lawmakers are expected to sign off on the McCain proposal in at least one of the bills before adjourning in a few days.

The spending measure, which also provides $50 billion for the Iraq war, had appeared the most likely vehicle Thursday. But early Friday, Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would not make good on his threat to block the other bill, which sets defense policy, over the McCain language.

Hunter said he would accept the bill since he had been assured by National Intelligence Director John Negroponte that the agency would report to Congress six months after the ban goes into effect on its impact on intelligence gathering.

Also contained in that bill is a less-controversial proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) that would let detainees at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appeal their detention status and punishment. Changes were made during House-Senate negotiations, however, that human-rights groups say could undermine the McCain provisions.

The spending bill likely will be the last measure Congress approves before adjourning because leaders want to tack on other legislation to the must-pass bill.

With the end of the year looming, congressional negotiations to iron out the differences intensified this week, as did efforts between the White House and McCain to reach an agreement that would satisfy administration concerns.

A breakthrough was reached when McCain agreed to add language allowing civilian interrogators the same legal protections as those afforded to military interrogators — an offer he extended after rebuffing administration efforts that early on sought an exemption for CIA interrogators and later sought some immunity from prosecution for those who are accused of violating the standards.

McCain's proposal pitted the president against members of his own party and threatened to further tarnish a U.S. image already soiled by the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

The legislation would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held. It also would require that service members follow procedures in the Army Field Manual during interrogations of prisoners.

Added was a provision modeled after the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which says military personnel accused of violating interrogation rules can defend themselves if a reasonable person could have concluded they were following a lawful order. Those rights — and the right to legal counsel — would be extended to civilian interrogators under the agreement.

Specifically, the language allows a person to defend their use of interrogation tactics in court by arguing that "a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful."




Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Statement of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
Remarks as the Senate Considers Ending Debate on Reauthorization of the USA PATRTIOT Act
As Prepared


December 16, 2005

Mr. President, on Wednesday evening, I laid out in detail my concerns about the Patriot Act reauthorization bill that we are now considering on the floor. In its current form, I cannot support the conference report, and I cannot consent to limit debate on it. The leaders of this Congress need to figure out a way to change this report to address the important civil liberties issues that I and other Senators from both sides of the aisle have discussed over the past three days.


This morning we saw an astounding story in the New York Times. Since 2002, the government has been reportedly wiretapping the international phone and email conversations of hundreds, even thousands of people inside the United States, without wiretap orders. You want to talk about abuses? I can’t imagine a more shocking example of an abuse of power, to eavesdrop on American citizens without first getting a court order based on some evidence that they are possibly criminals, terrorists or spies. Mr. President, it is truly astonishing to read that this Administration would go this far beyond the bounds of the statutes and the Constitution. We as an institution have the duty, the obligation, to get to the bottom of this.


I hope that this morning’s revelation drives home to people that this body must be absolutely vigilant in our oversight of government power. And I don’t want to hear again from the Attorney General or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care. This shocking revelation ought to send a chill down the spine of every Senator and every American.


With that in mind, let me review my main concerns about this conference report.


First, section 215. Remember, this is the section where Attorney General Ashcroft once said that librarians concerned about the privacy rights of their patrons were “hysterical.” But then the current Attorney General conceded at his nomination hearing in the Senate Judiciary that some changes would be justified. Unfortunately, the Administration was not willing to make real changes to the provision to protect the rights and freedoms of innocent Americans.


The other night, I described in detail the evolution of this provision through the legislative process. The bottom line is this – the Senate bill had a three prong test requiring some connection between the records sought and a person suspected of being a terrorist or spy. The conference report abandoned that connection and instead relies on a standard of relevance to an intelligence investigation. That is pretty much an “anything goes” standard that fails to protect the records of law-abiding Americans. There is no requirement in this conference report that will prevent government fishing expeditions. Read the provision and it is as plain as day. The three prong test has been turned into three examples of relevance. They are not protections at all against government overreaching.


The provisions of the bill relating to National Security Letters are also seriously deficient. There is no requirement that the records sought under that authority, which doesn’t involve a court at all, have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. The judicial review that the conference report allows after the fact, of the NSL itself and the mandatory gag order, is a mirage. After what the Times reported this morning, no one in this body should be comfortable with the government having this kind of unreviewable power.


Finally, there is the issue of so-called sneak and peek searches, when the government secretly enters and searches someone’s home. The question here is when the government has to notify someone that a search has taken place. The Senate bill allowed seven days for the government to get back to the court and justify continued delay in providing notice of a sneak and peek search. The conference report, unfortunately, permits 30-day delays. Some have argued that the difference between a week and a month is not that big a deal. It is a big deal, Mr. President. We are talking about an important constitutional right, the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. No one in this body should take that right lightly, and I think most people would agree that having to wait thirty days to find out your home has been secretly searched is a very big deal.


So this conference report is inadequate and it should not be passed. I believe it will not pass. So let me talk for a minute about what happens next if, as I expect, the cloture motion fails. Do those who oppose the conference report want the Patriot Act to expire? Of course not. It is false to suggest that we do, and it is shameful to threaten that that is what will happen if the Senate does not approve this conference report. The only way that the Patriot Act will expire at the end of this year is if the proponents of the conference report, in this body or the other body, block alternative reauthorization bills that can easily pass with widespread, bipartisan support. Now is not the time for brinksmanship or threats. Now is the time to do the right thing for the American people and for the constitutional rights and freedoms that make our country great.


It is becoming more and more clear that this conference report cannot pass. So it is time to figure out what can pass. I submit that the Senate bill is the consensus that we seek. We should pass it again, as we did by unanimous consent before, and send it to the other body. And we should with one voice call on the House to pass that bill and send it to the President for signature. That should have happened months ago and it is what should happen today.


Mr. President, I am very proud to be part of a bipartisan coalition working together to strengthen protections for civil liberties in the Patriot Act. I think the demonstration of bipartisanship on this floor over the last few days has been remarkable. I remember well a hearing on the SAFE Act in the last Congress when the Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, was still on the Judiciary Committee. He said something that struck me at the time and has stayed with me since. I don’t have his exact words here, but he basically said that the Patriot Act will not be reauthorized without addressing the issues we raised in the SAFE Act. He was making a prediction and a promise then. And soon I believe we will see that he was right.


We have stayed together ever since our bill was first introduced. We knew the time would come when we would have to take a stand. And now we have. We are united today, as we were then. This is not a partisan issue. This is an American issue. This is a constitutional issue. We can come together to give the government the tools it needs to fight terrorism and protect the rights and freedoms of innocent citizens. And we can do that before the end of this year. But first, we must keep this inadequate conference report from becoming law by voting No on cloture.


I yield the floor.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/state...2/20051216.html

'The United States is not like the terrorists' Mail & Guardian Online
The White House bowed to international and congressional pressure on Thursday and abandoned its opposition to Senate legislation prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading interrogation methods of detainees in US custody around the world. President George Bush had threatened to veto the legislation, proposed by Senator John McCain, on the grounds that it tied his hands in the "war on terror" but the White House agreed to accept the Bill after an overwhelming majority in the Republican-dominated House of Representatives backed the McCain amendment on Wednesday night. "We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists," Senator McCain said, sitting next to the president in the Oval Office on Thursday. "This will help us enormously in winning the hearts and minds of the people throughout the world in winning the war on terror." Bush said the agreement will "make it clear to the world that this government does not torture and that we adhere to the international convention of torture, whether it be here at home or abroad". The bipartisan front by the Senate and the House was one element in a formidable show of defiance by Congress over the White House's conduct of the war on terror. Republican senators also joined Democrats to demand facts about secret CIA prisons abroad, while moderate Republican senators threatened to block anti-terror legislation on the grounds that it infringed civil liberties. The united stand reflected widespread concern among legislators that the administration's counter-terrorism methods are damaging America's standing in the world. It also represented an assertion of congressional power and a growing reluctance to leave the conduct of "the war on terror" to the executive alone. The White House accepted the McCain Bill almost unchanged from the form it had vehemently opposed for months, even threatening the first use of a Bush veto. Vice-President Dick Cheney had lobbied for an exception to the Bill for CIA officials operating abroad. Under the agreed draft, US personnel accused of violations could argue that a "reasonable" person might have concluded they were following a lawful order. The legislation, which forms part of a defence spending Bill, also stipulates that members of the US armed forces follow interrogation procedures laid down in the army field manual, removing discretionary power from local commanders. Meanwhile, MPs from across the political spectrum in Britain on Thursday stepped up pressure on the government to provide information on its role in CIA "torture flights". Andrew Tyrie, Conservative chairperson of the all-party group on extraordinary rendition, said the issue would not go away. At a Commons press conference, with British Labour MP Lynne Jones, Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris and Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti, Tyrie said: "There is a real risk that the government may find themselves complicit by inaction. Turning a blind eye becomes something more than negligence and may be shown to be unlawful." In a letter to Jack Straw, the British Foreign Secretary, he demanded to know whether the government had asked the US administration how many CIA flights transporting detainees had passed through British airspace and whether it had sought permission for them. He also asked Straw whether he had checked flight records of the Ministry of Defence, air traffic control, and the records of private companies such as BAA, Infratil, and TBI Group, which run Glasgow, Prestwick and Luton airports. Straw has said only that Foreign Office and Home Office records had been searched. The Home Office has already said it destroys records of transit flights. The MoD says its records could be supplied only at "disproportionate cost". Jones said details of the flights were bound to be made public as those freed after being subjected to rendition spoke out.

Backstory
Thursday's deal between the White House and Senator John McCain marked the end of long and bumpy road that began in Abu Ghraib last year. A Pentagon report on gross abuse of detainees at the US-run military prison, and subsequent revelations of maltreatment and deaths in custody in Afghanistan, led to allegations that the White House had created a "climate of abuse" by flouting the Geneva conventions. Bush repeatedly insisted "we do not torture", but unease spread to the Republican party. In October Senator McCain, a victim of torture in Vietnam, introduced legislation banning abuse of detainees in US custody. Dick Cheney led the White House resistance, demanding an exception for CIA agents abroad. Thursday's deal is a measure of his declining influence on Capitol Hill. - Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
Congress forces Bush to accept rules on torture Telegraph.co.uk
Defense Bills Moving Ahead in Congress Washington Post
Los Angeles Times - MSN Money - Xinhua - In-Forum (subscription) - all 1,576 related »

Back to Story - Help
Senate Rejects Extension of Patriot Act By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago



The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republicans congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent, and add new safeguards and expiration dates to the two most controversial parts: roving wiretaps and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.

Feingold, Craig and other critics said that wasn't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.

If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31.

Frist changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't approve it and the president won't sign it.

"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned.

If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will place the blame on Democrats in next year's midterm elections. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come."

But the Patriot Act's critics got a boost from a New York Times report saying Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international phone calls and international e-mails of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of people inside the United States. Previously, the NSA typically limited its domestic surveillance to foreign embassies and missions and obtained court orders for such investigations.

"I don't want to hear again from the attorney general or anyone on this floor that this government has shown it can be trusted to use the power we give it with restraint and care," said Feingold, the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001.

"It is time to have some checks and balances in this country," shouted Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. "We are more American for doing that."




Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Rep. Barton doing OK after suffering heart attack Houston Chronicle
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, is resting comfortably and eager to get back to work after suffering a heart attack on Thursday evening, according to his staff. "The congressman is currently negotiating his release date with the doctor," said spokeswoman Karen Modlin. She expects Barton will be able to go home within a few days, and added that the episode will not deter him from running for re-election next year.
Texas Rep. Barton hospitalized after heart attack Reuters
Rep. Barton resting after heart attack Seattle Post Intelligencer
TVTechnology - KWTX - Fort Worth Star Telegram - KHOU (subscription) - all 40 related »

Print

U.S. Senate Rejects Bush Plea to Advance Patriot Act (Update1)
Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate, rejecting pleas from its Republican leaders and President George W. Bush, refused to end debate on legislation to renew the anti-terror USA Patriot Act.

The Senate fell seven votes short of shutting off a filibuster that threatens to block an extension of much of the law, including expanded power for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Bush has called for approval of the measure, saying it is vital in the war against terrorism.

The vote was the second legislative setback for Bush in as many days. Yesterday, Bush reversed course and accepted a ban on torture crafted by Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican.

Today's development left the immediate future of the Patriot Act in doubt. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist insisted he wasn't giving up and repeated his opposition to a three-month extension of the act.

``The debate will continue on this very important bill,'' he said. ``We will not see a short-term extension.''

Democratic leaders and some Republicans led the drive to sustain a filibuster, a parliamentary maneuver that allows endless debate. Republicans control the Senate by a 55-45 margin, and it takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

The official vote on the filibuster-ending motion was 52-47. Frist had cast the 53rd vote in favor of ending debate, but switched sides at the end to preserve his options under Senate rules for calling for another vote.

House-Passed Version

Democratic leader Harry Reid said a House-passed version of the measure, a compromise worked out by Republican congressional leaders, doesn't provide enough judicial oversight of the FBI. Shutting off the filibuster would have put the measure in position for Senate passage.

``The United States Senate should work harder to achieve a strong bipartisan agreement on the Patriot Act,'' Reid, a Nevada lawmaker, said. The legislation ``does not contain enough checks on the expanded power of government.''

``The Patriot Act expires on Dec. 31, but the terrorist threat does not,'' Frist said. ``We have a clear choice: Do we advance against terrorism to make America safer or do we retreat to the days before Sept. 11 when terrorists slipped through the cracks.''

Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold said it was `shameful to suggest'' that lawmakers seeking changes in the bill want the Patriot Act to expire. ``That would only happen if the proponents block alternative reauthorization that can easily pass,'' he said. ``Now is not the time for brinksmanship or threats.''

The Next Step

Republicans must now decide on the next step to prevent key provisions of the law from expiring at year's end. Lawmakers are planning to wrap up business this week and adjourn for the year.

Reid supports a plan introduced by a bipartisan group on Dec. 12 to extend the current Patriot Act for three months. Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman, said this morning that Bush wouldn't sign such an extension.

``The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come,'' he said. ``The president calls on the leaders of both parties to stop putting the safety of the American people above politics.''

The House passed the legislation on Dec. 14 by a vote of 251-174.

Unchallenged Authority

Opponents of the measure say it gives the FBI unchallenged authority to request business, library or medical records for counterterrorism investigations. They are also seeking more judicial review of so-called national security letters, which the FBI can issue to request records.

Fourteen provisions in the original 2001 legislation that are due to expire at year's end would become permanent in the proposed renewal of the law.

New York Democrat Charles Schumer, who had said he had been leaning toward opposing the filibuster, said a New York Times report that the National Security Agency had eavesdropped on Americans' telephone calls without warrants since the Sept. 11 terror attacks changed his mind.

``Today's revelation that the government listened to thousands of conversations is shocking and greatly influenced my vote,'' Schumer said.



To contact the reporters on this story:
Jeff Bliss in Washington at jbliss@bloomberg.net
James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net.

By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Dec 16, 2005 — The Senate on Friday rejected attempts to reauthorize several provisions of the USA Patriot Act as infringing too much on Americans' privacy and liberty, dealing a huge defeat to the Bush administration and Republican leaders.

In a crucial vote early Friday, the bill's Senate supporters were not able to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by Sens. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., and Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and their allies. The final vote was 52-47.

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republicans congressional leaders had lobbied fiercely to make most of the expiring Patriot Act provisions permanent, and add new safeguards and expiration dates to the two most controversial parts: roving wiretaps and secret warrants for books, records and other items from businesses, hospitals and organizations such as libraries.


Senate Rejects Extension of Patriot Act
Unmanned Border Planes Can Require a Crew of 20
Bush's Senior Roundtable

Feingold, Craig and other critics said that wasn't enough, and have called for the law to be extended in its present form so they can continue to try and add more civil liberties safeguards. But Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert have said they won't accept a short-term extension of the law.

If a compromise is not reached, the 16 Patriot Act provisions expire on Dec. 31.

Frist changed his vote at the last moment after seeing the critics would win. He decided to vote with the prevailing side so he could call for a new vote at any time. He immediately objected to an offer of a short term extension from Democrats, saying the House won't approve it and the president won't sign it.

"We have more to fear from terrorism than we do from this Patriot Act," Frist warned.

If the Patriot Act provisions expire, Republicans say they will place the blame on Democrats in next year's midterm elections. "In the war on terror, we cannot afford to be without these vital tools for a single moment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said. "The time for Democrats to stop standing in the way has come."

Specter Says Senate to Probe Report U.S. Broke Law on Spying
Dec. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Senator Arlen Specter said the Judiciary Committee he chairs will investigate a report that President George W. Bush authorized spying on American citizens and foreign nationals in the U.S. following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

``That's wrong, clearly and categorically wrong,'' Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said today on the Senate floor. ``This will be a matter for oversight by the Judiciary committee as soon as we can get to it in the new year -- a very, very high priority item.''

The New York Times reported that Bush in 2002 secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without the court-approved warrants that are required for domestic spying. The international phone calls and e-mail messages of hundreds, possibly thousands, of people have been monitored without warrants to find numbers linked to al-Qaeda, the paper said.

The paper said it interviewed nearly a dozen current and former administration officials about the program and granted them anonymity because the information was classified. The officials said the administration is confident that existing safeguards protect the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, the Times said.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan defended Bush against the report.

Rice, interviewed on NBC's ``Today'' show, said ``the president has been very clear that he would not order people to do things that are illegal.'' McClellan, speaking to reporters later, made a similar disclaimer. Both he and Rice declined to comment directly on the New York Times report.

Presidential Order

The presidential order Bush signed represents a change in responsibilities for the NSA, which traditionally monitors actions in foreign countries, the Times said.

The Bush administration briefed Congressional leaders about the program and notified the judge in charge of the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court, the secret court in Washington that handles national security issues, the paper said.

Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, raised concerns with the Bush administration about the program, the Times said. Rockefeller's spokeswoman, Wendy Morigi, declined to comment on the NSA program. The NSA didn't respond to requests for comment.

Other U.S. senators had mixed reactions to revelations about the NSA program. Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, said, ``The allegations, if true, are deeply, deeply troubling. If we needed a wake-up call for adequate civil-liberties protections to be written into our law, this is the wake-up call.''

`Security First'

Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, said he only glanced Times article. ``If I were really concerned, I would have read it,'' he said.

Lott said some of his colleagues were overreacting to the potential for civil-liberties violations through this reported NSA program and the 2001 Patriot Act, which gives the FBI power to track terrorist suspects. The Patriot Act is up for renewal.

``I don't agree with the libertarians,'' Lott said. ``I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that.''

McClellan said Bush has a responsibility to adhere to the Constitution when making decisions on intelligence and has protected Americans' civil liberties. Activities such as those reported by the Times would be subject to congressional and judicial oversight, McClellan said.

``We've got to respect and uphold people's civil liberties and we do that, and the president has always kept that in mind in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks,'' McClellan told reporters. ``We must do everything we can to prevent attacks from happening and save lives.''

Publication Delayed

The Times said it held off publishing its report for a year because the administration said that could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. Some information that administration officials said could be useful to terrorists was omitted, the paper said. McClellan declined to comment on whether the administration sought to have the story held.

Following a meeting at the White House this morning on national security, Senator John McCain said he ``wouldn't like it'' if he confirmed the report was accurate.

``We should be informed as to exactly what's going on and then find out whether an investigation is called for,'' McCain, an Arizona Republican, told reporters.

The American Civil Liberties Union urged Congress to investigate and said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should appoint a special prosecutor to determine ``whether crimes have been committed,'' said Caroline Fredrickson, its legislative director.

``The administration is claiming extraordinary presidential powers at the expense of civil liberties and is putting the president above the law,'' Fredrickson said in a statement. Eavesdropping on conversations of Americans without a court order and without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ``is both illegal and unconstitutional.''



To contact the reporter on this story:
William McQuillen in Washington at bmcquille@bloomberg.net

US Senate Rejects Bush Plea to Advance Patriot Act Bloomberg
The US Senate, rejecting pleas from its Republican leaders and President George W. Bush, refused to end debate on legislation to renew the anti-terror USA Patriot Act. The Senate fell seven votes short of shutting off a filibuster that threatens to block an extension of much of the law, including expanded power for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Bush has called for approval of the measure, saying it is vital in the war against terrorism.
Patriot Act's Future in Doubt in Senate ABC News
Critics of Patriot Act Gaining Momentum in Senate Los Angeles Times
CNET News.com - TIME - Minneapolis Star Tribune (subscription) - Newsday - all 1,300 related »

House Calls for Info on Overseas Detention
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
Fri Dec 16, 1:26 PM ET



The House called Friday for the Bush administration to give Congress details of secret detention facilities overseas, a day after President Bush agreed to a proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism detainees in U.S. custody.

The GOP-run House voted 228-187 for a resolution to urge — but not force — House-Senate negotiators to include in a final defense bill language requiring National Intelligence Director John Negroponte to provide classified reports to House and Senate intelligence committees on such facilities.

Though the vote was symbolic, it showed that the issue of the treatment of detainees has not been completely defused, despite Bush's acceptance Wednesday of a proposal by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., to bar harsh treatment of terror suspects. And it showed that Republican lawmakers are unafraid to buck the president on the issue.

The administration has refused to confirm news reports that the CIA runs secret detention facilities abroad. But lawmakers of both parties say they have been troubled by the reports, and the Senate inserted the disclosure provision, sponsored by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., into its version of the defense bill.

The House version omitted it, but the vote puts pressure on negotiators to include the provision in the bill sent to the president's desk.

"Meaningful oversight must include proper scrutiny of all U.S. detention facilities, whether those facilities are located on U.S. or foreign soil," Rep. Ike Skelton (news, bio, voting record), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said in forcing the House to vote on the matter.

The vote came as Congress worked to complete that policy bill and a $453 billion must-pass wartime spending bill now that Bush has agreed to a proposal to ban cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism detainees in U.S. custody.

Bush's reluctant endorsement Thursday came after months of opposition that included White House veto threats of any bill that contained the McCain provisions.

"This is the democratic system working," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday on CBS' "Early Show." "Senator McCain worked tirelessly with the administration to get to legislation that will allow us both to protect the American people ... and to do so within our laws and within our international obligations."

The proposal by McCain, a former Navy pilot who spent 5 1/2 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has held up completion of two defense bills. Senate versions of the measure included the language, but the House bills did not.

House and Senate negotiators on both defense bills hoped to complete their work as soon as this weekend, and sought to finalize conference reports Friday. Lawmakers are expected to sign off on the McCain proposal in at least one of the bills before adjourning in a few days.

The spending measure, which also provides $50 billion for the Iraq war, had appeared the most likely vehicle Thursday. But early Friday, Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif., and the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he would not make good on his threat to block the other bill, which sets defense policy, over the McCain language.

Hunter said he would accept the bill since he had been assured by National Intelligence Director John Negroponte that the agency would report to Congress six months after the ban goes into effect on its impact on intelligence gathering.

Also contained in that bill is a less-controversial proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record) that would let detainees at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, appeal their detention status and punishment. Changes were made during House-Senate negotiations, however, that human-rights groups say could undermine the McCain provisions.

The spending bill likely will be the last measure Congress approves before adjourning because leaders want to tack on other legislation to the must-pass bill.

A breakthrough was reached when McCain agreed to add language allowing civilian interrogators the same legal protections as those afforded to military interrogators — an offer he extended after rebuffing administration efforts that early on sought an exemption for CIA interrogators and later sought some immunity from prosecution for those who are accused of violating the standards.

McCain's proposal pitted the president against members of his own party and threatened to further tarnish a U.S. image already soiled by the abuses at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

The legislation would prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held. It also would require that service members follow procedures in the Army Field Manual during interrogations of prisoners.

Added was a provision modeled after the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which says military personnel accused of violating interrogation rules can defend themselves if a reasonable person could have concluded they were following a lawful order. Those rights — and the right to legal counsel — would be extended to civilian interrogators under the agreement.

Specifically, the language allows a person to defend their use of interrogation tactics in court by arguing that "a person of ordinary sense and understanding would not know the practices were unlawful."



Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

DeLay Fails in Bid to Get Quick Answer From Judge in Texas Case Bloomberg
The Texas judge hearing a campaign- finance abuse case against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said he won't yet rule on one of DeLay's motions, dealing a setback to the lawmaker's bid for a quick resolution of the case. After being indicted in his home state of Texas, DeLay was forced by Republican rules to step down from his leadership position in the U.S. House of Representatives. He denied wrongdoing and sought a quick trial so that he can have the chance to reclaim his majority leader position.
DeLay's request for speedy trial on hold CNN
Judge deals DeLay a blow; puts case on hold Houston Chronicle
FOX News - Los Angeles Times - ABC News - USA Today - all 183 related »

Senate debates budget cuts Kansas City Star
Republican congressional leaders agreed Sunday to trim deficits by $41.6 billion and sought to unlock the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. “We’re going to move the nation’s business” through Congress, vowed Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid accused the Republican Party of breaking Senate rules to suit its purposes, and threatened to slow action to a crawl. “The arrogance of power of the Republicans … is beyond my ability to comprehend,” he said. Medicare, the student loan program and Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, would all be tapped for savings under the emerging five-year deficit-cutting plan. House Republican leaders said they would call for a vote swiftly, but lawmakers haggled over the details for hours. In one last-minute change, the leadership agreed to continue an expiring aid program for dairy farmers at a cost one official put at $14 million. Passage of the bill would clear the way for a Senate vote as early as today. GOP leaders hoped the drilling legislation would be close behind. But it faced a rockier course — a threatened filibuster in the Senate that can only be broken with a 60-vote majority. Democratic critics attacked the bill’s chief advocate, Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, for adding the oil provision to legislation providing $453 billion for the Pentagon. They also accused him of offering enticements to skeptical senators in the form of funds for hurricane relief and other programs. Conservatives hailed the deficit-cutting measure as the first attempt in a decade to rein in the cost of federal benefit programs. Preliminary figures put the savings from Medicare at $8.3 billion over the next five years, and spending on Medicaid was estimated to fall by nearly $5 billion.
Republicans Add Alaska Oil Drilling to Defense Bill Planet Ark
ANWR opponents rally against defense bill strategy Rutland Herald
Juneau Empire - OregonLive.com - Indianapolis Star - Aberdeen American News - all 445 related »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 19, 2005
House Backs Arctic Drilling at End of Marathon Session
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - Working through the night, the House early today voted to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling as part of a military measure and narrowly approved a $40 billion budget-cutting plan as bleary-eyed lawmakers concluded a marathon weekend session.

The Pentagon spending bill, adopted on a 308-106 vote shortly after 5 a.m., also included a $29 billion hurricane recovery package for the Gulf Coast, a $3.8 billion proposal to prepare for a potential flu pandemic and a 1 percent across-the-board cut that shaved a total of about $8 billion from current federal spending.

Democrats assailed majority Republicans for using the Pentagon bill to win approval of the drilling plan after objections by moderate Republicans led to it being eliminated from the budget measure.

"A can't-pass measure has been added to a must-pass measure in order for the Republicans to give an early huge Christmas gift to the oil companies of the United States," said Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts.

But Republicans said the drilling had been approved in the past by both the House and the Senate and that adding it to the military bill was a legitimate legislative approach. "Easing our dependence on foreign oil is central to our economic and national security, and this provision puts us on the right path," said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.

The Pentagon measure faced significant procedural hurdles in the Senate.

The budget cuts were approved 212-206 just after 6 a.m. After assembling the budget plan Sunday, congressional Republicans had pegged the savings over five years at nearly $42 billion but last-minute changes on health and agricultural policy made to attract more votes lowered the figure to $39.7 billion - about $10 billion below the initial House target. The Senate could take the measure up as early as today.

Earlier this morning, the House voted 374-41 to approve a broad military policy bill after House Republicans dropped their push to add campaign finance law changes. That measure establishes new rules for the treatment of terror detainees and provides the armed forces with a pay raise and new health benefits.

The agreement between the House and Senate on the $40 billion in budget cuts and revenue increases put Republicans on the brink of a significant political victory after struggling for months to reach a deal sought by conservatives as a way to demonstrate a new willingness to control federal spending.

"This bill is a good first step towards addressing the long-term spending challenges in the federal budget," Mr. Hastert said. "I am proud that House Republicans have put in the long hours and hard work necessary to make this happen."

Negotiators softened the impact of some provisions that had drawn objections from Republican moderates, including cuts in food stamps. But the plan reduces spending on Medicare by $8 billion and Medicaid by nearly $5 billion, and wrings savings out of several other programs like agriculture and student loans.

Democrats said the cuts were unfair and meant little for the deficit because Republicans were trying to advance next year nearly $100 billion in tax cuts that would more than erase any savings. "This entire exercise imposes sacrifice from Americans least able to afford it in an attempt to camouflage far larger Republican tax breaks for the wealthy," said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa. The budget agreement came only after the proposal to allow drilling in the Arctic was stripped from the measure and added to the military bill. But passage of the budget cuts in the House, which planned to meet into the early morning hours, was not assured because some Republicans who had balked at the Arctic drilling plan were threatening to oppose the budget legislation to protest the decision to incorporate drilling into the must-pass military bill.

That move also infuriated Democrats and other drilling opponents, raising the prospect that the military spending bill would face a filibuster and other obstacles in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, accused Republicans on Sunday of ignoring Senate rules to enhance the chances for approval of the drilling initiative that was a long-standing goal of Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska.

"This is a dark day in the history of the American constitutional form of government," said Mr. Reid, who threatened to slow the Senate over the next few days and block any votes on nominations as Republicans try to wrap up the session before Christmas.

Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, disputed the notion that Republicans were subverting the rules, though he said a specific provision in the military bill would declare that any new precedent created by including the drilling plan would not alter the rules for future legislation. He said it was acceptable to include the drilling in a Pentagon measure because the Senate had endorsed the oil exploration in earlier votes as a way to increase domestic oil production.The senior lawmakers putting together the military spending bill agreed Sunday to add the drilling plan at the insistence of Mr. Stevens, who has been relentless in his effort to enact the plan this year. In trying to round up votes, Mr. Stevens added language that would direct billions of dollars from the sale of drilling rights to Gulf Coast recovery. Separately, $10 billion from the sale of rights to analog broadcast spectrum freed up by a switch to digital would be parceled out for hurricane relief, domestic security, home heating aid and other areas.

One of the last items added to the military spending bill was a provision sought by Mr. Frist that would shield drug makers from lawsuits related to vaccines that protect against biological agents or viruses like the one that causes the avian flu. The language would allow lawsuits against vaccine makers only if they engaged in "willful misconduct." The government would pay medical expenses and benefits to those injured or killed by vaccines.

Mr. Frist contends that the provision is necessary to encourage drug companies to make vaccines. But it is likely to draw criticism, with some arguing that it would be a windfall for those companies.

The second Pentagon policy measure for military pay raises and new health benefits had been stalled by a fight over the effort by House Republicans to use it to enact new campaign spending restrictions that Democrats believed would hurt their fund-raising efforts more than those of Republicans.

But Republican authors of the measure in both chambers encouraged the House leadership to relent in its push for the campaign finance changes to allow the otherwise popular bill to be approved. Like the military spending bill, it incorporates the newly negotiated agreement on banning torture of terror detainees and lays out the legal rights of those held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. It would have been the first time in 40 years that a Pentagon policy measure had not been approved, and Democrats assailed Republicans for threatening to hold it up.

Despite the bickering on Capitol Hill, some legislation was moving through. On Saturday, the House sent President Bush a measure promoting the creation of banks to store umbilical cord blood, which yields stem cells that are useful in treating blood and bone marrow disorders.

Congress also approved legislation extending terrorism risk insurance and gave final approval to a measure providing new money for programs to curb violence against women. Lawmakers also approved a Justice Department measure that would require an annual report from the attorney general on the legal status of all people detained on suspicion of terrorism.

A huge spending measure for health, labor and education programs had yet to clear the Senate. It and the military spending bill were the final annual appropriations measures awaiting passage, and the federal programs they cover were running under a newly passed stopgap bill that would expire Dec. 31.

Republicans said the overtime wind-up was extraordinary, but they attributed the crunch to the extra work that had been forced upon Congress by the hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast at the end of the summer.

"It all went out the window when you get hit by a Category 5, another Category 5 and another Category 4," said Representative Adam H. Putnam, Republican of Florida. "Unusual factors have impacted this unusual year."



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 19, 2005
Leaders in Congress Agree on Aid for Gulf Recovery
By ERIC LIPTON
GULFPORT, Miss., Dec. 18 - Since Hurricane Katrina hit, billions of dollars in federal aid has poured into the devastated areas of Mississippi and Louisiana, primarily for the most critical emergency needs: providing temporary housing, restarting governments and cleaning up the mountains of debris.

On Sunday, leaders in the House and Senate moved to switch from a relief effort to recovery, agreeing to appropriate large chunks of money to rebuild the region and, at least in part, to bail out some of the tens of thousands of people who were financially devastated by the storm.

The recovery package allocates $11.5 billion in new grant money, mostly for Mississippi and Louisiana. State officials have indicated they intend to use much of it to compensate some of the estimated 110,000 families whose homes were flooded by Hurricane Katrina but who did not have flood insurance.

The deal also includes $2.68 billion to strengthen the levees, protect the watershed and take other flood-control measures around New Orleans and elsewhere on the Gulf Coast. There is $2.75 billion to reimburse states for highway repairs.

An additional $1.6 billion is for education aid, including reimbursement of schools that took in students displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And $125 million is designated for helping state and local police departments replace lost or damaged equipment and vehicles.

The $29 billion package, which still must be approved by the full House and Senate, comes on top of action on Friday by Congress that created about $8 billion in tax breaks and incentives to stimulate the Gulf Coast economy.

The new aid is intended to not add to the deficit because it involves the reallocation of money from the original $62 billion in relief that Congress approved this summer as well as cuts elsewhere in federal spending.

To elected officials from the Gulf Coast region, the agreement Sunday was a sign that Washington was making good on the promise that President Bush made in a Sept. 15 speech in Jackson Square in New Orleans, where he vowed "to help the citizens of the Gulf Coast to overcome this disaster, put their lives back together and rebuild their communities."

In a statement Sunday, Representative Chip Pickering, Republican of Mississippi, said, "When these funds make it to Mississippi, individuals and families will be able to rebuild their homes, restore their communities, reopen their schools and hospitals, and boost the Gulf Coast economy to create and retain jobs."

News of the recovery package brought relief in such cities as Gulfport, Pascagoula and Biloxi, where Hurricane Katrina's floodwaters affected thousands of residents in areas not defined by official federal maps as susceptible to flooding.

Typically, only homeowners in areas defined as within the so-called 100-year flood zone are required to buy federal flood insurance. Yet standard homeowners' insurance offered by private companies includes a provision that excludes water damage caused by "flood, surface water, waves, tidal water, overflow of a body of water, or spray from any of these, whether or not driven by wind."

Because there is a $26,200 cap on federal disaster aid to families, many people faced the possibility of taking out a second mortgage to rebuild their homes or perhaps even filing for bankruptcy.

When Hurricane Katrina hit, Bob Frederic, 51, of Pascagoula had just invested $70,000 on renovations to his home, putting in a new kitchen and living room. His neighborhood is about a mile from the beach and there are no streams, ponds or other bodies of water in the area, so it had never occurred to area residents that their homes might be flooded, Mr. Frederic and several neighbors said.

"I hate to get a handout, but then again, this is something that has never happened before," said Mr. Frederic, adding that Hurricane Katrina brought whitecaps into his backyard.

James Kirby, 74, of Gulfport had made payments for 28 years on his 30-year mortgage when Hurricane Katrina flooded his house, leaving it nearly worthless. "You work all your life on something," he said. "And then it is nothing."

Approval of the additional assistance was credited in part to two important Republican allies from Mississippi, Senator Thad Cochran, who is chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Gov. Haley Barbour, a former Washington lobbyist and chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Louisiana officials said they too welcomed the aid, though it was probably far short of what is needed to compensate the estimated 70,000 households that were flooded but did not have flood insurance. While the new package includes enough money to rebuild the levee system in New Orleans, it is far short of what is needed to protect the city from a Category 5 storm.

"This is a shot in the arm to the recovery that will make a big difference," said Andy Kopplin, executive director of the Louisiana Recovery Authority, the body set up to help lead the rebuilding effort.

So far, the federal government has committed to $19.53 billion for Hurricane Katrina relief, including $3.1 billion for trailers and mobile homes, $3.5 billion for emergency housing, $2.2 billion for state and local governments and $4.35 billion to other federal agencies, particularly the Army Corps of Engineers, which is leading the debris-removal work.



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Democrats_pl...rewar_1219.html

Democrats plan sharp rebuke of pre-war intelligence, Iraq war in massive new congressional report
Larisa Alexandrovna and John Byrne

House Judiciary Committee Democrats, spearheaded by Congressman John Conyers (D-MI), are set to release possibly the sharpest congressional critique to date surrounding Iraq, RAW STORY has learned.

The report, titled "The Constitution in Crisis: The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution and Coverups in the Iraq War," is slotted to be made available to the public Tuesday. RAW STORY acquired a copy of the book’s cover and some additional information about the document today.

According to Democratic aides, the report will focus on alleged manipulation of pre-war intelligence by the White House, specifically covering such topics as the Downing Street Minutes as well as the White House position on the Geneva Conventions and international law as regards its policies toward prisoners of war. Sources say the report is slated to be published as a book.

Advertisement


The ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Conyers had previously pushed for an inquiry into the Downing Street Minutes, official minutes of a 2002 meeting among British Prime Minister Tony Blair, members of British intelligence MI-6, as well as Bush administration advisers. Most notably, the minutes included a comment from British intelligence director Richard Dearlove, who was quoted in a secret meeting before the war as saying "intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy."

The Downing Street Minutes were first reported in the British press by the Sunday London Times, and then carried across the Atlantic by RAW STORY. This site obtained copies from British sources, which along with a push from activists, subsequently spawned a flurry of stories in major U.S. newspapers and on U.S. television networks.

Public outcry resulted in a resolution of inquiry filing with close to half a million citizen signatories, as well as a hearing chaired by Conyers and attended by other Democratic members on the Judiciary Committee. The Republican members of the Committee would neither attend nor support efforts to investigate the documents.

In June, Conyers and 51 other House members filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the White House, Defense Department and State Department seeking any and all documents concerning the Downing Street documents. Aides say they have been stonewalled and have received nothing in response.

They also asked the House Committees on Judiciary, Armed Services, International Relations, and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to hold hearings; the request was blocked by Republicans along party lines.

RAW STORY has copies of all the Downing Street documents and other pre-war British correspondence documents here. Those pushing for inquiries into the Downing Street Minutes maintain a website at AfterDowningStreet.org.

Big Oil: Mission Accomplished? John Kerry

Dear Friends,

If you ever needed a reminder of how broken Washington has become under one-party rule, we're getting it loud and clear in the closing hours of this session of Congress. Instead of sending a unified and unanimous signal to our troops on the front lines, Republicans are instead scheming to make a giveaway to the big oil companies their parting shot before Congress leaves Washington this winter. The Republicans' aim is sadly simple: mission accomplished for the big oil companies, mission unaccomplished for our troops, our environment, and America's real energy security. In the very early hours this morning, Republican Senators, in a desperate legislative maneuver, have attached an arctic drilling proposal to the defense bill. They're putting oil companies ahead of our troops. Senator McCain got it right when he called this maneuver "disgusting." If you agree, call your Senator now and help us get this special interest giveaway off the bill that is supposed to be helping our troops.

Call your Senators and tell them to stand up against this Republican abuse of power
The Military Officer's Association of America predicted this tactic last week: "We're concerned that insertion of any divisive, non-defense related issues at the last minute could further delay enactment of this crucial legislation. Both defense bills are urgently needed to support our military efforts. Congress is already three months late passing them, and needs to get off the dime." Yesterday, a group of five high-profile generals sent a letter to Senator Frist that said: "It is not helpful to attach such a controversial non-defense legislative issue to a defense appropriations bill. It only invites delay for our troops as Congress debates an important but controversial non-defense issue on a vital bill providing critical funding for our nation's security." Republican leaders know that drilling in the Arctic Refuge has nothing to do with this critical defense legislation. They know that just weeks ago, the arctic drilling proposal didn't have the votes to pass in the light of day because it's wrong for America. Now, the Republicans know where our generals stand on this matter. Will you join us in making them listen to our military?

Call your Senators and tell them to stand up against this Republican abuse of power
We have to make it clear that it's dead wrong for the Republican leadership in this Congress to break Senate rules in a last-ditch attempt to sneak through the arctic drilling proposal. Congress shouldn't keep our troops waiting in order to keep special interests happy. Ask yourself: how long will our troops have to wait while Republican Senators attach unrelated, controversial ideological adventures that don't pass the test with the American people?

Call your Senators and tell them to stand up against this Republican abuse of power
I'm doing all I can to force the Republican leadership to surrender their irresponsible arctic drilling proposal. If they don't, I intend to spend a lot of time on the Senate floor talking about this. And if people want to call it a filibuster, that's fine by me. I need your help today to lobby your Senators to take this controversial provision off the defense bill. This is no small fight. What the Republicans are doing dishonors our troops, it dishonors the Senate, it breaks the public trust - and in this particular instance, it would lead to the destruction of one of America's most treasured wildlife refuges. I won't stand for it. And next time these Republicans tell me that we have to destroy this wildlife refuge for our energy security, I'm going to tell them the truth that you and I know with every fiber of our being: we cannot drill our way to energy independence; we have to invent our way there. The best ways to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil are to conserve more, waste less, and develop more fuel-efficient cars so we use less oil and gas. I'm not going to stand for the hollow, empty, more of the same energy policy written by Dick Cheney in secret meetings that puts at risk the troops this defense bill is meant to protect.

Call your Senators and tell them to stand up against this Republican abuse of power
Tell your Senators to oppose this underhanded attempt to hijack legislation for our troops to give an early Christmas present to the oil companies. Thank you for fighting back. Your voice will make a huge difference.

Sincerely,

John Kerry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 20, 2005
Lawmakers Prepare for Showdown Over Arctic Oil Drilling Provision
By CARL HULSE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 - With tensions rising in the Capitol, Senate Democrats threatened on Monday to derail a $453 billion military spending bill over an Arctic oil drilling dispute, just hours after the House approved the measure in an all-night session that also included passage of a $40 billion budget-cutting bill.

Anticipating a Democratic-led effort against the military bill, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, took procedural steps on Monday to cut off debate on the measure, setting the stage for a decisive vote Wednesday on the legislation.

Frustrated Democrats predicted they could round up the votes to stall the Pentagon measure even if it put them in the awkward position of blocking money for American military operations. They called on Republicans to drop the language allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

"I don't have any hesitation to be part of a filibuster," said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, who is a military hawk and a longtime foe of the Arctic drilling plan. "This is a tough fight," he added. "But it is a fight worth waging."

The standoff over oil drilling came as Congress tried to wrap up its business for the year, but significant issues were far from settled. In addition to the Pentagon bill snarled in the oil fight, Senate Democrats and Republicans remained at loggerheads over the USA Patriot Act, the broad antiterror law containing major provisions that were set to expire Dec. 31 without Senate action. The Senate has yet to vote on a $142.5 billion measure paying for health, education and employment programs. And Democrats are threatening to stall a series of nominations that Senate Republicans had hoped to see approved before the end of the year.

While the Senate began debating the budget-cutting plan Monday, both parties were also focusing on the procedural end-game.

The House approved the measure shortly after 5 a.m. Monday by a vote of 308 to 106 after the drilling provision was added Sunday afternoon at the insistence of its longtime champion, Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska. Mr. Stevens, 82, has fought to open the refuge to oil exploration since the 1950's, when he was a lawyer in the Interior Department under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He sees the military spending measure as his best shot.

The bill also contains a $29 billion hurricane recovery package and $3.8 billion to prepare for a potential avian flu pandemic. It also institutes a 1 percent across-the-board cut on the current federal budget, reducing spending by about $8.5 billion. Veterans programs were exempted.

Upset with the oil drilling initiative and other add-ons, Democrats accused Mr. Stevens of twisting Senate rules to hijack the military bill to advance an unrelated pet cause, a charge he angrily denied in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor Monday.

"We've done it because of the sincere belief that production of oil domestically has a great deal to do with our national security," he said. "Our national defense cannot operate without the basic potential for our own production of oil."

The fight over Arctic drilling had earlier threatened to kill the budget bill until Congressional Republican leaders agreed to take out the language and tack it onto the Pentagon measure. That move cleared the way for the House to narrowly approve the budget cuts, by a vote of 212 to 206, just after 6 a.m. Monday. Nine Republicans joined 196 Democrats and one independent in opposing the bill backed solely by Republicans.

The final five-year savings in the measure, achieved through a combination of revenue increases and spending reductions, were put at $39.7 billion, about $10 billion less than House conservatives had sought. An initial budget agreement announced Sunday afternoon had put the total at nearly $42 billion, but last-minute concessions made to secure votes lowered the final total.

As bleary-eyed lawmakers streamed out of the Capitol just before the sun rose Monday, Republican leaders hailed the budget vote as a victory that demonstrated they could rein in federal spending.

"This budget is the product of months of hard work, and on balance, I believe it is a positive first step in restoring fiscal responsibility on behalf of all Americans, from students and families to workers and retirees," said Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio and chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee.

But Democrats and outside advocacy groups said the combination of the across-the-board cut, the future spending reductions required in the budget plan, and the cuts pending in the health and education bill would severely squeeze health and social programs for children, the elderly and the poor and would touch nearly every federal program.

While a plan to reduce spending on food stamps was blocked, the budget bill does reduce federal spending on child support enforcement. Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, senior Democrat on the health and education panel, said it also took $12.7 billion from student loans.

"Republicans are good at the rhetoric and making it look like they want to help our neediest citizens," Mr. Kennedy said. "But when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they fall short, very short, and it's our nation's poor that have to pay."

In another predawn vote, the House approved and sent to the Senate a broad military policy measure that, like the military spending bill, includes a provision by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, that would ban cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of military prisoners in American custody, establishing the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of prisoners.

White House opposition to the McCain language had held up the military policy bill for weeks, but last week, President Bush reversed course and accepted the provision.

The bill also includes a provision sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, that restricts the rights of detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Graham has said the measure's intention is to make it possible to use information obtained by interrogation techniques that he describes as coercive but not abusive when military panels evaluate whether the detainees are being rightfully held as "enemy combatants."

On the antiterror law, both sides appeared dug in. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he had talked to his Democratic counterpart, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, over the weekend to try to reach a compromise. But by Monday, with House members having left the capital, Mr. Specter said he saw little chance for a resolution.

The Pentagon, along with health and education programs covered under the second pending spending measure, are operating under a stop-gap bill that will expire Dec. 31. Should efforts to enact the two bills collapse, lawmakers would have to approve another temporary bill or money for those agencies would run out at the end of the year.



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

Senator Sounded Alarm in '03
Rockefeller Wrote Cheney to Voice Concerns on Spying

By Charles Babington and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, December 20, 2005; A10



John D. Rockefeller IV, a wealthy man representing a poor state, had been the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee for six months when he sat down to a secret briefing on July 17, 2003. What he heard alarmed him so much that immediately afterward he wrote two identical letters, by hand, expressing his concerns.

He sent one to Vice President Cheney and placed the other -- as he pointedly warned Cheney he would -- in a safe in case anyone in the future might challenge his version of what happened. Rockefeller proved prophetic. Yesterday the 21-year Senate veteran from West Virginia released his copy of the letter -- which when written, was so sensitive he dared not allow a staffer to read it, let alone type it.

In eight sentences on two sheets of Senate letterhead, Rockefeller wrote obliquely of "the sensitive intelligence issues we discussed today." Yesterday, after confirming with White House officials that the letter contains no classified information, the senator said the briefing's topic was the National Security Agency's expanded surveillance of Americans, publicly disclosed last week by the New York Times and now at the center of a political furor.

Rockefeller's unease suffused the short letter. "Clearly, the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues," he wrote. Laws governing classified information barred him from sharing the information with lawyers, aides or other experts who might have helped him evaluate the information, he told Cheney.

"As I reflected on the meeting today, and the future we face, John Poindexter's TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regarding the direction the Administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance," Rockefeller wrote.

Poindexter, a retired Navy admiral, had been President Ronald Reagan's national security adviser. After the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, he quietly pushed a venture called Total Information Awareness.

It was meant to sift through vast amounts of business and communications data in hopes of detecting activities that might indicate terrorist plots. But public disclosures scuttled TIA in its planning stages, with critics saying it would have posed dangerous threats to privacy and civil liberties.

Rockefeller, turning back to the NSA program in his letter, told Cheney: "Without more information and the ability to draw on any independent legal or technical expertise, I simply cannot satisfy lingering concerns raised by the briefing we received."

The letter, whose existence was unknown to Rockefeller's staff, indicated that the three briefers were Cheney, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and then NSA-Director Michael V. Hayden. The letter said the Senate intelligence committee's chairman, Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), was there, and it indicated, without naming them, the presence of then-Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), the ranking members of the House intelligence committee.

In hindsight, the letter seemed a rejoinder to President Bush's assertions that key congressional leaders were adequately briefed on the expanded NSA program and to his intimation that they did not seriously object. Rockefeller "was frustrated by the characterization that Congress was on board on this," said one official who is close to him and who spoke on background because of the topic's sensitive nature. "Four congressmen, at least one of whom was raising serious concerns, does not constitute being on board."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 20, 2005
Democrats Threaten to Derail Budget Bill
By CARL HULSE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - With tensions rising in the Capitol, Senate Democrats threatened on Monday to derail a $453 billion military spending bill over an Arctic oil drilling dispute, just hours after the House approved the measure in an all-night session that also included passage of a $40 billion budget-cutting bill.

Anticipating a Democratic-led effort against the military bill, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, took procedural steps on Monday to cut off debate on the measure, setting the stage for a decisive vote Wednesday on the legislation.

In a sign of the high stakes on the budget bill, the White House today recalled Vice President Dick Cheney from an overseas diplomatic mission, in case he was needed to be the tiebreaker in the Senate for the bill, news agencies reported. Mr. Cheney was in Pakistan today to inspect the impact of United States aid to victims of an October earthquake that killed as many as 75,000 people; he will have to skip visits to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Frustrated Democrats predicted they could round up the votes to stall the Pentagon measure even if it put them in the awkward position of blocking money for American military operations. They called on Republicans to drop the language allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

"I don't have any hesitation to be part of a filibuster," said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, who is a military hawk and a longtime foe of the Arctic drilling plan. "This is a tough fight," he added. "But it is a fight worth waging."

The standoff over oil drilling came as Congress tried to wrap up its business for the year, but significant issues were far from settled. In addition to the Pentagon bill snarled in the oil fight, Senate Democrats and Republicans remained at loggerheads over the USA Patriot Act, the broad antiterror law containing major provisions that were set to expire Dec. 31 without Senate action. The Senate has yet to vote on a $142.5 billion measure paying for health, education and employment programs. And Democrats are threatening to stall a series of nominations that Senate Republicans had hoped to see approved before the end of the year.

While the Senate began debating the budget-cutting plan Monday, both parties were also focusing on the procedural end-game. The House approved the military measure shortly after 5 a.m. Monday by a vote of 308 to 106 after the drilling provision was added Sunday afternoon at the insistence of its longtime champion, Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska. Mr. Stevens, 82, has fought to open the refuge to oil exploration since the 1950's, when he was a lawyer in the Interior Department under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. He sees the military spending measure as his best shot.

The bill also contains a $29 billion hurricane recovery package and $3.8 billion to prepare for a potential avian flu pandemic. It also institutes a 1 percent across-the-board cut on the current federal budget, reducing spending by about $8.5 billion. Veterans programs were exempted.

Upset with the oil drilling initiative and other add-ons, Democrats accused Mr. Stevens of twisting Senate rules to hijack the military bill to advance an unrelated pet cause, a charge he angrily denied in a lengthy speech on the Senate floor Monday.

"We've done it because of the sincere belief that production of oil domestically has a great deal to do with our national security," he said. "Our national defense cannot operate without the basic potential for our own production of oil."

The fight over Arctic drilling had earlier threatened to kill the budget bill until Congressional Republican leaders agreed to take out the language and tack it onto the Pentagon measure. That move cleared the way for the House to narrowly approve the budget cuts, by a vote of 212 to 206, just after 6 a.m. Monday. Nine Republicans joined 196 Democrats and one independent in opposing the bill backed solely by Republicans.

The final five-year savings in the measure, achieved through a combination of revenue increases and spending reductions, were put at $39.7 billion, about $10 billion less than House conservatives had sought. An initial budget agreement announced Sunday afternoon had put the total at nearly $42 billion, but last-minute concessions made to secure votes lowered the final total.

As bleary-eyed lawmakers streamed out of the Capitol just before the sun rose Monday, Republican leaders hailed the budget vote as a victory that demonstrated they could rein in federal spending.

"This budget is the product of months of hard work, and on balance, I believe it is a positive first step in restoring fiscal responsibility on behalf of all Americans, from students and families to workers and retirees," said Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio and chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee.

But Democrats and outside advocacy groups said the combination of the across-the-board cut, the future spending reductions required in the budget plan, and the cuts pending in the health and education bill would severely squeeze health and social programs for children, the elderly and the poor and would touch nearly every federal program.

While a plan to reduce spending on food stamps was blocked, the budget bill does reduce federal spending on child support enforcement. Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, senior Democrat on the health and education panel, said it also took $12.7 billion from student loans.

"Republicans are good at the rhetoric and making it look like they want to help our neediest citizens," Mr. Kennedy said. "But when it comes to putting their money where their mouth is, they fall short, very short, and it's our nation's poor that have to pay."

In another predawn vote, the House approved and sent to the Senate a broad military policy measure that, like the military spending bill, includes a provision by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, that would ban cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of military prisoners in American custody, establishing the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of prisoners.

White House opposition to the McCain language had held up the military policy bill for weeks, but last week, President Bush reversed course and accepted the provision.

The bill also includes a provision sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, and Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, that restricts the rights of detainees in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Mr. Graham has said the measure's intention is to make it possible to use information obtained by interrogation techniques that he describes as coercive but not abusive when military panels evaluate whether the detainees are being rightfully held as "enemy combatants."

On the antiterror law, both sides appeared dug in. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he had talked to his Democratic counterpart, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, over the weekend to try to reach a compromise. But by Monday, with House members having left the capital, Mr. Specter said he saw little chance for a resolution.

The Pentagon, along with health and education programs covered under the second pending spending measure, are operating under a stop-gap bill that will expire Dec. 31. Should efforts to enact the two bills collapse, lawmakers would have to approve another temporary bill or money for those agencies would run out at the end of the year.



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

Spending Cuts May Require Cheney Tiebreaker By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

A Senate vote on a deficit-reduction bill looks to be so tight that Vice President Dick Cheney was rushing home from an overseas diplomatic mission to be the tiebreaker for saving one of the Bush administration's top priorities.

The showdown vote loomed on the bill, which would cut some federal benefits and trim budget deficits by $40 billion through the end of the decade.

Cheney was in Pakistan Tuesday to check on U.S. aid to victims of an October earthquake that killed as estimated 75,000 people. He also met with President Pervez Musharraf.

The budget vote is expected to be a close one — last month the bill squeaked through the Senate in a 52-47 tally. Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record) was one of two Democrats voting for the bill then, but said Tuesday he will vote against the bill, in large part because provisions on Medicaid and welfare reform would shift costs to state and local governments.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (news, bio, voting record) of Louisiana, the other Democrat to support the budget last month, is set to switch her vote since the bill no longer contains aid for Katrina victims, which has been attached to another measure. Sen. Jon Corzine (news, bio, voting record), a Democrat elected governor of New Jersey, was absent last month but hopes to return to the Capitol for the final vote.

Five Republicans are also expected to oppose the bill; one Republican who opposed the bill last month is expected to switch his vote.

The vote shifts set up a 50-50 deadlock assuming all senators vote, requiring Cheney's return to Washington to salvage the budget plan with a tie-breaking vote.

Cheney spokesman Steve Schmidt told reporters traveling with Cheney in Pakistan that the vice president was "returning to Washington to be on hand in the Senate to fulfill his constitutional duties as president of the Senate and cast tie-breaking votes, if necessary."

Presiding over the Senate is among Cheney's constitutional duties, although vice presidents historically have not routinely attended such sessions. Cheney's change in plans meant that he would have to forego visits to both Saudi Arabia and Egypt on this trip.

A tight vote was also expected as Senate Republicans waged a Christmas week battle with Democrats and GOP moderates over allowing oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, attached the drilling plan to a wartime Pentagon spending bill that also included $29 billion in new aid for Gulf Coast hurricane victims and as well as new money for border security and winter heating subsidies in an attempt to crack a threatened filibuster. Both the defense and budget bills were passed by the House on Monday before it adjourned for the year.

On the budget bill, five Republicans are expected to vote against it: Mike DeWine of Ohio; Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine; Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; and Gordon Smith of Oregon. Smith voted for the bill last month but is a "nay" vote now, largely because of cuts to Medicaid benefits.

But Norm Coleman, R-Minn., who opposed the bill last month over provisions allowing Arctic drilling, has switched to "yea" since the drilling plan was dropped.

The partisan fighting over the budget seemed to outweigh the measure's likely impact. The $40 billion in deficit savings blends $10 billion in new revenues from anticipated auctions of television airwaves to wireless companies with fairly small cuts to benefit programs like Medicare, Medicaid and student loan subsidies.

Opinions varied on whether Stevens, the powerful patron of the Arctic refuge drilling plan, would prevail in overcoming a filibuster threatened by Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., and others.

Overall, the deficit reduction bill claimed savings of $39.7 billion over five years. That's just 2.5 percent of the $1.6 trillion in total red ink that congressional officials estimate will pile up during the same period. The slender results nonetheless pleased GOP conservatives.

The savings included $4.8 billion from Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. One provision would make it harder for beneficiaries to transfer assets to their children in order to qualify for government-paid nursing home care, which has raised the ire of the AARP, the powerful lobby for seniors.

Drug companies won a last-minute break against cuts to their Medicaid payments at the expense of beneficiaries, who face higher co-payments that advocates for the poor say will drive people out of the program. Regional health insurance companies, another powerful lobby, stopped a Senate bid to cut a subsidy fund designed to entice them into the Medicare market.

Moderate Republicans in the Senate also were angry over a last-minute deal to extend the 1996 welfare reform law. They complained it didn't provide enough child care help as more parents will have to meet work requirements to obtain benefits.

Among the Medicare changes was a one-year freeze in home health care payments. A second provision accelerates a previously scheduled increase for better-off beneficiaries in the cost of premiums for Part B, which covers physician services.

Proposed cuts in food stamps and crop subsidies were dropped from the package.

___

On the Net: Senate: http://senate.gov



Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Censure_moti..._over_1220.html

Censure motion introduced in House over Iraq, torture

Larisa Alexandrovna

Ranking House Judiciary Democrat Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has introduced a motion to censure President Bush and Vice President Cheney for providing misleading information to Congress in advance of the Iraq war, failing to respond to written questions and potential violations of international law, RAW STORY has learned.

The resolutions were quietly introduced Sunday evening along with a third resolution (HR 635) to create a Select Committee to investigate the administration’s intent to go to war prior to congressional authorization. The committee would also be charged with examining manipulation of pre-war intelligence, thwarting Congressional oversight and retaliatory attacks against critics. As part of this resolution, House Judiciary Democrats seek also to explore violations of international law as pertaining to detainee abuse and torture of prisoners of war.

RAW STORY acquired copies of the resolutions Tuesday. To view the resolution to create investigative body to determine if offenses are impeachable, click here; the resolution to censure President George W. Bush, click here; and the resolution to censure Vice President Dick Cheney, click here.

The Select Committee seeks to subpoena the President and other members of the administration in hopes of ascertaining if impeachable offenses have been committed. Sources close to the Judiciary Committee indicate they believe this is the only avenue left after having written repeated letters requesting answers on matters ranging from the Downing Street Memos to the outing of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. HR 635, which would create the select committee, could potentially recommend articles of impeachment against both the President and Vice President.

Republicans are not expected to support a Select Committee, nor are they expected to approve censure motions.

House Resolution 636 seeks to censure the President for failing to respond to repeated requests for information on pre-war intelligence, possible war crimes against detainees and violation of international law, and retaliatory action against critics of the administration. House Resolution 637 seeks censure the Vice President for the same alleged abuses of power and failure to respond to repeated requests for information and testimony.

A resolution of censure or a motion of censure is a formal congressional rebuke.

Cheney Cuts Trip For Budget Vote CBS News
Vice President Dick Cheney decided Tuesday to cut short a tour of the Middle East to return to the United States to take part in critical session-ending business in the Senate, an aide said. "The vice president is returning to Washington to be on hand in the Senate to fulfill his constitutional duties as president of the Senate and cast tie-breaking votes, if necessary," spokesman Steve Schmidt told reporters accompanying Cheney on his overseas trip.
Dick Cheney due today Daily Times
Cheney to Visit Quake Victims in Pakistan Houston Chronicle
Reuters - Xinhua - PakTribune.com - Reuters AlertNet - all 190 related »

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/House_Judici...eging_1220.html

Tuesday December 20, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Judiciary Democrats issue report alleging gross misconduct by Bush over Iraq


In order to expedite getting the story out, RAW STORY has reproduced the executive summary of the report here. Following the executive summary there is a link to the full report.

#
Executive Summary

This Minority Report has been produced at the request of Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. He made this request in the wake of the President’s failure to respond to a letter submitted by 122 Members of Congress and more than 500,000 Americans in July of this year asking him whether the assertions set forth in the Downing Street Minutes were accurate. Mr. Conyers asked staff, by year end 2005, to review the available information concerning possible misconduct by the Bush Administration in the run up to the Iraq War and post-invasion statements and actions, and to develop legal conclusions and make legislative and other recommendations to him.

Advertisement


In brief, we have found that there is substantial evidence the President, the Vice President and other high ranking members of the Bush Administration misled Congress and the American people regarding the decision to go to war with Iraq; misstated and manipulated intelligence information regarding the justification for such war; countenanced torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and other legal violations in Iraq; and permitted inappropriate retaliation against critics of their Administration.

There is at least a prima facie case that these actions by the President, Vice-President and other members of the Bush Administration violate a number of federal laws, including (1) Committing a Fraud against the United States; (2) Making False Statements to Congress; (3) The War Powers Resolution; (4) Misuse of Government Funds; (5) federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; (6) federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other individuals; and (7) federal laws and regulations concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence.

While these charges clearly rise to the level of impeachable misconduct, because the Bush Administration and the Republican-controlled Congress have blocked the ability of Members to obtain information directly from the Administration concerning these matters or responding to these charges, more investigatory authority is needed before recommendations can be made regarding specific Articles of Impeachment. As a result, we recommend that Congress establish a select committee with subpoena authority to investigate the misconduct of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq war detailed in this Report and report to the Committee on the Judiciary on possible impeachable offenses.

In addition, we believe the failure of the President, Vice President and others in the Bush Administration to respond to a myriad requests for information concerning these charges, or to otherwise account for explain a number of specific misstatements they have made in the run up to War and other actions warrants, at minimum, the introduction and Congress’ approval of Resolutions of Censure against Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.

Further, we recommend that Ranking Member Conyers and others consider referring the potential violations of federal criminal law detailed in this Report to the Department of Justice for investigation; Congress should pass legislation to limit government secrecy, enhance oversight of the Executive Branch, request notification and justification of presidential pardons of Administration officials, ban abusive treatment of detainees, ban the use of chemical weapons, and ban the practice of paying foreign media outlets to publish news stories prepared by or for the Pentagon; and the House should amend its Rules to permit Ranking Members of Committees to schedule official Committee hearings and call witnesses to investigate Executive Branch misconduct.

The Report rejects the frequent contention by the Bush Administration that there pre-war conduct has been reviewed and they have been exonerated. No entity has ever considered whether the Administration misled Americans about the decision to go to War, and the Senate Intelligence Committee has not yet conducted a review of pre-war intelligence information, while the Silberman-Robb report specifically cautioned, that intelligence manipulation “was not part of our inquiry.” There has also not been any independent inquiry concerning torture and other legal violations in Iraq; nor has there been an independent review of the pattern of cover-ups and political retribution by the Bush Administration against its critics, other than the very narrow and still ongoing inquiry of Special Counsel Fitzgerald.

While the scope of this Report is largely limited to Iraq, it also holds lessons for our Nation at a time of entrenched one-party rule and abuse of power in Washington. If the present Administration is willing to flaunt, if not break, the law in order to achieve its political objectives in Iraq, and Congress is unwilling to confront or challenge their hegemony, many of our cherished democratic principles are in jeopardy. This is true not only with respect to the Iraq War, but also other areas of foreign policy, privacy and civil liberties, and matters of economic and social justice. Indeed as this Report is being finalized, we have just learned of another potential significant abuse of executive power by the President, ordering the National Security Agency to engage in domestic spying and wiretapping without obtaining court approval in possible violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

It is tragic that our Nation has invaded another sovereign nation because “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,” as stated in the Downing Street Minutes. It is equally tragic that the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress have been unwilling to examine these facts or take action to prevent this scenario from occurring again. Since they appear unwilling to act, it is incumbent on individual Members of Congress as well as the American public to act to protect our constitutional form of government.

READ THE FULL CONYERS REPORT (PDF)


Please go to link to read the Conyers Report

4 GOP Senators Hold Firm Against Patriot Act Renewal
More Safeguards Needed, They Say

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 21, 2005; A04



Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) could barely conceal his anger.

"The Patriot Act expires on December 31, but the terrorist threat does not," he told reporters at the Capitol yesterday. "Those on the Senate floor who are filibustering the Patriot Act are killing the Patriot Act."

There was just one problem. Well, four problems, actually. Four of the 46 senators using the delaying tactic to thwart the USA Patriot Act renewal are members of Frist's party. It is a pesky, irritating fact for Republicans who are eager to portray the impasse as Democratic obstructionism, and a ready-made rejoinder for Democrats expecting campaign attacks on the issue in 2006 and 2008.

The four Republican rebels -- Larry E. Craig (Idaho), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), John E. Sununu (N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) -- have joined all but two Senate Democrats in arguing that more civil liberties safeguards need to be added to the proposed renewal of the Patriot Act. The law makes it easier for FBI agents to monitor phone calls, search homes and obtain business records of terrorism suspects. The four stand calmly at the center of a political storm that soon will determine whether the law, enacted soon after the 2001 terrorist attacks, is renewed in a modified form or allowed to expire in 11 days.

The House passed the Patriot Act renewal Dec. 14, but two days later the four Republicans joined most Democrats in the Senate in blocking action on the bill.

The four Republicans' concerns about the proposed Patriot Act renewal are basically the same as those of most Senate Democrats. They say the bill is slanted too heavily in the government's favor when it comes to letting targeted people challenge national security letters and special subpoenas that give the FBI substantial latitude in deciding what records should be surrendered. The targeted people should have a greater ability to challenge such subpoenas and require the government to show why it thinks the items being sought are connected to possible terrorism, the Republicans contend.

Their Republican colleagues try to look the other way, but Democrats are delighted to have some bipartisan cover. "In a full-court press by the White House to demonize Democrats, it's great to see we've got at least four Republican profiles in courage," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

It would be easier for GOP leaders to shrug off the mini-rebellion if it came from the well-known moderates of Maine and Rhode Island who often defy the party on fiscal and social issues. Instead, the four could star in a "Big Tent" ad proclaiming the Republican Party's diversity. They include a dyed-in-the-wool conservative (Craig), a rising star and presidential aspirant (Hagel), and two second-generation Republican achievers (Murkowski and Sununu).

For this week, at least, the most striking thing they have in common is an unshaken resolve to oppose the law's proposed renewal despite heated appeals by President Bush. "The senators who are filibustering the Patriot Act must stop their delaying tactics," Bush said Monday. The White House said he will not sign a temporary extension of the existing law, a plan pushed by Democrats who want to allow House-Senate negotiators to resume talks in hopes of a four-year renewal.

Asked about the president's remarks yesterday, Murkowski smiled and said softly, "I think the responsible thing to do at this point is to move forward with a three-month extension" of the current law. Murkowski, who inherited her seat from her father, said she has received angry phone calls and e-mails from non-Alaskans. "But I've got to listen to my constituents first," she said, and they have been "very supportive."

White House officials, she said, "have left me alone," as have most fellow GOP senators. "I have not had people hanging around me asking me if I've changed my mind," she said.

Hagel appears equally sanguine. "I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president," he recently told reporters.

Sununu, whose father was a New Hampshire governor and White House chief of staff to George H.W. Bush, took issue with Bush's ultimatum. "How can the president justify vetoing the [temporary] extension?" Sununu said. "That suggests that he thinks the country is better off without any Patriot Act provisions in place than with a three-month extension. And that makes no sense at all."

Craig is a longtime favorite of the National Rifle Association. Like his three comrades, he said he is comfortable with his stand, even in light of Bush's comments. "Obviously the president by his actions has ratcheted it up a bit," Craig said yesterday. "And there's nothing wrong with that."

His constituents are with him, Craig said. "The beauty of Westerners is that we have a healthy distrust of our government," he said, adding that gun owners are particularly leery of laws that give federal agents greater powers to secretly search offices and homes. "Whether they are business records or they are gun dealers' records or whatever, they are records that can be gained" under the law, Craig said.

Such comments are highly inconvenient to Republican strategists eager to tag Democrats as being unpatriotic for their opposition to the House-approved renewal of the Patriot Act.

"It's wrong to put politics before national security," Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said in an interview yesterday, as he visited the Capitol to seek a break in the legislative logjam. Asked about the four Republicans opposing him, Mehlman said: "Obviously I don't agree with them on this issue. I think that they're wrong substantively. But the Democrat near unanimity is what's causing this filibuster."

Sununu disagreed. "I don't believe this is a partisan issue," he said.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

US Senate ok's spending-cut bill; Cheney breaks tie Reuters
The US Senate on Wednesday narrowly passed a bill to trim nearly $40 billion from federal spending over five years, including cuts to social welfare programs such as health care for the elderly and poor. Vice President Dick Cheney, in his role as president of the Senate, broke a 50-50 tie when he voted in favor of the spending cuts. The House of Representatives approved the measure on Monday. But during debate in the Senate, Democrats forced a minor change to the bill, requiring the House to act again, probably on Thursday. Cheney rarely takes the chair of the Senate to help out the Republican majority, which holds 55 of the 100 seats. The last time he broke a tie was in May 2003. Republicans in the U.S. Congress have been trying to craft a spending-cut bill for a year to show they are serious about slowing the growth in federal spending that has resulted in huge budget deficits. But Democrats have pointed out that any spending cuts would be more than offset by pending Republican tax cuts.
Cheney Breaks Senate Tie on Spending Cuts ABC News
Cheney Breaks Senate Tie on Spending Cuts San Francisco Chronicle
Washington Post - Fort Wayne Journal Gazette - Civilrights.org - CNN - all 337 related »

Senate Blocks Alaska Refuge Drilling By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer

The Senate blocked oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, rejecting a measure that had been put into a must-pass defense spending bill in an attempt to garner wider support.

Drilling supporters fell four votes short of getting the required 60 votes to avoid a threatened filibuster of the defense measure over the oil drilling issue. Senate leaders were expected to withraw the legislation so it could be reworked without the refuge language. The vote was 56-44.




Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

US Senate blocks drilling in Alaskan wildlife refuge CBC News
A narrow majority of US senators voted Wednesday to block a measure that would have allowed oil drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge. The administration of US President George W. Bush had manoeuvered to open the refuge to drilling by including the motion in a wartime defence spending bill. But Democratic senators, backed by some Republicans, threatened to filibuster the defence bill over the drilling issue. In a Senate vote on Wednesday , the Republicans fell four votes short of the 60 votes they needed to avoid the filibuster.
Senate to Vote on Defense, Arctic Drilling Washington Post
Senate faces key Alaska oil vote BBC News
The Columbian - Anchorage Daily News - Hartford Courant - Centre Daily Times - all 1,381 related »

Senate Blocks Alaska Refuge Drilling ABC News
Senate Blocks Attempt to Allow Drilling in Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. A quarter-century long fight over the nation's most divisive environmental issue rages on after the Senate on Wednesday rejected opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling even though that provision was included in a must-pass bill that funds U.S. troops overseas and hurricane victims. It was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, one of the Senate's most powerful members, who had hoped to garner more votes by forcing senators to choose between supporting the drilling measure, or risking the political fallout from voting against money for the troops and hurricane victims. Instead, Stevens found himself a few votes shy of getting his wish.

Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., left, looks on as Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., speaks during a Capitol Hill news conference, Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 after the Senate voted against closure on the Defense Appropriations Conference Report.
Republican leaders could not break a Democratic filibuster threat over the drilling issue, falling three votes short of the 60 votes need to advance the defense spending bill to a final vote. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., left the bill in limbo as he, Stevens and other GOP leaders gauged their next move. The measure was widely expected to be withdrawn and reworked without the refuge language, although Stevens warned he was ready to stay until New Year's if necessary to fight for the drilling, a cause he has pursued for 25 of his 37 years in the Senate. Democrats as well as a number of Republicans were already angered by Stevens' tactic that delayed action on the $453.5 billion defense bill including $29 billion for hurricane relief, the war and border security, and $2 billion to help low-income households pay this winter's heating expenses. "Our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling," fumed Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader. But Stevens, 82, the Senate's most senior member known for his sometimes cantankerous nature and fiery temper, expressed frustration, but had no apologies. "Every time this subject comes up … the minority has filibustered," Stevens complained, reminding colleagues of his 25-year campaign to get Congress to allow development of an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil beneath the coastal tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the far northeastern corner of his state. After the vote, Democrats celebrated as did environmentalists, knowing they had tangled with one of the Senate's toughest members and won. "It took a lot of guts for a lot of people to stand up," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said after the vote. He said he expects the 43 senators who voted against drilling all but four Democrats as well as GOP Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island not to yield to further pressures and change their vote. But no one believes the issue which has galvanized environmentalists determined to protect the refuge from development is going away. "I expect to see it again next year," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a longtime drilling opponent. "Yes, it'll be back," agreed Lieberman. Environmentalists rejoiced, aware that never before had drilling proponents come so close to victory. The House already had approved the defense bill with Steven's drilling measure included and President Bush was eager to sign it. Congress approved ANWR drilling in 1995 as part of a budget package that was immune from Senate filibuster, but President Clinton, a drilling opponent, vetoed it. The Sierra Club called it "an against-all-odds" victory. "Drilling proponents pulled out all the stops, and tried every trick in their playbook," said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. "This is a tremendous victory for all Americans and proof that the fate of the Arctic refuge must be debated on its merits, not as part of a sneak attack." Stevens argued that Congress in 1980 agreed to allow ANWR's oil to be developed at some future date as part an a compromise he supported that expanded the federal refuge to 19 million acres. It was a commitment, he maintains, that has not been met. Those who advocate drilling contend the oil an estimated 1 million barrels a day during peak production is needed for national security to reduce the country's dependence on imports. Drilling opponents say ANWR's oil would do little to curtail imports. Steven's proposal would have required the Interior Department to issue its first oil leases in the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain of the refuge within 22 months and another package of leases in 2010. Oil was not expected to flow before 2015. Developing the Arctic refuge's oil has been one of Bush's top energy priorities and the administration stepped up lobbying for the ANWR provision this week. Interior Secretary Gale Norton has said repeatedly that the oil can be developed without harming wildlife given environmental safeguards in the bill and use of the most modern drilling techniques. But drilling opponents argued that ANWR's oil should not be exploited because of the coastal plain's fragile ecosystem and wildlife. While the region looks bleak during its long winters, and oil can be seen seeping from some of its rock formations, the coastal strip also is the calving ground for caribou and home to polar bears, musk oxen, and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds. "Destroying this wilderness will do very little to reduce energy costs nor does it do very much for oil independence," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
On the Net: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: http://arctic.fws.gov/
Stevens criticized as vote nears Fairbanks Daily News-Miner
Big oil's arctic raid Boston Globe
Forbes - Washington Post - Bloomberg - KARE - all 1,534 related »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 21, 2005
Senate Blocks Arctic Drilling and Approves Budget Cuts
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 - The Senate blocked an effort today to use a Pentagon spending bill to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, but it passed a $40 billion budget-cutting plan as lawmakers traded legislative moves in a tense end-of-session chess match.

Advocates of opening the refuge to exploration fell four votes short of cutting off debate on the $453.3 billion Pentagon measure as Senate Democrats, joined by two Republicans, thwarted the attempt by Senator Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican and long-time champion of Arctic drilling, to use an essential military bill to win approval of the plan.

Just an hour before the drilling vote, Vice President Dick Cheney, voting for the first time since mid-2003, broke a 50-50 tie on a measure to lower government spending by $39.7 billion over the next five years, a victory that Republicans said illustrated their renewed commitment to reining in federal spending.

But that measure hit a procedural snag as well, since Democrats were able to use parliamentary tactics to strip some minor policy provision from the budget bill, forcing it back to the House of Representatives for a final vote. Since members of the House left town following an all-night session that concluded Monday morning, it was unclear when that chamber would act. Senate Republicans said welfare programs would expire if nothing is done before Jan. 1.

The dizzying turn of events left the fate of major legislation uncertain as both Democrats and Republicans sought to score some political and policy victories in the final hours of what has been a contentious year. Senior senators were continuing to try to find a way to settle an impasse over renewing the Patriot Act.

Following the 56-to-44 vote against ending a filibuster on the military bill, Republican leaders began to explore ways to pass the Pentagon spending bill quickly without the Arctic drilling to salvage not only the money for Pentagon, but $3.8 billion for avian flu readiness and $29 billion for hurricane relief along the Gulf Coast.

"We need it so desperately and we need it now," said Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi, as he pleaded for the relief and recovery money on the Senate floor. "If we do not get this bill done, I cannot go home and face these people."

The rejection of the drilling provision was a defeat for Congressional Republicans and President Bush, who argue that the Arctic oil and natural gas could reduce American dependence on foreign oil. It was stinging personal loss for Mr. Stevens, the senior Senate Republican, who saw victory in his 25-year crusade slip away yet again.

Democrats accused Mr. Stevens of subverting Senate rules to place a controversial, unrelated item in the military bill after House Republicans had stripped if from the budget bill. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and a longtime friend of Mr. Stevens, clutched a bound copy of Senate rules on the floor and urged a vote against cutting off debate despite his relationship with Mr. Stevens.

"I love this man from Alaska, I do," said Mr. Byrd. "But I love the Senate more."

Earlier today, Senate Republicans hailed the narrow passage of the $39.7 billion budget-cutting plan as evidence of their determination to control federal spending.

"Victory No. 1," Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, declared.

The decisive vote by Mr. Cheney, who cut short an overseas trip to be on hand, was needed because five Republican senators joined all 44 Democrats and an independent in opposing the budget plan, which Democrats argued cut too deeply into social programs.

"This bill targets Americans with the greatest needs and the fewest resources," said Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is the Senate minority leader.

Today's votes were part of a flurry of activity in the last few days before the Senate leaves for the holidays.

The last few days at the Capitol have been chaotic, with an exhausting all-night session in the House that ended just before sunrise on Monday and then, after adjournment there, days of bitterness in the Senate over process as well as policy.

The two parties have done battle over the fate of the USA Patriot Act, the broad antiterrorism law. Charges and countercharges are flying over the Bush administration's secret domestic surveillance program. Democrats continue attacking the Republicans for making what the minority deems draconian cuts in social programs.

Longtime legislators say that preholiday theater is not unusual and that Congressional leaders often use the calendar to try to enact measures that would never pass otherwise.

"I have been here 27 years, including, I think, two of those years on Christmas Eve," said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia. "I actually observed fisticuffs between two of the most respected Republican senators ever to serve in this body on Christmas Eve."

As for Mr. Frist, he said he had no problem with working this close to the holiday.

"I used to be a surgeon," he said. "People got sick all the time on the 20th, the 21st."

One piece of legislation for which no votes are yet scheduled is the USA Patriot Act. Sixteen provisions of the law are set to expire at the end of the year, and an effort to extend them was blocked by a filibuster last week. Senate leaders traded accusations over who would be held responsible if the provisions lapsed.

"The Patriot Act expires on Dec. 31, but the terrorist threat does not," Mr. Frist told reporters on Tuesday, echoing President Bush. "Those on the Senate floor who are filibustering the Patriot Act are killing the Patriot Act."

Democrats, who were joined by four Republicans in blocking the measure, say it is the majority that is at fault, for refusing to agree to a temporary extension while disputes over civil liberties safeguards are worked out.

Republican leaders also say they might have been able to finish earlier had they not lost considerable time in September dealing with Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. But the approach of a holiday break is often an occasion for legislative action, as the time pressure builds and lawmakers relent on some fights.

Richard A. Baker, the Senate historian, recalled that in 1982, exasperated senators of both parties joined just two days before Christmas to shut off a filibuster by a handful of conservatives against an increase in the federal gasoline tax.

After the lopsided vote, Senator George J. Mitchell, Democrat of Maine, recalled for his colleagues Cromwell's exhortation to Parliament in 1653: "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing; in the name of God, go."



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 21, 2005
A Senator's Bold Ploy on Arctic Drilling
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 - It might be said that Ted Stevens invented Alaska.

It was Mr. Stevens, the irascible senior senator from Alaska, who pushed for the territory once derided as "Seward's Folly" to become the 49th state in the 1950's when he was a young lawyer in the Interior Department under President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

And it was Senator Stevens who, as the Republican chairman of the Appropriations Committee for six years, steered so many billions in taxpayer dollars to Alaska that people there have a name for it: Stevens money.

Now, at 82, Mr. Stevens, a wiry man who dons a tie featuring the cartoon character Incredible Hulk when he is facing a particularly tough fight, is making his boldest - Democrats say most egregious - ploy for Alaska yet. He has tucked a provision allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into a must-pass $453.3 billion military spending bill.

The maneuver has put Mr. Stevens between his weary colleagues and their long-awaited vacation and will come to a showdown vote on Wednesday. Mr. Stevens was betting that opponents of drilling would not put themselves in the awkward position of blocking a bill financing American troops in a time of war. But the opponents say that is precisely what they intend to do.

To get the bill through, the Republican leadership might have to perform some fancy parliamentary footwork, including a temporary alteration of Senate procedures to allow the drilling language to be considered. No one knows how it will turn out, not even Mr. Stevens.

"I'm never confident of anything - I keep telling you that!" Mr. Stevens, wearing the Hulk tie, declared Tuesday, barking at a mob of reporters after explaining that the sleeping pill he took the night before was just now making him groggy. "I don't go out on a limb and say, 'Yes, I've got votes.' I'll get the votes that I deserve."

Most of his Republican colleagues seem inclined to support Mr. Stevens, though not all are enthusiastic about his tactics. Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who opposes Arctic drilling, used words like "disgraceful" and "disgusting" to describe the proposal. Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon, said that it was "certainly awkward" but that he bore Mr. Stevens no ill will.

"He's spent 25 years fighting for this," Mr. Smith said. "He's earned our patience."

But Mr. Stevens has not earned the patience of environmentalists, who ran an advertisement last week in Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, likening him to King Kong ("Who can rescue us from his grip?") or of Senate Democrats, whose leadership aides put out a statement on Tuesday calling Mr. Stevens "the Grinch who stole the defense bill."

A native of Indianapolis and a graduate of Harvard Law School, Mr. Stevens moved to Alaska in the early 1950's, when it was still a territory. He was the United States attorney in Fairbanks, but transferred in 1956 to Washington, where he worked in the Eisenhower administration. He returned to Alaska in 1964, served as a state representative and became a United States senator in 1968.

Mr. Stevens is a fearsome, often cranky, presence in Washington. "He's like Yosemite Sam," said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University. "You can see the steam coming out of his ears."

And nothing makes Mr. Stevens more steamed than opponents of drilling in the Arctic. A central component of President Bush's energy policy, such drilling has been the most contentious environmental issue before Congress ever since Jimmy Carter was president.

At issue is whether oil companies should be permitted to explore in 1.5 million acres of coastal plain on the North Slope, beyond the Arctic Circle, part of the larger 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter, in a compromise, signed legislation that both expanded the Arctic refuge and allowed a small slice of it to be opened to oil exploration, subject to Congressional approval.

Mr. Stevens was vilified at home for supporting that measure on a promise from its Democratic sponsors, Senators Henry M. Jackson of Washington and Paul E. Tsongas of Massachusetts, that they would help open the doors for drilling. Both men are dead now, and Mr. Stevens laments, "They were never able to help me fulfill that commitment."

So he has been trudging along on his own, in fits and starts over the decades. In 1995, the Senate used a budget maneuver to approve the drilling, but President Bill Clinton vetoed the bill. This year, the Senate used that same budget maneuver to approve drilling again, but the language was stripped from the budget because of objections in the House.

An avid poker player, Mr. Stevens sees the military bill as his best, and perhaps his last, gamble. He likened the uncertainty over the outcome to a particularly tense game of Texas Hold 'Em.

"It's about the same," Mr. Stevens said, "as waiting on that last card."



Copyright 2005The New York Times Company

Source: Abramoff considers plea deal CNN
A Republican lobbyist at the center of a Capitol Hill bribery probe could cooperate with prosecutors if ongoing plea bargaining negotiations proceed smoothly in coming days, a person involved in the investigation said Tuesday. Jack Abramoff could end up pleading guilty under an arrangement that would settle a criminal case against him in Florida as well as potential charges in Washington, said a person close to the probe. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of discussions between prosecutors and Abramoff's lawyers. Asked how many members of Congress that Abramoff could implicate, the person said only that "cooperation is cooperation; it's full cooperation." An agreement could be reached quickly, as early as "the beginning of next week," though the person cautioned that unspecified issues remain to be worked out. The New York Times first reported on the talks Tuesday night in a story its Web site. Abramoff's attorney, Abbe Lowell, declined to comment, as did Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrakasse. Talks have been going on "a long time, months," but only in the past week or so have they come "close to any kind of fruition," the person said. A former aide to ex-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, has already pleaded guilty in the probe. Court papers in the plea by former DeLay aide Michael Scanlon say Scanlon and Abramoff "provided a stream of things of value to public officials in exchange for a series of official acts." The court papers referred repeatedly to one of the officials as Representative No. 1, acknowledged by his lawyer to be Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio. Both Ney and his lawyer deny wrongdoing. Recently, members of Congress who accepted campaign donations from Abramoff's clients have begun returning the money as the investigation ratchets up in intensity. Among those returning the most money is Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Montana, for an estimated $150,000. The items included travel, golf fees, frequent meals, entertainment, campaign donations, election support for candidates and employment for officials and their relatives. The official acts included agreements to support and pass legislation, agreements to place statements in the Congressional Record, agreements to contact officials at executive branch agencies to influence agency decisions, meeting with clients of Abramoff and Scanlon and awarding contracts. Abramoff has not been charged in the corruption investigation. Abramoff and Scanlon collected over $80 million from Indian tribes to lobby Congress on casino gambling and other issues. In the Florida case, Abramoff is scheduled to go on trial January 9. He and a former business partner were indicted last summer on charges of conspiracy and fraud. They allegedly concocted a fake $23 million wire transfer to make it appear they were putting a significant portion of their own money in the 2000 purchase of a fleet of gambling boats. The ex-business partner, Adam Kidan, pleaded guilty last week and agreed to testify against Abramoff, putting pressure on the Washington lobbyist to reach a settlement to reduce any potential prison term.
Lobbyist Is Said to Discuss Plea and Testimony New York Times
Republicans sweat as former lobbyist prepares to snitch Times Online
Washington Post - Boston Globe - Bloomberg - Seattle Post Intelligencer - all 178 related »

Senate Passes Patriot Act Extension
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer


The Senate passed a six-month extension of the USA Patriot Act late Wednesday night, hoping to avoid the expiration of law enforcement powers deemed vital in the war on terror.

Approval came on a voice vote, and cleared the way for a final vote in the House.

Several provisions in the current law expire Dec. 31, and President Bush has called repeatedly for new legislation.

The House was scheduled to reconvene Thursday, but senior Republicans there have opposed any temporary extension of the current law, insisting that most of the expiring provisions should be renewed permanently.

The Senate vote Wednesday night capped several days of backroom negotiation conducted against the backdrop of presidential attacks on critics of the legislation.

The extension gives critics — who successfully filibustered a House-Senate compromise that would have made most of the law permanent — more time to seek civil liberty safeguards in the law. Democrats and their allies had originally asked for a three-month extension, and the Senate's Republican majority had offered a one-year extension. The final deal split the difference.

"For a lot of reasons, it made the most sense, given that there are significant differences that remain," said GOP Sen. John Sununu (news, bio, voting record) of New Hampshire, one of a small group of Republicans who joined with Senate Democrats to filibuster a House-Senate compromise.

"I think this is a reasonable conclusion," said Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Republicans who had pushed for legislation that would make most of the expiring provisions permanent said the agreement only postpones the ongoing arguments over the Patriot Act for six months. "We'll be right back where we are right now," said a clearly frustrated Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah.

Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, added, "Our intelligence and law enforcement officials should not be left wondering, yet again, whether the Congress will manage to agree to reauthorize the tools that protect our nation."

The bill's critics gained momentum Wednesday when they released a letter crafted by Sununu and Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., showing they had 52 senators agreeing to support a three-month extension.

"This is the right thing to do for the country," Schumer said after the deal had been announced. "To let the Patriot Act lapse would have been a dereliction of duty."

President Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Republican congressional leaders have lobbied fiercely to get the House-Senate compromise passed, and issued dire warnings of what would happen if the Patriot Act expires.

Most of the Patriot Act — which expanded the government's surveillance and prosecutorial powers against suspected terrorists, their associates and financiers — was made permanent when Congress overwhelmingly passed it after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington.

Making permanent the rest of the Patriot Act powers, like the roving wiretaps which allow investigators to listen in on any telephone and tap any computer they think a target might use, has been a priority of the Bush administration and Republican lawmakers.




Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Congress Bans Harsh Treatment of Suspects
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press

Congress sent President Bush a ban on harsh treatment of foreign terrorism suspects in U.S. custody and directed him to send lawmakers quarterly reports on Iraq as it completed a voluminous bill Wednesday that rebuffed some of his war policies.

The Senate approved the measure on a voice vote and Bush was considered certain to sign it. That would be a reversal for a White House that initially threatened to veto any bill limiting how the United States detains, interrogates or prosecutes terror suspects.

Bush reluctantly endorsed the ban on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of foreign detainees last week in the face of mounting pressure from the Republican-controlled Congress and U.S. allies.

The chief sponsor, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., had the votes in both the House and Senate to override a veto despite early lobbying against the ban by Vice President Dick Cheney.

"It puts in law the policy of America on these issues," Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), R-Va., and the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said. "It also provides what I regard as a fair set of standards for our men and women in uniform."

But Sen. Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record), R-Ala., called the ban unnecessary because U.S. law already prohibits torture.

"Frankly, I'm not sure whether the administration agreed to this because they felt they had no choice or because they were happy with it," Sessions said.

The ban was part of a broader package of provisions that seek to standardize interrogation techniques and heal a U.S. image besmirched by the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal in Iraq and allegations of prisoner abuse at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The detainee issue was the most controversial provision in a measure that expressed a desire by Congress to increase its oversight of the war in Iraq and the campaign against terrorism.

In another such attempt, the measure includes language directing the president to submit quarterly reports to Congress on U.S. policy and military operations in Iraq.

Underscoring congressional impatience with the pace of progress in Iraq, the bill also states that 2006 should see significant moves toward full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead to help permit the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. And, it says, Congress believes U.S. forces should not be in Iraq longer than necessary.

The House had approved the bill on Monday.

The detainee provisions also were included in a separate $453 billion defense spending bill. On Wednesday, the Senate signed off on that measure, which includes $50 billion more for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but only after stripping out a provision that would have allowed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Because of the change, the House needs to sign off on the final version of the spending measure before it goes to the president for his signature. The House is expected to give final approval Thursday.

McCain's provisions prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of anyone in U.S. government custody anywhere in the world. They also require that service members follow procedures in the Army Field Manual during interrogations of prisoners.

Cheney had lobbied to exempt CIA interrogators from the ban's requirements. Instead, the final bill gives civilian interrogators accused of violating the standards the same rights military interrogators have — they can defend themselves by arguing that a reasonable person could have concluded they were following a lawful order.

In addition, the measure allows military panels determining whether to hold Guantanamo detainees indefinitely to consider information gained from coercive interrogation techniques.

It also narrows a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that gave Guantanamo detainees the right to fight the legality of their detentions in any federal court. Instead, the bill limits their ability to appeal their detention status and punishments to a federal appeals court in Washington.



Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

Senate Blocks Alaska Refuge Drilling
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer


The Senate blocked opening the nation's largest untapped oil reserve in an Alaska wildlife refuge Wednesday, denying President Bush his top energy priority and delivering a victory to environmentalists who said drilling would threaten wildlife.

It was a stinging defeat for Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), R-Alaska, one of the Senate's most powerful members, who had hoped to garner more votes by putting the measure onto a defense spending bill. That forced senators to choose between supporting the drilling measure, or risking the political fallout from voting against money for the troops and hurricane victims.

Instead, Stevens found himself a few votes shy of getting his wish.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (news, bio, voting record), D-Wash., who led the floor debate in opposition to the drilling provision, called it "legislative blackmail" and said Democrats agreed they "were not going to get jammed" by the tactic.

Republican leaders could not break a Democratic filibuster threat over the drilling issue, falling three votes short of the 60 votes need to advance the defense spending bill to a final vote. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a supporter of drilling, voted with those opposing it so he would have the right to ask the Senate to reconsider the issue in a second vote later.

Hours later, however, the Senate stripped the Alaska drilling language from the defense legislation, then passed the bill and sent it to the House, which was scheduled to reconvene Thursday afternoon. The House earlier had passed the defense spending bill with the Alaska drilling provision in it.

Democrats as well as a number of Republicans were already angered by Stevens' tactic that delayed action on the $453.5 billion defense bill including $29 billion for hurricane relief, the war and border security, and $2 billion to help low-income households pay this winter's heating expenses.

"Our military is being held hostage by this issue, Arctic drilling," fumed Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), the Democratic leader.

But Stevens, 82, the Senate's most senior Republican, known for his sometimes cantankerous nature and fiery temper, expressed frustration, but had no apologies.

"Every time this subject comes up ... the minority has filibustered," Stevens complained, reminding colleagues of his 25-year campaign to get Congress to allow development of an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil beneath the coastal tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the far northeastern corner of his state.

After the vote, Democrats celebrated as did environmentalists, knowing they had tangled with one of the Senate's toughest members and won.

"It took a lot of guts for a lot of people to stand up," Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said after the vote. He said he expects the 43 senators who voted against drilling — all but four Democrats as well as GOP Sens. Mike DeWine of Ohio and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — not to yield to further pressures and change their vote.

But no one believes the issue — which has galvanized environmentalists determined to protect the refuge from development — is going away.

"I expect to see it again next year," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a longtime drilling opponent.

"Yes, it'll be back," agreed Lieberman.

Environmentalists rejoiced, aware that never before had drilling proponents come so close to victory. The House already had approved the defense bill with Steven's drilling measure included and President Bush was eager to sign it. Congress approved ANWR drilling in 1995 as part of a budget package that was immune from Senate filibuster, but President Clinton, a drilling opponent, vetoed it.

The Sierra Club called it "an against-all-odds" victory.

"Drilling proponents pulled out all the stops, and tried every trick in their playbook," said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. "This is a tremendous victory for all Americans and proof that the fate of the Arctic refuge must be debated on its merits, not as part of a sneak attack."

Stevens argued that Congress in 1980 agreed to allow ANWR's oil to be developed at some future date as part an a compromise he supported that expanded the federal refuge to 19 million acres.

It was a commitment, he maintains, that has not been met.

Those who advocate drilling contend the oil — an estimated 1 million barrels a day during peak production — is needed for national security to reduce the country's dependence on imports. Drilling opponents say ANWR's oil would do little to curtail imports.

Steven's proposal would have required the Interior Department to issue its first oil leases in the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain of the refuge within 22 months and another package of leases in 2010. Oil was not expected to flow before 2015.

Developing the Arctic refuge's oil has been one of Bush's top energy priorities and the administration stepped up lobbying for the ANWR provision this week. Interior Secretary Gale Norton has said repeatedly that the oil can be developed without harming wildlife given environmental safeguards in the bill and use of the most modern drilling techniques.

But drilling opponents argued that ANWR's oil should not be exploited because of the coastal plain's fragile ecosystem and wildlife. While the region looks bleak during its long winters, and oil can be seen seeping from some of its rock formations, the coastal strip also is the calving ground for caribou and home to polar bears, musk oxen, and the annual influx of millions of migratory birds.

"Destroying this wilderness will do very little to reduce energy costs nor does it do very much for oil independence," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

____

On the Net:

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: http://arctic.fws.gov/



Copyright © 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback