Other Political News

[Soldier4Christ]

U.N. Nomination Comes Back To Senate

The nomination of John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations is coming before the Senate again.

Bolton is serving as U.N. ambassador in a recess appointment, which means his term runs out at the end of the year unless he's confirmed when lawmakers take up the nomination in September.

He remains a controversial figure.

It's quite clear that the Bolton style has incurred resentment at the U.N. and alienated friends that the U.S. may need when it tries to line up votes on Middle East issues. Their support is also needed on such other issues as tough sanctions against North Korea and Iran for their nuclear goals.

Despite the frustration and resentment he has evoked in the post, Bolton has the strong support of President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, both of whom think he is doing a terrific job.

He also has picked up the support of Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, whose opposition to the nomination last year was one reason the Senate never voted on whether Bolton should be confirmed. Bush then resorted to a recess appointment.

Also working in favor of his confirmation is the current instability in the Middle East, where Bolton is dealing with pressures to end hostilities between Israel and Lebanon.

"This is not the right time to depose the chief American diplomat at the U.N.," one of Voinovich's aides said.

Furthermore, the aide said that Voinovich has changed his view of Bolton, who he now sees as a "team player" and a "good soldier" following orders.

"He's not going off on his own, or he hasn't done it lately," the aide added.

In an article in The Washington Post last week, Voinovich said he believes Bolton has proved himself.

"In recent weeks I have watched him react to the challenges involving North Korea, Iran and now the Middle East, speaking on behalf of the United States," Voinovich explained.

Another advocate, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., noted that the "vitally important matters confronting the United Nations Security Council, such as Iran, Darfur, North Korea and Israel's efforts to combat terrorism demand steadfast action and leadership."

McConnell concluded that "Bolton is the right man for this job."

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., a constant critic of the U.N., said that in order to get the world body to reform, "You have to push, you have to be assertive."

"John Bolton is the right kind of change agent in a universe resistant to change," he said.

But two Democratic senators -- Joseph Biden of Delaware and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut -- are unimpressed with Bolton's performance in the post.

Dodd told CNN on Monday, "This is going to be a bruising fight. I regret this. I'm sorry the administration wants to go forward with this."

Biden said, "Instead of wasting time and playing politics, the administration should nominate someone else to take Mr. Bolton's place."

Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid of Nevada said he will consult with other party leaders on how strongly they will oppose the nomination. But he claimed Bolton "has done nothing to set himself out as somebody that should be approved by the Senate."

A neo-conservative, Bolton previously served in the State Department as assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs.

His abrasive manner made him many enemies. Bolton's scornful remark that 10 floors of the U.N. headquarters building could be lopped off without being missed was widely noted. He also was contemptuous of career State Department officials who challenged his views in the past.

Bolton is a blunt-speaking lawyer, not a diplomat. He is not a schmoozer, and he skips the traditional niceties of diplomacy. He feels he has a mission to shake up the world organization that the Bush administration once disdained but now needs.

Bolton may now know that the day is past when the administration can go it alone.

[Soldier4Christ]

US Congress Considers Amending Law on Wiretapping

The Bush administration has endorsed legislation to change U.S. law to accommodate a controversial anti-terrorism surveillance program that some critics have called illegal.  A Senate hearing focused on the issue.

The wiretapping program allows for warrant-less eavesdropping on international phone calls and e-mails between people in the United States and suspected terrorists overseas.

Critics have questioned its legality, noting that it bypasses a special federal court whose approval is required under a 1978 law known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for domestic wiretapping operations.

President Bush, who authorized the program after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, has argued he has the constitutional authority to do so to protect national security.

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter, has worked with the White House to craft compromise legislation that would allow a secret court to review the program to determine its legality.

"The constitutional requirements are that there has to be a balancing of the value to security contrasted with the intrusion into privacy, and that can only be determined by judicial review," he said.

But critics, including the top Democrat on the Senate committee, Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, say the legislation would basically rubber stamp the controversial program by not requiring individual warrants, the underpinning of U.S. civil liberties protections.

"It has been called a compromise," he said.  "But this Vermonter does not believe we should ever compromise on requiring the executive to submit to the rule of law no matter who is president.  I am sad to say I see the bill less as a compromise and more as a concession."

Under questioning by Senator Specter, Lieutenant General Keith Alexander, the director of the National Security Agency, which conducts the program, said the process of obtaining warrants would take crucial time away from anti-terror efforts.

Alexander:  "You would be so far behind the target if you were in hot pursuit with the numbers of applications that you would have to make and the times to make those, you could never catch up."

Specter:  "So your conclusion is that to have individual warrants it would not be practical or effective in what you are seeking to accomplish?"

Alexander:  "That is correct."

Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden, who set up the program when he led the NSA in 2001, endorsed the compromise legislation, saying it is necessary to update the 1978 law for the internet age.
 
"All of us exist on a unitary integrated global telecommunications grid in which geography is an increasingly irrelevant factor," he said.

It is not clear when the Senate will act on the legislation.

[Soldier4Christ]

Congress adds funds for fleeing Americans

© 2006 The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Congress voted Wednesday to spend up to $6 million to ensure that the 8,000 to 15,000 Americans fleeing Lebanon have transportation, medical care and lodging.

The Health and Human Services Department expects to reach the program's $1 million spending limit this week.

The bill went to President Bush after the House and Senate each passed it by voice vote.

The program allows the government to provide temporary assistance to citizens and their families when they arrive in the United States after fleeing a country due to destitution, illness, invasion, war or other crises.

Repatriation centers have opened at airports in Baltimore and Philadelphia to assist Americans returning from Lebanon. The centers are staffed by medical and mental health professionals, and have phone banks and computers to help people contact family and friends.

In the majority of cases, evacuees do not need much help. Some citizens flee foreign countries without money or credit cards to pay for immediate needs. In those cases, the government lends evacuees enough money for expenses, lodging, medical care, transportation and other necessities.

In a small number of cases, the government will pay expenses for destitute citizens to reach their final destination. The program also repays states for any assistance they provide.

The bill recoups the program's increased costs by allowing the Agriculture Department to use a national directory of new hires to verify wage and employment information on food stamp applications.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the government could save $11 million over a decade by double checking the food stamp applications.

[Soldier4Christ]

Congress considers halting cuts in Medicare doctors' fees


WASHINGTON, D.C. - Doctors who treat the elderly and disabled shouldn't have to face annual pay cuts from the U.S. government, said a lawmaker who helps oversee medical spending.

Congress should change its current system that now calls for yearly reductions of 4 percent to 5 percent in the Medicare federal health plan's doctors fees, said Joe Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Lawmakers last year blocked a 4.4 percent reduction and now face a similar struggle.

"To provide just a one-year freeze again this year will cost billions more," Barton, a Texas Republican, said Tuesday at a hearing of his committee. "I don't believe we can continue this Band-Aid approach to fixing the recurring physician payment problem."

Congress is trying to balance demands to slow growth in Medicare spending, expected to double to $677 billion by 2013, with the need to keep doctors working with the program. Barton said an overhaul needs to keep limits on how many services doctors provide to the 43 million people in Medicare.

When Congress has to step in, as it has done since 2002, it has to increase all Medicare spending or find cuts elsewhere in the program.

The annual cuts are the result of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which created what is known as the sustainable growth rate system, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, the advisory panel set up under that law.

The system factors in a target for Medicare payments to doctors, with a measure of inflation.

When spending increases exceed economic growth, payments to doctors are supposed to be cut. Under the system, payments to doctors would have to be cut by 5 percent a year through 2016 to meet program spending targets, according to federal estimates.

That is unlikely to happen. Lawmakers fear that any reduction in payments could add to the record increases in Medicare premiums and drive doctors from the program.

Rep. Michael Ferguson, R-N.J., said the mandated cuts system is "fatally flawed, and it's time we start writing its obituary today."

Rep. Michael Burgess, a Texas Republican and obstetrician, on Monday introduced a proposal that would raise fees about 2.8 percent next year. His proposal would rely more on the inflation measure, known as the Medicare economic index, according to a posting on his Web site.

The American Medical Association is urging Congress to act before an October recess to keep the cuts from happening.

Congress may not act before the November election, said Bruce Fried, a Washington-based lawyer with Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal and a former Medicare official. Congress will go on recess next month and then again in October, he said.

"There is so little time left in the session," Fried said.

If the Republicans were to lose control of one or both houses of Congress in the election, Congress might have to put off its temporary fix on doctors' pay until next year, Fried said. Republicans most likely would use the time remaining after the election, known as a lame-duck session, to address other issues and leave doctors' pay until 2007, he said.

"If lightning strikes and the Democrats regain one or both houses, then it might wait until next year," said Fried, who also was a health care adviser to Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign for president.

Members of both parties are willing to revise the payment system to avoid the planned cuts, Fried said. The difficulty is figuring from where to take the money required to prevent the cuts and in gathering the political will to push such a major change through Congress, he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Jury struggled with verdict wording, foreman says

Some jurors in Andrea Yates' capital murder retrial struggled with the wording of the verdict during deliberations, wanting to find her both guilty of drowning her children and insane, the panel foreman said.

The jury found her innocent by reason of insanity Wednesday, after nearly 13 hours spent deliberating over three days.

"There were certain of us that would rather it have said 'guilty, but insane,'" jury foreman Todd Frank said after the verdict was announced. "We had discussed that at length as being an affirmative defense, but it still didn't sit well with everyone."

Jurors had the options of finding her guilty of capital murder, innocent or innocent by reason of insanity. Yates drowned her five children, ranging in age from 6 months to 7 years old, but was being tried for three of the 2001 deaths.

Frank, a 33-year-old marketing manager at a Houston engineering firm, sometimes fought back tears and had to clear his breaking voice while taking questions from reporters. The other five men and six women who served on the monthlong trial sat beside Frank but did not speak.

Some jurors smiled in the courtroom before handing over the verdict that sent Yates, 42, to a maximum security state mental hospital. Frank said he and his fellow jurors knew little about Yates' first trial in 2002, other than that Yates was found guilty of capital murder and that the verdict was later overturned on appeal.

Prosecutors maintained that Yates failed to meet the state's definition of insanity: that a severe mental illness prevents someone who is committing a crime from knowing that it is wrong.

About a half-hour before reaching a verdict, jurors asked to see a family photo and pictures of the smiling youngsters. Frank said the jury wanted to "take a moment to remember the children."

The jury was unaware that Yates would be committed to a mental institution for treatment until state District Judge Belinda Hill told them after the verdict.

By law, jurors were not allowed to be told that Yates would have been sent to a mental hospital if she was found innocent by reason of insanity, but Frank said that knowledge beforehand might have made the decision easier for some.

Frank said he couldn't speak for all the jurors, but it was clear to him that Yates had psychosis before, during and after the drownings.

"She needs help," Frank said. "Although she's treated, I think she's worse than she was before. I think she'll probably need treatment for the rest of her life."

Frank said about half of the jurors had children _ including his own 6 1/2-month-old son _ and that personal experiences with mental illnesses in their families came up during deliberations. He also said that faith and spirituality of jurors sometimes made deliberations difficult but did not elaborate.

Prosecutors showed jurors crime-scene photographs and videotape of the four youngest children laid out on the bed and the oldest, Noah, still floating in the tub.

"The first time I gave my son a bath, the day after I saw those pictures, it was pretty hard," Frank said. "That weekend my wife wanted me to take him to the pool. I didn't take him out very deep."

[Soldier4Christ]

Cuba oil probe spurs calls for U.S. drilling

Congressional proponents of oil and gas drilling are pointing to Cuba's exploration off the coast of Florida -- with help from China -- as a prime reason to open up U.S. drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
    But Florida legislators continue to resist, and some of them are trying to stop Cuba's activities by pushing to rescind a 1977 treaty dividing the Straits of Florida halfway between the two countries.
    The Bush administration, with an eye toward the pivotal role Florida has played in presidential politics and out of solidarity with President Bush's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has largely sided with Florida in the dispute. It supports only very limited drilling off the coast of Florida, as would be permitted under a bill pending in the Senate.
    "American politics today -- it is the no-drill zone," said Sen. Larry E. Craig, Idaho Republican.
    "We sit here watching China exploit a valuable resource within eyesight of the U.S. coast," he said, noting that one 2005 U.S. Geological Survey estimated the North Cuba Basin may contain as much oil as the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve in Alaska.
    "I am certain the American public would be shocked, as this country is trying to reduce our dependency on Middle East oil, that countries like China are realizing this energy resource," Mr. Craig said.
    "This is a pocketbook issue, not a political issue. Whole regions of the Gulf are not available for drilling today," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, who has sought to find ways to expand exploration in the Gulf of Mexico.
     "What is happening? Fidel Castro in Cuba is partnering with China and is moving forward. ... He can drill, but we cannot. He can take the money and fund his adventures around South and Central America. ... Is that what people would like to see?"
    Congressional policies since the 1970s have fostered fuel consumption, he said, but at the same time prohibit further drilling domestically for the sake of the environment.
     The result has been growing dependence on oil imports, which now provide more than half the fuel Americans use, although legislators routinely denounce the nation's reliance on "foreign oil" when they renew the ban on domestic drilling.
    The Senate this week is expected to try one more time to break the impasse over drilling in the eastern Gulf with a bill that would open up a key tract to exploration but provide a 125-mile no-drilling buffer zone for Florida.
    News last winter that Cuba has hopes of finding commercially viable reserves of oil in the Straits of Florida helped to nudge Florida's senators toward endorsing the Senate bill after years of opposing any drilling at all, congressional aides said. But Florida legislators in Congress continue to oppose any broad new exploration activities in state waters.
    Mr. Craig said drilling advocates sought to alert Congress this spring to Cuba's activities. But rather than reconsider the U.S. drilling ban, he said, drilling opponents dug in their heels and tried to stop Cuba, too.
    "Do we want to emulate the actions of nations like Cuba and China? Do we want the Florida Straits dotted with oil rigs?" asked Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Florida Democrat. "I think not."
    Sen. Bill Nelson, Florida Democrat, introduced legislation to prevent the Bush administration from renewing a maritime treaty that enables Cuba to conduct commercial activities in its half of the Straits -- unless the administration gets an agreement that prevents Cuba from putting oil rigs close to Florida.
    The treaty carves an exception to the 200-mile boundary of control the U.S. claims in its coastal waters. It was never ratified by the Senate, so it must be renewed every two years by the State Department. It expired in January.
    If the U.S. abandons the treaty, Mr. Nelson reasons, the Straits of Florida would become disputed waters and multinational oil companies would be reluctant to invest the money needed to explore for oil there. His bill would further discourage drilling by authorizing the administration to punish executives of foreign oil companies that continue to drill off the northern coast of Cuba by denying them visas.
    "So far, there have been no significant finds of commercially viable oil. Yet some members of Congress now are citing Cuba's plans to drill close to Florida as justification for their proposal to allow U.S. oil companies to drill 20 miles off Florida's Gulf coast," he said.
    Still, Mr. Nelson concedes that drilling proponents are making headway as the public fumes over record high fuel prices. "With several drilling proposals pending before Congress, our state's unique environment and tourism-driven economy are in more jeopardy now than ever before," he said.
    Mr. Nelson on Monday renewed his vow to stop any drilling legislation that goes further than the Senate bill. A House bill would allow far more aggressive drilling in the outer continental shelf off Florida and elsewhere in the Gulf, if state legislatures vote to permit it. But it also would permit the Florida Legislature to ban drilling up to 100 miles offshore -- a provision widely supported by Florida's congressional delegation.

[Soldier4Christ]

House, Senate pass foreign-investment bills

The House and Senate overwhelmingly passed separate bills Wednesday that would tighten the review process when it comes to foreign-owned companies seeking to buy U.S. assets.
The House passed its bill on a 424-0 vote, while the Senate approved its version of the bill by voice vote.
House and Senate negotiators must now work to iron out differences between the two pieces of legislation, which were inspired by the political backlash that followed a Dubai-owned company's effort earlier this year to acquire management rights at several major U.S. seaports.
Both bills would require the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, to add a 45-day national-security review to the process before allowing a transaction to proceed.
The House bill also increases the roles played by the secretaries of commerce and homeland security, with both serving as vice chairs of the committee. The interagency panel is chaired by the secretary of the treasury. The Senate bill would add the secretary of defense as the vice chairman.
The Senate bill also requires the executive branch to notify lawmakers when foreign companies seek to purchase U.S. companies.
"This bill strengthens the CFIUS review process in a number of ways, including by explicitly establishing a system of congressional notification that had previously been lacking," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
The notification requirement that has drawn the ire of some business groups and House members, however, who fear that such information could foster political interference.
Efforts to change the review process began earlier this year after Dubai Ports World, a state-owned company, was set to take over a number of major U.S. ports that were managed by a British firm. Facing congressional concern about national security, the Dubai company backed out of the deal.
"The Dubai Ports World fiasco exposed serious flaws with the CFIUS process," said House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo. "The bill the House passed today is a common-sense fix to the problem that protects Americans first without hindering job growth and economic expansion."

[Soldier4Christ]

ickle Philly punishes Boy Scouts

It is a violent summer in Philadelphia. Drug-related gang violence plagues the streets of the City of Brotherly Love. But one of the most outrageous attacks comes from the office of Philadelphia Mayor John Street. It is aimed at the Boy Scouts.

Nearly eight decades ago – 1928 – the city of Philadelphia granted the local Cradle of Liberty Boy Scouts Council property at the corner of 22nd and Winter Streets "in perpetuity." Now, because the Boy Scouts believe as much in moral principle as they did in 1928, perpetuity is ended. Mayor Street's solicitor Romulo Diaz threatens eviction from what has become the council's headquarters building.

Street's and Diaz's list of options for the Scouts are few. First, end the policy of excluding homosexuals from positions of leadership, a policy which the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 2000 the Scouts are within their rights to hold and which they will continue to hold by every indication. Second, pay a market rent in the upscale Philadelphia Art Museum district, which would require significant new council funds on top of the city government's broken promise. Finally, leave the headquarters building.

This final option seems to be the likely outcome.

That's not just bad policy. It is horrific.

Just what have the Boy Scouts done in Philadelphia that would justify eviction from their headquarters building? Well, they serve 40,000 youth in the city, many of whom would be left to gang violence and drugs without Scouting. They contribute hundreds of thousands of volunteer project hours to the city each year. They teach boys to become responsible citizens in the community.

Now, as far as Mayor Street is concerned, anything else the Boy Scouts do is irrelevant to his dealings with the organization. The city of Philadelphia should maintain a relationship with the Boy Scouts if for no other reason than that the Scouts are a big organization that can enhance the quality of life within the city in ways the city government itself could never do.

It isn't as though Street has never heard of public-private partnerships (partnerships between the city government and private nonprofit organizations ranging from Kiwanis and Rotary to the Presbyterian Church and the Methodist Church). The mayor sat in the honor seat beside first lady Laura Bush at the 2001 State of the Union Address, he the personification of city faith-based initiatives. Philadelphia was the launchpoint for the Amachi Mentoring program, which enlists members of churches and synagogues around the nation as in-school volunteers. Further, around 40 percent of welfare-to-work programs in Philadelphia are based out of churches or other faith-based institutions.

Despite these successes and the proven work of the Boy Scouts in Philadelphia, Mayor Street is resolute. It is as if to say, give in or give up.

The Boy Scouts surely will not give in, though the temptations have been sore in the past few years. In 2003, the Philadelphia Cradle of Liberty Council temporarily said that it was accepting homosexuals until the national Boy Scouts, which happened to be holding its convention in Philadelphia at that time, said otherwise and threatened to revoke the Cradle of Liberty charter.

Since then, the Cradle of Liberty Council, the third largest Boy Scouts council in the nation, has suffered financially. The United Way pulled funding. Pew Charitable Trusts turned away dollars.

And now this wretched invitation to pack their backpacks and duffle bags from the city of Philadelphia.

They will not – they cannot – pack their honor. The Scout Oath says, "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country, and to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

That is a statement of self-government, I think the best there is. And it is one of the most hated set of words in America today. Those words do stand for something.

Recognizing this, the Philadelphia Daily News compared the Boy Scouts to the Taliban a few years ago. "What's the difference between the Taliban and the Boy Scouts?" the newspaper asked, suggesting that there was very little difference.

But the difference is stark.

We might bring it back to Philadelphia to make it simple. What's the difference between a cracked-up gun-wielding teenage thug on the streets of Philadelphia, and a Boy Scout learning to live and lead in his inner city troop? That's easy.

"Trustworthy. Loyal. Helpful. Friendly. Courteous. Kind. Obedient. Cheerful. Thrifty. Brave. Clean. Reverent."

Of such is the defeat of the Taliban, and the Philly murderer class, and the other great evils of our time. E-mail Mayor Street at mayor@phila.gov. Tell him to uphold his city's promise to the Boy Scouts "in perpetuity."

[Soldier4Christ]

Democrats Oppose Bill Denying Attorneys' Fees In Church-State Suits


Democratic lawmakers in the House are expressing strong opposition to legislation that would deny attorneys' fees to individuals and groups who win cases challenging government actions as a violation of the Constitution's prohibition on the establishment of religion.

"In more than a century, nothing like this has ever been done," Rep. Jerrold Nadler of Manhattan and Queens warned as the House Judiciary Committee debated and considered amendments to the proposed Public Expression of Religion Act. "We would be telling government officials everywhere that Congress thinks it's okay to violate people's religious liberty with impunity, " he said.

The bill's chief sponsor, Rep. John Hostettler, a Republican of Indiana, said it is needed because the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have used the threat of large legal fee awards to intimidate local governments into dropping religious references in seals, monuments, and elsewhere. "They capitulate to these organizations and their often questionable pronouncement of what is or isn't constitutional," the congressman said. "I believe it's time to bring this extortion to an end."

Mr. Nadler accused Republicans backing the legislation of adopting the anti-judiciary campaign tactics of a segregationist Alabama governor and presidential candidate, George Wallace. "The governor would feel right at home with the sponsors of this bill today," Mr. Nadler said.

Mr. Hostettler insisted that his measure was not aimed at keeping anyone out of court, but encouraging local officials to contest such litigation. "The purpose is not to eliminate establishment clause cases from being adjudicated. In fact, it is just the opposite," he said.

The Indiana congressman said more such cases would allow new Supreme Court justices to clarify puzzling rulings, such as a pair last year upholding a Ten Commandments display in Texas while striking down another in Kentucky. "The jurisprudence in Establishment Clause cases is about as clear as mud," he said.

The Judiciary Committee rejected a series of amendments offered by Democrats, including a proposal by Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas to treat attorneys' fees in church-state lawsuits the same way as fees in actions challenging eminent domain seizures. Many Republicans favor awarding fees to successful litigants in such takings suits.

"Freedom of religion is at least as important as private property," Ms. Jackson-Lee argued.

"To say the First Amendment is less valuable than the Fifth Amendment, surely, we would not want to say that," Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat of California, said. The committee defeated Ms. Jackson-Lee's proposal, 11 to 19.

A veterans' group, the American Legion, has pushed for the legislation out of concern that war memorials and cemeteries could be cleansed of religious symbols. Mr. Nadler called the gravestone issue a "red herring" and submitted a letter in which the ACLU said it would "vigorously defend" the rights of veterans to use any religious symbol they choose on grave markers. The letter did not address the use of Christian crosses in publicly owned group memorials or tombs for unknown soldiers.

The House Republican leadership has made the bill part of an "American Values" agenda aimed at helping the party prevail in this fall's election.

"It's Orwellian that this would fall under the umbrella of ‘American Values,'" Rep. Christopher Van Hollen, a Democrat of Maryland, said. "I can't think of anything that turns history on its head more than what we're working on."

After more than an hour of debate yesterday, the committee adjourned before taking an up-or-down vote on the bill.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bush signs Voting Rights act extension

President Bush on Thursday signed legislation extending for 25 years the Voting Rights Act, the historic 1965 law which opened polls to millions of black Americans by outlawing racist voting practices in the South. "Congress has reaffirmed its belief that all men are created equal," he declared.

Bush signed the bill amid fanfare and before an South Lawn audience that included members of Congress, civil rights leaders and family members of civil rights leaders of the recent past. It was one of a series of high-profile ceremonies the president is holding to sign popular bills into law.

The Republican controlled Congress, eager to improve its standing with minorities ahead of the November elections, pushed the bill through even though key provisions were not set to expire until next year.

"The right of ordinary men and women to determine their own political future lies at the heart of the American experiment," Bush said. He said the Voting Rights Act proposed and signed by then-President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 "broke the segregationist lock on the voting box."

With the Republican Party's majority status in Congress in jeopardy and Bush's approval ratings low, the White House has turned to the South Lawn to provide a high-profile backdrop for signing popular bills into law.

Later in the day, Bush is to sign another bill sure to resonate with voters in this congressional election year: legislation establishing a national Internet database designed to let law enforcement and communities know where convicted sex offenders live and work.

By contrast, Bush chose to exercise the first veto of his 5 1/2 years as president in privacy last week, no audience, no cameras, no reporters. The bill he vetoed would have expanded federally funded research of embryonic stem cells, which is opposed by social conservatives but has wide support among the rest of the public.

White House officials said an open ceremony to veto a bill seemed inappropriate, although other presidents have done just that. Forty minutes after the Oval Office veto, Bush gave a major address on the issue in the East Room, open to the press and surrounded by families who have "adopted" leftover frozen embryos and used them to bear children.

In May, Bush took to the South Lawn to sign into law a bill that extended $70 billion in previously passed tax cuts. That package was also seen by Republicans as an opportunity to boost the popularity of the president and the Republican-controlled Congress

The South Lawn is hardly a common venue for presidential bill-signings, which usually occur in an office building next to the White House or, for particularly important legislation, in the East Room. The majestic backyard of the White House is typically reserved for pomp-filled welcoming ceremonies for foreign leaders or large social affairs like the annual Easter egg roll.

On Wednesday, workers scurried to get the expanse of lawn ready for the Voting Rights Act signing, setting up water stations and a large stage for Bush and the bill's primary supporters.

The list of some of the 600 expected guests reads like a who's-who of prominent black leaders and civil rights veterans: the Revs. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson; friends and relatives of Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks; Dorothy Height, the longtime chairwoman of the National Council of Negro Women; and National Urban League head Marc Morial. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, despite its rocky history with Bush, was sending several representatives, including current president Bruce Gordon, chairman Julian Bond and former head Benjamin Hooks.

The White House also anticipated heavy participation from Capitol Hill, where a long line of lawmakers were looking for a chance to share the spotlight.

[Soldier4Christ]

Boehner: Lawmakers "virtually" have pension deal

U.S. lawmakers "virtually" have an agreement on a bill to stabilize the private pension system, but are still arguing over whether to include a package of tax breaks with the bill, U.S. House Majority Leader John Boehner said on Thursday

Asked if negotiators had a pension bill deal, Boehner told reporters: "Virtually. The tax issue is still the issue. It has not been resolved." He said the pension bill could not be taken to the House floor until the tax matter is cleared up.

The Ohio Republican spoke after a meeting with other House and Senate negotiators on the pension bill and the Republican leadership of both chambers.

[Soldier4Christ]

New fingerprint requirements at airports

U.S. residents with green cards, parolees and some Canadians will have their fingerprints checked every time they re-enter the U.S. by air or sea.

The new security checks announced Thursday by the Department of Homeland Security are part of the so-called US-VISIT program, which requires border-crossing documents to include a digital photograph and two fingerprints. The program, which currently has 61 million people enrolled from countries except Canada and Mexico, is being slowly phased in.

"We have a lot more steps along the way," said Bob Mocny, acting director of the US-VISIT program.

Mocny estimates that the new requirement, which will take effect Aug. 28, will add 1 million to 1.5 million enrollees.

The purpose of the program is to make sure that their travel documents aren't forged and to screen out criminals.

Under US-VISIT, the U.S. government has caught 1,100 criminals at ports of entry, Mocny said.

There are between 8 million and 12 million legal permanent residents — or green-card holders — in the United States. But only a fraction of them travel outside of the country, Mocny said.

Canadians who cross the border to shop, visit or take a holiday won't need to enroll in the program, according to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register.

Canadians required to enroll — including nurses, agricultural workers, students and religious workers — will only have their fingerprints checked at land ports if a Customs and Border Protection official questions the validity of their documents, Mocny said.

Everyone who re-enters the U.S. through an airport or seaport will be checked, he said.

The program won't apply to Mexicans coming into the U.S. with a border crossing card.

[Soldier4Christ]

N-deal gets a House boost

The first step toward the signing of the US-India nuclear cooperation agreement was taken by the US House of Representatives on Wednesday with an overwhelming 359-68 vote to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and thus allow the US to sell nuclear technology to India.

The Senate will take up its version of the bill either on Thursday or Friday.

The House bill, which will now be named after Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House International Relations Committee chairman and its chief author, was debated in the house for over six hours, with six amendments being proposed.

Two of the amendments — proposed by Representatives Howard Berman and Brad Sherman — were soundly defeated as they were considered killer amendments by both Hyde and the bill’s co-author and Democratic Ranking Member of the International Relations Committee Tom Lantos.

Both amendments concerned asking the President to certify that India does not increase its levels of uranium it uses towards its weapons programme or that India halt the production of fissile material.

The voting pattern in the House of Representatives could be replicated in the Senate as its influential Foreign Relations Committee had voted in 16-2 in favour of the bill.

Lantos said, “This is no ordinary vote. It is a tidal shift in US-India relations. This will be known as the day when Congress signaled definitively the end of the Cold War paradigm governing interactions between New Delhi and Washington.”

After the Senate votes on the bill, the US Congress and the Bush administration will wait for the finalising of India’s negotiations with the IAEA on implementing additional protocols and safeguards on India’s civilian nuclear reactors.

There will be a delay in the legislation process as the Congress breaks for a five-week recess beginning July 29. Both houses of Congress will have to agree on a common language, only after which the bill will become law. The process is expected to get over in September.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bolton ignites more partisan debate


WASHINGTON — The Bush administration and GOP leaders renewed their push Thursday to win Senate approval of John Bolton as U.N. ambassador. Democrats maintained he is too brash and ineffective to be confirmed.

The sharp division all but guaranteed lawmakers were headed toward another partisan showdown on the Senate floor, although Democrats would not say whether their opposition would amount to a filibuster as it did last year.

A Senate vote on Bolton could come as early as September, just as election season heats up with Bush's foreign policy a major issue for voters. The United Nations has been at the forefront of international discussions on North Korea's missile tests, Iran's nuclear program and the crisis in the Middle East.

"I do believe, without any reservation whatsoever, that the Senate will and should give that advice and consent to this nominee because he becomes an integral member of the president's national security team at a time when our nation is faced with these many complex issues," said Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va.

After repeated failed attempts by GOP leaders to grant Bolton Senate approval, Bush on Aug. 1 of last year used his executive power to sidestep Congress and temporarily assign Bolton to the job. Republicans decided to revive the matter this week after Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, who last year sided with Democrats in opposing the president's nomination, announced he would support Bolton this time.

Several Democrats said during the nomination hearing Thursday that their views remained unchanged, citing reports that Bolton has alienated other ambassadors and failed to make progress on U.N. reform efforts.

"My concern is that at the moment of the greatest need for diplomacy in our recent history, we are not particularly effective at it," said Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the Foreign Relations Committee's top Democrat.

But Biden and others did not say whether they would try to block an up-or-down floor vote as they did last year. Since Voinovich is now siding with his party on Bolton, Republicans would need only five votes to shut off debate.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has "not made a decision either way" on calling for a filibuster, his spokesman said.

Political experts said choosing not to filibuster Bolton could be a political tactic in an election year, when Democrats plan to argue the Bush administration has failed at bringing peace to the Middle East and bringing U.S. troops home.

"To turn the issue to a Democratic filibuster, rather than Bush's foreign policy is a mistake," said Julian Zelizer, a history professor at Boston University.

If Bolton is at the U.N., "he's someone they can point to" as obstructing real progress, he said.

Bolton _ once described by colleagues as a bully who led witch hunts to punish colleagues who disagreed with him _ struck a conciliatory tone before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asking to be given full consent to continue his work.

Bolton said he had established "good working relationships" with other members of the U.N. and was making progress, telling the senators, "I have done my best to work with others to advance our national interests."

The hearing was interrupted several times, twice by protesters opposing his confirmation. Later, while being peppered with questions on the nation's North Korea policy by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a water pipe above the hearing room burst and began dumping water between Bolton and Nelson.

Shrugging off the criticism of Bolton, Republicans predicted he would be confirmed soon for the position on a permanent basis. The White House on Thursday praised the work Bolton has done so far.

"We think Ambassador Bolton has done a terrific job," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "He's won over a lot of critics while building alliances on a range of issues, including Iran and North Korea, and working tirelessly to achieve meaningful results on reforms at the United Nations."

Speaking from prepared testimony, Bolton called for a "durable solution" to the violence in the Middle East and the need to "defang" Hezbollah.

"We are actively considering a variety of methods" to disarm Hezbollah, including establishing an international security force in the region, he said.

Bolton also said the U.S. remains committed to bringing peace to Darfur and that "modest progress" has been made in U.N. reform. "The goal now is to identify priority targets where progress can be made" and create a "lasting revolution of reform," he said.

Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Bolton exhibited "experience and accomplishment" and noted the Senate has already conducted an "exhaustive review" of Bolton's credentials.

By resubmitting Bolton's nomination to the Senate, the president has made clear "that Ambassador Bolton is important to the implementation of U.S. policies at the United Nations and to broader U.S. goals on the global stage," said Lugar, R-Ind.

[Soldier4Christ]

House Democrats oppose Bush's spy law changes

Republican-backed legislation designed to broaden a 1978 eavesdropping law came under renewed attack on Thursday by Democrats who have been briefed about the details of the Bush administration's warrantless telephone and Internet monitoring program.

Meanwhile, the handful of Republicans present at a U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee hearing here, including Chairman Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, touted a new proposal called the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act. Supporters say its provisions would speed initiation of terrorist investigations and account for use of communications technologies unforeseen by the 28-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

"It should be clear that the intelligence community requires additional tools," Hoekstra said at the second open meeting he has convened in the past week. He went on to argue that the Bush Administration launched its terrorist surveillance program in the way it did "because of the deficiencies in FISA and the process used to implement it--not in spite of FISA."

FISA requires investigators to obtain a warrant from a secret court before conducting wiretapping on international communications when at least one end is located in the United States. The controversial National Security Agency terrorist surveillance program, confirmed by President Bush after a December New York Times report, did not receive the FISA court's approval prior to its start, even though officials, such as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, have acknowledged that ordinary Americans may inadvertently be under surveillance.

The purpose of Thursday's hearing was to hear testimony from the sponsors of three FISA-related bills pending on the House side. It occurred one day after the heads of the Central Intelligence Agency and NSA urged a U.S. Senate committee to update FISA for the 21st century. The officials said it's impractical to use such warrants when tracking technologically-savvy, ever-shifting terrorist targets and endorsed a controversial "compromise" bill negotiated by Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, and the White House.

"As one who has been briefed on this program, I strongly disagree with (NSA Director) Gen. Alexander," Rep. Jane Harman, a California Democrat who serves as co-chairwoman of the intelligence committee, said Thursday. "The numbers (of targets requiring a warrant) are manageable, and the principle is non-negotiable."

Harman suggested the best way to manage "large volumes" of warrant requests is to beef up staffing and resources at the U.S. Justice Department, which she said would occur if her Democrat-backed bill passes.

The primary sponsor of the competing Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act, New Mexico Republican Heather Wilson, brought props to describe the necessity of her bill, which would permit warrantless surveillance for 45 days after a "terrorist attack" and for two months after an "armed attack" on the United States.

Wilson repeatedly raised a small scrap of paper that she pretended was inscribed with a phone number and retrieved by U.S. forces from a suspected terrorist overseas. If all the investigators have is that single phone number, she mused, they may not be able to come up with the "probable cause" argument needed to justify a warrant from the FISA court. "To get from that piece of litter to a complete FISA application package, that's what takes the time," and that's why more flexibility is needed, she said.

All ten Democrats appearing at the hearing assailed that bill's approach, saying it amounts to granting a "wish list" to the NSA and the Bush Administration. They questioned why additional action is needed now, arguing that the Bush Administration has never, until now, complained that the dozen amendments made to FISA after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks weren't enough.

"We know why we're here really--it is to address the embarrassing fact that the Congress has allowed the president to conduct warrantless surveillance of American citizens in violation of FISA," said Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jerseys Democrat. "There's nothing...that leads me to believe we can't protect the security of Americans and do everything that needs to be done within the confines of FISA."

In an unusual show of bipartisan agreement, both Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, and Rep. Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican, cast doubt on the Wilson bill, promoting instead a bill they introduced in March. Called the NSA Oversight Act, it says FISA is the "exclusive means" by which domestic surveillance can be approved and would require more extensive briefing to Congress on the extent to which Americans are caught up during the eavesdropping on terrorists. The bill has sponsorship by seven Democrats and seven Republicans.