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 -