History > 2006 > USA > Senate (I)

NYT        May 30, 2006

  Democrats' Senate Hopes May Ride on Tennessee Race

NYT        31.5.2006

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/us/31tennessee.html

Democrats' Senate Hopes

May Ride on Tennessee Race

May 31, 2006
The New York Times
By ROBIN TONER

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. — Representative Harold E. Ford Jr. freely acknowledges that he faces many challenges in his campaign for the Senate, which may ultimately determine the Democratic Party's chances of regaining a Senate majority.

Mr. Ford, 36, is a Democrat in a conservative state that has not elected a Democrat to the Senate since 1990. He is the scion of a polarizing political family with an uncle under indictment on federal corruption charges, or, as Mr. Ford dryly puts it on the campaign trail, "You may have read a few things about my family." He is an African-American in a region that has not sent an African-American to the Senate since Reconstruction.

Moreover, the South has become a Republican stronghold in recent years, the castle keep for the party's Senate majority. Democrats lost five seats in the region in 2004. Of the 22 Senate seats in the South, only 4 are now held by Democrats. Party leaders are keenly aware that until they make inroads in the South, any stable majority in the Senate will be hard to achieve. But they have hopes that Mr. Ford can begin to turn the tide.

And Mr. Ford, a five-term congressman from Memphis, rouses his audiences, white and black, with little parables of political possibility: How he was driving back to Memphis one day on the campaign trail, fired up after a meeting at a church, and decided to stop and shake hands at a bar and grill called the Little Rebel. How he looked with some trepidation at the Confederate flag outside and the parking lot filled with pickup trucks, covered with bumper stickers for President Bush and the National Rifle Association.

And how he was greeted, when he walked through the door, by a woman at the bar who gave him a huge hug. "And she said, 'Baby, we've been waiting to see you.' "

The story goes on (and on) in the way of Southern political speech, but it conveys Mr. Ford's core message: that Tennesseans of all political stripes are ready for change, tired of partisan and ideological divisions and ready for some pragmatism and action — on high energy costs, big deficits, inadequate veterans benefits, health care and education.

Mr. Ford says that if there was ever an opening for his candidacy, it is in this restless political year — and his national party leaders say they agree.

"Anyone who thinks the South in 2006 is the same as the South in 2004 is mistaken," said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Both parties have a huge interest in what happens here. Democrats must pick up six Republican seats to regain control of the Senate, a formidable task. The most competitive possibilities, party strategists say, are probably Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, Montana and Missouri.

If everything breaks perfectly for the Democrats on election night, the sixth seat would be from either Tennessee, an open seat being vacated by Senator Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader, or Arizona, where Senator Jon Kyl, a two-term Republican, is running for re-election.

"Tennessee could very well make or break whether we take back the Senate," Mr. Schumer said.

Tennessee Republicans say they are confident their state will hold the line against what they call just another liberal. "He's a media darling, he's charismatic, all of the above, but at the end of the day, the guy doesn't vote right," said Bob Davis Jr., chairman of the State Republican Party.

Brad Todd, a consultant to former Representative Van Hilleary, a Republican contender for the Senate, said: "This is a federal race, and Tennessee elects bona fide conservatives to federal office. Even when Al Gore first ran for the Senate, he ran as a pro-life, pro-gun conservative. And Harold Ford is not that."

Before Republicans can mount a full-scale campaign against Mr. Ford, they have a fiercely competitive primary to settle. Three major candidates are vying for the nomination in the Aug. 3 primary: Mr. Hilleary, former Representative Ed Bryant and Bob Corker, a former mayor of Chattanooga. Mr. Bryant and Mr. Corker have run for the Senate before and were defeated in Republican primaries. Much of the debate so far has revolved around who is the true conservative in the race.

One reason for Democratic optimism here is the possibility of a wounded Republican nominee emerging from a bitter (and relatively late) primary. Mr. Ford's major opponent in the Democrat primary withdrew recently, giving him the luxury of running a general election campaign — raising money and running advertising, most recently on the price of gasoline.

It was viewed as a measure of Republican concern when the National Republican Senatorial Committee began a series of personal attacks with a Web site called "Fancy Ford," mocking Mr. Ford for vacationing in the Hamptons, socializing and raising money with stars like Sarah Jessica Parker, and wearing Armani suits. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee responded with a Web site called "Fancy Frist," cataloging the patrician tastes of the current Republican senator.

"My grandmother used to say, 'bless their hearts,' " Mr. Ford said of the attacks while campaigning across eastern Tennessee. "When people don't have anything meaningful to say, they go on the attack."

Mr. Ford is not immune to the accusation of leading a privileged life. The son of Representative Harold Ford Sr., he graduated from the elite St. Albans School in Washington, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Michigan Law School; he was elected to his father's Congressional seat at 26.

In the tradition of other Southern Democrats who prospered in conservative times, Mr. Ford presents himself as a pro-growth, centrist, fiscal hawk.

He voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq (he has also called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld), for a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage and for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. NARAL Pro-Choice America considers him "mixed choice" on abortion; the National Rifle Association gave him a grade of C in the 2004 election. He also backs a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget.

Mr. Ford is known as something of an ambitious maverick in his party; he challenged Representative Nancy Pelosi of California for the minority leader's job in 2002. According to Congressional Quarterly ratings, he voted with his party 83 percent of the time in 2005, below the average Democratic party unity score of 88 percent. Republicans say he is still the most liberal member of the Tennessee delegation.

Mr. Ford agrees that "the most toxic word in the political vocabulary in this state is liberal" and fights the ideological characterization. He is an accomplished, seemingly effortless campaigner, slipping comfortably between the old cadences of Southern populism, "new Democrat" optimism and the rich oratory of the black church.

About 16 percent of Tennessee's population is black; in addition to "campaigning everywhere," as Mr. Ford puts it, his campaign needs a major turnout in black communities. "I can't do this without you," he told a group of black ministers in Knoxville. After a day of frenetic campaigning, with more to come into the night, he ended simply: "I just want to be a good senator. If we make some history, fair enough."

Democrats' Senate Hopes May Ride on Tennessee Race, NYT, 31.5.2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/us/31tennessee.html

Senate Democratic Leader

Accepted Free Boxing Tickets

but Denies an Ethics Violation

May 30, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, May 29 — Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, accepted free ringside tickets from the Nevada State Athletic Commission to three professional boxing matches while the agency was trying to influence him on the federal regulation of boxing.

Mr. Reid took the free seats for Las Vegas fights from 2003 to 2005 as he was pressing legislation to increase government oversight of the sport, including the creation of a federal boxing commission that Nevada's agency feared might usurp its authority.

Mr. Reid defended the gifts, saying that they would never influence his position on the bill and that he was simply trying to learn how the legislation might affect an important industry in his home state. "Anyone from Nevada would say, 'I'm glad he is there taking care of the state's No. 1 businesses,' " he said.

Senate ethics rules generally allow lawmakers to accept gifts from federal, state or local governments, but specifically warn against taking such gifts — particularly on multiple occasions — when they may be connected to efforts to influence them.

"Senators and Senate staff should be wary of accepting any gift where it appears that the gift is motivated by a desire to reward, influence or elicit favorable official action," the Senate ethics manual states.

"Repeatedly taking gifts which the gifts rule otherwise permits to be accepted may, nonetheless, reflect discredit upon the institution, and should be avoided," it says.

Several ethics experts said Mr. Reid should have paid for the tickets, which were close to the ring and worth several hundred to several thousand dollars each, to avoid the appearance that he was being influenced.

Two senators who joined Mr. Reid for fights with complimentary tickets took different steps.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, insisted on paying $1,400 for the tickets he shared with Mr. Reid for a 2004 championship fight. Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, accepted free tickets to another fight with Mr. Reid but had recused himself from any action on Mr. Reid's boxing legislation because his father was an executive for a Las Vegas hotel that held fights.

In an interview on Thursday in his Capitol office, Mr. Reid defended his decisions to accept the tickets, as well as actions he took that had benefited clients and partners of the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff after they gave him donations.

"I'm not goody-two-shoes," Mr. Reid said. "I just feel these events are nothing I did wrong."

Mr. Reid had two meetings in his Senate offices in June 2003 with two Indian tribes that were clients of Mr. Abramoff and with Edward P. Ayoob, a former aide who had gone to work with Mr. Abramoff. The meetings occurred over a five-day span in which Mr. Ayoob also held a fund-raiser for Mr. Reid that generated many donations from Mr. Abramoff's partners, firm and clients.

Mr. Reid said he viewed the two official meetings and the fund-raiser as a single event. "I think it all was one, the way I look at it," he said.

One of the tribes, the Saginaw Chippewa of Michigan, donated $9,000 to Mr. Reid at the fund-raiser and the next morning met briefly with him and Mr. Ayoob to discuss federal programs.

Days earlier, Mr. Reid met with Mr. Ayoob and the Sac and Fox tribe of Iowa for about 15 minutes to discuss at least two legislative requests. Mr. Reid's office said the senator never acted on them.

Senate ethics rules require senators to avoid even the appearance that any official meeting or action is in any way connected with political donations.

Mr. Reid defended his actions, saying he would never change his position because of donations, free tickets or a request from a former aide. "People who deal with me and have over the years know that I am an advocate for what I believe in," he said. "I always try to do it fair, never take advantage of people on purpose."

Mr. Reid said his only concern was that the news media were willing "to take these instances and try to make a big deal out of them."

Several ethics experts said Mr. Reid should have paid for the boxing tickets to avoid violating Senate rules.

Bernadette Sargeant, a former House ethics lawyer, said the Senate would have to examine the facts to determine if Mr. Reid had violated the gift ban. She said the clearer ethics issue involved his obligation to avoid the appearance that the free tickets and his duties were connected.

    Senate Democratic Leader Accepted Free Boxing Tickets but Denies an Ethics Violation, NYT, 30.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/30/washington/30reid.html

Senate Overwhelmingly Confirms General to Be Director of C.I.A.

May 27, 2006
The New York Times
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, May 26 — The Senate overwhelmingly confirmed Gen. Michael V. Hayden on Friday as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, despite some senators' criticism of his role in overseeing a domestic electronic surveillance program.

The 78-to-15 vote showed that General Hayden's popularity on Capitol Hill as an articulate advocate for the spy agencies outweighed doubts about the legality of the eavesdropping program he ran as director of the National Security Agency. The only Republican to vote against confirmation was Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who has said he believes the program violates the law.

Some senators suggested that they had set aside concerns about the program in part because they believed that General Hayden could restore morale and purpose at the C.I.A. after the tumultuous 19-month directorship of Porter J. Goss. Mr. Goss, a former Republican congressman, was forced to resign after failing to recover from a rocky start in 2004, when his top staff members clashed with agency veterans.

By the time of the vote, the propriety of having an Air Force general on active duty take charge of the civilian spy agency, while initially questioned by several Republicans, had virtually disappeared as an issue.

General Hayden, 61, who has served for 13 months as principal deputy to John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, told senators he did not intend to remain on active military duty after he left the C.I.A. job, easing concerns that he might have a motive to kowtow to the Pentagon.

Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, said on the Senate floor on Thursday night that General Hayden had demonstrated "independence and objectivity and a willingness to speak truth to power." Those qualities were especially necessary at the C.I.A., Mr. Levin said, because of what he described as the Bush administration's distortion of intelligence before the war in Iraq.

Mr. Levin said that despite "unanswered questions" about the eavesdropping program and its legal status, "the legal opinions about this program are not General Hayden's."

Since President Bush and two attorneys general had approved the program, he said, General Hayden could not be expected to question its legality.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said that while he respected General Hayden and thought he had "learned important lessons" from the prewar intelligence on Iraq, the general should not be confirmed.

"I cannot support General Hayden's nomination in light of the very serious questions about the scope and legality of the N.S.A. domestic surveillance programs that he helped design, implement and defend," Mr. Kennedy said in a statement.

As the confirmation vote took place, Vice President Dick Cheney again defended the surveillance program, which, without warrants, monitors international phone calls and e-mail messages of Americans and others in the United States who are believed to be linked to Al Qaeda.

Mr. Cheney, who has presided over most of the briefings that have been held on the program for selected members of Congress, said in his commencement address at the United States Naval Academy that the eavesdropping "is conducted in a manner that fully protects the civil liberties of the American people."

The vice president drew applause with his assurance that President Bush "will not relent in the effort to track the enemies of the United States with every legitimate tool."

The easy confirmation of General Hayden underscored the fact that Congressional critics of the surveillance program have questioned only its legal basis, not its intelligence value. Even after USA Today reported this month that the agency had collected data on millions of Americans' phone calls, few members of Congress said the agency should stop such activities.

The administration has thwarted several efforts by the program's critics to subject it to scrutiny.

The Federal Communications Commission declined to investigate because the program was so secret, and officials in the ethics office of the Justice Department were denied the necessary security clearances to conduct a planned review.

Justice Department lawyers cited the "state secrets privilege" to seek dismissal of a suit against AT&T for cooperating with the National Security Agency, and government lawyers have told a New York court that they will do the same in a lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil liberties group, challenging the surveillance program. Once rarely used, the privilege has been used repeatedly by the Bush administration to block litigation related to intelligence activities.

Senators Specter and Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, have proposed a bill to bring all N.S.A. eavesdropping on Americans under court supervision. It would ban federal spending for electronic monitoring that does not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and would establish faster, more flexible procedures for getting warrants to track potential terrorists.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which on Friday expressed concern about General Hayden's "troubling record" at the security agency, supports the Specter-Feinstein bill. Its prospects for passage are uncertain.

Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Annapolis, Md., for this article.

    Senate Overwhelmingly Confirms General to Be Director of C.I.A., NYT, 27.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/27/washington/27intel.html

Senate, in Bipartisan Act, Passes an Immigration Bill

May 26, 2006
The New York Times
By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, May 25 — The Senate easily passed legislation on Thursday that would give most illegal immigrants a chance to become American citizens. But the vote did little to soften opposition to the measure among House conservatives, and Republican leaders acknowledged that delivering a final bill to President Bush's desk would be enormously difficult.

The Senate legislation, which also creates a guest worker program and seeks to tighten control of the border, passed 62 to 36. Twenty-three Republicans and one independent joined 38 Democrats to win approval of the bill in one of the few displays of bipartisanship on a major piece of legislation in years.

If the Senate bill's provisions were to make it into law, they would be the most substantial overhaul of immigration law in two decades. The key architects of the bill, Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, hailed the bipartisan coalition for withstanding a slew of amendments intended to sink the legislation.

The bill was also praised by some immigrant advocacy groups, the Roman Catholic Church and business leaders, who worked to ensure its passage. And Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, described the vote as "a success for the American people" as well as for the immigrants "who hope to participate someday in that American dream."

Mr. Bush issued a statement praising the Senate for its vote and the House for passing an earlier immigration bill that he said "began a national dialogue." He urged both chambers to work together to pass a bill that he could sign into law.

But with Republicans deeply divided over immigration, the bill's future remains in doubt, reflecting the fluid politics of the issue in a Congressional election year. House conservatives, who passed a border security bill in December, vowed to thwart any deal that includes a central provision of the Senate bill: its call to give most illegal immigrants a chance to become citizens if they meet certain conditions.

Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House majority leader, said on Thursday that he was hopeful that the Senate and House could reach a compromise. But when asked whether that compromise might include a guest worker program, he said he did not know.

The House bill did not include a guest worker or legalization plan.

"This is a very difficult issue," Mr. Boehner said, adding, "I don't underestimate the difficulty of the House and Senate trying to come together in an agreement."

Conservatives in the House denounced the bill for legalizing illegal immigrants and creating a guest worker program that would admit 200,000 foreign workers each year. Representative J. D. Hayworth, Republican of Arizona, called it an amnesty for lawbreakers and "a nonstarter."

But some Republicans in the House said that the ground seemed to be shifting, if only slightly.

They pointed to Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, the leader of the conservative caucus in the House, who proposed a bill this week that would allow illegal immigrants to become guest workers, though not permanent residents or citizens.

They also said that the effort to reach a compromise could benefit from a strong push for a deal by Mr. Bush. And they noted the sizeable numbers of Republicans, including Mr. Frist, who offered vigorous support for the Senate legislation.

All of those developments, they said, might provide enough political cover for Republicans facing midterm elections in the fall to sign on to a plan that might include at least a temporary worker program.

Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who supports legalizing illegal immigrants, said that a week ago he was betting that the House and the Senate might not even agree to a meeting. On Thursday, he described the chances of a House-Senate compromise bill as "50-50."

Representative Peter T. King of New York, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he also thought there was significant support for a temporary worker program. "A good number of Republicans who are opposed to legalization are willing to support guest workers," Mr. King said.

But supporters of the Senate legislation said they hoped to keep their central principles intact. Democrats said they would not support legislation that did not place most of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.

Under the legislation, illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years or more, about seven million people, would eventually be granted citizenship if they remained employed, passed background checks, paid fines and back taxes, and enrolled in English classes.

Illegal immigrants who have lived here two to five years, about three million people, would have to leave the country briefly and receive a temporary work visa before returning, as a guest worker. Over time, they would be allowed to apply for permanent residency and ultimately citizenship.

Illegal immigrants who have been here less than two years, about one million people, would be required to leave the country altogether. They could apply for the guest worker program, but they would not be guaranteed acceptance in it.

Some immigrant groups criticize the plan for leaving out illegal immigrants who have been here for less than two years. Others praise the legislation, but not without qualms.

"It means there is real hope that we will have immigration reform that will legalize millions of people who are here," said Cecilia Muñoz, a vice president of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino civil rights group. "But we still have some real reservations."

    Senate, in Bipartisan Act, Passes an Immigration Bill, NYT, 25.6.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/26/washington/26immig.html

Senate Panel Endorses C.I.A. Nominee

May 24, 2006
The New York Times
By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, May 23 — The Senate Intelligence Committee strongly endorsed Gen. Michael V. Hayden on Tuesday to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency, with all but three members, all Democrats, voting to send General Hayden's nomination to the Senate floor.

The panel's 12-to-3 vote virtually guarantees that General Hayden will win confirmation by the full Senate, which is likely to vote on his selection before the end of the week.

With the current C.I.A. director, Porter J. Goss, planning to leave the agency on Friday, the White House had urged the Senate to move quickly on General Hayden's confirmation. The vote on Tuesday came just 15 days after President Bush nominated General Hayden.

Four committee Democrats joined all eight Republican members in endorsing the general. Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas and the panel's chairman, called General Hayden "a proven leader and a supremely qualified intelligence professional."

The committee's vice chairman, John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, said General Hayden had shown "the necessary independence that is essential to restoring the C.I.A.'s credibility and stature."

The Democrats who voted against the nomination were Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Evan Bayh of Indiana. Each cited concerns about General Hayden's role in a controversial domestic surveillance program he ran while head of the National Security Agency.

"I am not convinced that the nominee respects the rule of law and Congress's oversight responsibilities," Mr. Feingold said.

During his confirmation hearings last week, General Hayden drew sharp questions from several Democrats who raised concerns about the legality of the N.S.A. program. Under the program, the agency monitors, without court warrants, the international telephone and e-mail communications of terror suspects in the United States.

Committee members from both parties had also questioned whether General Hayden, as a career military officer, might be beholden to the Pentagon at a time when the Defense Department was playing a greater role in intelligence gathering overseas.

Yet statements by committee members after the vote on Tuesday indicated that General Hayden had dispelled this concern.

"He has shown some independence and some backbone and a willingness to say no to power," said Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan. "You've got to have someone in this position who speaks truth to power."

The departure of Mr. Goss, whom the White House had pressured to resign amid turf battles with John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, is expected to be accompanied by considerable turnover throughout the agency's senior ranks.

Mr. Goss's circle of advisers, many of whom the former Republican congressman brought with him from Capitol Hill, are expected to leave the agency. In addition, the agency's deputy director, Vice Adm. Albert M. Calland III of the Navy, is expected to take a new military assignment.

Kyle Foggo, until recently the C.I.A.'s third-ranking official, has resigned as executive director amid accusations that he was involved in a government corruption scandal.

Federal officials raided Mr. Foggo's home and office at the C.I.A. this month looking for evidence of ties to Brent Wilkes, a San Diego military contractor who is named as a co-conspirator in the recent indictment of former Representative Randy Cunningham, Republican of California.

Another top official, the head of the National Clandestine Service, an undercover officer who formerly headed C.I.A. operations for Latin America and directed the agency's Counterterrorism Center, plans to retire this summer.

Intelligence officials said that other senior members of Mr. Goss's team, including the heads of the Directorate of Intelligence and the Directorate of Science and Technology, had no immediate plans to leave the C.I.A. but that General Hayden could decide to appoint a new team upon taking over.

    Senate Panel Endorses C.I.A. Nominee, NYT, 24.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/washington/24intel.html

Senate Backs Job Verification for Immigrants

May 24, 2006
The New York Times
By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, May 23 — The Senate voted on Tuesday to require employers to use a vast new employment verification system that would allow businesses to distinguish between legal and illegal workers.

Employers would be required to enter the Social Security numbers or immigrant identification numbers of all job applicants, including citizens, into the computerized system, which would be created by the Department of Homeland Security. The system would notify businesses within three days whether the applicant was authorized to work in the United States.

Those job applicants determined to be illegal would have to be fired. The measure, approved 58 to 40, is included in a bill that would legalize the vast majority of the nation's illegal immigrants, which is expected to pass the Senate later this week.

The new requirements would result in a broad operational shift for employers who have relied almost entirely on a paper system — the collection of identity documents — to determine the legal status of their workers. The measure is considered a linchpin of the current immigration legislation because it is designed to deter illegal immigration by making it extremely difficult for undocumented immigrants to find work.

Without such a provision, senators say, American businesses would remain a powerful magnet for millions of illegal immigrants. The legislation calls for creating documents that would be resistant to counterfeiting for legal immigrants and stiff fines for violations by employers. It requires the verification system to be operational and in use by all businesses within 18 months once Congress appropriates the money for it.

"This is probably the single most important thing we can do in terms of reducing the inflow of undocumented workers," Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, said of the measure, which was pushed ahead by Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa.

Mr. Grassley hailed the measure as an effort "to balance the needs of workers, employers and immigration enforcement."

But some administration officials, employers and other lawmakers raised sharp questions about the amendment, which was developed in consultation with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Officials at the United States Chamber of Commerce applauded the plan, but expressed doubts that homeland security officials could speedily create such a system.

"This is a massive undertaking on the part of the federal government," said Randy Johnson, vice president at the chamber. "Our conversations with the administration have indicated that 18 months is too short."

Officials at the Department of Homeland Security sent e-mail messages to senators saying they had concerns about the system's "workability and implementation."

White House officials declined to comment, but participants in negotiations on the amendment said officials were concerned with a provision that would require the federal government to reimburse workers who were fired because of a mistake involving the system.

Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, said homeland security officials feared the system would allow many illegal workers to continue working when a definitive finding of legal status could not be made.

The vote in favor of employment verification came as the Senate rejected several amendments intended to help refugees and illegal immigrants affected by the legislation.

Lawmakers defeated a measure, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that would have legalized all illegal immigrants, regardless of how long they have lived here. They also voted down an amendment to toughen workplace and safety standards and another to help refugees whose resettlement here has been delayed because their indirect support for armed rebels opposed to their repressive governments has put them in technical violation of American antiterrorism laws.

Critics say the legislation would increase the burdens on asylum seekers, eliminate federal review of deportation orders and leave millions of illegal immigrants in the shadows. Human rights groups are particularly concerned about a measure that would allow asylum seekers to be deported even while their claims were under review by federal courts.

"The impact on asylum seekers would be devastating and potentially irreversible," said Eleanor Acer, director of the asylum program at Human Rights First, an advocacy group. "You would essentially be deporting refugees back to their countries of persecution."

Difficult negotiations lie ahead between the Senate and House, where many Republicans strongly oppose legalization of illegal immigrants.

Hoping to narrow the gap between Senate and House Republicans on this issue, the leader of the House conservative caucus announced a bill that would allow the illegal immigrants to participate in a guest worker plan, but would not grant them permanent residency or citizenship.

The measure, sponsored by Representative Mike Pence, Republican of Indiana, would require the nation's estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to leave the country to apply for a slot in the program, which would be administered by private employment agencies licensed by the American government.

House Republicans expressed lukewarm support for the bill, which was promptly attacked by conservative critics of guest worker programs. But the bill was praised by White House officials.

Under the employment verification provision, job applicants deemed illegal would have 10 days to challenge that determination with the Department of Homeland Security. If homeland security officials failed to confirm that determination within 30 days, the applicant would be considered legal to work.

    Senate Backs Job Verification for Immigrants, NYT, 24.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/washington/24immig.html

Bipartisan Group Thwarts Foes of Immigration Bill

May 20, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, May 19 — It was a rare sight in the modern, politically polarized Senate: a bipartisan core of Republicans and Democrats fending off killer amendments from the right and the left to preserve the central elements of their bill to overhaul immigration.

"That is what legislating is all about," declared Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, after a freewheeling week in a chamber where most fights these days are carefully scripted brawls between the two parties.

In the days since President Bush endorsed comprehensive changes in immigration law in a nationally televised speech, Senate backers of that approach have prevailed on the crucial votes, clearing the way for the likely Senate approval of major immigration legislation next week.

What happens next is anyone's guess. Many House Republicans are dug in against the call by a Senate majority and the president for a plan that could ultimately lead to citizenship for millions who have lived illegally in the United States for years. House Republicans deride that idea as an affront to the law-abiding public.

And Republicans fear that even if they reconcile those seemingly irreconcilable viewpoints in House-Senate talks, Democrats will throw up new obstacles to deny Mr. Bush a legislative triumph close to crucial mid-term elections. The future of the legislation is unsettled to say the least.

"It is a jump ball right now," said Representative Ray LaHood, Republican of Illinois.

In the Senate, the emerging legislation was toughened up during the floor fight. Senators agreed to cap the flow of low-skilled temporary workers at 200,000 annually and disqualified criminals and those who ignored deportation orders from receiving citizenship. They approved 350 miles of border fencing and 500 miles of vehicle barriers between the United States and Mexico, designated English as the national language and voted to require those seeking citizenship to demonstrate some English proficiency.

Conservative critics of the original bill say those additions were significant improvements and they promised to try to reshape the measure even more in the days ahead. But they still do not intend to vote for it.

"The Senate should be ashamed of itself," Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said Friday. He called the developing legislation flawed and said it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage by focusing mainly on low-skilled workers while other nations concentrate on attracting skilled newcomers.

"It should never, ever, ever become law," said Mr. Sessions, who predicted the Senate measure would be completely rewritten in negotiations with the House or the entire effort would collapse.

Both opponents and advocates of the legislation said the outcome would ultimately be determined by Mr. Bush and how much pressure he was willing to bring to bear in his weakened political state to force a final agreement.

In interviews Thursday as part of a visit to the border in Yuma, Ariz., Mr. Bush said he was determined to solve the problem. "My job is to continue to find that common-sense way forward and continue to articulate it," he said in an interview broadcast by CBS News.

While the Senate bill underwent some changes, efforts by Mr. Sessions and fellow conservatives like Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas to make fundamental changes to the legislation were repeatedly defeated. Their foes were led by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who took aim at amendments they saw as major threats.

"It strikes a dagger at the heart of what this legislation is about," Mr. Kennedy said Thursday night as he successfully fought a proposal by Mr. Kyl to prohibit those who enter the country as temporary workers from seeking citizenship.

The legislation has its Democratic doubters as well. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota failed in his effort to curb the guest worker program, an initiative that has drawn the scorn of organized labor. Mr. Dorgan and other Democrats also joined conservative Republicans in a failed bid to require the Department of Homeland Security to certify that the border was secured before any new programs for immigrants could start.

Though the immigration issue was initially thought to favor Democrats since it could hurt Republican efforts to court Hispanics, some Democrats facing tough re-election fights in the fall are finding it cuts both ways. Almost as the votes were being counted on the Senate floor, Democrats like Senators Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Robert Menendez of New Jersey were coming under fire.

"Stabenow Supports Social Security Benefits for Illegal Workers," said the headline over a press release issued by a challenger, Michael Bouchard, after Ms. Stabenow voted against a Republican plan to deny immigrants credit for payroll taxes paid while working illegally.

Tom Kean, a challenger to Mr. Menendez, issued a statement noting the senator opposed designating English the national language. "While I respect the diverse heritage of our nation, English is the bond that binds us together," said Mr. Kean in a statement.

A spokesman for Mr. Menendez accused the Republican of trying to divert attention from his own shifting views on immigration. "We listen more to our constituents than to Tom Kean Jr.," said the spokesman, Matthew Miller.

Though backers of the broad measure are increasingly optimistic that they will win next week, Mr. Reid, the Democratic leader, warned it was too early "to give high-fives" with difficult votes ahead. "This coming week we all have to keep our heads down and push hard," he said.

    Bipartisan Group Thwarts Foes of Immigration Bill, NYT, 20.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/20/washington/20immig.html

Senate Votes to Set English as National Language

May 19, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, May 18 — The Senate voted on Thursday to designate English as the national language. In a charged debate, Republican backers of the proposal, which was added to the Senate's immigration measure on a 63-to-34 vote, said that it was equivalent to establishing a formal national anthem or motto and that it would simply affirm the pre-eminence of English without overturning laws or rules on bilingualism.

"We're free to say what we want, speak what we want, but it is our national language," said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee. The amendment was proposed by Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma.

It is not clear, though, that the measure will be included in any final bill after negotiations with the House. Shortly after the Inhofe amendment was approved, the Senate also approved a weaker, less-binding alternative declaring English the "common and unifying" language of the nation, on a 58-to-39 vote. The question of which version survives would be decided in negotiations with the House.

The second amendment was proposed by Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado, one of several Democrats who said the Inhofe measure was needlessly divisive and would reduce multilingual government programs.

"We are taking a step backward from the progress America has made," Mr. Salazar said.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said the Inhofe amendment was racist.

"Everybody who speaks with an accent knows that they need to learn English just as fast as they can," he said.

Under the Inhofe proposal, the federal government is directed to "preserve and enhance the role of English as the national language of the United States of America." It does not go as far as proposals to designate English the nation's official language, which would require all government publications and business to be in English.

Instead, it says government services and publications now offered in other languages would be unaffected. But the proposal declares that no one has "a right, entitlement or claim to have the government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services or provide materials in any language other than English."

Critics said they fear the directive could lead government agencies to scale back their bilingual efforts, cause discrimination against people who do not speak English, disrupt emergency operations in communities with populations of immigrants and have other unintended consequences.

Mr. Inhofe, who is proficient in Spanish from his days as a pilot in Mexico, said critics were exaggerating the potential effects of his plan. His plan would also stiffen the language rules for immigrants seeking to qualify for citizenship under the new legislation, requiring them to demonstrate English proficiency and understanding of American history and government rather than simply to enroll in a language class.

President Bush, speaking about immigration on Thursday on a trip to Arizona, reiterated that under his proposal illegal immigrants would have to learn English. "If you learn English, and you're a hard worker, and you have a dream, you have the capacity from going from picking crops to owning the store, or from sweeping office floors to being an office manager," Mr. Bush said.

The House did not include a similar provision on English in the legislation it passed in December, but there is strong support among House Republicans for such a move.

Despite the clash over language, advocates of a broad immigration measure combining border protection with the possibility of citizenship for qualifying illegal immigrants successfully fought off repeated efforts to alter the measure.

In a crucial showdown, the Senate voted, 58 to 35, late Thursday to reject an amendment that authors of the legislation said would gut their bill by prohibiting temporary workers and many illegal immigrants from seeking permanent residency.

The Senate reversed a decision it made on Wednesday about how temporary workers could apply for permanent residency. The Senate initially voted to require that such applications come just from employers. But some senators said they had misgivings that the requirement would give employers too much power over workers. On Thursday, senators voted to give workers the ability to apply for permanent residency on their own if they have been working in the country for at least four years.

The Senate retained a requirement that a green card be granted only if the Labor Department certified a need for workers.

Immigrant groups praised the reversal. But some advocates for immigrants retained grave concerns about the emerging legislation.

Mary Bauer, director of the immigrant justice project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said immigrants who participated in existing guest worker programs were frequently exploited. She said the programs failed to ensure that employers offered fair pay and housing.

    Senate Votes to Set English as National Language, NYT, 19.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/washington/19immig.html?hp&ex=1148097600&en=3b1c0ced8753caa3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Capitol Hill Memo

Senators Left Out of Loop Make Their Pique Known

May 19, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, May 18 — There were two types of senators at Thursday's confirmation hearing for Gen. Michael V. Hayden: the briefed, and the briefed-nots.

The former were mostly polite. The latter, especially Democrats, threw the Congressional equivalent of a temper tantrum.

General Hayden, President Bush's nominee to run the Central Intelligence Agency, invoked what he termed "a very crude airman's metaphor" in suggesting he believed lawmakers should have been informed earlier by the White House of its secretive domestic eavesdropping program, which he oversaw when he ran the National Security Agency.

"If you want people with the craft," the general said, "you've got to put them on the manifest."

But until December, when the eavesdropping was revealed, all but the Republican chairman and the senior Democrat on the Intelligence Committee were left off the manifest. If there's one thing senators can't stand, it's being left out of the loop by the White House. And if there's another thing they can't stand, it's reading about how they have been left out of the loop in their morning newspaper.

So when Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, asked why the full panel had been forced to wait until Wednesday afternoon, the eve of General Hayden's hearing, the nominee sat impassively, his hands clasped in front of him, his back stiff in his dress blues, four silver stars twinkling on each epaulet.

"Sir," he said steadily, "it was not my decision. I briefed fully whatever audience was in front of me, and I wouldn't attempt to explain the administration's decision."

That did not appear to satisfy Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine. Earlier in the day she had complained that the small number of lawmakers who were briefed before Wednesday were "handcuffed" because they were not permitted to share information with colleagues.

"The notification to a very limited group — they could do nothing much with that information, essentially — is not the kind of checks and balances that I think our founding fathers had in mind," Ms. Snowe said.

The hearing put General Hayden in an awkward position. President Bush has tried to keep secret the details of the eavesdropping, in which the security agency monitored, without seeking court warrants, the international communications of those suspected of having links to terrorists. Yet White House officials keep getting dragged into talking about the program, especially in the effort to get General Hayden confirmed.

So the nominee was forced to explore ever more novel ways of saying no comment as senators, mostly Democrats, pressed him to go public with details.

"I am delighted to go into great detail in closed session," he told Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, who wanted to know whether the eavesdropping went beyond what was reported in newspapers, including The New York Times, which first disclosed the program.

"I will give you just a touch more granularity in the closed session," he said to Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, after she asked if the White House had pushed for information about local telephone calls, as well as international ones — a reference to a recent article in USA Today.

Ms. Feinstein opened her remarks by saying she had proposed legislative language that would amend the National Security Act to require that all committee members be briefed on sensitive programs, and in the "very rare cases where only certain members are briefed," the others receive a summary.

In a sense, the hearing tapped into a Congressional inferiority complex that has been particularly acute under Mr. Bush, who has taken a muscular approach to expanding the executive branch's authority. Lawmakers like to say Congress is a "co-equal branch" of government; nothing irks them more than when the White House punctures that balloon.

"It's such an affront to the balance of powers," Ms. Feinstein said in an interview, "and it's what this administration has been doing, which is gathering executive power and dismissing the Congress."

Life in Congress is determined by seniority, so in the hierarchy of the briefed and the briefed-nots, the longest serving Intelligence Committee members came first. Between December and Wednesday, when the full panel was "read in"— intelligence lexicon for becoming privy to the program's details — the briefings were slowly expanded beyond the Republican chairman, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, and ranking Democrat, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, to include seven members.

Mr. Roberts, who arranged for those briefings, grew testy at one point Thursday, after a Democrat who had not been included, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, complained bitterly about it.

"General," Mr. Wyden said, "if we had not read about the warrantless wiretapping program in The New York Times last December, would 14 of the 16 members of this Senate Intelligence Committee ever have heard about this program in a way consistent with national security?"

"Senator," the general replied, "I simply have no way of answering that question. I don't know."

Moments later, Mr. Roberts jumped in to say he had been briefed on "13 occasions, along with the vice president and the leadership of the Congress."

"You might think we're not independent," Mr. Roberts said. "I am independent. And I asked very tough questions."

But when the session was over, Mr. Wyden remained in a state of pique.

"The fact of the matter is that for years, a significant majority of the Senate Intelligence Committee had to get a good clipping service about programs that are all over the newspaper," he said. "My line is: What do I know? I'm only on the Intelligence Committee."

    Senators Left Out of Loop Make Their Pique Known, NYT, 19.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/19/washington/19scene.html?hp&ex=1148097600&en=ccc97c568b0df678&ei=5094&partner=homepage

2 Immigration Provisions Easily Pass Senate

May 18, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE and JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, May 17 — The Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to bar illegal immigrants convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors from having a chance at citizenship and to add hundreds of miles of fencing along the Mexican border.

The actions bolstered the law enforcement provisions of the Senate's immigration overhaul, legislation that the White House has signaled it supports.

With conservatives in revolt over a proposal that would allow some illegal immigrants to qualify for residency, the White House dispatched Karl Rove, the president's political adviser, to a meeting of House Republicans to make the case for the president's call for comprehensive changes in immigration laws.

House members said that Mr. Rove had made little headway and that most Republicans remained adamantly opposed to any plan that leads to citizenship for those unlawfully in the United States.

One House Republican also warned Mr. Rove that it was dangerous to work too closely with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, one of the authors of the Senate legislation.

Another Republican, J. D. Hayworth of Arizona, said of the divide between House Republicans and the White House over citizenship and temporary foreign workers, "This is a polite but profound disagreement." At a demonstration near the Capitol on Wednesday afternoon, scores of immigrants chanted "Work, yes! Deportation, no!" as they protested provisions in the Senate legislation.

They said the measure would impose new hardships on asylum seekers, expand the deportation and detention of illegal immigrants and deny a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants who had been here for less than two years.

By a vote of 83 to 16, the Senate approved a proposal by Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, to construct about 370 miles of "triple layer" fencing on the Southwest border along with 500 miles of vehicle barriers.

Mr. Sessions said that type of fencing would cost about $3.2 million a mile, but he said the cost would be offset by reductions in the expense of detaining and processing people illegally crossing the border. The House has approved 700 miles of fencing.

"It is important for the country to make clear to our own citizens and to the world that a lawful system is going to be created, that there is no longer an open border," he said.

The Senate also agreed 99 to 0 to a proposal by two Republican senators, Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, that would deny potential citizenship to convicted criminals and those who ignored deportation orders.

"I think it reflects the will of the American people that however we treat people who are here illegally, there are some limits," Mr. Kyl said.

He said about 500,000 illegal aliens out of more than 11 million could come under the plan, most for failing to comply with deportation demands.

The provision, initially seen as a proposal that could sink the Senate bill, was narrowed to allow for family hardships and other exceptions. It was endorsed by Democrats.

"We want to keep those who can harm us, the criminal element, out," Mr. Kennedy said.

The Senate, on a 66-to-33 vote, defeated an effort by Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, to kill a provision that would allow illegal immigrants who meet certain qualifications and pay a fine and back taxes to seek citizenship.

Mr. Vitter said the provision would result in illegal immigrants' "being treated better than the folks who have lived by the rules from the word go." He said that amounted to amnesty.

Advocates of the Senate bill said critics were distorting it to stir opposition. "The American people deserve an honest debate," said Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska. "Let's stop this nonsense."

As the debate unfolded, the White House asserted that the president's speech on Monday and efforts on Capitol Hill were paying dividends, if only small ones.

Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, pointed to remarks by Mr. Hagel supporting the president's plan to send as many as 6,000 National Guard troops to the border with Mexico. Mr. Hagel had been critical of the Guard proposal but said he had warmed to it after hearing its particulars.

Pressed to name one Republican House member who had moved from the position that the president's call for possible citizenship for some illegal immigrants — namely, those here for many years who pay fines and back taxes — amounted to amnesty, Mr. Snow did not.

He said it would take time to define the meaning of "amnesty." "It's not amnesty," Mr. Snow said. "Amnesty means 'sorry, no harm, no foul, no crime, go about your business.' "

An indication of the difficulty facing the proposals came from Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Republican of Wisconsin. Mr. Sensenbrenner, the Judiciary Committee chairman, would take the lead for the House in efforts to draft compromise legislation.

"Regardless of what the president says, what he is proposing is amnesty," Mr. Sensenbrenner said.

On Wednesday night, President Bush took his case to an influential group of party faithful during a speech at the Republican National Committee's annual gala dinner in Washington.

"The Republican Party needs to lead on this issue of immigration," Mr. Bush said. "The immigration system is not working, and we need to do something about it now. America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society."

Mr. Hayworth, an outspoken critic of the president's approach, planned to travel to Arizona on Air Force One with Mr. Bush on Thursday for an immigration event. Mr. Hayworth, who attended the signing of the tax bill on Wednesday, said the president had offered a playful warning about the trip and Mr. Hayworth's opposition.

"He said, 'Hey, be careful over by the emergency exit at 30,000 feet,' " Mr. Hayworth recounted.

Rachel L. Swarns contributed reporting for this article.

    2 Immigration Provisions Easily Pass Senate, NYT, 18.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/washington/18immig.html

Senate Approves 2-Year Extension of Bush Tax Cuts

May 12, 2006
The New York Times
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, May 11 — The Senate voted 54 to 44 on Thursday to pass almost $70 billion in tax cuts, mostly for the nation's wealthiest taxpayers. The action ensures that virtually all of President Bush's tax cuts will be locked in place until after the next presidential election.

The measure, which the House passed Wednesday, would extend Mr. Bush's tax cuts on stock dividends and capital gains by two years, until 2010, and shield about 15 million taxpayers for one year from an increase in the alternative minimum tax.

The vote, largely along party lines, was a significant victory for Mr. Bush and beleaguered Republican leaders, who had viewed the tax cuts on stock market profits as a defining party issue and had credited them with jump-starting economic growth and reducing unemployment over the last three years.

"We're finally here; we have a deal," Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, declared with evident relief on the Senate floor. "More importantly, the American taxpayer has a deal. A deal that is long overdue."

But even as Senate Republicans celebrated, they failed to reach agreement with House Republicans on scores of other tax breaks, including deductions for college tuition and a savings credit for low-income people that expired last year.

Democrats charged that the tax bill focused almost entirely on cuts for wealthy investors and that it allowed programs intended for ordinary citizens to languish.

"There is little in this bill to be proud of," said Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana. "Working people have been left behind."

House Republicans, meanwhile, remained in disarray over a budget plan for next year. After promising earlier Thursday to vote on the plan, which by law was to have been passed on April 15, House leaders postponed the vote after failing to come to an agreement with Republican moderates who said they wanted $3 billion more for health and education.

Even if House Republicans pass a budget plan this month, it would have little practical impact because it would probably not be reconciled with a very different plan passed by the Senate.

The tax bill, which President Bush is expected to sign as quickly as possible, could set the stage for budgetary heartburn in the years ahead.

Virtually all of President Bush's tax cuts in addition to those passed Thursday — rate reductions for individuals, a bigger child tax credit, the elimination of estate taxes and the tax cuts for stock dividends — will also expire simultaneously at the end of 2010.

Renewing all those tax cuts again in 2010 would cost hundreds of billions of dollars a year, posing excruciating budget choices for the next president as the nation's baby boomers become eligible for billions of dollars in Medicare and Social Security benefits.

In addition, lawmakers merely postponed dealing with huge problems surrounding the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax that was originally aimed at millionaires but is not adjusted for inflation and is rapidly engulfing more middle-class families. The vote only prevents expansion of the tax this year.

Preventing an expansion of the alternative tax in 2007 would cost more than $40 billion, and the costs increase each year after that. A permanent solution, most experts say, would require an overhaul of the tax code, but neither Mr. Bush nor Congressional leaders want to touch the issue this year.

The overwhelming share of the tax cuts the Senate voted to extend will flow to the wealthiest taxpayers. People earning $1 million a year would save about $42,700, and reap about 22 percent of the total tax cut, according to the Tax Policy Center, a research group in Washington. People earning $40,000 to $50,000 a year would save about $47 and receive less than 1 percent of the benefits.

Democrats charged that the measure not only favored the rich but also failed to extend middle-income tax breaks, among them a deduction for college tuition payments, that expired at the end of last year.

Republicans promised that those and at least $20 billion worth of other expiring tax cuts would be renewed in a second bill.

But after more than a week of negotiations behind closed doors, House and Senate Republicans had not reached agreement on the second bill and refused to disclose any specific provisions.

"Can I tell members exactly how these issues will come out?" asked Mr. Grassley, the Senate Finance Committee chairman. "The answer is no. What I can tell members is that we had a good preliminary negotiation."

The struggle to extend Mr. Bush's tax cuts reflects the broader difficulties of Republican leaders. Rebellious fiscal conservatives in the House are pushing for deeper cuts in spending, including on programs like Medicaid. But Republican moderates, particularly in Northeastern states that lean Democratic, are pushing in the opposite direction.

Given the budget pressures, Republicans have been torn for months over what tax cuts they truly wanted to extend within a $70 billion "reconciliation" bill that could pass the Senate with a simple majority of 51 votes rather than the 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster.

Mr. Grassley said his top priority was to prevent an expansion of the alternative minimum tax in 2006.

President Bush and House Republicans placed top priority on a two-year extension of tax cuts for stock dividends and capital gains. Those cuts do not expire until the end of 2008, but the administration wanted to lock them in place.

House and Senate leaders also wanted to extend more than $30 billion worth of other tax breaks that expired at the end of last year. Those included a lucrative provision for small businesses, a longstanding tax credit for research and development expenses, tax deductions for college tuition payments and a tax cut for banks and insurance companies with foreign subsidiaries.

    Senate Approves 2-Year Extension of Bush Tax Cuts, NYT, 12.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/washington/12spend.html?hp&ex=1147492800&en=87ae65887822c978&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Senate Rejects Award Limits in Malpractice

May 9, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, May 8 — The Senate on Monday once again rebuffed a Republican effort to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases, taking the issue — a high priority for both President Bush and the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist — off the agenda for this year.

In back-to-back votes, Republicans fell far short of the 60 senators necessary to proceed on two malpractice-related measures. The first would have capped jury awards in all lawsuits against doctors and health care institutions; the second would have applied caps only to cases involving obstetricians, who have been especially hard-hit by malpractice rates.

Three Republicans — Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Michael D. Crapo of Wyoming and Richard C. Shelby of Alabama — joined with Democrats in blocking the measures from consideration. It was the fourth time in the past three years that Republicans had tried, and failed, to bring medical malpractice legislation to a vote in the Senate.

"Health care dollars should be spent on patients, and not on lawyers who are abusing the system," Mr. Frist, a heart-lung transplant surgeon, said in introducing the bills.

Mr. Frist's Democratic counterpart, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, branded the effort "a waste of the Senate's time."

Mr. Frist and other supporters of revamping malpractice law, including the American Medical Association, have argued for years that rising insurance rates, fueled by skyrocketing jury awards, are driving doctors out of business and compromising patient care.

The Senate gallery was filled with white-coated health professionals who joined Republicans at an afternoon news conference and then watched Monday's votes.

The bills would have limited payments by individual doctors to $250,000 in malpractice cases and capped payments by health care institutions at $250,000. In cases that involved more than one institution, the total maximum jury award would have been $750,000.

Opponents of the measures, including Democrats and the association representing plaintiff's lawyers, said the bills would strip patients of their right to seek redress in court. They cited studies attributing the increase in malpractice rates to insurance company practices, not lawsuits.

"The explanation for these premium spikes can be found not in legislative halls or courtrooms, but in the boardrooms," said one Democratic opponent, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

In a sense, the votes had more to do with politics than policy. Mr. Frist knew going into the debate that the measures were likely to be blocked but wanted to put Democrats on record before the midterm elections in November. After the votes, he issued a news release headlined "Frist Denounces Democrat Obstruction of Medical Liability Reform."

    Senate Rejects Award Limits in Malpractice, NYT, 9.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/washington/09malpractice.html

F.B.I. Director Is Bombarded by Stinging Questions at Senate Hearing

May 3, 2006
The New York Times
By JOHN O'NEIL

The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, came under sharp questioning from senators of both parties yesterday on matters that included slow progress in intelligence sharing and the effort to search the files of the late newspaper columnist Jack Anderson.

In a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the committee, cited what he said was evidence of more than 100 instances in which F.B.I. agents had improperly conducted surveillance of antiwar groups. He said the list included Quakers, a Catholic antiwar organization and the Raging Grannies, which Mr. Leahy sarcastically called "a scary group."

While Mr. Leahy and his Democratic colleagues were most critical of Mr. Mueller, and by extension, the Bush administration, the F.B.I. director heard little praise from Republicans on the committee.

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and the panel's chairman, asked Mr. Mueller about a report issued last month by the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, that he said "raises questions about the adequacy of information sharing" between the F.B.I. and other agencies involved in counterterrorism.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, asked Mr. Mueller about reports that F.B.I. agents had "tried to trick" Mr. Anderson's 79-year-old widow into allowing a search of his files after being turned down by her son and the family's lawyer.

And Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, a close ally of the Bush administration, told the F.B.I. director that he was troubled by the agency's actions in the case of an Oregon lawyer who was arrested in connection with the Madrid train bombings in 2004 based on mistaken fingerprint evidence.

After describing how a report had concluded that it was the "arrogance" of agents in the F.B.I. laboratory that led them to disregard doubts raised by Spanish fingerprint experts, Mr. Cornyn told Mr. Mueller, "I certainly hope that strong actions will be taken" if that was true.

Mr. Mueller said "the report is absolutely accurate in that we made a mistake," but he questioned the idea of arrogance, saying, "There was self-assurance when they shouldn't have been self-assured."

The sharpest exchange came when Mr. Leahy read from F.B.I. memorandums that he said had been obtained through the Freedom of Information Act concerning surveillance of members of the Thomas Merton Center, a group that describes itself as "Pittsburgh's Peace and Social Justice Center."

The memos described surveillance of a meeting of the group and of an event in which antiwar leaflets were handed out on street corners shortly before the invasion of Iraq; each noted the number of people of Middle Eastern descent in attendance.

"What business does the F.B.I. have spying on law-abiding citizens simply because they oppose the war in Iraq?" Mr. Leahy demanded.

"Those memos are an outgrowth of an investigation to identify an individual," Mr. Mueller said. "We were not concerned about the political dissent."

"To my knowledge, we have not surveilled the Quakers and I have not heard of the other group you talked about, the grannies," he said. "I am concerned that raising to this level, without a shred of evidence that there is any support for those rumors, that the public have the perception that the F.B.I. is conducting this type of surveillance."

Mr. Leahy also questioned the F.B.I.'s effort to search the files of Mr. Anderson, who feuded with the bureau during his long investigative career. "There's a concern that the F.B.I. may go into his files because of things he discovered about J. Edgar Hoover's personal life," he said.

Mr. Mueller said the effort was a result of a recent discovery of "information indicating that there may be classified national security documents within Mr. Anderson's collection and that the collection may be made available to the public."

Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, asked Mr. Mueller about a Justice Department report submitted to Congress last week that showed that the F.B.I. last year issued more than 9,200 "national security letters," known as N.S.L.'s, which allow agents to collect data on individuals from businesses without a court warrant. The information was first reported yesterday by The Washington Post.

Mr. Feingold said the requests made for national security letters were a "far, far larger" total than the number of requests for data on individuals made to businesses last year under a provision of the USA Patriot Act known as Section 215.

"I fear that the reason might be that under 215 you have to go before a judge, and you don't under N.S.L.," he said.

Mr. Mueller pointed out that the 9,200 national security letters involved only 3,500 individuals. But he acknowledged that the report only covered citizens or people legally within the United States and did not include requests for telephone or Internet records.

    F.B.I. Director Is Bombarded by Stinging Questions at Senate Hearing, NYT, 3.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/washington/03fbi.html

Republicans Drop a Tax Plan After Businesses Protest

May 2, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, May 1 — Senate Republicans on Monday hurriedly abandoned a broad tax proposal opposed by the oil industry and business leaders, another sign of their struggle to come up with an acceptable political and legislative answer to high gasoline prices.

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said he had decided to jettison the provision, which would have generated billions of dollars by changing the way businesses treat inventories for tax purposes. Instead, he said the Senate Finance Committee would hold hearings on the plan "later this year, so the pluses and minuses of the provision can become well known."

The retreat came after a torrent of objections from business leaders and their advocates, who typically view Republicans in Congress as allies. They said they had been blindsided by the inclusion of the proposal as a central element of the Republican leadership's energy package late last week.

The centerpiece of the leadership proposal, a $100 rebate check to compensate taxpayers for higher gasoline prices, continued to receive a rough reception. Members of the public have telephoned and written to ridicule the idea, and even Republican lawmakers are finding fault.

"Political anxiety in an election year is to blame for a lot of the bad bills Congress passes," said Representative Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, who on Monday called the rebate a "knee-jerk populist idea" that voters would see through.

Democrats are trying to rally voters against Republicans, pointing to the rising fuel costs as evidence of how consumers were hurt by the opposition's ties to the oil industry.

The Republican energy package was assembled quickly last week after lawmakers returned from a recess punctuated by public complaints about the rapidly rising gas costs . Senate officials acknowledged privately that they were paying a price for rolling out the proposal before having time to vet it fully.

Besides the tax provision and the rebate, the measure includes new protections against price gouging, incentives to expand domestic oil refinery capacity, support for new energy initiatives and tax incentives for buying hybrid vehicles.

Outside Congress, experts have said the government has few realistic options that would quickly reduce gas prices. And as lawmakers struggle to gain political advantage on the issue, they must juggle the often competing goals of curbing prices, increasing production and tamping down populist anger about oil industry profits.

Major trade groups quickly and vociferously registered their disdain for the tax provision, saying the plan amounted to a hefty new tax not only on the oil industry, but also on many manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers that rely on large inventories as well.

"This just came out of the blue," said Dorothy Coleman, vice president of tax and domestic economic policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. "Before you make a change in longstanding tax policy — I am talking 70 years or so — you don't just up and do it in an energy bill."

At the National Retail Federation, Rochelle Bernstein, vice president and tax counsel, said lobbyists there immediately raised a red flag with lawmakers and aides. "Our concern was did they understand what they were doing, did they know this was a proposal that could have wide-ranging implications?" Ms. Bernstein said.

One leadership aide who did not want to be identified as discussing internal deliberations said the decision was made to drop the provision rather than have the energy proposals caught up in a secondary tax fight. It remained unclear how quickly the leadership might move to bring its plan to the floor but it appeared unlikely to be added to the emergency spending bill the Senate is considering this week.

Though the Senate previously approved a more narrowly defined proposal to require the accounting change for major oil companies, the plan announced last week would have extended to all business sectors. It would have represented a major shift in policy for Congressional Republicans, who have wrapped their economic approach around tax cuts rather than increases.

The decision to drop it eliminates a chief source of revenue to pay for the rebate checks to be mailed to an estimated 100 million taxpayers. After the tax plan was dropped, Mr. Frist said money to pay for the rebate program could be generated by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling, another element of the plan. But the drilling initiative, previously rebuffed in Congress several times, faces serious opposition of its own and the revenues would not be realized for years.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, called the decision to drop the tax proposal "just another example of the Bush Republicans' inability to break their ties to big oil."

There were no estimates of how much money the change would have produced, though it had been projected at more than $11 billion in the past. The proposal in a separate tax bill to bar the accounting practice known as last in, first out for the oil companies was estimated to raise about $4.3 billion from them alone. That idea is still part of the continuing tax negotiations. But whether it will be in the final measure is unclear, and President Bush has threatened to veto it.

Business advocates said taxes could have been driven up significantly by ending the practice that allows companies to record sales from inventory at the higher, current cost of acquiring or producing the goods rather than a potentially lower original price.

Some panicked executives told their Washington representatives the increase could be from $30 million to $60 million for their individual companies alone.

"When this deal first surfaced late Thursday, the business community was just shocked," said Bruce Josten, at the United States Chamber of Commerce. "Instantly, if not rather simultaneously, people started making calls to the Senate leadership, to the staff of the Senate Finance Committee. It was the wholesalers, the manufacturers, the mass retailers."

Jade West, senior vice president at the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, said she learned about the full reach of Mr. Frist's proposal at midafternoon on Thursday and did not believe the report at first.

When Ms. West polled some of the association's largest members, all of whom juggle large inventories, their response was frantic. One called the proposal "dumb and irrational," she said. By Friday, the wholesalers had mobilized an e-mail campaign that resulted in about 350 letters to the Senate by Monday morning.

The Retail Industry Leaders Association, a trade group representing about 400 businesses including Wal-Mart and Target, began rallying their big-box store members first thing Friday.

"It was just surprising that they didn't see the writing on the wall, they didn't see the opposition that this provision would face," said Shannon Campagna, the organization's vice president for government affairs. "They didn't have their ear to the ground."

Edmund L. Andrews and Kate Phillips contributed reporting for this article.

    Republicans Drop a Tax Plan After Businesses Protest, NYT, 2.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/washington/02cong.html?hp&ex=1146628800&en=b536b3582ac16693&ei=5094&partner=homepage

In Senate Race, Pork Is Portrayed as Bad Politics

May 2, 2006
The New York Times
By MONICA DAVEY

OMAHA, April 26 — In some other year, Pete Ricketts, a wealthy former Ameritrade executive who wants to replace Ben Nelson in the United States Senate, would probably not have considered mentioning all the items Mr. Nelson and his colleagues in Washington have helped bring home to Nebraska: financing for a parking garage at the private Creighton University, for instance, or for a parking lot at the Joslyn Art Museum here.

Those would be left for Senator Nelson, a Democrat, to boast about.

But with days to go before Nebraska's primary election, Mr. Ricketts and at least one other Republican candidate are eagerly discussing such projects in interviews, forums and fund-raisers, portraying them as symbols of corruption and waste in Washington.

And so, in a reversal of tactics, challengers here and in other states like Montana, Ohio and Rhode Island are telling voters what the incumbents have brought home, in the hopes, it seems, that the national controversy over the pet projects known as earmarks has come home, too.

"In a time of war, and with the costs of Katrina, we've got to look at what we want to have and what we've got to have," said Mr. Ricketts, who has never run for office but was ahead of the two other Republican candidates in a recent poll. "We've got to end earmarks — or at least reform them."

For years, with little effect, a small group of Republican senators, including John McCain of Arizona, has fought earmarks, the bits of bill language directing federal dollars to specific projects. But the combination of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal and the federal budget deficit has drawn new scrutiny to efforts by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to secure pet projects for constituents and supporters.

It is uncertain how the issue may play out across the country. People here, in downtown Omaha and in the small towns close by, have expressed a layered view. Many say they are appalled by the costly items lawmakers have slipped into bills with little or no debate. But when it comes to their own parking garage or local museum, they do not particularly wish to send back the money, either.

"I am critical of the fact that the federal government is worried about paying for parking garages — and for a million other things like that," said Steve McCollister, who heard Mr. Ricketts speak at a recent fund-raiser in west Omaha. "But they are. And if they are, I want my senator to be in there. I want Nebraska to compete."

The fight for Mr. Nelson's seat is drawing national notice, partly because Mr. Ricketts — whose father founded Ameritrade, the online brokerage firm — has put some $3.9 million of his own money into his campaign, sending spending to a level political analysts here say is unprecedented for a Nebraska primary.

The contest may also be a test of whether Republicans have a chance to pick up Senate seats in a year in which Democrats are hopeful that they can recapture control of Congress.

Out of a population of 1.7 million people, more than 570,000 registered voters in Nebraska are Republicans, 375,071 are listed as Democrats and 184,852 are independents. Though the state's unicameral legislature is nonpartisan, the governor is Republican, its three United States House members are Republican, and its other United States senator, Chuck Hagel, is Republican.

Still, Mr. Nelson, a former governor who votes with the Republican majority more than almost any other Democratic senator, has long relied on his reputation as a maverick to insulate him from assertions that he is out of step politically with his state.

"They want somebody who's going to be independent-minded," Mr. Nelson said in a telephone interview. "I don't play partisan politics."

Although Mr. Nelson is unopposed in the May 9 Democratic primary, his campaign is already running television advertisements, even though it is uncertain who will win the hard-fought Republican primary — a race between Mr. Ricketts; Don Stenberg, a former state attorney general who narrowly lost to Mr. Nelson in 2000; and David Kramer, a former state Republican Party chairman.

Asked about earmarks, all three Republicans were deeply critical.

Mr. Stenberg said the practice was contributing to the federal deficit and suggested that more populous states would secure more money for more projects in such battles.

"Nebraskans are kidding themselves if we think we're going to win the trade-the-bacon race," Mr. Stenberg said outside the federal courthouse in Omaha as he waited to speak in favor of a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman (a provision his opponents and Mr. Nelson also say they favor).

In an interview in his Omaha law office, Mr. Kramer more pointedly criticized Mr. Nelson.

"He is proud as punch of the fact that he brings all sorts of pork to Nebraska," Mr. Kramer said. "I can't be critical of bridges to nowhere in Alaska and rain forests in Iowa if I'm not going to be critical of projects here."

Mr. Nelson objected to his opponent's choice of the word "pork" and defended his efforts. He characterized such spending as allowing elected state leaders to decide what their regions need, rather than letting "some nameless, faceless" Washington bureaucrat make such decisions. And he talked of money needed in Nebraska for farm programs, medical research and rural hospitals, saying none of these initiatives were anything to apologize for.

In discussing the more than $900,000 in federal financing Mr. Nelson supported for a planned parking lot at the Joslyn Art Museum, a private institution, his campaign staff said that the lot would reduce traffic and sometimes be used by members of the community and the school system. Sandra Reding, a leader at the museum foundation, said it was merely one piece of a larger downtown development plan that would benefit the city and the region.

In talking about the $15.7 million Mr. Nelson supported for transportation improvements, including a garage at Creighton, the senator said that all of Nebraska's top elected leaders, in Lincoln and in Washington, had favored the plan.

The voters, Mr. Nelson said, will not be swayed by any of the talk about earmarks.

"They apparently haven't polled on it," Mr. Nelson said of the Republicans, "or they wouldn't be talking about it."

John R. Hibbing, a political science professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said Senator Nelson might be right. As a campaign issue, earmarks may fail, Mr. Hibbing said, especially in a state like Nebraska, which has often worried about losing out to more populous states.

Roger duRand, an architect and interior designer drinking coffee downtown on a recent afternoon, said, "Even the most conservative people are cynical when it comes to this."

In the student union at Creighton, even those who said they did not care for a new garage seemed unfazed.

"What else is politicking about?" said Lynn Schneiderman, who works in a university library. "If we don't get it, someone else might."

But the secretary of state, John A. Gale, a Republican, said there might yet be an opening for the earmark issue here.

"There are some states where it's more of a tradition to bring home the bacon," Mr. Gale said, "but people in the Midwest really are much more focused on fiscal responsibility and balanced books, and there is a fair amount of resistance around here to excessive use of federal funds. Not every plum that's proposed around here is well received."

On a recent evening in Gretna, a town of a few thousand people outside Omaha, candidates stood at a microphone on the high school stage and made low-key pitches to a polite crowd. Sally McGuire, a three-term City Council member, watched every speaker, down to the local sheriff, and afterward said that earmarks made her fume.

"I don't know why they do things like that in Washington," Ms. McGuire said, "but it would never happen here."

She added that she had seen plenty of city projects come and go, and that no one had tried to slip in a pet item without debate.

Gretchen Ruethling contributed reporting from Chicago for this article.

    In Senate Race, Pork Is Portrayed as Bad Politics, NYT, 2.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/us/02nelson.html?hp&ex=1146628800&en=25a4006f65f871f5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

'Abolish' FEMA, says bipartisan Senate panel

Updated 4/26/2006 11:09 PM ET
USA TODAY
By Mimi Hall

WASHINGTON — A Senate report coming out today says the Federal Emergency Management Agency is a failure and should be replaced with a more powerful disaster-response agency.

"FEMA is in shambles and beyond repair," Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairwoman of the homeland security committee, said in a statement. "It should be abolished."

That's the top recommendation of Collins' committee, which held 22 hearings and reviewed 838,000 pages of documents in a seven-month probe of the government's response to Hurricane Katrina. USA TODAY received a copy of the report's recommendations, to be made public today.

The committee is proposing that a new National Preparedness and Response Authority (NPRA) be created in the Homeland Security Department with a leader who answers directly to the department secretary.

The NPRA would be "a powerful new organization that can confront the challenges of manmade or natural catastrophes," the Senate report says.

Homeland Security said a new agency is not needed.

"It is time to stop playing around with organizational charts and start focusing on how governments at all levels are preparing for the fast-approaching storm season," spokesman Russ Knocke said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the committee, said the investigation revealed broad leadership lapses.

"The president failed to provide critical leadership when it was most needed," he said. "And that contributed to a grossly ineffective federal response to Hurricane Katrina."

The Senate report follows others from the House and the White House. Those reports criticized FEMA but did not suggest abolishing the agency.

Among the Senate report's 86 recommendations:

•Create regional "strike teams" to respond to disasters.

•Build a governmentwide operations center to coordinate disaster response.

•Develop more full-time staff and contracts with companies to provide goods and services when storms hit.

    'Abolish' FEMA, says bipartisan Senate panel, UT, 26.4.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-26-fema_x.htm

Senate's Failure to Agree on Immigration Plan Angers Workers and Employers Alike

April 9, 2006
The New York Times
By ABBY GOODNOUGH and JENNIFER STEINHAUER

Until it collapsed on Friday, a compromise immigration plan in the Senate offered Rigoberto Morales a chance to reach his dream of becoming an American citizen.

Mr. Morales had worked eight years in the sun-baked fields of Immokalee, Fla., in the southern part of the state, picking tomatoes, evading the authorities, and sending most of his earnings to his mother and daughter in Mexico. The Senate plan would have allowed Mr. Morales, 25, to apply for permanent residency because he has lived here more than five years.

But as tantalizing as the possibility was, Mr. Morales said he never really believed Congress would solve his plight.

"It's a very bad thing because we're working very hard here and there's no support from the government," he said, standing outside a dreary shack where he lives with his wife and three other tomato pickers, all illegal immigrants from Mexico. "We're only working. We're not committing a sin."

Many of the nation's approximately 11 million illegal immigrants — as well as their employers — have long sought some of the major provisions in the Senate proposal, which failed amid partisan rancor.

In interviews, employers and illegal workers said the bill would have offered significant improvement, and several said the failure of the compromise was a lost opportunity.

"This is disappointing," said Edward Overdevest, president of Overdevest Nurseries in Bridgeton, N.J. "I think it is a setback for reason, it is a setback for common sense."

Mr. Overdevest said the Senate had failed to solve a problem that has been festering for years.

Mr. Overdevest and other employers who rely on an existing guest worker program that is smaller than what was proposed had hoped that the Senate would address the reams of red tape they say have plagued the program.

Antonia Fuentes, a Mexican who has picked tomatoes in Immokalee for two years, said legal status, even as a guest worker, would have allowed her to breathe easier even though life would have remained hard. "We live here in fear," said Ms. Fuentes, 18. "We fear Immigration will come, and many people just don't go out."

Yet she and others were wary of a provision in the Senate plan that would have forced illegal immigrants who have been here from two to five years to return home and then apply for temporary work in the United States. A million immigrants who have been here illegally for less than two years would have had to leave with little promise of returning.

Paulino Pineda, a community college custodian in Perrysburg, Ohio, outside Toledo, said any bill that did not provide amnesty to all illegal immigrants was flawed.

"It's not a democratic solution," said Mr. Pineda, 65, who moved to the United States from the Dominican Republic in 1992 and sends money home to his 11 children. "If people come here, work very hard, do everything they're told to do, and then when they're not needed anymore they're told to take your things and go back, they might as well be slaves."

According to the Department of Labor, the United States economy will add about five million jobs in businesses like retail, food service and landscaping over the next decade, with not enough American workers to meet the need.

Many employers — especially in industries that rely on large numbers of unskilled laborers — had embraced the idea of a guest-worker program. They said it would stabilize the workforce, reduce the high cost of turnover and perhaps increase the number of workers available.

But others said an expanded guest-worker program would bring higher costs and more paperwork, and were cheered by the Senate bill's defeat.

"Yay!" said Jay Taylor, president of Taylor & Fulton, a tomato grower in Florida, Maryland and Virginia, who said that the bill was too hastily drafted and that Congress had not grasped the complexity of the issue. Mr. Taylor said guest workers should be able to come and go as they pleased, with freedom to earn wages in this country but no promise of citizenship or benefits.

"It was a dinner cooked in a pressure cooker," said Mr. Taylor, who employs nearly 1,000 immigrants. "What we need is something that comes out of a crock pot. We need something that is well thought out, well planned and well executed, and in the atmosphere we are in today on this subject, we're not going to get that kind of situation."

Judith Ingalls, a vice president at Fortune Contract Inc., a carpet maker in Dalton, Ga., did not find many of the provisions in the Senate bill practical, particularly those that would have required longtime immigrants to learn English and to pay fines.

"It is crazy to listen to this whole debate when you live here and see what is happening," Ms. Ingalls said. "Nothing I have heard out of Washington works."

Many employers, too, oppose any provision that would penalize them for hiring illegal workers, knowingly or not. Some expressed concern about the provision that would have granted citizenship to immigrants who had been in the United States for at least five years, saying it might have encouraged them to quit or be less productive.

"The illegals are probably better workers than the legal ones," said Mike Gonya, who farms 2,800 acres of wheat and vegetables near Fremont, Ohio. "The legal ones know the system. They know legal recourse. The illegal ones will bust their butts."

Some employers, especially in agriculture, say keeping full operations in the United States will not be viable without an overhaul of the system.

Jack Vessey, who runs a garlic-production company in El Centro, Calif., said stricter border enforcement and competition with other agriculture businesses had lengthened his harvest season by months and left him shorthanded.

"We don't have the people to work," Mr. Vessey said.

Agricultural businesses, with their mostly migrant workforce, are the proverbial canaries in the coal mine of immigration. With some local governments searching for ways to stem illegal immigration, other businesses fear that time is running out.

"Disruptions in agriculture could cause disruptions in our own workforce," said John Gay, vice president for government affairs at the National Restaurant Association, which said it did not have enough workers to deal with the industry's projected growth over the next few years. "We have been muddling through with this don't-ask-don't-tell policy we've had, but it's not sustainable."

Abby Goodnough reported from Immokalee, Fla., for this article, and Jennifer Steinhauer from New York. Terry Aguayo contributed reporting from Immokalee, Brenda Goodman from Georgia and Chris Maag from Ohio.

    Senate's Failure to Agree on Immigration Plan Angers Workers and Employers Alike, NYT, 9.4.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/washington/09immig.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Immigration Compromise Stalls in Senate

April 7, 2006
The New York Times
By RACHEL L. SWARNS and JOHN HOLUSHA

WASHINGTON, April 7 — A carefully constructed compromise on immigration reform ran into a roadblock in the Senate today as Democrats fended off conservative Republican efforts to amend the agreement and an effort to cut off debate on elements of the plan failed by a lopsided vote.

After the 60-to-38 vote, the Senate returned to routine business, sidelining a two-week effort to find a way of dealing with the estimated 11 million people who are living in the country illegally.

"I think politics got in front of policy on this issue," said Senator Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who was one of the principal sponsors of the reform legislation.

Despite the bipartisan agreement announced Thursday, some conservative Republicans insisted on trying to offer amendments that the bill's sponsors said would have distorted its purpose. The Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, termed the effort "filibuster by amendment."

Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said the compromise had not involved the people who should have been involved and was still too generous on what he termed "amnesty. "

"This bill is a dead horse, in my view," he said.

However, Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who had fashioned an earlier bill that opponents had deemed too soft on immigration, vowed to make the issue the "number one priority" of the committee after the recess.

And some legislators said the bipartisan compromise announced Thursday was very much alive and would pass easily if put to an up or down vote.

President Bush said the current immigration system is flawed and said he was confident that reform legislation could still be adopted. Speaking at the national Catholic prayer breakfast in Washington, he said, "An immigration system that forces people into the shadows of society or leaves them prey to criminals is a system that needs to be changed."

Mr. Bush added "I'm confident we can change—change our immigration system in ways that secures our border, respects the rule of law, and, as importantly, upholds the decency of our country."

Despite the compromise announced Thursday, prospects for passage had grown more uncertain as Republicans and Democrats clashed late into the night over parliamentary procedure.

Both sides said that without a quick resolution of the differences they would not have a vote on the final legislation before Congress leaves for its spring recess after today., This raisedr the possibility that the compromise might unravel as it is exposed to intense political scrutiny during the two-week Congressional break.

The plan would create a temporary worker program that would allow 325,000 foreigners to fill jobs in the United States each year. And, if passed, it would mark the most sweeping immigration accord in two decades.

The late-night battle burst into the open many hours after Senate leaders had resolved their substantive differences over the thorny question of legalization. Conservatives, who condemned the compromise as little more than amnesty for lawbreakers, sought to offer amendments to the bill. But Democrats refused to allow votes on the amendments, saying they were intended to delay the process and gut the legislation.

And as members of the two parties took to the Senate floor to accuse each other of trying to derail the legislation, negotiators warned that the failure to resolve the procedural disagreements was jeopardizing what everyone described as a substantive agreement.

"The fact that we did not act tonight is a huge blow," said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and a main architect of the deal.

Under the Senate agreement, illegal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years or more, about seven million people, would eventually be granted citizenship if they remained employed, had background checks, paid fines and back taxes and learned English.

Illegal immigrants who have lived here for two to five years, about three million people, would have to travel to a United States border crossing and apply for a temporary work visa. They would be eligible for permanent residency and citizenship over time, but they would have to wait several years longer for it.

Illegal immigrants who have been here less than two years, about one million people, would be required to leave the country altogether. They could apply for spots in the temporary worker program, but they would not be guaranteed positions.

President Bush had praised the Senate's efforts Thursday and urged lawmakers "to work hard and get the bill done" before the recess.

And Republican and Democratic leaders, who had battled so bitterly on Wednesday that an agreement seemed in jeopardy, stood side by side on Thursday morning, hailing the deal as a historic decision that would enhance national security by bringing illegal immigrants out of the shadows while meeting the nation's needs for labor.

Flanked by more than a dozen Republican and Democratic lawmakers, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, stood before a crush of television cameras on Thursday morning and called the compromise "a huge breakthrough."

But as the day wore on, tensions began to rise as Republicans insisted that the Democrats allow a vote on several of their amendments.

One amendment would require the Department of Homeland Security to certify that the border was secure before creating a guest worker program or granting legal status to illegal immigrants. Another would have the legalization program bar illegal immigrants who had deportation orders or had been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors. Democratic critics of the proposals said they were intended to ensure that the legalization process would never be implemented.

Republican supporters of the compromise, including Mr. McCain, said he and others would easily vote down such amendments if they were brought to a vote.

Meanwhile, Democrats said they were still awaiting detailed assurances from Mr. Frist and others that Republicans would defend the agreement in the face of strong conservative opposition when House and Senate negotiators sit down to reconcile their bills.

Any immigration bill that passes the Senate must first be reconciled with the tough border security bill that passed the House in December. And House conservatives warned on Thursday that they would reject the Senate compromise. Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that the compromise measure would pass easily if lawmakers were allowed to vote for it. But parliamentary procedures allow even a small number of senators to prevent a vote from occurring before the spring recess.

"Here we are now and we have made absolutely no progress," said Mr. Frist, taking to the Senate floor.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, countered that Republicans seemed intent on bogging down the process with countless amendments. "Republicans seem intent on delaying and defeating this compromise," Mr. Reid said.

In recent weeks, both parties have been under pressure to pass legislation that would resolve the fate of the 11 million or so illegal immigrants in the United States. President Bush has raised the issue, business groups have lobbied fiercely for it, and tens of thousands of immigrants and their supporters nationwide have poured into the streets, reflecting the growing political muscle of Hispanics.

But the debate has deeply divided the Republican Party, and conservatives warned on Thursday that the Senate compromise sounded too similar to the amnesty enacted by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, which granted legal status to nearly three million illegal immigrants.

"This compromise would repeat the mistakes of the past, but on a much larger scale because 12 million illegal immigrants would still be placed on an easier path to citizenship," said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas.

Rachel L. Swarns reported from Washington for this article and John Holusha from New York.

    Immigration Compromise Stalls in Senate, NYT, 7.4.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/washington/07cnd-immig.html?hp&ex=1144468800&en=06036fea1d52aba0&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Watergate figure appears at censure hearing

Posted 3/31/2006 10:21 AM Updated 3/31/2006 11:51 PM
USA Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — John W. Dean, Richard Nixon's White House lawyer, told senators Friday that President Bush's domestic spying exceeds the wrongdoing that toppled his former boss. (On Deadline: Who's side are you on?)

Bush, Dean told the Senate Judiciary Committee, should be censured and possibly impeached.

"Had the Senate or House, or both, censured or somehow warned Richard Nixon, the tragedy of Watergate might have been prevented," Dean said. "Hopefully the Senate will not sit by while even more serious abuses unfold before it."

Republicans and their witnesses rejected the comparison between Watergate and Bush's wiretapping program, and attributed Sen. Russell Feingold's censure resolution to posturing in a year of midterm elections.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said the comparison to Watergate is "apples and oranges" because Nixon's actions were more about saving himself and his presidency than national security.

"Quit trying to score political points," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, shot across the aisle at committee Democrats.

In fact, only two Democrats have co-sponsored Feingold's resolution: Sens. Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California. The rest have distanced themselves from the proposal, with many saying the resolution is premature because a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of the eavesdropping program has not concluded.

At issue is whether Bush's secretive domestic spying program violates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Bush has said the National Security Agency's wiretapping program is aimed at finding terrorists before they strike on American soil by tapping the phones of people making calls overseas. He has launched a criminal investigation to find out who leaked the program's existence to The New York Times, saying the report in December tipped off anyone who might be planning attacks.

At a Republican fundraiser in Pensacola, Fla., Friday night, Bush political adviser Karl Rove said, "How ridiculous in a time of war is it to have concern about Osama bin Laden's civil liberties over the security interests of the United states of America?"

Critics say Bush already has the ability to conduct wiretaps under the FISA law and any information gathered without a court order may be inadmissible at a trial.

Feingold's measure would condemn Bush's "unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required" by the FISA act.

"If we in the Congress don't stand up for ourselves and the American people, we become complicit in the lawbreaking," Feingold, D-Wis., told the panel. "The resolution of censure is the appropriate response."

Feingold summoned Dean to the hearing in part because the former White House counsel made his suspicions about the Bush administration clear long before the wiretapping program became public.

In his 2004 book, Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, Dean wrote that the former Texas governor began to evoke Nixonian memories with his strategies against Republican John McCain's primary challenge in South Carolina in 2000.

After The New York Times revealed the NSA program in December, Dean wrote that "Bush may have outdone Nixon" and may be worthy of impeachment.

"Nixon's illegal surveillance was limited; Bush's, it is developing, may be extraordinarily broad in scope," Dean wrote in a column for FindLaw.com in December.

Dean served four months in prison for his role in Watergate, a political scandal that involved illegal wiretapping, burglary and abuse of power aimed at Nixon enemies. Administration officials were implicated in the ensuing cover-up.

Nixon resigned Aug. 9, 1974, less than two weeks after the House Judiciary Committee began approving three articles of impeachment against him, charging obstruction of justice as well as abuse of power and withholding evidence.

Dean said Friday that the issue is one of checks and balances, adding Congress should pass some measure serving a warning to Bush if it can't stomach a censure resolution.

"The president needs to be reminded that separation of powers does not mean an isolation of powers," he said.

    Watergate figure appears at censure hearing, UT, 31.3.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-31-censure_x.htm

Senate Approves Lobbying Limits by Large Margin

March 30, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, March 29 — The Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed the first major restrictions on lobbying in more than a decade, banning lobbyists from giving gifts and meals to lawmakers and tightening rules for pet projects known as earmarks.

But critics said the bipartisan measure fell far short of its original aim, and some lawmakers who led the effort for tighter restrictions voted against it.

The bill would require lobbyists to file more public reports about their activities in a database that would be searchable on the Internet, would demand that lawmakers receive advance approval for trips paid with private money and would bar former lawmakers and senior aides from lobbying Congress for two years.

The vote, 90 to 8, was taken hours after Jack Abramoff, whose activities as a lobbyist led to a federal criminal investigation into corruption here and helped spark calls for a crackdown on influence peddling, was sentenced in Miami to nearly six years in prison for his role in the fraudulent purchase of a cruise line. Mr. Abramoff, who said in a brief court appearance Wednesday that he was "extremely remorseful," is cooperating with federal prosecutors in a broader investigation that is scrutinizing members of Congress, among others, and has provided Democrats an opening to attack Republicans on ethical grounds.

Mr. Abramoff's wining and dining, featuring tales of lavish meals at his restaurant here and laundered money that paid for golf trips to Scotland, have helped sour the public on Congress, driving lawmakers' approval ratings to historic lows in an election year.

When Mr. Abramoff pleaded guilty to charges of corruption in January and agreed to tell what he knows to federal prosecutors, Republicans and Democrats called for wide-ranging changes in the way the tens of thousands of registered lobbyists do business.

"There's a sign that's now up in front of the Capitol," said Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, a chief Democratic author of the measure, said after the vote. "It says 'Not for Sale."

The measure would not ban private travel, as some members have urged. Nor would it rein in lawmakers' ability to fly on corporate jets at heavily discounted rates, a practice that gives precious access to lobbyists, who often go along for the trip.

The measure would not do away with earmarks, though it would make it more difficult for lawmakers to insert the pet projects quietly into bills at lobbyists' behest. And the Senate overwhelmingly rejected, 30 to 67, a move to create an independent ethics office to investigate accusations of abuse.

Republican leaders in the House are backing a proposal that would temporarily ban privately financed trips. Their approach would also require lobbyists to disclose meals and gifts to lawmakers, and it would require members of Congress to disclose when they earmark money for the types of specific projects that critics deride as pork-barrel spending.

House Republicans are split over the plan, and it is not clear whether the House and Senate will be able to agree on a measure this year.

Leaders of both parties, as well as the architects of the Senate bill, hailed its bipartisan passage at a time Republicans and Democrats rarely work together.

"Congress stepped up in a big way," the Republicans' point man on lobbying changes, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, said. "This is a much tougher bill than anyone would have anticipated when we started this process."

Some of the most highly visible advocates to change lobbying laws disagreed. Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, who joined forces in the lobbying debate and then had a public dispute over it, were among those voting against the bill, as was Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.

"It's very, very weak," Mr. McCain said.

He predicted that there would be more indictments in the Abramoff case and that "I think we will be revisiting this issue."

Another senator who voted against the bill, Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said his colleagues would suffer at the polls for failing to cut back on lobbyists' influence by eliminating the earmarks.

"You can wash the outside of the cup all you want," Mr. Coburn said. "If the inside is still unclean, you're going to have the same problems."

The bill does little to break the link between lobbyists and lawmakers' money-raising machines, because senators decided that those issues related to campaign finance, not lobbying.

As a result, the bill steers entirely clear of regulating the fund-raising activities of lobbyists, some of whom help run political action committees of the same lawmakers they hope to influence.

In that respect, Mr. Dodd said, the measure does not address "true meaningful campaign finance reform that breaks the link between the legislative favor seekers and the free flow of special interest private money."

Government watchdog groups agreed.

"This bill is not going to cut it and it's not going to fool the public," Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, an advocacy group, said. "The Senate was looking inward today."

With the midterm elections looming, Republican leaders in both chambers have been eager to pass a lobbying bill well before November to demonstrate that they are serious about cleaning up business in the Capitol.

Some lawmakers in tough re-election fights wondered whether the measure would help.

"I don't know," said Senator Mike DeWine, the Ohio Republican who is facing a tough re-election battle against Representative Sherrod Brown. "People are not really talking to me directly about lobbying. I think they're concerned about some of the quote scandal, but I don't have anybody come up to me and say there's a lobbying problem. It doesn't get that specific."

The Senate did consider an independent Office of Public Integrity to investigate accusations of ethics abuses. But the measure, proposed by Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, was resoundingly defeated on Tuesday, drawing support from just 30 senators.

Ms. Collins said Wednesday that she was disappointed.

"The public," she said, "does not trust a system where we set our own rules, we're our own advisers, we're our own investigators, we're our own prosecutors, we're our own judges, and we're our own jurors."

    Senate Approves Lobbying Limits by Large Margin, NYT, 30.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/30/politics/30lobby.html?hp&ex=1143694800&en=6c0379aa3c1bd0bf&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Lawmakers criticize Washington disaster plan delay

Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:37 PM ET
Reuters
By David Lawder

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. capital is vulnerable to a major terror attack or natural disaster because it still does not have a coordinated recovery plan, U.S. senators and other government officials said on Wednesday.

A disaster response plan for Washington, D.C., neighboring Virginia and Maryland, and the federal government that was due last September is still being worked on and will probably be nearly a year late, officials told a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee.

Sen. George Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, said the delay was "unacceptable."

"After the poor response to Hurricane Katrina, we saw the importance of establishing a clear chain of command before a catastrophic event occurs," Voinovich said. "Because the national capital region has multiple entities involved with security, it is imperative that we know who is in charge."

Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, cited problems in the way authorities handled the a breach of Washington air space by a small plane in May 2005.

"Mayor Williams was not notified of the incident until it was almost over, approximately 40 minutes after the Department of Homeland Security began tracking the plane," he said.

In joint testimony, emergency management officials from the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia said significant progress has been made on a strategic coordination plan, but the process was delayed by work on an application for $188 million in Department of Homeland Security grant funds.

They are seeking the funds for items such as communications gear and chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear detection equipment. The officials said they hope to complete a final version of the emergency master plan by August.

Sen. John Warner, a Virginia Republican, admonished the officials to quickly let Congress know what further funding they need to ensure that people can be evacuated and emergency authorities can communicate with one another. That was not the case during the September 11 attack on the Pentagon, when emergency vehicles were blocked by traffic-clogged roads and communications systems failed.

"Gentlemen, if another crisis hits in this community and we're all running around like we were on 9/11, the people in this community are in trouble -- all of them," Warner said.

Edward Reiskin, District of Columbia deputy mayor for public safety and justice, said much progress has been made since the 9/11 attacks and the city is now able to control traffic lights to ease evacuation routes.

Notification from federal authorities has been rapid on more recent air space incursions, he added.

The region also now has a radio system that will allow the various jurisdictions to talk to each other, Reiskin said, adding that this will soon be expanded to a broadband data link.

    Lawmakers criticize Washington disaster plan delay, R, 29.3.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-03-30T013729Z_01_N29313334_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-WASHINGTON.xml

Trade Truce With China in the Senate

March 29, 2006
The New York Times
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, March 28 — Two of China's most relentless critics in Congress announced a temporary cease-fire on Tuesday in their long-running attack on China's foreign-exchange practices.

In an about-face, Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, dropped plans for a bill that would threaten steep tariffs on Chinese imports if Chinese leaders refuse to let their currency, the yuan, rise in value against the dollar.

Both lawmakers said they had become more optimistic as a result of their weeklong trip to China, where Chinese leaders emphasized their willingness to let their currency float more freely and to address other aspects of their nation's growing trade deficit with the United States.

"We learned that the Chinese have come to a conclusion that a fixed currency is no good for China," Mr. Schumer said Tuesday. "We believe that the progress we have seen in the last two or three weeks will continue."

Mr. Schumer and Mr. Graham said they would not demand a Senate vote on their bill, which would threaten China with a 27.5 percent tariff on all exports to the United States if it did not let its currency move in line with market forces.

Though they said that they reserved the right to push for a vote by the end of September, the two senators made it clear they hoped to let the matter drop.

China has kept its currency at an almost fixed exchange rate against the dollar for more than a decade, and American manufacturers have long complained that the yuan's low valuation has given Chinese imports an extra competitive edge.

Political anxiety about China's huge trade surplus and its competitive pressure on American producers has risen in many quarters of Congress. The Bush administration, though a staunch defender of trade with China, has bluntly criticized Chinese leaders for failing to address a long list of trade complaints and has hinted it might accuse China of engaging in "currency manipulation."

Mr. Schumer and Mr. Graham have been threatening to force a Senate vote on their bill for nearly two years, but they have repeatedly held back after receiving assurances that China was moving toward a more flexible exchange-rate policy.

Last July, China announced a 2.1 increase in the value of the yuan and said it was moving away from a fixed exchange rate. But the yuan barely budged again until earlier this month, when the government allowed it to edge up another 1 percent.

As a practical matter, American companies are ambivalent about the entire issue.

The National Association of Manufacturers has complained about China's exchange rates for years, but it has opposed the Schumer-Graham bill out of fear that it would imperil a trade relationship that is vital to many American companies.

The group estimates that about a quarter of all manufactured goods from China come from subsidiaries of American companies. But that estimate does not include large volumes of imports from Chinese companies working as subcontractors to American manufacturers.

Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa and Senator Max Baucus of Montana, respectively the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, are pushing a separate bill that would focus more attention on currency policies but stop short of threatening tariffs on imported goods.

    Trade Truce With China in the Senate, NYT, 29.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/business/worldbusiness/29trade.html

Bill to Broaden Immigration Law Gains in Senate

March 28, 2006
The New York Times
By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, March 27 — With Republicans deeply divided, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on Monday to legalize the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants and to grant them citizenship, provided that they hold jobs, pass criminal background checks, learn English and pay fines and back taxes.

The panel also voted to create a vast temporary worker program that would allow roughly 400,000 foreigners to come to the United States to work each year and would ultimately grant them citizenship as well.

The legislation, which the committee sent to the full Senate on a 12-to-6 vote, represents the most sweeping effort by Congress in decades to grant legal status to illegal immigrants. If passed, it would create the largest guest worker program since the bracero program brought 4.6 million Mexican agricultural workers into country between 1942 and 1960.

Any legislation that passes the Senate will have to be reconciled with the tough border security bill passed in December by the Republican-controlled House, which defied Mr. Bush's call for a temporary worker plan.

The Senate panel's plan, which also includes provisions to strengthen border security, was quickly hailed by Democrats, a handful of Republicans, and business leaders as well as by the immigrant advocacy organizations and church groups that have sent tens of thousands of supporters of immigrant rights into the streets in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Denver to push for such legislation in recent days.

But even as hundreds of priests, ministers and imams rallied on the grounds of the Capitol on Monday, chanting "Let them stay! Let them stay!" the plan was fiercely attacked by conservative Republicans who called it nothing more than an offer of amnesty for lawbreakers. It remained unclear Monday night whether Senator Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, would allow the bill to go for a vote this week on the floor or would substitute his own bill, which focuses on border security.

His aides have said that Mr. Frist, who has said he wants a vote on immigration this week, would be reluctant to move forward with legislation that did not have the backing of a majority of the Republicans on the committee.

Only 4 of the 10 Republicans on the committee supported the bill. They were the committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Sam Brownback of Kansas. All eight Democrats on the committee voted in favor of the legislation.

The rift among Republicans on the committee reflects the deep divisions in the party as business groups push to legalize their workers and conservatives battle to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Mr. Specter acknowledged the difficulties ahead, saying, "We are making the best of a difficult situation." But he said he believed that the legislation would ultimately pass the Senate and would encourage the millions of illegal immigrants to come out of the shadows.

"We do not want to create a fugitive class in America," Mr. Specter said after the vote. "We do not want to create an underclass in America."

"I think this represents a reasonable accommodation," he said, referring to the divergent views on the panel. "It's not a majority of the majority, but it's a good number."

Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said Monday night that President Bush was "pleased to see the Senate moving forward on legislation." Mr. Bush has repeatedly called for a temporary worker program that would legalize the nation's illegal immigrants, though he has said such a plan must not include amnesty.

"It is a difficult issue that will require compromise and tough choices, but the important thing at this point is that the process is moving forward," Mr. McClellan said.

Lawmakers central to the immigration debate acknowledged that the televised images of tens of thousands of demonstrators, waving flags and fliers, marching in opposition to a punitive immigration policy in recent days helped spur the panel to find a bipartisan compromise.

"All of those people who were demonstrating were not necessarily here illegally," said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who sponsored the legalization measures with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts. Mr. Kennedy described the people who would benefit from the bill as "our neighbors," adding: "They're churchgoers. They're the shop owners down the street. They're the people we know."

The protesters were rallying in opposition to the security bill passed by the House. The House bill would, among other things, make it a federal crime to live in this country illegally, turning the millions of illegal immigrants here into felons, ineligible to win any legal status. (Currently, living in this country without authorization is a violation of civil immigration law, not criminal law.)

The legislation passed by the Judiciary Committee on Monday also emphasized border security and would nearly double the number of Border Patrol agents over the next five years, criminalize the construction of tunnels into the United States from another country and speed the deportation of illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico. But it also softened some of the tougher elements in the House legislation.

Addressing one of the most contentious issues, the panel voted to eliminate the provisions that would criminalize immigrants for living here illegally and protect groups and individuals from being prosecuted for offering humanitarian assistance to illegal immigrants.

Conservatives on the committee warned that the plan would generate a groundswell of opposition among ordinary Americans who had been demanding tighter controls at the border and an end to the waves of illegal immigration.

Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama, said the Judiciary panel "let the American people down by passing out a blanket amnesty bill."

Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, said the foreign workers would take American jobs during a recession. "Get ready for a real tough time," Mr. Kyl said, "when American workers come to your office and say, 'How did you let this happen?' "

Under the proposal, participants in the temporary worker program would have to work for six years before they could apply for a green card. Any worker who remained unemployed for 60 days or longer during those six years would be forced to leave the country. (Employers could petition for permanent residency on behalf of their employees six months after the worker entered into the program.)

The legalization plan for the nation's illegal immigrants would require the undocumented to work in the United States for six years before they could apply for permanent residency. They could apply for citizenship five years after that. Immigrants would have to pay a fine, back taxes and learn English.

Mr. Graham called it an 11-year journey to citizenship.

"To me that's not amnesty," he said. "That is working for the right over an 11-year period to become a citizen. It is not a blanket pardon."

"The president believes and most of us here believe that the 11 million undocumented people are also workers," Mr. Graham said. "We couldn't get by as a nation without those workers and without those people."

    Bill to Broaden Immigration Law Gains in Senate, NYT, 28.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/politics/28immig.html?hp&ex=1143522000&en=aa1b59ab1a219424&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Senate Panel Backs Protection of Groups That Aid Immigrants

March 27, 2006
The New York Times
By JOHN O'NEIL and JOHN HOLUSHA

The Senate Judiciary Committee began its work on an immigration bill today by approving a measure that would shelter social-service groups from prosecution for assisting people who are in the country illegally.

The provision, if adopted by the full Senate, would set up a conflict with the House, which passed a bill late last year that would make any such assistance a crime. That has touched off protests across the nation and drawn opposition from the Roman Catholic Church and other religious groups.

President Bush also weighed in on immigration today, calling on Congress to pass a bill that would create a guest worker system but not offer amnesty to those now in the country illegally.

Mr. Bush spoke at a naturalization ceremony at Constitution Hall in Washington as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee took up a bill proposed by the panel's chairman, Senator Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican.

Outside the Capitol, demonstrators protested against the House bill, which would also make being in the United States illegally a felony.

The Senate panel opened its debate with the question of whether to penalize those who help illegal aliens.

Democratic senators, in general, argued for a broad humanitarian exemption, while Republicans argued for a narrower provision, just covering emergency medical care. The Republicans, lead by Senators John Cornyn of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona, said this was to prevent smugglers of aliens from claiming they were providing humanitarian services.

However, the committee eventually approved a relatively broad measure sponsored by Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, that would cover people and organizations providing food, shelter, counseling, transportation and other services to people in the country illegally.

Mr. Bush did not discuss that aspect of the legislation in his speech today.

The President's plan calls for strengthening border controls and tightening immigration enforcement within the country. But its centerpiece is a proposal for visas for temporary workers that would provide "a legal way to match willing foreign workers with willing American employers to fill the jobs that Americans are unwilling to do," Mr. Bush said.

By creating a legal channel for those seeking "to do an honest day's labor," the plan would free up the border police to concentrate on keeping out criminals and potential terrorists, he said.

Mr. Bush began his speech by extolling the role of immigrants throughout the nation's history, and called the influx of people to America's shores "a sign of a confident and successful nation."

But he described the current immigration system as in need of comprehensive reform. "No one is served by a system that allows large numbers of people to sneak in," he said, or that leaves many immigrants "to live in the shadows of society."

As he had on several occasions last week, Mr. Bush said today that the debate on immigration "should be conducted in a civil and dignified way," and said that appeals to fear or attempts to portray immigrants as an economic burden should be avoided.

So far, immigration has proving a difficult issue for Republicans. The House bill, which includes money for a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border, reflects the strong desire for a tougher approach to illegal aliens, particularly in light of security concerns in the post-9/11 era. But many business groups who are part of the Republican base favor the sort of guest worker system that President Bush has proposed.

Those divisions were clear on Sunday in a discussion on the ABC news show "This Week," during which Senator Specter's proposal was sharply criticized by Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado.

Mr. Specter's bill includes a provision that would set up a six-year process for illegal aliens to win legal status after undergoing background checks. "If we do not have some realistic proposal to give them an opportunity to work lawfully and ultimately to obtain citizenship, then they're going to be fugitives," he said.

But Mr. Tacredo derided the proposal as an amnesty in disguise. "It's a slap in the face to every single person who has done it the right way," he said.

Mr. Bush today also came out against an amnesty. He told the 20 new citizens and their family members attending the naturalization ceremony that an amnesty "would be unfair, because it would allow people who break the law to jump ahead of people like you all, who play by the rules."

    Senate Panel Backs Protection of Groups That Aid Immigrants, NYT, 27.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/national/27cnd-immig.html?hp&ex=1143522000&en=ad0f089e26191399&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Senator Sets Hearing on Censure of Bush

March 25, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, March 24 — The Senate Judiciary Committee has set a hearing for next Friday on the call by Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, to censure President Bush for his approval of a program to allow electronic eavesdropping without warrants.

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the panel, said he had decided to schedule the session after Mr. Feingold, in a television interview, pressed for hearings on the censure proposal.

Some Republicans have seized on the issue to rally their supporters by arguing that the censure plan is evidence that Democrats would try to take some action against Mr. Bush should they gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.

The issue has also energized some Democrats who contend their party has shied from confronting Mr. Bush. But Mr. Feingold's Democratic colleagues have been cautious about endorsing the plan.

Mr. Specter said his intent was not to use the session as a political forum but to explore issues surrounding the proposed censure. He said he believed the proposal was baseless.

"I am prepared to deal with it," Mr. Specter said. "I am sure not going to sit back and have Feingold spout off."

    Senator Sets Hearing on Censure of Bush, NYT, 25.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/25/politics/25censure.html

US senators talk tough with Iraqi PM over new govt

Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:37 AM ET
Reuters
By Ross Colvin

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A delegation of U.S. senators held lengthy and blunt talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari on Tuesday, telling him Americans were growing impatient over the delay in forming a unity government in Iraq.

Republican Senator John Warner, head of the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee, said he and five fellow senators delivered a clear message from the U.S. public.

"The American people are of good heart ... but do not try in any way to deceive them or let this progress indicate to the world a less than sincere and prompt effort to bring about a new government," Warner told a news briefing afterwards.

"(Otherwise) Americans will speak up and speak up very loudly," he said, adding that he had made this point three times in "forceful and pointed" comments to Jaafari.

President George W. Bush has led calls in recent days for Sunni, Kurdish and Shi'ite leaders to break an impasse stalling formation of a government of national unity, amid concerns the wrangling is creating a dangerous power vacuum.

The negotiations are taking place against the background of a continuing Sunni Arab insurgency and a wave of sectarian killings that has raised fears of civil war between majority Shi'ites and once-dominant Sunnis.

Senator Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said Washington should make clear to Iraq's politicians that the continued U.S. military presence was dependendant on them reaching a deal.

"There has to be some pressure put on political leaders to reach a settlement," he said.

Warner noted Levin's views did not reflect those of the Bush administration and that no such ultimatum had been delivered to Jaafari, who assured the senators a new government would be formed by April.

Other Iraqi politicians have said they expect the process to take longer.

"The American people are impatient. They want a political settlement," Levin said. "They know that without (one) the chaos and disorder is going to continue. There has been too much dawdling while Baghdad is burning."

Warner said he also told Jaafari that in the event of Iraq descending into sectarian strife it would be the responsibility of Iraq's police and army primarily to quell the violence, not U.S.-led forces.

Levin, however, expressed concern about the capability of the Iraqi forces, saying they had not yet been properly tested.

"We don't know whether the police forces in particular will defend the nation or disintegrate and join their own (religious groups)," he said.

    US senators talk tough with Iraqi PM over new govt, R, 21.3.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-03-21T153702Z_01_L2125805_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-USA-SENATORS.xml

News Analysis

Politics Drives a Senate Spending Spree

March 18, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, March 17 — The largess demonstrated by the Senate in padding its budget with billions of dollars in additional spending this week showed that lawmakers are no different from many of their constituents: they don't mind pulling out the charge card when money is tight.

Just hours after opening a new line of credit through an increase in the federal debt limit, the Senate splurged on a bevy of popular programs before approving a spending plan that was as much a political document as an economic one, its fine print geared to the coming elections.

Forced to choose between calls for renewed austerity and demands for more money, many Republicans joined Democrats in reaching deeper into the Treasury, leaving the party's push for new fiscal restraint in tatters.

Some of their colleagues said it was an open-and-shut case of nervous politicians ducking a tough spending stance to avoid starring in negative campaign commercials. Republicans in some of this year's tightest races — Conrad Burns of Montana, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Jim Talent of Missouri and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — all backed the chief budget-busting provision as they endorsed an extra $7 billion for medical research, education and worker safety.

Lawmakers, analysts and others said the Senate's reluctance to clamp down on spending was a natural result of an approach that fails to recognize a sharply changed reality. In some respects, the administration and Congress act as if the surplus that greeted President Bush when he checked into the White House is still in the bank, rather than recognizing that whatever windfall was available then was eaten up and more by the tax cuts Mr. Bush pushed through Congress in his first term.

The reality is that the tax cuts, plus two wars, new domestic security needs, natural disasters and a big expansion of Medicare have left the government's account badly overdrawn with no prospect of getting it back in balance anytime soon.

The criticisms set out by many Democrats — that no real progress can be made in setting the nation's finances right until Congress proves willing to revisit the tax cuts and that the nation is failing to invest sufficiently in addressing its economic and social ills — do not receive much of a hearing in a Washington where Republicans are in charge.

"I think the critical flaw is the failure to adjust fiscal policy in the face of new circumstances," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that advocates reducing the deficit through spending cuts and tax increases. "They have not fundamentally shifted course in any way."

Mr. Bixby and others say the Republican-controlled Congress and the Bush administration have shown a near total disregard for the fiscal discipline that was once a Republican hallmark, running up new debt that is increasingly held by foreign governments.

"The problem we have had on the budget all along is a lack of adult supervision on the part of the White House," said Bruce Bartlett, an economist and author of a new book critical of Mr. Bush's economic record. "You can't blame members of Congress for looking out for their parochial interests. It is the president's responsibility to look out for the national interest, and I think that responsibility has been largely abandoned over the last five years."

With the president's influence on Capitol Hill slipping along with his poll numbers, it is unclear how much authority Mr. Bush could exert over lawmakers regardless. Senate Republicans showed no hesitation about bursting through the spending ceiling he set, adding more than $16 billion after eliminating some of his cuts.

And while the House, which was considering $92 billion in emergency war spending and hurricane aid, rejected most efforts to increase that total, lawmakers did buy a few extras, including $50 million more for peacekeeping in Darfur.

Almost lost in all the budget and spending activity was the fact that House and Senate negotiators continue to try to hammer out an agreement for another round of tax cuts that could cost an additional $70 billion or so over five years.

If Republicans in the Senate were motivated by a political calculation that this was not the time to close the fiscal taps, much less cut more deeply into domestic spending, they risked what some conservatives suggested could be a backlash from the right. Many strategists have warned Republicans that their core conservative supporters are increasingly demoralized by what they see as the unchecked growth of government.

John Kasich, a former Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee and devotee of balanced budgets who is now an investment adviser and author, said much of Washington had surrendered to the political impulse to please various voter groups with unbridled spending.

"They haven't done anything to control any spending — zero, zip and nada," Mr. Kasich said. "Everything is up, and the sky is the limit. It is a lot easier to say yes to all this than to say, 'But our kids get buried in the long run.' "

Republican leaders see it a bit differently. They point to nearly $40 billion in savings from social insurance programs they produced last year, an effort that took a tremendous amount of political effort. And an across-the-board cut shaved about $8 billion from current agency budgets.

They say they intend to hold spending for most agencies outside of the military and domestic security under this year's tight limits and will try to erase some of the Senate spending additions in negotiations with the House.

To do so, they will have to get around Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, who clamored for the extra $7 billion. Mr. Specter said that spending constraints had cut too deeply into health and education programs and that the strong show of support for the money — a majority of Republicans backed it — was evidence that most of his colleagues agreed.

Republicans also say they see a proposed line-item veto and new restrictions on pet projects as part of a rehabilitation program to kick their spending habit. While those initiatives may end some suspect practices, most see the available savings as chump change in an era of $350 billion annual deficits and $9 trillion in total debt and counting.

Serious fiscal worriers believe the only true fix can come from a bipartisan meeting of the minds that would put all federal programs on the table along with consideration of both spending cuts and tax increases.

"I've concluded this job is so big it can only be done if the two parties work together," said Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee, who said he was already in informal discussions along those lines.

But Mr. Conrad acknowledged that nothing substantive could get done in the short term, with both parties girding for November. As the Senate deliberations show, frugality is not an election-year budget value.

    Politics Drives a Senate Spending Spree, NYT, 18.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/18/politics/18budget.html?hp&ex=1142744400&en=b9f8e3f28e2e8366&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Senate Approves Budget, Breaking Spending Limits

March 17, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, March 16 — The Senate narrowly approved a $2.8 trillion election-year budget Thursday that broke spending limits only hours after it increased federal borrowing power to avert a government default.

The budget decision at the end of a marathon day of voting followed a separate 52-to-48 Senate vote to increase the federal debt limit by $781 billion, bringing the debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion. The move left Democrats attacking President Bush and Congressional Republicans for piling up record debt in their years in power.

Despite calls by Republican deficit hawks to hold the line, Senate Republicans joined with Democrats to approve more than $16 billion in added spending for social, military, job safety and home-heating programs, exceeding a ceiling established by President Bush.

In separate action, the House advanced $92 billion in war spending and hurricane recovery money.

Even with the added money, the Senate approved the $2.8 trillion budget by only 51 to 49 with five Republicans defecting. Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana was the sole Democrat to back the budget after winning agreement for a new $10 billion effort for levee rebuilding and coastal protection to be paid for out of oil royalties and other sources. Her vote saved Vice President Dick Cheney from having to break a tie.

The White House and Senate Republican leaders sought to put the best face on the budget outcome, with Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, crediting Republicans for "navigating difficult waters" in winning approval. Mr. Bolten said the administration would work to eliminate the added spending and restore the benefit cuts sought by the White House.

The successful push for additional spending alarmed and frustrated conservative Republicans who have been trying to steer the party back to a course of more fiscal restraint.

"It is very disturbing, and it gives me a whole lot of heartburn," said Senator Jim DeMint, Republican of South Carolina, who attributed the additional spending to political anxiety. "They want to go and say they are helping people, but we are not helping people when we are selling out their future."

In the House, lawmakers easily approved almost $92 billion in emergency spending, with about $68 billion going for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and $19 billion for hurricane recovery, slightly less than the White House sought.

The House and the Senate then left for a weeklong break.

The Senate budget bill would clear the way to opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, but the outlook for that provision is uncertain given strong resistance by Republican moderates in the House and a long legislative route before final approval.

The budget fight and the focus on the rising national debt proved uncomfortable for some Republicans, who instead of tightening the federal belt found themselves caught in a Senate rush to add spending after raising the federal debt ceiling for the fourth time in five years.

"This budget could be the final nail in our coffin, if we don't watch it," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who said the Republican spending pattern was demoralizing party voters. "I don't think we properly understand the keys to our electoral success."

But Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who led the push for $7 billion in extra money for health and education programs, said those areas had been starved for money in recent years and could not afford to be overlooked again.

"Health and education are the two major capital assets of this country," said Mr. Specter, whose proposal passed easily, 73 to 27.

The provision, like many of the other spending increases, was ostensibly paid for, but Mr. Specter readily acknowledged that the plan to pay the new money out of the succeeding year's allocation was a gimmick.

In another spending increase, the Senate unanimously approved $184 million for mine safety. The provision by Senators Robert C. Byrd and John D. Rockefeller IV, both West Virginia Democrats, would be used to hire mine safety inspectors and put in place better mine rescue technologies over five years. It came after a string of mining accidents that left 24 miners dead this year.

The increases in spending took the budget further away from President Bush's original plan. Senate budget writers had stripped some Medicare cuts sought by the president and added other spending before even bringing it to the floor.

Senator Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who joined with Mr. Specter in seeking the increase for health and education, said the vote showed that his Republican colleagues were "recognizing the American people want something different than the president's budget."

The changes also mean that reaching a final budget deal with the House will be difficult, given conservative resistance there to new spending. In a subtle swipe at the Senate, House Republicans circulated a memorandum on Thursday showing how they had been willing to resist efforts to add money for social and domestic security programs to the emergency spending bill.

The administration told Congress that the increase in the statutory debt limit to nearly $9 trillion was needed to avoid a default and keep the government operating.

The increase in the debt limit brought the total increase during the Bush administration to $3 trillion. Democrats said the rising debt was the consequence of what they described as a reckless Republican fiscal policy centered on tax cuts for the affluent.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Thursday that given Mr. Bush's record, "I really do believe this man will go down as the worst president this country has ever had."

Few Republicans took the floor to defend the debt limit request, and three — Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Conrad Burns of Montana and John Ensign of Nevada — joined all Democrats in opposing the increase.

But Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican who is chairman of the Finance Committee, attributed most of the growth in the debt to increased domestic security and the costs of natural disasters.

Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the senior Democrat on the Budget Committee, said it was fitting the Senate would agree to raise the debt limit on the same day it adopted a budget that he said would add substantially to the nation's accumulating red ink over the next five years.

"This thing is larded with debt," Mr. Conrad said.

Ian Urbina contributed reporting for this article.

    Senate Approves Budget, Breaking Spending Limits, NYT, 17.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/17/politics/17spend.html?hp&ex=1142571600&en=4bc54884ce51bce5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

A Senate Panel Interrogates Wary Oil Executives

March 15, 2006
The New York Times
By JAD MOUAWAD

The nation's top oil executives were called before Congress again yesterday to defend their industry's recent mergers and record profits, in the face of public outrage over high oil and gasoline prices.

It was the second time in four months that the oil industry faced strong criticism from both Republican and Democratic senators. In November, the Senate held similar hearings, which produced a show of indignation but were followed by little legislation.

Most of the companies represented, including Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips, participated in the wave of mega-mergers of the late 1990's and early 2000 that created today's behemoths. Given the sharp rise in oil prices, the top five of them reaped record earnings of well over $100 billion.

Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the hearings to examine whether mergers in the oil and gas industry had resulted in higher gasoline prices at the pump.

Gasoline prices jumped above $3 a gallon after Hurricane Katrina last summer and are now about $2.37 a gallon. They have risen by 60 percent in the last five years.

"We do know that there have been mergers and that gasoline prices have risen," Senator Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said in his opening remarks.

He proposed to introduce a bill that would tighten scrutiny on mergers that might hurt competition and would reconsider some of the $14.5 billion tax incentives that were granted to energy companies in last year's energy law.

Increasingly, rising energy and fuel costs are becoming potent issues in Washington. In his State of the Union message in January, President Bush said that he wanted to cut America's "addiction" to oil and develop alternative fuels.

When five oil executives testified last November, they successfully lobbied for their top executives to be spared the fate of tobacco executives, who were made to testify under oath in 1994. After the hearings, some Democrats said that the executives had misled them with incomplete and inaccurate answers.

Yesterday, the executives, six of them this time, were sworn in. This formality created the very kind of picture — some of the most powerful American executives lined up with their right hands up in the air — that oil executives had sought to avoid.

Otherwise, theatrics were largely absent although the arguments from the oil executives were the same.

"With respect to the committee's specific question — whether mergers and acquisitions in our industry have contributed to higher prices at the pump — my answer is no," Rex W. Tillerson, Exxon Mobil's chairman and chief executive since January, said in response to Senator Specter.

"We need U.S. energy companies that have the scale and financial strength to make the investments, undertake the risks and develop the new technologies necessary to provide Americans with greater energy access and greater energy security," he said.

John Hofmeister, the president of Royal Dutch Shell's American unit, said that despite the immense size of the largest oil companies, "this remains a highly competitive industry."

Also testifying were the top representatives of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP America, and Valero, the nation's largest independent refiner.

While oil prices remain high, the American economy has so far absorbed the increased energy costs. Still, in an election year, politicians seemed eager to turn the heat on oil men.

Exxon Mobil came under the most criticism. The company was formed in 1999 from the merger of Exxon, the top American oil company, with Mobil, the No. 2. Last year, it earned net income of $36.1 billion.

There have been 2,600 mergers since 1991 in the oil and gas industry, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said that the degree of competition and the amount of market power held by oil companies following the mergers raised "really serious questions."

"Although each of these mergers reduced the companies' costs they were nevertheless followed by increases in the costs to consumers," she said.

Speaking during a witness panel before the industry executives, Severin Borenstein, a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, said oil companies were not solely responsible for high gasoline prices. "It's a world market for oil and that's why we have high gasoline prices," Mr. Borenstein said.

Senator Specter's proposed legislation would also permit the government to take legal action against the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries for fixing oil prices.

"One of the biggest causes of high crude oil prices is the illegal price-fixing of the OPEC cartel," said Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, a sponsor of the provision.

Still, there were some moments of levity, such as when Senator Herb Kohl, Democrat of Wisconsin, said: "Our constituents, your consumers, aren't very happy with your explanations. If you'd be losing money, they wouldn't be so upset."

One senator — John Cornyn, Republican of Texas — defended the industry, providing the oil executives with an easy plank to make their case.

"Since it isn't a crime to make a profit, what I would ask is, What can the government do that would be positive to bring down the price of oil and gas?" the senator asked.

"Would it be productive or destructive for us to pass a windfall profit tax?"

The answer from the executives, of course, was "not productive."

    A Senate Panel Interrogates Wary Oil Executives, NYT, 15.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/15/business/15oil.html

Senate gives Bush his defense budget request

Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:26 PM ET
Reuters
By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Tuesday agreed to give President George W. Bush the money he wanted for the Pentagon next year and narrowly defeated a measure that could have scuttled permanent extensions of his tax cuts.

The Senate was trying to wrap up work by Friday on a nearly $2.8-trillion budget blueprint for fiscal 2007, which starts on October 1. While the budget bill is nonbinding, it does influence lawmakers' decisions later in the year on federal spending.

Still to come is a Senate fight over whether to scrap a controversial budget provision aimed at opening Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In debate on Tuesday, the Senate agreed to put back $3 billion into Pentagon accounts that was taken out of Bush's budget request by the Senate Budget Committee. The higher funding would be offset by reducing travel and administrative accounts of several agencies, including the Pentagon's.

Bush had requested $439.3 billion in his defense budget for next year. That does not include $67 billion in emergency funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to approve this week.

The Republican-backed budget plan would cap spending next year at $873 billion on "discretionary" programs that Congress must renew each year. That's about $30 billion above this year. But the measure does nothing in this congressional election year to rein in the rapid growth of popular "mandatory" programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Robert Reischauer, a former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office who now heads the Urban Institute think tank, said of the Republican budget, "We're treading water for a year."

'PAY GO' STOPPED

By a vote of 50-50, the Senate defeated a budget discipline "pay-go" amendment that all 45 Democrats and five Republicans supported.

The measure would have resurrected a 1990s budget rule that helped Congress write more disciplined fiscal plans. Under the amendment by North Dakota Sen. Kent Conrad, a Democrat, any spending increases to major federal programs like Medicare or Medicaid would have been offset elsewhere in the budget.

Similarly, the cost of lost revenues to the Treasury from tax cuts would have to be offset by spending cuts or other tax increases.

Conrad told reporters he offered the pay-go amendment because U.S. debt "is going up like a scalded cat." As evidence, he noted that the Senate is likely to vote this week to increase U.S. borrowing authority by $781 billion. The current debt limit is $8.18 trillion.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican who led the charge against pay-go, said the amendment would be "the engine to drive tax increases."

Gregg said it would thwart Republican efforts to make permanent Bush's tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010.

Senators approved shifting $823 million more into veterans' health programs so that Congress would not have to raise drug co-payments and charge enrollment fees for veterans, as the Bush budget plan requested.

The Senate defeated Democrats' call for $1.5 billion more for veterans health care that they said was needed to deal with the rising numbers of wounded soldiers returning from Iraq.

    Senate gives Bush his defense budget request, NYT, 14.3.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-03-14T232613Z_01_N14363695_RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-BUDGET-CONGRESS.xml

Rumsfeld: If civil war breaks out, U.S. would count on Iraqi forces

Posted 3/9/2006 10:00 AM Updated 3/9/2006 11:15 AM
USA Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — If Iraq were to plunge into all-out civil war the U.S. military would depend on Baghdad's own security forces to deal with it "to the extent they are able to," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday.

Testifying with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in support of the administration's request for $91 billion in funds mainly to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rumsfeld was pressed to explain the U.S. military's plan to respond in the event that Iraq's sectarian violence grows into a full-fledged civil war.

"The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the — from a security standpoint — have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to," Rumsfeld said.

He said the key to avoiding civil war is for Iraq's political leaders to form a government of national unity.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., repeatedly pressed Rumsfeld to say what U.S. troops would do if civil war broke out, noting that in his own view the country "only narrowly missed descending into all-out civil war" in recent days.

Rumsfeld said the key to avoiding civil war is for Iraq's political leaders to form a government of national unity.

Also responding to Byrd's question, Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, suggested that Iraq has been moving in the direction of civil war.

"There's no doubt that the sectarian tensions are higher than we've seen, and it is of great concern to all of us," Abizaid said, adding that he was pleased with the professionalism that Iraq's own security forces have demonstrated in responding to the strife.

Abizaid also described the situation in Iraq as "changing in its nature from insurgency toward sectarian violence."

Both Rumsfeld and Rice acknowledged the recent growth in sectarian violence.

"There is a high level of tension in the country, sectarian tension and conflict," Rumsfeld said. But it has not yet become a civil war "by most experts' calculation," he added.

In her opening remarks to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Rice said most Iraqis are convinced that their hopes for a stable and secure nation will succeed despite the persistent insurgency.

"They still face a very determined enemy, an enemy that would like to see that political process halted so that Iraq might devolve into chaos and conflict," she said.

Rice also criticized "a terrible human rights record" in Iran, urging the Congress to approve a proposed $75 million plan to increase U.S. cultural outreach to Iranian citizens. "We do not have a problem with the Iranian people," she said, adding that the problem is with the Iranian government and its nuclear ambitions.

Rumsfeld told the panel he was disappointed that the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday trimmed by $1 billion the Pentagon's request for $5.9 billion to continue training Iraqi and Afghan security forces.

"In my view that is clearly an enormously important thing for our country to be doing," he said.

Rumsfeld said such training is at the heart of a broader Pentagon strategy to build reliable security partners globally.

"When other nations and partners can shoulder greater security burdens around the globe it is far less likely that U.S. troops will be called on at what is always considerably greater cost in both blood and treasure," he said.

Abizaid told the committee that the $5.9 billion is vital to successfully completing the development of Iraqi and Afghan police and military forces.

"In both Afghanistan and Iraq, local security forces take on the brunt of the fighting and the brunt of the casualties," he said.

Rice's opening statement to the committee was interrupted by a man in the audience who stood and shouted, "How many of you have children in this illegal and immoral war? The blood is on your hands and you cannot wash it away." As he was escorted from the room by security officers the man also shouted, "Fire Rumsfeld."

The future of the $91 billion spending bill has been threatened by a move in the House to block a Dubai-owned company from taking control of some U.S. port operations. President Bush has said he would veto the bill if such a proposal was included.

Also appearing at the hearing was Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace. It was the first time those four leaders have appeared together in front of Congress since Rice joined the Cabinet in January 2005.

The emergency spending bill includes about $65 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as about $20 billion for Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts. Additional money would go to the State Department and intelligence agencies for international operations and classified activities.

The State Department has said that Rice and the Pentagon leaders were appearing jointly to show they are part of a common war strategy. Some lawmakers have been critical that the war is not being funded in the regular budget.

The Senate is not expected to vote on the bill until sometime in April. The House could vote next week

    Rumsfeld: If civil war breaks out, U.S. would count on Iraqi forces, UT, 9.3.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-09-war-spending_x.htm

Senate Votes to Ban Gifts and Meals of Lobbyists

March 9, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and KATE PHILLIPS

WASHINGTON, March 8 — Facing accusations that lawmakers are not serious about breaking the tight bond between Capitol Hill and K Street, the Senate voted Wednesday to bar members of Congress and their aides from accepting gifts and meals from lobbyists.

The meals and gifts ban, approved unanimously by voice vote, was the full Senate's first major decision on lobbying law changes in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal. The ban is attached to an underlying bill that originally barred just gifts, but senators decided Wednesday to prohibit meals as well.

The move suggests that, with the November elections looming, lawmakers are intensely concerned with demonstrating they are committed to changing the way Washington does business. But the vote will not put an immediate end to the wining and dining of members of Congress, because the ban still faces several legislative hurdles, including passage by the House, where the Republican leadership is wrestling with the details of its own lobbying bill.

"Banning free meals, while only one of many steps, can go a long way in demonstrating our commitment to reform," said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and the provision's chief author. "The only special interest in Washington should be the public interest."

Currently, lawmakers are prohibited from accepting meals valued at more than $50; the result is a bounty of Washington menus aimed at the $49.99 meal.

Not all of Mr. Dodd's colleagues were enthusiastic; the voice vote simply prevented them from having to go on record in opposition to it.

Even as the measure passed the Senate, it prompted a verbal roll of the eyes from the lead sponsor of the underlying lobbying legislation, Senator Trent Lott, Republican of Mississippi. Mr. Lott branded the move ridiculous but said he would vote for it because it would give him "a fine excuse just to say no" to lobbyists and eat at home with his wife.

One group lobbying against the meals ban, not surprisingly, is the restaurant industry. Washington is a city where considerable business is conducted over meals, and Lynne Breaux, the president of the Restaurant Association Metropolitan Washington, said she was working with her national organization to defeat the ban.

Ms. Breaux — who is no relation to John Breaux, the former Louisiana senator who is now one of Washington's leading lobbyists — said past estimates have found that as much as 30 percent of Washington's fine-dining business was related to Congress, though she said that figure had probably declined in recent years as Washington's restaurant business had expanded.

"That's not the solution to the problem," she said of the ban. "You can't buy a congressman for a meal."

The meals and gifts ban was part of a broader piece of legislation that includes provisions requiring lawmakers to disclose privately financed trips and that would double, from one year to two, the "cooling-off period" during which lawmakers who leave Capitol Hill for K Street are barred from lobbying their former colleagues.

The measure would also create a mechanism enabling lawmakers to strip so-called earmarks — the special interest projects that are sometimes inserted into bills at the behest of lobbyists — from legislation. And it would require, for the first time, the disclosure of big, paid grass-roots lobbying campaigns aimed at influencing government officials.

The grassroots provision, however, is on shaky ground. Strong opposition from conservative groups like the Family Research Council and liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union has severely crippled its chances. It is likely to be stripped out of the bill because Republicans fear that the opposition is so strong the provision will jeopardize the entire measure.

The Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, had hoped to wrap up lobbying legislation this week, but the bill became caught up on Wednesday in an unrelated Congressional controversy when Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, tried to attach an amendment involving port security to it.

The Schumer amendment brought the lobbying debate to a surprise halt on the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon, and it was unclear when the Senate would resume work on the measure. Still to come is a vote on whether to limit lawmakers' use of corporate jets.

    Senate Votes to Ban Gifts and Meals of Lobbyists, NYT, 9.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/politics/09lobby.html

Senators craft budget with $90 bln for war

Wed Mar 8, 2006 6:44 PM ET
The New York Times
By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Republicans unveiled a 2007 U.S. budget blueprint on Wednesday that would spend at least $90 billion on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and tries to resurrect a plan to drill for oil and gas in the Alaskan wildlife refuge.

The Senate Budget Committee plans on Thursday to put finishing touches on the broad outline for federal spending in the fiscal year starting October 1, and Republicans hope to pass the nonbinding measure in the full Senate next week.

Committee Chairman Judd Gregg said his plan tries to build on recent efforts to control the growth of domestic spending. He called it "a standard vanilla budget" that uses as a "template" the budget priorities requested by President George W. Bush last month.

Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the senior Democrat on the budget panel, criticized the effort, saying it fails to attack the problem of debt that he said is expected to grow by hundreds of billions of dollars.

"I see it as a staying-the-course budget when the course is radically off the track with burgeoning deficits and debt at the worst possible time before the baby boomers retire," Conrad said.

Last year, Republicans unsuccessfully tried to use the budget process to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to energy development. Bush's budget for fiscal 2007 tries to do the same again, and Senate Republicans are backing the plan that some estimate could bring $7 billion in drilling revenues.

This year's effort veers from last year's budget-writing exercise in at least two major ways.

In an attempt to blunt Democrats' past criticisms that the Republicans' budgets did not honestly factor in war costs, Gregg said the $90 billion inserted for fiscal 2007 reflected the average expenditures on Iraq and Afghanistan over the past four years.

BUDGET OVERSIGHT

The plan also attempts to put tougher congressional oversight on escalating war costs by stating that if costs were to exceed $90 billion in fiscal 2007, at least 60 senators would have to support that level of spending.

The move comes as public opinion polls show increasing voter anxiety over the war and questions over Bush's strategy for winning it.

On another key point, this year's budget would not set the stage for another round of cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other domestic spending programs. While the blueprint likely will call for such spending cuts, Gregg noted these are merely suggestions.

Fate of the cuts will be decided by separate spending bills guided by lawmakers skittish about cutting programs in an election year.

Last year, congressional Republicans struggled for months before finally passing $39 billion in spending cuts over five years that were mandated by the fiscal 2006 budget plan.

While Gregg noted the need to trim the federal budget, which could see a deficit of around $371 billion this year, he added, "We maybe want to take a break" from a second consecutive long-term spending-cut bill.

Even though the budget plan embraced by Republicans on the budget committee accepted most of Bush's priorities, Gregg said it takes some money out of the administration's request for defense and foreign aid and reallocates it for education, health and border security programs.

Conservative Republicans have been clamoring for deep cuts in domestic programs. But Gregg's budget plan would call for $873 billion for domestic programs that must be renewed annually, about $30 billion more than this year.

    Senators craft budget with $90 bln for war, R, 8.3.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-03-08T234421Z_01_N08514481_RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-BUDGET-CONGRESS.xml

G.O.P. Senators and Bush Reach Wiretap Accord

March 8, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, March 7 — Moving to tamp down Democratic calls for an investigation of the administration's domestic eavesdropping program, Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that they had reached agreement with the White House on proposed bills to impose new oversight but allow wiretapping without warrants for up to 45 days.

The agreement, hashed out in weeks of negotiations between Vice President Dick Cheney and Republicans critical of the program, dashes Democratic hopes of starting a full committee investigation because the proposal won the support of Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. The two, both Republicans, had threatened to support a fuller inquiry if the White House did not disclose more about the program to Congress.

"We are reasserting Congressional responsibility and oversight," Ms. Snowe said.

The proposed legislation would create a seven-member "terrorist surveillance subcommittee" and require the administration to give it full access to the details of the program's operations.

Ms. Snowe said the panel would start work on Wednesday, and called it "the beginning, not the end of the process."

"We have to get the facts in order to weigh in," she said. "We will do more if we learn there is more to do."

The agreement would reinforce the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was created in 1978 to issue special warrants for spying but was sidestepped by the administration. The measure would require the administration to seek a warrant from the court whenever possible.

If the administration elects not to do so after 45 days, the attorney general must certify that the surveillance is necessary to protect the country and explain to the subcommittee why the administration has not sought a warrant. The attorney general would be required to give an update to the subcommittee every 45 days.

Democrats called the deal an abdication of the special bipartisan committee's role as a watchdog, saying the Republicans had in effect blessed the program before learning how it worked or what it entailed.

"The committee is, to put it bluntly, basically under the control of the White House," said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is vice chairman of the panel.

The House Intelligence Committee said last week that it would seek limited briefings for some panel members so that they could weigh changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but the Republican leaders of the House committee stopped far short of proposing the kind of continuing oversight and rules changes that the Senate committee has settled on. A spokeswoman for the White House, Dana Perino, called the Republican senators' proposal "a generally sound approach."

"We're eager to work with Congress on legislation that would further codify the president's authority," Ms. Perino said. "We remain committed to our principle, that we will not do anything that undermines the program's capabilities or the president's authority."

Republicans on the committee, however, emphasized the administration's resistance to the accord. Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is chairman of the Intelligence Committee and helped broker the deal, called it "the agreement we insisted upon."

Ms. Snowe said the proposal had met "considerable reluctance" from the White House in negotiations.

The committee had scheduled a vote on a full investigation for Tuesday afternoon if there was no accord with the White House to disclose more about the program. As of midday, no resolution had been reached.

Mr. Hagel said the group worked out the last-minute deal in long telephone calls with Mr. Cheney; the White House counsel, Harriet E. Miers; and Stephen J. Hadley, the assistant to the president for national security.

The proposed bill would allow the president to authorize wiretapping without seeking a warrant for up to 45 days if the communication under surveillance involved someone suspected of being a member of or a collaborator with a specified list of terrorist groups and if at least one party to the conversation was outside the United States.

The administration has provided some information in confidential briefings to a "Gang of Eight" lawmakers made up of the Republican and Democratic leaders of the House and the Senate, as well as their respective Intelligence Committees. Republican sponsors of the proposal said the new subcommittees would greatly improve lawmakers' ability to obtain digest information because the staffs for the first time would have access to it.

Senator Mike DeWine, the Ohio Republican who helped draft the proposal, said it would bring the program "into the normal oversight of the Senate intelligence committee."

But Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, compared the proposed bill to a doctor's diagnosis of an unexamined patient.

"Congress doesn't have that great a history in reforming programs it knows a lot about," Mr. Wyden said. "Here Congress is trying to legislate in the dark."

Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, the majority leader, issued a statement supporting the proposal.

It is not clear whether all the Republican critics will back the deal. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said Congress should seek a court ruling on the legitimacy of the program in addition to new oversight.

In a separate Senate committee hearing on Tuesday, Mr. Specter said, "We're having quite a time in getting responses to questions as to what has happened with the electronic surveillance program."

He said he put the administration "on notice" he might seek to block its financing if Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales did not give more information.

Mr. Specter said in statement later that he hoped for a solution that would avoid resorting to such an extreme action.

    G.O.P. Senators and Bush Reach Wiretap Accord, NYT, 8.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/08/politics/08nsa.html?hp&ex=1141880400&en=7402b982a1503c71&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Senate faces tough vote on raising debt limit

Fri Mar 3, 2006 1:17 PM ET
Reuters
By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A nasty budget fight is brewing in Congress as Senate Democrats and some conservative Republicans said on Friday that they will not support efforts this month to increase U.S. borrowing authority, a move needed to avoid a government default.

Democrats, who hope to gain control of the House and Senate in this year's congressional elections, are looking for a debate on the credit limit to highlight the nation's mounting debt at a time when President George W. Bush also is pushing to make his tax cuts permanent.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid put all 55 Senate Republicans on notice that they "are going to have to belly up to the bar and vote to increase the debt," saying it was Republican budgets that have created the massive deficit spending requiring more federal borrowing.

"Democrats are not going to vote to increase this debt," Reid said.

Without an increase in U.S. borrowing authority, the federal government could face default. That would mean Washington would not be able to continue writing checks for a variety of activities, from meeting federal workers' payrolls to paying some retiree benefits. Federal parks could close, aid for the poor could be withheld and the space shuttle likely would be docked.

Last April, without any support from Democrats, the Senate and House of Representatives approved a fiscal 2006 budget plan that envisioned the need for increasing U.S. borrowing authority by $781 billion.

More recently, Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Congress to increase the statutory debt limit, as his agency was bumping up against the $8.18 trillion limit.

In mid-February, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, told Reuters he hoped the legislation would be quietly brought to a vote just before the Senate's next recess, which is set for March 18.

The debt ceiling increase historically has been politically distasteful and some conservative Republicans in the Senate could join Democrats in opposing the increase.

"It's highly unlikely that I can support a debt limit (increase) without major structural change that brings the spending under control," Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma told Reuters.

Coburn said the need to increase the debt limit offered "a great opportunity to put as much pressure as we can" to bring down government spending.

But quick passage in Congress of legislation to cut hundreds of billions of dollars in spending this year is unlikely. Congress is still recovering from a bruising, yearlong fight to trim $39 billion over five years.

It is also unlikely lawmakers would want a repeat of the public backlash in the 1990s when congressional Republicans forced a series of brief government shutdowns in a budget fight with then-President Bill Clinton.

House Democrats also have warned that they would oppose a debt limit increase without also putting into place a plan to eventually balance a federal budget that could see a deficit of around $400 billion this year.

(additional reporting by Donna Smith)

    Senate faces tough vote on raising debt limit, R, 3.3.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-03-03T181724Z_01_N03518660_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-DEBT.xml

Senate Passes Legislation to Renew Patriot Act

March 3, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, March 2 — The Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation renewing the sweeping antiterror law known as the USA Patriot Act on Thursday, ending a months-long impasse on Capitol Hill and virtually guaranteeing that the measure will go to President Bush to be signed.

The vote of 89 to 10, followed an agreement last month by the White House to add more protections for individual privacy. That deal mollified four Senate Republicans, who had joined with Democrats last year in blocking the bill, an extension of a law enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001.

The measure's 16 major provisions were set to expire March 10, but if the House approves the bill, as expected, 14 of the 16 will become permanent.

The Senate action was a bit of good news for the president, who has been buffeted by dipping poll numbers and criticism from within his own party on matters including Hurricane Katrina, electronic eavesdropping and port security.

Renewing the Patriot Act was a major priority for Mr. Bush, but resistance from some lawmakers had resulted in a series of short-term extensions as the debate dragged on through the winter.

"The Patriot Act is vital to the war on terror and defending our citizens against a ruthless enemy," the president said in a statement from India.

"This bill will allow our law enforcement officials to continue to use the same tools against terrorists that are already used against drug dealers and other criminals, while safeguarding the civil liberties of the American people."

But the vote on Thursday does not end the long-running debate on Capitol Hill over whether the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the government's investigative powers in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, strikes the proper balance between government authority and civil liberties.

Some lawmakers who voted for the bill expressed deep reservations about it, and the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is already drafting further legislation to revise it.

The chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, voted for the version that passed Thursday, saying it struck "an acceptable balance."

But, he said, "I want to put down a benchmark to get extra protections which better comport with my own sensitivity to civil rights."

Since its adoption in 2001, the Patriot Act has drawn vigorous complaints from advocates for civil liberties, who contend that provisions like those allowing the government to obtain library and medical records infringe on basic civil rights.

Then, just before Christmas last year, with Congress rushing to adjourn, the act was caught up in revelations that Mr. Bush had authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a court order on conversations of Americans and others inside the United States who were suspected of terrorist activity. The resulting impasse prompted Congress to twice extend the original Patriot Act.

The measure passed Thursday adds judicial oversight, giving recipients of subpoenas the right to challenge an accompanying judicial order not to discuss the case publicly, although they would have to wait one year while complying with the subpoena in the meantime.

It also would prevent the F.B.I. from demanding the names of lawyers consulted by people who receive secret government requests for information, and it would prevent most libraries from being subject to such requests.

But investigators would still have the power to obtain information about terror suspects who use libraries to gain access to the Internet, by seeking that information directly from Internet service providers.

Critics said the safeguards do not go far enough. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, pronounced the measure "significantly flawed."

"I tried to have conversations with the White House to improve the bill," he said, "but my efforts were dismissed."

The Democrat who last year led a filibuster of the bill, Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, was so irate over the final measure that he spent much of Wednesday reading the Constitution on the Senate floor to underscore his opposition to ending the debate.

In the end, 34 Democrats joined all 55 Republicans in voting to pass the bill, while 9 Democrats and the lone independent, Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont, voted against it. Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, a Democrat, was absent.

    Senate Passes Legislation to Renew Patriot Act, NYT, 3.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/politics/03patriot.html?hp&ex=1141448400&en=c51cecacd95fdf4f&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Senators Threaten to Intervene to Improve Mine Safety

March 3, 2006
The New York Times
By IAN URBINA

Frustrated by delays in updating safety regulations and adopting new technology to protect miners, lawmakers told federal mining officials yesterday that it was time for Congress to intervene.

The federal mine safety agency "had the legal authority to require better equipment and better communication, but it didn't use it," Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, said at a Senate oversight hearing in response to a spate of fatal mining accidents this year.

"It had the legal authority to require higher fines," Mr. Byrd said. "It didn't use it."

"The case grows stronger every day for this Congress to adopt the West Virginia mine safety bill," he added, referring to legislation filed on Feb. 1 by the West Virginia delegation that would require mine operators to provide more emergency oxygen supplies, wireless communications equipment and devices to track miners.

But David Dye, assistant director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration, rejected the argument that his agency lacked the will to improve safety and said his staff was working as fast as possible to make changes.

"We've had 70 different proposals come in and we are whittling through those," Mr. Dye said, referring to proposals for new tracking and communication equipment. "We're also sending a team to Australia to look at tracking systems. We're moving very quickly to evaluate these things."

Senator Michael B. Enzi, the Wyoming Republican who is chairman of the subcommittee, restated the need for caution in the search for new technology. "We must act to reduce the safety risk for miners everywhere," Mr. Enzi said. "In doing so, we must seek solutions that will work in the real world."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, suggested that perhaps it was time to adopt the best available technology rather than study the matter indefinitely. "Miners in Canada are required to have 36 hours of breathable air," he said. "But miners in the U.S. are required to have only one."

Cecil E. Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, added that some mines already used cellphone-size tracking devices and that one-way text communication technology had been approved by the agency more than 10 years ago but its use had never been mandated.

"If those devices work just 50 percent of the time, that is 50 percent more than miners have now," Mr. Roberts said. "We need to dispel with this desire to have perfect technology or nothing at all."

With a similar tone of skepticism, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, asked Mr. Dye why, if his agency was doing everything it could to enforce safety, had it failed since 2003 to hand over any delinquent cases of violations to the Treasury Department for further collection efforts, as is supposed to occur after 180 days.

"Yes, that's been a nightmare, quite frankly," Mr. Dye said, citing computer problems between his agency and the Treasury Department. "We changed over, but since May 2005 the new computer system has not been able to process them."

"But can you walk them across the street?" Mrs. Clinton asked, to which Mr. Dye replied that he wished that were possible.

"Well, I don't see why you can't," Mrs. Clinton said.

Though testy, Thursday's hearing was noticeably more cordial than the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Jan 23, when Mr. Dye abruptly left despite being asked by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to stay for further questions.

The hearing on Thursday was also softer in tone than a House oversight hearing on mine safety that was held Wednesday.

At that hearing, Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, lost his temper with a mine-safety official who seemed not to be paying attention.

"You're in this room, now how about listening, would you?" Mr. Miller yelled with clear exasperation, to which Representative Charlie Norwood, a Georgia Republican who is chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce replied: "Now, be nice. Be nice."

    Senators Threaten to Intervene to Improve Mine Safety, NYT, 3.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/politics/03mine.html

Senate Panel Rejects Ethics Office Plan

March 3, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, March 2 — Senators backed away Thursday from expansive lobbying law changes for the second time this week, overwhelmingly voting down a proposal to create an independent office to investigate ethics abuses in Congress.

The plan for a new Office of Public Integrity was rejected, 11 to 5, by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Opponents complained that the office would have duplicated the work of the Senate Ethics Committee and that the plan violated the Constitution, which provides for the House and Senate to set their own rules.

The vote does not mean the idea is dead; backers said they would try to bring it to the full Senate when the chamber takes up lobbying law changes, possibly next week. But the measure's defeat, coupled with strong disagreements among Republican leaders in the House over what form lobbying legislation should take, suggests that the path to changing the way Congress does business will be fraught with obstacles.

The proposal would have created an independent Office of Public Integrity, with a director who had subpoena power. The director, appointed by the Democratic and Republican Congressional leadership, would have had responsibility for investigating ethics charges, though his decisions could have been overruled by a two-thirds vote of the House or Senate ethics committees.

The measure was struck down despite the strong backing of the committee's chairwoman, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and its senior Democrat, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. Support was so scant during the debate that as the discussion drew to a close, Senator Collins issued a half-joking plea for help.

"If there are any members of the committee who think there's some possibility that Senator Lieberman and I are right," Ms. Collins said, "I would love to hear them speak."

Instead, the panel adopted legislation that would strengthen disclosure rules for lobbyists, requiring them to report their activities more frequently and to do so electronically, in a format that could be easily searched by the news media and the public.

The bill would also double from one to two years the so-called cooling-off period during which lawmakers-turned-lobbyists are prohibited from lobbying their former colleagues. And it would extend that cooling-off period to senior Senate aides, who would be barred during that time from lobbying any senator, not just their former bosses, as is the current practice.

The committee also voted, 10 to 6, to impose new requirements on advocacy groups to report how much they spend lobbying Congress. That provision is aimed at groups like AARP, which spend millions on television advertisements and other campaigns intended to influence Congress but do not have to register as lobbyists.

After the meeting, Senator Collins said she thought the panel had produced "a strong bill," even without the ethics office provision. But government watchdog groups, and some senators, complained that the committee had stripped the meat out of lobbying law changes.

"The bill is crippled without an independent public integrity office because the House and Senate ethics committees cannot operate free of political pressures, and that's what this office can do," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, an advocacy group. Still, she said, the bill did contain "some important public-disclosure" requirements.

On Tuesday, another Senate panel, the Rules Committee, passed its own lobbying legislation but rejected provisions that would have made it more difficult for senators to travel on corporate jets. Instead, the committee passed a provision requiring senators to receive advance clearance for privately financed trips and to disclose all travel on corporate jets.

In the House, which is likely to take up lobbying legislation in the next few weeks, the Republican leaders have been unable to agree on what form the legislation should take. The new majority leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, said that the leadership was considering a one-year moratorium on private travel, but that he was not a fan of the idea.

The push toward lobbying law changes has grown out of a scandal involving Jack Abramoff, the disgraced lobbyist, who pleaded guilty to corruption charges and is cooperating with federal prosecutors in a widening investigation. With Congress's approval ratings at the lowest in years, members of both parties are eager to pass legislation before the November elections.

But reaching a consensus will be difficult. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has been spearheading the bipartisan effort on lobbying law changes, said he would push for the full Senate to adopt the proposal for an independent ethics office. He complained that his colleagues had voted against the plan "because it puts teeth into things."

But opponents of the new office, including the Republican chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee, Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, said it would duplicate what that committee is already doing. "There is no need to reinvent the wheel," Mr. Voinovich said.

    Senate Panel Rejects Ethics Office Plan, NYT, 3.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/politics/03lobby.html?hp&ex=1141448400&en=0921bf18c365a2af&ei=5094&partner=homepage

2 Top Senators Seek an Agency Policing Ethics at the Capitol

March 2, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, March 1 — The Republican and Democratic leaders of a Senate committee responsible for legislation on lobbying are expected to propose an independent office on Thursday that would investigate ethics abuses in either house of Congress.

The proposal, by Senators Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, would be a significant departure from the current practice of having lawmakers investigate themselves. It is drawing praise from government watchdog groups that say the current system is broken. But it is likely to generate a backlash on Capitol Hill, where many members of Congress do not like the idea of ceding to an outsider their authority to police themselves.

"It's going to be a fight," Mr. Lieberman said in an interview, adding, "There are people who feel that we are doing something unconstitutional, because the Constitution says that each house of the Congress can make its own rules."

Ms. Collins and Mr. Lieberman are the chairwoman and the senior Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which is to consider the proposal Thursday as part of larger lobbying legislation. The Senate Rules Committee drafted its own bill earlier this week, and the full Senate could take up lobbying law changes as soon as next week.

The Collins-Lieberman proposal would create an Office of Public Integrity with a director who would have the power to investigate ethics abuses. A decision by the director to undertake an inquiry could be overruled by a two-thirds vote of the House or Senate ethics committee, but only if the committee issued a public report that included the way each member had voted.

The proposal is similar to one offered by Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, who has called for a nine-member commission to enforce ethics rules. Mr. Obama said Wednesday that he had not seen the Collins-Lieberman proposal but that if it survived a committee vote on Thursday, "then my instinct would be to support it."

The idea has the strong support of several independent watchdogs. They include Democracy 21, which worked on it with Ms. Collins and Mr. Lieberman, said the group's president, Fred Wertheimer.

But Mr. Obama, like Mr. Lieberman, said he expected an uphill battle.

"I don't think it's a slam-dunk," he said, "even with Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman as sponsors."

    2 Top Senators Seek an Agency Policing Ethics at the Capitol, NYT, 3.3.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/02/politics/02lobby.html

Senate adds safeguards to Patriot Act

Wed Mar 1, 2006 4:38 PM ET
Reuters
By Thomas Ferraro

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Wednesday approved a White House-backed bill to better protect civil liberties in the USA Patriot Act, clearing the way for anticipated renewal of the anti-terrorism law.

Enacted shortly after the September 11 attacks as a centerpiece of President George W. Bush's war on terrorism, the Patriot Act expanded the power of the government to obtain private records, conduct wiretaps and secret searches and share information.

On a vote of 95-4, the Senate approved and sent to the House of Representatives for needed concurrence a bill to add new safeguards of constitutional rights.

The bill was written to resolve a stalemate that pitted a broad bipartisan desire to renew the Patriot Act against largely Democratic demands to better protect civil liberties.

But the battle over its renewal also got caught up in recent disclosures that Bush authorized spying on Americans with suspected ties to terrorists without seeking a court order.

On a vote of 84-15, the Senate moved to end debate on a separate House-passed measure to renew the Patriot Act, with a vote on passage of it expected on Thursday.

"It is now crystal clear that (renewal of) the Patriot Act is on its way to becoming law," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican.

"Today's bipartisan vote of 84 senators ... brings us one step closer to ending the obstruction of America's No. 1 anti-terrorist tool," Frist said, adding Democrats should stop their remaining delaying tactics.

The slim remaining opposition, headed by Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, kept stalling action on the renewal, at one point reading aloud on the Senate floor much of the U.S. Constitution.

The bill to renew the act would make permanent 14 expiring provisions and extend two others by four years. All are now set to expire on March 10.

They were to initially expire at the end of last year, but temporary extensions gave Congress and the White House more time to resolve their stalemate and find common ground.

LIBRARIES, LAWYERS AND GAG ORDERS

Sen. John Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican and a chief sponsor of the bill to better protect civil liberties, said it represented a compromise, but added, "I think in this case the legislation represents a substantial step forward."

Sununu and three fellow Senate Republicans, who had earlier joined Democrats in blocking renewal of the Patriot Act, reached a deal with the White House last month.

One change would clarify that traditional libraries would not be subjected to a federal subpoena issued without the approval of a judge.

Another would remove a previously proposed requirement that recipients of such subpoenas provide the FBI with the name of their lawyer.

A third would allow individuals to challenge gag orders when they have been subpoenaed to produce personal information. But they would have to wait a year to do so.

Critics complain it's unfair to force a person to wait a year to file a challenge and said other changes were also needed to better protect law-abiding citizens.

Among the additional revisions already being pushed in the Senate for consideration later this year is one that would require the government to notify targets of "sneak and peek" searches within seven days.

    Senate adds safeguards to Patriot Act, R, 1.3.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-03-01T213809Z_01_N01365414_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-PATRIOT.xml

Senator Introduces Bill Creating Guest Worker Program

February 25, 2006
The New York Times
By RACHEL L. SWARNS

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 — The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee unveiled draft legislation on Friday that would create a temporary guest worker program that could allow hundreds of thousands of foreigners to fill vacant jobs in the United States for periods of up to six years.

The draft circulated by the lawmaker, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, would also authorize millions of illegal immigrants who arrived in this country before Jan. 4, 2004 to remain here indefinitely, along with their spouses and children, as long as they registered with the Department of Homeland Security, paid back taxes and remained law-abiding and employed, among other conditions.

The proposal would require employers to attest that they had tried to recruit American workers before bringing in additional foreigners from abroad and to pay prevailing wages. The plan would not place a restriction on the number of foreigners who could take part in the guest worker program. Those workers would not have the right to become permanent residents or citizens.

The bill is silent on whether illegal immigrants already in this country should be accorded that opportunity.

The legislation will serve as the blueprint for the first Congressional debate on the future of the nation's illegal immigrants since President Bush called for a guest worker plan in 2004. With his draft, Mr. Specter was striving to reconcile the warring factions within his own party and address concerns raised by business leaders, labor officials and advocates for immigrants who have battled fiercely in recent months over the shape of a proposal that would radically reshape immigration policy and the workplace.

The debate on the bill, which also includes measures to strengthen border security, is expected to begin in the Judiciary Committee next week. Any legislation that passed the Senate would have to be reconciled with a bill passed by the House in December that sought to tighten security along the nation's borders but made no provision for guest workers or legal status for illegal workers already in the United States.

"The committee must grapple with a realistic means of bringing out from the shadows the possible 11 million illegal aliens in the United States," Mr. Specter wrote in a letter to his colleagues, saying he hoped the draft would build consensus. "We are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws."

But the proposal touched off a furor among politicians, advocates for immigrants and union leaders across the political spectrum.

Conservatives condemned it as an amnesty for lawbreakers.

"By legalizing the millions upon millions of illegal aliens in the U.S., Specter makes a mockery of our laws and crushes our already strained legal immigration system," said Representative Tom Tancredo, Republican of Colorado, who pushed for the border security bill in the House.

Advocates for immigrants said the plan failed to protect the rights of immigrant workers, who they argue deserve a clear path to citizenship. And the A.F.L.-C.I.O. warned that a guest worker program of unlimited scale would depress wages and working conditions while creating a perpetual underclass of foreign workers.

"This unprecedented program would put millions of people in a status where they don't get residency and they can't become citizens," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group in Washington. "At first blush, its a nonstarter."

Ana Avendaño, associate general counsel of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., said, "From the viewpoint of workers, this is not a good bill."

The United States Chamber of Commerce praised the draft legislation for addressing the need of many industries for immigrant workers. And Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, who had introduced a more conservative immigration bill, praised Mr. Specter for taking "a serious look at a very difficult issue."

The furious response by some constituencies to the draft reflects the difficult position confronting Mr. Specter as he navigates the fault lines within his party and committee, with an eye toward a vote on the Senate floor and a conference with skeptical House Republicans, who have rejected calls to legalize illegal workers.

Jeanne A. Butterfield, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said Mr. Specter "has a difficult path to tread."

Under Mr. Specter's proposal, the guest worker program would be open only to foreigners living outside the United States. Applicants would be sponsored by employers — though they would be allowed to switch employers during their time here — and would undergo background checks and medical screening. If approved, applicants would be allowed to bring their spouses and children to the United States.

Work permits would be granted for three years, after which the worker would have to return to his country for a year and apply again. The guest worker could then be authorized for a second and final work permit for three years.

Illegal immigrants who arrived in the United States after Jan. 4, 2004 could also participate in the guest worker program, but only if they returned home and applied from their countries.

Those illegal workers who arrived in this country before Jan. 4, 2004 could stay in this country indefinitely, provided that they underwent background checks and did not remain unemployed for 45 days or more.

    Senator Introduces Bill Creating Guest Worker Program, NYT, 25.2.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/25/politics/25immig.html

Lawmakers call for overhauling FEMA

Posted 2/19/2006 1:41 PM
USA Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Emergency Management Agency should be dissolved and rebuilt before the upcoming hurricane season, a Democratic senator said Sunday.

"FEMA has become, to many people in America, and particularly the Gulf Coast, a joke, a four-letter word," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and a member of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

He favored keeping the agency within the Homeland Security Department. FEMA was independent before it was folded into Homeland Security when the department was created after the Sept. 11 attacks.

"It's time for FEMA to go and to build something better, stronger within DHS to take its place," Lieberman said.

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, in appearances on Sunday morning talk shows, warned against overhauling FEMA with hurricane season only three months away.

"Nature doesn't wait for us to do yet another reorganization," Chertoff told NBC's Meet the Press.

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, said he favored making FEMA a Cabinet department.

Davis said FEMA should not be competing for dollars within a department concerned with prevention as well as response, said Davis, who appeared with Lieberman on ABC's This Week.

Chertoff said that is FEMA were taken out of his department, "I predict with virtual certainty that we will be much less prepared in this hurricane season than if we keep the department together and finish the job on integrating."

Chertoff as well as FEMA and the Homeland Security Department were roundly criticized by a House report issued last week on the government response to Hurricane Katrina last summer.

Chertoff, noting that his department was just two years old when Katrina hit in August, said improvements have followed in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. But he acknowledged that much more work remains in its disaster management.

"I think the bottom line right now is to take the constructive criticism and use that to build toward, as I say, the hurricane season that is 100 days away. And we don't have a lot of time to waste before we start to address that next set of challenges," Chertoff said on CNN's Late Edition.

Asked why he made positive statements about FEMA during the Katrina response when he had private concerns, Chertoff said: "When you're in a disaster, you look the people in the eyes and you see how they're working their hearts out, even if they haven't done the kind of job you wished they could have done."

He added, "I don't think that's the time to engage in finger pointing and giving brutal assessments about people's performance."

    Lawmakers call for overhauling FEMA, UT, 19.2.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-19-lawmakers-fema_x.htm

Senate Chairman Splits With Bush on Spy Program

February 18, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Feb. 17 — The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Friday that he wanted the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program brought under the authority of a special intelligence court, a move President Bush has argued is not necessary.

The chairman, Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, said he had some concerns that the court could not issue warrants quickly enough to keep up with the needs of the eavesdropping program. But he said he would like to see those details worked out.

Mr. Roberts also said he did not believe that exempting the program from the purview of the court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act "would be met with much support" on Capitol Hill. Yet that is exactly the approach the Bush administration is pursuing.

"I think it should come before the FISA court, but I don't know how it works," Mr. Roberts said. "You don't want to have a situation where you have capability that doesn't work well with the FISA court, in terms of speed and agility and hot pursuit. So we have to solve that problem."

Mr. Roberts spoke in an interview a day after announcing that the White House, in a turnabout, had agreed to open discussions about changing surveillance law. By Friday, with Mr. Roberts apparently stung by accusations that he had caved to White House pressure not to investigate the eavesdropping without warrants, it appeared the talks could put the White House and Congress on a collision course.

White House officials favor a proposal offered by another Republican senator, Mike DeWine of Ohio, whose bill would exempt the eavesdropping from the intelligence court. Mr. DeWine wants small subcommittees to oversee the wiretapping, but Mr. Roberts said he would like the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees to have regular briefings.

"I think it's the function and the oversight responsibility of the committee," he said, adding, "That might sound strange coming from me."

Mr. Roberts's comments were surprising because he has been a staunch defender of the program and an ally of White House efforts to resist a full-scale Senate investigation. On Thursday, he pushed back a committee vote on a Democratic push to conduct an inquiry, saying he wanted to give the White House time to negotiate on possible legislation. On Friday, he dismissed accusations that he had bowed to pressure.

"The irony of this is that it is portrayed now as administration pressure brought to bear on us, meaning the Republicans on the committee and basically me," Mr. Roberts said Friday. "It's just the reverse. It's the Republicans on the committee, my staff and myself, who have been really — I don't want to say pressuring, but trying to come up with a reasonable compromise that will settle this issue. It was our activity that brought them along to this point, plus the possibility of an investigation."

The eavesdropping, authorized in secret by President Bush soon after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has allowed the National Security Agency to monitor the international telephone and e-mail communications of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people within the United States — without warrants — when the authorities suspect they have links to terrorists.

Democrats and a growing number of Republicans say the program appears to violate the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Some Republicans are also skeptical of the Bush administration's assertion that it has the inherent constitutional authority to conduct the eavesdropping, and that Congress authorized the program when it passed a resolution after Sept. 11 giving Mr. Bush authority to use military force to defend the nation.

In the House, Republicans on the Intelligence Committee have agreed to open an inquiry prompted by the surveillance program and are debating how broad it should be. Mr. Roberts said he had not spoken to Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, about what the House panel is doing.

Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico and chairwoman of the House Intelligence subcommittee that oversees the National Security Agency, has pressed for a broad investigation, but Mr. Hoekstra's aides have said that any inquiry would be limited to an examination of the FISA law.

The Senate intelligence chairman, Mr. Roberts, said he believed the administration had the constitutional authority for the program, but added, "We would be much more in concert with the Congress and everybody else and the FISA court judges" if the court oversaw the program.

As panel chairman, Mr. Roberts holds great sway. An aide to the senator said he had some specific ideas that he had been privately discussing with committee members and other lawmakers. But neither the senator nor the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the negotiations, would make those ideas public.

Nor will Mr. Roberts have final say over what form legislation will take; rather, his ideas are circulating in an environment that one Congressional aide, referring to the Winter Olympic Games, said was "sort of like snowboardcross, with four proposals shooting out of the gate, jockeying for position."

Another senior Senate Republican, Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has proposed legislation that would allow the FISA court to pass judgment on the program's constitutionality. And Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine and a member of the intelligence panel, said Friday that she believed the eavesdropping must come under the purview of the judiciary.

"I think we do have to have judicial review," she said, adding, "Whether it's the FISA approach or not I think remains in question, but it can't go on in perpetuity, and it can't be unfettered warrantless surveillance."

Whether Republicans can agree remains to be seen. "People are all over the place," Mr. DeWine said. "We don't have a consensus."

The White House has been in talks with Mr. DeWine, who said Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, called him on Wednesday night, on the eve of the Senate Intelligence panel's scheduled vote, to discuss his legislation.

"What we have talked about with some Congressional leaders is codifying into law what his authority already is," Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman said in an interview Friday, referring to the president. He added, "Senator DeWine has some good ideas, and we think they're reasonable ideas."

Since the program's inception, the White House has provided information about it to members of the "Gang of Eight," the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate, and the senior Democrat and Republican on the intelligence panels in both chambers. Last week, the Bush administration went further, revealing details of the program to all members of the House and Senate intelligence panels.

Mr. DeWine said his proposal called for an intelligence subcommittee with "professional staff" to have oversight. "It would be fundamentally different than doing it by the Gang of Eight, where there's really no staff," he said, adding, "The key is oversight."

Elisabeth Bumiller contributed reporting for this article.

    Senate Chairman Splits With Bush on Spy Program, NYT, 18.2.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/18/politics/18nsa.html?hp&ex=1140325200&en=231ab42e6ca3fd9c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Senate intelligence chair endorses domestic spying

Fri Feb 3, 2006 9:24 PM ET
Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Republican chairman of the Senate intelligence committee on Friday endorsed President George W. Bush's domestic surveillance program and said the White House was right to inform only a handful of lawmakers about its existence.

In a letter to the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas expressed "strong support" for a program that has raised an outcry from Democrats and some Republicans who believe Bush may have overstepped his authority. The panel is to hear testimony Monday from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the issue.

Roberts said he believes Bush's use of warrantless surveillance is legal, necessary, reasonable and within the president's powers.

"I am confident the president retains the constitutional authority to conduct 'warrantless' electronic surveillance," he said in the 19-page letter addressed to the judiciary panel's Republican chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, and its senior Democrat, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

After the September 11 attacks, Bush authorized the National Security Agency to monitor the international telephone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens without first obtaining warrants as a means of tracking al Qaeda operations.

The administration, which refers to the eavesdropping as a limited "terrorist surveillance program," says it is justified by Bush's constitutional authority as commander in chief and by the authorization of military force that Congress granted the president after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

Democrats and other critics say the NSA program could violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches, as well as the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to seek wiretap warrants from a secret court even during times of war.

Roberts' office released the letter a day after Democrats on his committee aired concerns that the oversight panel and the intelligence community had become part of a White House public relations campaign to defend the NSA program.

"The question I am wrestling with is whether the very independence of the U.S. intelligence committee has been co-opted -- to be quite honest about it -- by the strong, controlling hand of the White House," Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, the committee's ranking Democrat, said at Thursday's hearing.

    Senate intelligence chair endorses domestic spying, NYT, 3.2.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-02-04T022444Z_01_N03281239_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml

Senate Panel Rebuffed on Documents on U.S. Spying

February 2, 2006
The New York Times
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 — The Bush administration is rebuffing requests from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for its classified legal opinions on President Bush's domestic spying program, setting up a confrontation in advance of a hearing scheduled for next week, administration and Congressional officials said Wednesday.

The Justice Department is balking at the request so far, administration officials said, arguing that the legal opinions would add little to the public debate because the administration has already laid out its legal defense at length in several public settings.

But the legality of the program is known to have produced serious concerns within the Justice Department in 2004, at a time when one of the legal opinions was drafted. Democrats say they want to review the internal opinions to assess how legal thinking on the program evolved and whether lawyers in the department saw any concrete limits to the president's powers in fighting terrorism.

With the committee scheduled to hold the first public hearing on the eavesdropping program on Monday, the Justice Department's stance could provoke another clash between Congress and the executive branch over access to classified internal documents. The administration has already drawn fire from Democrats in the last week for refusing to release internal documents on Hurricane Katrina as well as material related to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Several Democrats and at least one Republican have pressed the Justice Department in recent days to give them access, even in a closed setting, to the internal documents that formed the legal foundation of the surveillance program. But when asked whether the classified legal opinions would be made available to Congress, a senior Justice Department official said Wednesday, "I don't think they're coming out."

The official said the administration's legal arguments had already been aired, most prominently in a 42-page "white paper" issued last month. "Everything that's in those memos was in the white paper," said the official, who, like other administration and Congressional officials, was granted anonymity because classified material was involved.

While the administration has spent much of the last two weeks defending the legality and necessity of the surveillance program, the Judiciary Committee session will be the first Congressional hearing on it. Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who leads the panel, said Wednesday that he had "a lot of questions" the administration had not yet adequately answered about the program's legal rationale.

Mr. Specter would not address the committee's request for the classified legal opinions, except to say, "that's not a closed matter — we're still working on that."

Several Democrats on the panel have made formal requests for the legal opinions, including Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.

In the interview, Mr. Specter said that he wanted a fuller explanation as to how the Justice Department asserts that the eavesdropping operation does not conflict with the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which set strict and "exclusive" guidelines for intelligence wiretaps.

The operation was approved by President Bush, to allow the National Security Agency to conduct wiretaps on Americans' international communications without a court warrant. Mr. Specter said his view was that the operation "violates FISA — there's no doubt about that."

He also questioned why the administration did not go to Congress or the intelligence court to seek changes in the process before moving ahead on its own with the classified program after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Representative Jane Harman, the California Democrat who was one of the few members of the Congress briefed on the operation, echoed that same theme in a letter sent Wednesday to President Bush.

She said in the letter that with changes made to the foreign intelligence law after the Sept. 11 attacks, the eavesdropping operations of the N.S.A. "can and should" be covered by court-approved warrants, "without circumventing" the process.

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales will be the lone witness at next week's hearing, and his aides said he was entering it with confidence about the program's legal footing, based on both the president's inherent constitutional authority and a Congressional authorization after the Sept. 11 attacks to use military force against terrorists. But both Republicans and Democrats said Wednesday that they planned to question Mr. Gonzales about those assertions.

While the administration has laid out its legal defense repeatedly in the last two weeks, the formal legal opinions developed at the Justice Department to justify the program remain classified. The administration has refused even to publicly acknowledge the existence of the memorandums, but The New York Times has reported that two sets of legal opinions by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel asserted the president's broad power to order wiretaps without warrants in protecting national security.

The first Justice Department opinion is thought to have been written in late 2001 or early 2002 by John Yoo, a strong proponent of expanded presidential powers in wartime. The second opinion, officials said, was drafted by Jack Goldsmith, another senior department official who later left to teach at Harvard. It came in 2004 at a time some senior officials at the Justice Department were voicing concerns about the program's legal foundation and refusing to sign off on its reauthorization.

Those concerns led in part to the suspension of the surveillance program for several months and also appear to have led Mr. Goldsmith and other Justice Department lawyers to revisit the question of its legal underpinnings in order to satisfy those concerns.

Members of the Judiciary Committee have sought access to the memorandums, officials said. Some Democrats speculate that the classified memos may contain far-reaching and potentially explosive legal theories similar to those advocated by Mr. Yoo and others, and later disavowed by the Justice Department, regarding policies on torture.

In a letter sent Wednesday to Mr. Gonzales, Mrs. Feinstein said the legal opinions and other internal documents were needed for Congress to assess whether the president "has the inherent authority to authorize this surveillance."

With two additional hearings scheduled on the program after Mr. Gonzales's appearance, Mr. Specter said he was also considering seeking testimony from former Justice Department officials, and perhaps even input from the FISA court itself.

But Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat who also serves on the Judiciary Committee, said the panel should consider issuing subpoenas if the administration is not more forthcoming in providing documents and witnesses.

"Without the Justice Department memos and without more witnesses, it's hard to se how anything other than a rehashing of the administration line is going to happen," Mr. Schumer said Wednesday. "I am worried that these hearings could end up telling us very little when the American people are thirsty to find out what happened here."

    Senate Panel Rebuffed on Documents on U.S. Spying, NYT, 2.2.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/politics/02nsa.html?_r=1&ei=5094&en=ed13dde5148f21f0&hp=&ex=1138856400&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1138856760-SMkn/l1w230TRj9U75/Nkg

Alito Sworn In as Justice After Senate Gives Approval
NYT        1.2.2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/politics/politicsspecial1/01confirm.html

Alito Sworn In as Justice After Senate Gives Approval

February 1, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 — Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. was quietly sworn in Tuesday as the 110th justice of the Supreme Court, taking the oath of office less than two hours after a sharply divided Senate voted roughly along party lines to confirm him.

His confirmation, by a vote of 58 to 42, is expected to tilt the balance of the court to the right on matters like abortion, affirmative action and the death penalty, and partisans on each side said the outcome would echo through American politics for decades.

Judge Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann, watched the vote on television in the Roosevelt Room of the White House with President Bush and his wife, Laura, and aides who had worked on the nomination.

A cheer went up in the room as the vote count passed 50, and Judge Alito and his wife proceeded to the Supreme Court for a private swearing-in. His oath was administered by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who worked with Judge Alito as a lawyer in the Reagan administration, and the two men sat with other members of the Supreme Court at for the president's State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

For Mr. Bush, the confirmations of Justice Alito, 55, and Chief Justice Roberts, 51, mean that in four months he has named two members of the court who are young enough to influence its rulings for many years.

In a statement, Mr. Bush congratulated Justice Alito, the son of an Italian immigrant, saying his "appointment to the Supreme Court is the realization of the American dream." Mr. Bush is scheduled to commemorate Justice Alito's public swearing-in with a more elaborate ceremony on Wednesday at the White House.

Justice Alito succeeds Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman on the court and its swing vote on abortion rights and other social issues. After announcing her retirement last July, Justice O'Connor postponed her departure until a successor was confirmed. She is scheduled to return to her home state by Thursday to begin teaching a class on the Supreme Court at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

The vote on the nomination was unusually close and partisan. In the last 100 years of Supreme Court confirmations, only one vote was closer: the 52-to-48 decision to confirm Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991.

In this confirmation, 54 Republicans voted for Judge Alito, and just one, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, voted against him. Only four Democrats — Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Tim Johnson of South Dakota and Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia — voted for confirmation, while the other 40 Democrats and the one independent voted against it.

The senators sat at their desks as the roll was called to reflect the solemnity of the occasion, and Mr. Byrd, 88, the oldest and longest-serving member of the Senate, made his way to his desk with canes in each hand to cast the last vote with a thumbs-up gesture.

Although only four Democrats crossed party lines, the vote reflected a deep divide within the party over how hard to fight Judge Alito's confirmation. An effort by a handful of Democrats to stage a filibuster over the objection of party leaders failed on Monday, when only 25 senators voted against closing debate.

The 42 senators who voted against confirmation would have been enough to block the nomination if they had voted against closing the debate. But many Democrats were unwilling to do so because it would have drawn charges of obstructionism from Republicans, who have threatened to change Senate rules to bar filibusters on judicial nominees.

Still, Democrats vowed to make an issue of Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts's decisions in elections this fall and beyond. "We will be watching our two newest justices," Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a speech before the vote.

"Make no mistake, we will make sure the American people understand the implications of these votes today," Mr. Schumer said. "Elections may have consequences, Mr. President, but votes like these also have consequences for future elections."

Officials of liberal groups, stung by the opposition of nearly half of the Democratic caucus to a filibuster of Judge Alito's nomination, criticized the party as giving in. "Today the Senate caved," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

The groups also pledged to make the Supreme Court their rallying cry in the midterm elections this fall. "Why did we lose?" said an e-mail message from Naral Pro-Choice America to its supporters. "One word sums it up: numbers."

The message continued, "We don't have the majority in the Senate."

Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood and its political action fund, said many abortion-rights supporters had taken the Supreme Court for granted. "This nomination has moved the whole issue of reproductive health and freedoms much higher on voters' agenda, and I think they will remember this vote," Ms. Pearl said.

Conservatives, who have campaigned for decades against the court's decisions on abortion rights and the government's support for religion, celebrated Justice Alito's confirmation as a historic victory. The Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group, called the vote "a turning point for our nation."

"This is obviously a great day for us," said James C. Dobson, founder of the council and Focus on the Family. "We have not only been working toward this day, but praying for it for 20 years. There were times when it looked like we would never see a more conservative philosophy on the Supreme Court, and that makes today's development all the sweeter."

Paul M. Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation and a conservative organizer, argued that Mr. Bush's pledge to nominate jurists like the conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas was the theme that held together his political coalition despite concerns about the war in Iraq, spending, immigration and other matters. "This is a reward, if you will, by Bush, in keeping his promise."

Both sides agree that liberals are likely to be on the defensive in future battles over the court. The youngest members of the court are all conservatives: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, 57. The oldest and most likely to leave the court next are liberals: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 72, and Justice John Paul Stevens, 85.

    Alito Sworn In as Justice After Senate Gives Approval, NYT, 1.2.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/01/politics/politicsspecial1/01confirm.html

And in This Corner, Fed Choice Is Blip on Some Senators' Radar

January 31, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 — The important presidential nominee who is scheduled for a vote in the Senate on Tuesday is widely regarded as brilliant, has ties to Princeton University and, if confirmed as expected, will influence the lives of ordinary Americans for years to come.

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. for the Supreme Court?

No, this is the other important nominee — Ben S. Bernanke for chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Wall Street may be intensely interested in just about every word ever uttered by Mr. Bernanke, the former Princeton economist and chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers who is President Bush's choice to succeed Alan Greenspan.

But in Washington, he is barely on some people's radar screens. Indeed, here is what Senator George Allen of Virginia, who is considering a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, said when asked his opinion of the Bernanke nomination.

"For what?"

Told that Mr. Bernanke was up for the Fed chairman's job, Mr. Allen hedged a little, said he had not been focused on it, and wondered aloud when the hearings would be. Told that the Senate Banking Committee hearings had concluded in November, the senator responded: "You mean I missed them all? I paid no attention to them."

He was not the only one. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, regarded by some as a front-runner in 2008, also had no idea that the Bernanke hearings had come and gone.

While lawmakers and the public have been focused on the nomination of Judge Alito, who is also scheduled for a vote on Tuesday, Mr. Bernanke has become a rarity in modern Washington: the noncontroversial nominee.

True, monetary policy no longer ignites ideological passion the way it did in the days of double-digit inflation. Still, the job that Mr. Bernanke, 52, is ready to assume hardly lacks consequence. As Federal Reserve chairman, Mr. Bernanke, considered one of the nation's pre-eminent monetary economists, would arguably be the most powerful economic figure in the world, his every remark having the power to move markets.

Unlike Judge Alito, Mr. Bernanke would not be receiving a lifetime appointment; the term of a Fed chairman is just four years. But Mr. Bernanke is also being appointed to a 14-year term as a member of the Fed's board of governors, and under Fed rules would be eligible for reappointment as chairman for the life of that term. Mr. Greenspan, who served one partial term and one full term as a Fed governor, was chairman for 18 years.

That is long enough to have an extraordinary impact, and Fed chairmen often do. Their decisions affect many aspects of American financial life, including such things as increases in Social Security payments and how much interest people pay to borrow against the equity in their homes or to finance the purchase of a new car.

Senator Richard C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama and chairman of the banking committee, said the Fed chairman was "a lot more important, in the context of everyday life of the economy," than a member of the Supreme Court.

Allan H. Meltzer, a professor of political economy and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, who is writing a history of the Federal Reserve, felt similarly. "Bernanke is certainly every bit as important as Alito," he said.

Professor Meltzer contended that the banking committee gave Mr. Bernanke "a free ride" during his confirmation hearing, which lasted only one day. During the session, Mr. Bernanke said continuity with the Greenspan era would be his top priority.

"I think they could have pushed Bernanke a little bit more on the questions of how he saw the job and what objectives he was going to pursue," Professor Meltzer said, including "how he thought about the problems of reconciling full employment and low inflation — did he think the Fed had other responsibilities. It seemed to me they really didn't lay many gloves on him."

Perhaps that is because relatively few people outside the world of finance seem to know who Mr. Bernanke is. There are no outside interest groups broadcasting television ads for and against him, no protests, no polls. His nomination received such scant attention that the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, which tracks how closely people follows news events, did not bother to monitor it.

"I think he has negative name recognition," said Andrew Kohut, the center's director. "We didn't cover it, and I don't think anyone else did."

Economists are a bit mystified, though not entirely surprised. The Alito hearings were brimming with controversy, from the judge's membership in a Princeton University alumni group that fought against affirmative action to a 20-year-old memorandum in which he said that the Constitution did not provide a right to an abortion.

The Bernanke hearings, by contrast, centered on the world of monetary policy, a field where most of the big ideological fights were settled long ago.

"Monetary policy has become much less political than it used to be years back and centuries back," said Alan S. Blinder, a former Fed vice chairman who is a professor of economics at Princeton, where he was a colleague of Mr. Bernanke's. "There's a consensus on what monetary policy should be doing, which is to say keeping inflation low and, subject to that constraint, keeping employment high. So politicians take this attitude that it's for technocrats, and it doesn't matter too much whether the guy is a Republican or a Democrat."

Mr. Bernanke, for the record, is a Republican, though some of his close colleagues in academia said they did not know his political affiliation until he went to work for Mr. Bush. His nomination was announced last fall, days before Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, withdrew as a nominee to the Supreme Court amid accusations of political cronyism; picking Mr. Bernanke helped Mr. Bush fend off those charges.

Even so, Mr. Bernanke's relationship with the president came up in his confirmation hearings, as Democrats pressed him on whether he would be independent of the White House.

But it was a Republican, Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, a longtime critic of the Fed, who cast the lone vote in the committee against him, saying he did not regard Mr. Bernanke as independent enough from Mr. Greenspan. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who serves on both the Judiciary and Banking Committees and who led the charge against Judge Alito, came out strongly in favor of Mr. Bernanke.

"They avoided the equivalent of Samuel Alito in a monetary sense," Mr. Schumer said. "They didn't pick a strict monetarist. They didn't pick somebody who was tax cuts over everything else. They picked a mainstream guy, and if there was ever proof that Democrats would support the president's nominee, it was Bernanke."

So unlike Judge Alito, who is expected to be confirmed by a vote pretty much along party lines, Mr. Bernanke is likely to receive the overwhelming support of the Senate, even if some prominent members are not quite up to speed on his views.

Mr. McCain — who joked during a 2000 presidential debate that if Mr. Greenspan died, he would "prop him up and put a pair of dark glasses on him," in a repeat of a prank in the movie "Weekend at Bernie's" — said he did not know too much about Mr. Bernanke, but was comforted to know that Mr. Greenspan had a high opinion of him.

"It hasn't gotten a lot of attention," Senator McCain said, "but I think he'll be carefully scrutinized in his hearings, and the view that other people have of him will carry a lot of weight in the financial world, particularly Greenspan."

Mr. McCain was asked if he would be surprised to learn that the hearings were over. He paused, his eyes widening, before giving the verbal equivalent of a knock on the forehead: "You're right, you're right, you're right. Duuuuuh."

    And in This Corner, Fed Choice Is Blip on Some Senators' Radar, NYT, 31.1.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/business/31bernanke.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Senate Clears Way for Vote to Confirm Court Nominee

January 31, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 — The last obstacle to the confirmation of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. as the 110th justice of the Supreme Court was cleared on Monday, providing conservatives with what they believe will be another reliable vote on the deeply divided court.

The Senate voted 72 to 25 to allow an up-or-down vote on Judge Alito, ending a last-ditch Democratic effort to block the nomination and giving President Bush a victory to recount in his State of the Union address on Tuesday.

A majority of the Republican-controlled Senate has already pledged to support Judge Alito's confirmation in the final vote, scheduled for Tuesday morning, while almost all of the 45 Democrats are expected to vote against it.

If confirmed, Judge Alito will succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan appointee who became the court's pivotal vote on cases involving abortion rights, affirmative action and other social issues. Although he pledged to keep an open mind, Judge Alito has a clearer written record of disagreement with abortion-rights precedents than any Supreme Court nominee confirmed in the last 30 years.

"I am pleased that a strong, bipartisan majority in the Senate decisively rejected attempts to obstruct and filibuster an up-or-down vote on Judge Sam Alito's nomination," Mr. Bush said in a statement. "Judge Alito is extraordinarily well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court, and America is fortunate that this good and humble man is willing to serve."

Officials from a host of liberal interest groups gathered just off the Senate floor as the votes were tallied and accused the Democrats of lacking nerve.

"Excruciatingly disappointing," said Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way and a leader of the liberal coalition opposing Judge Alito.

Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice and another coalition leader, said the 24 Democrats who voted against closing the debate "showed extraordinary principle," but she faulted the rest as failing to make judicial nominees "a priority."

In the end, Ms. Aron said, "He is still on the court."

The Democrats seeking to block a full vote on Judge Alito were joined by Senator James M. Jeffords, an independent from Vermont.

Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader and a likely presidential candidate in 2008, exulted at the all-but-certain confirmation of another conservative nominee to follow Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "This is my end game," Mr. Frist said, "and it's played out exactly the way I wanted it to."

Forcing the vote to close debate was a final, symbolic attempt by a handful of liberal senators to derail the nomination through a procedural tactic known as a filibuster.

"We have a responsibility to try to present this to the American people," Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts thundered from the Senate floor, pleading with his colleagues to keep the debate alive.

"What's the next measure on the calendar? Asbestos? Isn't that interesting?" he continued. "Anything more important than spending time and permitting the American people to understand this issue? I don't believe so."

Keeping debate open would have required 41 votes, but just over half of the Democrats joined Mr. Kennedy.

The outcome in many ways reflected the resolution last spring of a battle over the Democrats' use of filibusters to block some of Mr. Bush's appeals court nominees.

In retaliation, Mr. Frist threatened to hold a majority vote to change Senate rules to preclude such procedural blockades. His plans were thwarted by a group of seven senators from each party that became known as the "Gang of 14."

The Republicans agreed to prevent the rule change. In exchange, the Democrats agreed to withhold their votes from filibusters except in "extraordinary circumstances."

With the possibility of a vote on the rule change hanging over the Senate, the 14 senators met on Monday afternoon and agreed unanimously that the "extraordinary circumstances" stipulation did not apply in Judge Alito's case. Several members of the group, along with other moderate senators of both parties, had already said as much publicly, and by early last week more than the requisite 60 senators had committed to opposing a filibuster.

Some Democrats, like Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado, voted to close debate on Judge Alito's nomination because they said it did not rise to "extraordinary circumstances," but they said they nonetheless planned to vote against it.

For Mr. Frist, the vote to close debate is a meaningful victory because he had staked his reputation with many conservative organizers on his ability to earn confirmation for the president's judicial nominees. Many conservatives were disappointed by his failure to force the rule change and thus disarm the Democratic filibuster, but Mr. Frist can now argue that his threats have effectively cowed the Democrats into refraining from such tactics.

Mr. Kennedy and Senator John Kerry, both of Massachusetts, argued for an attempt at a filibuster during a Democratic caucus meeting last Wednesday, provoking a passionate debate. Many Democrats have grumbled privately since then that mounting a doomed filibuster would only expose senators from conservative states to political heat.

But after the vote, Mr. Kennedy said he was proud of the effort. "It was the right battle at the right time, and the right cause," he said.

Mr. Kennedy also played down any divisions in the Democratic caucus. "There was a difference in terms of strategy," he said, "but not on the substantive issue, which is the overriding issue, Judge Alito."

    Senate Clears Way for Vote to Confirm Court Nominee, NYT, 31.1.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/politics/politicsspecial1/31alito.html?hp&ex=1138683600&en=780c5aec96a49a08&ei=5094&partner=homepage

On Party Lines, Panel Approves Alito for Court

January 25, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - The Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines Tuesday to approve the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. as senators turned the occasion into a broader and sometimes heated debate over the rancorous and partisan nature of the confirmation process.

Republicans threatened retaliation against future Democratic nominees, saying Democrats had rallied party members to vote against Judge Alito's confirmation for political reasons unrelated to his qualifications. Democrats said a close vote would warn President Bush not to name such conservative judges.

Judge Alito's confirmation to the court is now all but assured, by a vote of the full Senate roughly along party lines.

In contrast, the president's previous nominee, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was confirmed just a few months ago with the support of three of the eight Democrats on the committee and half of the 44 Democrats in the Senate.

Recalling the overwhelming and bipartisan majorities that approved President Bill Clinton's Supreme Court nominees, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, several Republican senators said their party had evaluated the qualifications of nominees on less ideological terms. They said the Democratic opposition to Judge Alito could alter the judicial confirmation process for years to come.

Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, warned that Republicans might apply the same political tactics to future Democratic nominees in return: "So I say to my Democratic friends, think carefully about what is being done today. Its impact will be felt well beyond this particular nominee."

Democrats countered that the Bush administration had politicized the confirmation process by nominating a roster of staunch conservatives to the federal courts.

"It's a very different day and time" than during the Clinton administration's nominations, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said. "There was not the polarization within America that is there today and not the defined move to take this court in a singular direction."

The committee vote, with all 10 Republicans voting to confirm and all 8 Democrats voting to reject the nomination, sets the stage for equally contentious if predictable debate beginning Wednesday on the Senate floor. Many Democrats have indicated Judge Alito appeared too well qualified and unthreatening in his confirmation hearings to justify a filibuster, and without one his confirmation by a majority vote is virtually guaranteed.

Democratic leaders are nonetheless pushing for a lengthy debate over the nomination to make their case against Judge Alito. And Democratic aides say privately that they also hope to hold off the final vote until Tuesday, when the president's State of the Union speech will overshadow the news.

Republicans had talked about holding the vote this weekend, but some senators plan to be in Davos, Switzerland, mingling with international business and political leaders at the World Economic Forum.

Behind the public arguments about the importance of the courts and the confirmation process, strategists for both parties say they are planning to use the Senate vote as a political weapon in the midterm elections. Such elections are typically decided by the turnout of party loyalists, and such voters would most likely have passionate views on the Alito nomination.

Republicans are laying the groundwork to attack Democrats who vote against Judge Alito as beholden to liberal interest groups. Democrats plan to make an issue of his votes on subjects like abortion rights or environmental regulations.

Speaking to reporters after the committee vote, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said that even if Judge Alito was confirmed, the strong Democratic opposition should send a message.

"I would hope it sends a message to the president that he should be more careful," Mr. Reid said. "I think it sends a message to the American people that this guy is not King George, he's President George."

Still, if Judge Alito joins Chief Justice Roberts on the bench, Mr. Bush will have put a substantial mark on the court. On many social issues, the court has been the biggest obstacle to the goals of conservatives now in control of the other branches of government, and Judge Alito would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who often had been a pivotal vote.

After his statement to reporters, Mr. Reid met privately with representatives of a coalition of liberal groups opposing Judge Alito, a group that included People for the American Way, the Alliance for Justice, and labor, abortion rights and environmental groups.

Democratic aides briefed on the meeting said officials of the groups made a last-ditch plea for a filibuster. People present said Mr. Reid agreed only that the Democrats would discuss their plans at a party meeting on Wednesday.

Democrats also began making an issue of Chief Justice Roberts's decisions on the court in explaining their opposition to Judge Alito.

Mrs. Feinstein said that in the recent Gonzales v. Oregon decision, involving an Oregon law allowing doctor-assisted suicide, Chief Justice Roberts sided with conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in finding that the Bush administration could block the practice.

Chief Justice Roberts's vote ran counter to some of the statements he made during his confirmation hearing, suggesting that the court should stay out of "end-of-life" decisions, Mrs. Feinstein said. She quoted from his testimony: "The basic understanding is that it's a free country, and the right to be left alone is one of our basic rights."

She said that Judge Alito's record suggested he was also likely to join the same conservative faction of the court, especially on abortion rights.

"If one is pro-choice in this day and age, in this structure," Mrs. Feinstein said, "one can't vote for Judge Alito. It is simply that simple."

Republicans said that making an issue of Judge Alito's rulings would redound to their benefit, asserting that his legal views were more in line with the American electorate than those of his liberal critics.

"I'll just tell you right now we welcome that debate on our side," Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told the Democrats. "We'll clean your clock."

    On Party Lines, Panel Approves Alito for Court, NYT, 25.1.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/politics/politicsspecial1/25alito.html

Senators Have Strong Words for Mine Safety Officials

January 24, 2006
The New York Times
By IAN URBINA

WASHINGTON, Jan. 23 - Citing the recent deaths of 14 miners in West Virginia, senators said Monday that federal mining officials had failed to enforce safety regulations adequately.

"These deaths, I believe, were entirely preventable," said Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, citing recent budget cuts, staff reductions and "a culture of cronyism" as factors contributing to insufficient oversight by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration.

But David Dye, acting administrator of the agency, rejected the criticism.

Mr. Dye told a hearing of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on mine safety that it was far too early to identify the cause of the accidents: the Jan. 2 explosion at the Sago Mine that killed 12 miners and the conveyer belt fire on Thursday that killed 2 miners at the Aracoma Alma Mine No. 1 near Melville.

"Until the joint investigation team can safely enter the mine to thoroughly examine the site, we will not know" what caused the Sago accident, Mr. Dye said.

Lawmakers grew increasingly frustrated with agency officials' answers.

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the subcommittee, criticized the Bush administration as not keeping up with inflation in financing mine safety and said that over the last 10 years the safety agency's budget had been cut by $2.8 million, which led to the loss of the 183 staff members.

About midway through the two-hour hearing, Mr. Dye said he had other matters to attend to and had to leave.

Senator Specter responded with frustration: "I can understand your pressing other business. It may well be that some of the senators here have pressing matters, too. We don't think we are imposing too much to keep you here for another hour."

After Mr. Specter added, "That's the committee's request, but you're not under subpoena," Mr. Dye got up and walked out.

"I can't recollect it ever happening before," Mr. Specter said of the departure. "We'll find a way to take appropriate note of it."

Senator Byrd criticized agency officials for the communication problems that slowed the rescue efforts after both accidents.

"The mine act requires that rescue teams be readily available in the event of an emergency," Mr. Byrd said, "and yet it took 11 hours before the first team could even begin rescue efforts at Sago. Now, a short two weeks later, the nation watched as similar horrors emerged from a second tragedy at the Alma mine."

Ray McKinney, the agency's administrator of coal mine safety and health, said the delay in the Sago rescue efforts was unavoidable.

"It was not safe to enter the mine until carbon monoxide levels showed signs of trending downward and stabilizing," Mr. McKinney said. "We have a rich history of secondary explosions occurring after initial explosions."

Asked why the mine safety agency has not mandated the use of handheld devices that can help locate and communicate with miners during emergencies, Mr. Dye said the reliability of such devises was still uncertain.

But J. Davitt McAteer, an assistant secretary for mine safety and health administration in the Clinton administration, rejected that view.

"To act like these devices aren't ready to go is just plain wrong," Mr. McAteer said, adding that the agency had already approved use of small low-frequency tracking devices and one-way text messaging, and that these had helped save lives at several mines that had voluntarily adopted them.

Lawmakers also questioned whether the current system of fines was sufficient to get mine operators to follow safety regulations.

Mr. Dye said his administration could close sections of the mine only for violations but had little ability to close a mine for "accumulated bad acts."

He added that he supported the increase of the maximum penalty for each safety violation to $220,000, from the current $60,000.

According to Mine Safety and Health Administration records, the Sago Mine received 208 citations in 2005, up from 68 in 2004. Sixteen of those were for violations that the mine operators knew about but did not repair before inspectors caught them, the agency said.

Ben Hatfield, president and chief executive of International Coal Group, which owns the Sago Mine, told the subcommittee that none of Sago's citations from 2005 "involved an immediate risk of injury," and that all but three were corrected before the explosion.

The only miner to survive the Sago blast, Randal McCloy Jr., 26, of Simpson, W.Va., remained in a coma on Monday, though his condition was upgraded to fair from serious.

Meanwhile, the West Virginia Senate and House of Delegates unanimously passed a measure requiring mine operators to store extra breathing packs in their mines and to provide miners with devices that would make it easier to locate the packs in emergencies.

The measure, which Gov. Joe Manchin III, a Democrat, supports, would also require coal operators to contact a new statewide hot line when accidents occur. In addition, mine operators would face fines of $100,000 if they failed to report an accident within 15 minutes.

    Senators Have Strong Words for Mine Safety Officials, NYT, 24.1.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/national/24mine.html

Schumer Calls for Questioning in Eavesdropping Investigation

January 1, 2006
The New York Times
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune

WASHINGTON, Jan. 1 - Senator Charles Schumer called today for a Senate committee investigating a secret domestic surveillance program to question top Justice Department officials, past and present, including a deputy attorney general who reportedly raised concerns about the program during a heated internal debate.

Senator Schumer, Democrat of New York, also said that he supported a newly announced Justice Department inquiry to find who divulged the existence of the secret spying program to The New York Times, which disclosed its existence last month.

But Mr. Schumer said that there should be no presumption that whoever had disclosed the classified program had meant to harm national security, as the Bush administration and some Republicans have asserted. Rather, he said, whoever disclosed the secret surveillance to the newspaper may have been someone trying - after being rebuffed within normal channels - to expose a possibly illegal activity.

"There are differences between felons and whistleblowers, and we ought to wait till the investigation occurs to decide what happened," Mr. Schumer said on the Fox News Channel.

The eavesdropping program, conducted by the National Security Agency, is intended to monitor electronic communications between people in the United States and people abroad who are suspected of having terrorist links. President Bush has firmly defended it as both legal and necessary to protect the nation from terror strikes after Sept. 11, 2001.

Mr. Schumer's remarks today were partly a response to an article published today in The Times, which reported that the deputy attorney general at the time, James Comey, played a role in the temporary suspension of the surveillance program in 2004.

It described a scene in which two top Bush aides - Andrew Card, his chief of staff, and Alberto Gonzales, then White House counsel and now attorney general - went to a Washington hospital in March 2004 seeking Attorney General John Ashcroft's approval to renew the program. Mr. Ashcroft was in the hospital for gallbladder surgery.

The visit, The Times said, was prompted because Mr. Comey, who was acting attorney general in Mr. Ashcroft's absence, had declined to approve a certification of central parts of the program, as White House procedures required.

Senator Schumer said that he wanted the Senate Judiciary Committee to question Mr. Ashcroft and Mr. Gonzales, as well as Mr. Comey's predecessor as deputy, Larry Thompson.

Neither Mr. Comey nor Mr. Ashcroft would comment on the hospital meeting, The Times said. The White House spokesman Trent Duffy, who is with Mr. Bush during a holiday vacation at his Texas ranch, declined today to answer questions about internal administration discussions, The Associated Press reported.

Disclosure of the program's existence last month drew sharp criticism not only from Democrats but from some Republicans, including the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who said he would hold investigative hearings.

But many Republicans, and some Democrats, have defended the program as a regrettable intrusion into American privacy made necessary by the terrorist threat.

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip, said today that the leaking of the story needed to be investigated "to find out who has been endangering our national security."

He noted that President Bush believed "very, very strongly" that he has constitutional authority, in conjunction with Congress's 2001 authorization of the use of force against terrorists, to undertake the program.

"The American people are not going to think very kindly," he said on Fox, "of efforts to restrict this very, very narrow activity that's been a factor, I'm confident, in protecting us since 9/11."

He urged that any hearings be held behind closed doors, suggesting that public discussion of the program was "endangering our efforts to make Americans more secure."

Senator Schumer said the problem was not with good-faith efforts to protect Americans but with the president's authority to do so unilaterally.

"The balance between security and liberty is a very delicate one," he said. "When you want to shift that balance, you have an open debate, you have some rules that are set, and then you have an independent arbiter look at those rules."

The president, he said, "just changed it on his own." The reports of discord over the program at the highest levels of the Justice Department, Mr. Schumer added, "really heighten the concern."

    Schumer Calls for Questioning in Eavesdropping Investigation, NYT, 1.1.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/politics/01cnd-policy.html