History > 2006 > USA > House of Representatives (II)

Editorial

Fooling the Voters

July 31, 2006
The New York Times

The two bills passed by the House last Friday and Saturday reflect a single Republican electoral strategy. Representatives want to appear to have accomplished something when they face voters during their five-week summer break, which starts today, and at the same time keep campaign donations flowing from special-interest constituents who are well aware that a great deal was left to do.

One of the bills was a pension reform measure. The other was a grab bag that contains three main items: an extension of the expired tax credit for corporate research; a $2.10 an hour increase in the minimum wage, to be phased in over three years; and a multibillion-dollar estate-tax cut. That’s the deal House Republicans are really offering — a few more dollars for 6.6 million working Americans; billions more for some 8,000 of the wealthiest families.

It is cynical in the extreme. Extending the research tax credit is noncontroversial, yet pressing. A minimum wage increase is compelling — morally, politically and financially — but Republicans generally oppose it. And the estate-tax cut has already failed to pass the Senate twice this summer. So House Republicans linked it to the research credit and the minimum wage, hoping to flip a handful of senators from both parties who have voted against estate-tax cuts in the past. Democrats who vote against the estate tax, Republicans think, can be painted as voting against a higher minimum wage.

This is an attempt at extortion. There is no way to justify providing yet another enormous tax shelter to the nation’s wealthiest heirs in the face of huge budget deficits, growing income inequality and looming government obligations for Social Security and Medicare.

As for the House’s pension bill, it is not the overhaul that Congress has long been promising. The promised bill would have meshed House and Senate versions of pension reform into a single bill that would have almost certainly passed each chamber. But the conference was fatally derailed last Thursday when House Republican negotiators, including the majority leader, John Boehner, refused to attend a meeting called by Senate Republicans to settle a few remaining differences. Mr. Boehner and his followers avoided having to vote — and lose — on items that other negotiators wanted in the final bill.

Once they had scuttled the talks, House leaders acted unilaterally, presenting a new pension bill on Friday. They said the new bill contained the provisions that had previously been agreed upon. But that remains to be seen, since the 900-page tome was passed within hours. It will be up to the senators to vet the bill. If they see fit to amend it, the negotiations will have to start all over again.

The Senate has one week before its summer recess. As the senators struggle to produce decent legislation from the House’s sham bills, Americans will see the truth: their representatives in the House went on vacation without doing their job.

Fooling the Voters, NYT, 31.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/opinion/31mon1.html

Minimum Wage Fight

Heads to the Senate

July 30, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, July 29 — A bitter fight over legislative tactics and the minimum wage shifted to the Senate after the House early on Saturday approved a $2.10 increase in the wage scale but tied it to a reduction in the estate tax and a package of tax breaks.

In an early-morning decision that Republican leaders said they hoped would provide political benefits to lawmakers headed home for five weeks of campaigning, the House voted 230 to 180 to increase the federally required pay rate to $7.25 over three years — the first increase in nearly a decade.

“This bill actually stands a chance of being signed into law,” said Representative Frank A. LoBiondo, Republican of New Jersey. “If we really want to give relief to working men and women who deserve this change, this is the opportunity.”

But Democrats criticized the decision as a cynical charade intended to give Republicans the appearance of supporting an increase in the minimum wage through a bill that would not clear the Senate because of opposition to an estate tax change aimed at extremely affluent Americans.

“In all my years here, this is the height of hypocrisy,” said Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, who said Republicans were moved to consider a raise in the minimum wage only out of fear of losing House seats in November. “If you really cared, you would have acted long ago. This is not an election-year conversion; it is an election-year trick.”

Senate Democrats, who have successfully blocked past Republican efforts to slash the estate tax, suggested that they would try to do so again despite the inclusion of the minimum wage increase they had been clamoring for in recent years.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said Saturday that he did not expect the Senate to approve the plan when it reaches the floor next week, which, he said, was just what the House Republican leadership wanted.

“Last night the House Republicans played a cynical game of politics with the lives of millions of hard-working American families,” Mr. Kennedy said. “I am confident the Senate will reject this political blackmail, as the House leadership is banking on.”

But 34 House Democrats joined 196 Republicans in sending the measure to the Senate, while 158 Democrats, 21 Republicans and one independent opposed it.

Under the minimum wage proposal, the rate would increase from the current $5.15 per hour in three increments, reaching $7.25 in June 2009. It would also allow tips to be counted toward minimum wage increases in some states where that is now prohibited, a provision Democrats said would cut wages for thousands of workers in those states.

House Republican leaders said their Senate counterparts had argued that the only way the wage increase would survive in the Senate was if it was coupled with the estate tax reductions. To sweeten the pot even more, Republicans moved $38 billion in a wide array of tax breaks to the estate tax bill from a pension overhaul that was approved Friday.

“What we have done is try to package this to succeed in getting the minimum wage through the other body,” said Representative Bill Thomas, Republican of California and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

But critics said voters would see through the ploy. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader, called the legislation “an insult to the intelligence of the American people.”

The tax provisions restored and extended such popular breaks as a maximum $4,000 income tax deduction for higher-education expenses and a variety of benefits for industry and communities, including a $1.75 billion tax credit for New York City to be used for projects like a rail link between Kennedy International Airport and Lower Manhattan.

Under the estate tax provisions, estimated to cost $268 billion in federal revenue over 10 years, $5 million of an individual’s estate would be fully exempt by 2015. Estates up to $25 million would be taxed at the rate for capital gains, now 15 percent. The bill also phases in a reduced tax rate on amounts in excess of $25 million, eventually setting it at 30 percent.

With no changes, the current estate tax exemptions would revert in 2011 to $1 million per person with a maximum estate tax rate of 55 percent.

The minimum wage vote came after House Republican leaders scrambled to respond to appeals from Republicans in the Northeast and the Midwest who said they needed to dilute escalating Democratic attacks and were worried they would be pounded in the August recess by labor groups. Some Republicans said they would have preferred that the wage increase be tied to legislation other than the estate tax cut, with a health initiative for small businesses one popular alternative.

But Republican leaders seized on the opportunity to advance the estate tax plan, and advocates of a wage increase went along. “It could have been done differently,” said Representative Peter T. King, Republican of New York, “but it is done.”

    Minimum Wage Fight Heads to the Senate, NYT, 30.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/washington/30cong.html?hp&ex=1154232000&en=88e6ed2e71843a94&ei=5094&partner=homepage

House Moves Toward Overhaul of Pension System

July 29, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, July 29 — The House approved an increase in the federal minimum wage on Saturday, but its future was clouded because Republicans tied the pay change to an estate tax cut that had been blocked in the Senate.

In a prelude to a summer of campaigning in the battle for control of Congress, lawmakers clashed bitterly over the Republican decision to link the tax break for affluent Americans to a $2.10 increase in the minimum wage before the legislation was approved after 1 a.m. on a 230 to 180 vote.

The vote came after the House, which is heading home for a five-week recess packed with political activities, easily approved a measure intended to bolster the nation’s pension system.

The maneuver to couple the minimum wage increase long sought by Democrats and moderate Republicans and the estate tax change backed by conservatives left some Republicans uneasy and Democrats fuming. Opponents of the bill said the estate tax change and other tax breaks included in the $310 billion bill could kill it. They accused Republicans of a cynical ploy to make it look as though they were pushing an increase in the minimum wage when their real intent was to block it.

“It’s a political stunt designed to give vulnerable Republicans in tough elections the opportunity to say they voted to raise the minimum wage, even though they know this bill is going nowhere in the Senate,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House.

And Senate Democratic leaders, who have repeatedly thwarted the push to cut the estate tax, said they would do so again even if the proposal included the first increase in the minimum wage since 1997.

“The Senate has rejected fiscally irresponsible estate tax giveaways before and will reject them again,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, who added that the Republican approach amounted to legislative blackmail.

“If the Republicans were serious about raising the minimum wage for the first time in nearly 10 years and extending tax relief for working Americans,” Mr. Reid said, “they would not hold them hostage in their effort to give the wealthiest Americans hundreds of billions more in additional tax giveaways.”

Senior Republican lawmakers in the House and the Senate said they believed the plan could thread its way through the Senate, however, and they packed the measure with tax breaks to attract House and Senate support. They said the estate tax plan, which would set the individual estate tax exemption at $5 million in 2015, would offset the economic cost to small businesses of paying higher minimum wages.

“Unlike some of my colleagues, I see this tax relief and minimum wage bill as complementary,” said Representative Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, one of the Republicans who has joined Democrats in pressing for a wage increase. “The sustaining of small businesses by keeping their vital assets will allow those making the minimum wage to continue working. This is a jobs bill.”

Representative Zach Wamp, Republican of Tennessee, said Democrats were upset with the legislation because Republicans had found a clever way to link the two. “You have seen us outfox you on this issue tonight,” Mr. Wamp told Democrats in the floor debate.

Under the minimum wage proposal, the current $5.15 rate would rise by $2.10 over three years in three increments, reaching $5.85 in January 2007, $6.55 on June 1, 2008, and $7.25 on June 1, 2009. The change would also allow tips to be counted toward minimum wage increases in states where that is not now allowed.

The fate of the pension overhaul, approved on a 279 to 131 vote, was also unclear. Contentious negotiations over a final House-Senate bill broke down late Thursday in an angry exchange among Republicans over whether the pension measure should contain the new tax breaks for business and education costs.

As a result, House and Senate leaders decided to move ahead with a pension bill that included the major elements agreed upon in the talks. But that measure, unlike a bill that would have come out of the negotiations, is open to amendment in the Senate, and any changes there could force a new round of negotiations and hold up final approval of the measure.

The frantic legislative brinkmanship, occurring mainly behind closed doors as Republicans sought to round up votes, reflected the leadership’s desire to put some accomplishments on the board before lawmakers head home for what was looming as five weeks of intense campaigning. Each party is urging lawmakers to push the competing party’s messages in hundreds of events during the next five weeks.

Legislators have been trying to amend the 32-year-old pension law for several years, spurred by a string of huge pension fund collapses. The biggest failures have been mainly in the airline and steel sectors.

The federal government guarantees pensions, much as it guarantees bank deposits, and the failures have threatened to swamp the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation if allowed to continue. Many analysts have pointed to troubling similarities between the pension agency and the agency that once guaranteed savings and loan deposits, which collapsed in 1989 and required a $200 billion taxpayer bailout. The desire to prevent another such bailout was a force driving the pension bill forward.

The bill, if enacted, would require companies with pension funds to close any shortfalls within seven years. It also has tests that companies would have to use to determine whether their pension plans posed a risk to the federal insurance system. Companies with such risky plans would then have to calculate how much it would cost if all qualifying employees were to take early retirement immediately, and then put that amount into their pension funds.

The bill was also intended to close loopholes that made it easy for companies to avoid paying their full premiums to the pension insurance system. As it inched through the House and the Senate this year, legislators added other provisions that were only loosely connected with the goal of strengthening the pension system.

Mary Williams Walsh contributed reporting from New York for this article.

    House Moves Toward Overhaul of Pension System, NYT, 29.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/washington/29cong.html?hp&ex=1154232000&en=7837ea5e2bf89f5b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Experts Differ About Surveillance and Privacy

July 20, 2006
The New York Times
By SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, July 19 — Legal experts squared off before Congress on Wednesday about the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program, offering radically different views on whether changes in the law are needed to allow eavesdropping on terror suspects without violating Americans’ privacy.

Judge Richard A. Posner, an author on intelligence, told the House Intelligence Committee that the requirement for court warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was “obsolete.”

To get a warrant from the secret court that oversees such eavesdropping, said Judge Posner, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the government must already know who the terrorists are. “The challenge for intelligence is not to track down known terrorists,” he said. “It’s to find out who the terrorists are.”

Michael S. Greco, president of the American Bar Association, sharply disagreed, saying the FISA statute and its requirements for warrants remained a crucial protection for civil liberties. The courts and Congress must have a role in governing intelligence wiretaps, he said.

“The awesome power to penetrate Americans’ most private communications is too great a power to be held solely by the executive branch of government,” Mr. Greco said.

Mr. Greco, along with other witnesses, urged Congress not to act until the Bush administration provided more information on its electronic surveillance programs and how they might be hampered by existing laws. The Intelligence Committee chairman, Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, said administration officials would be asked to clarify such problems at a later hearing.

Wednesday’s hearing was the latest sign that Congress was reasserting its role in overseeing sensitive counterterrorist surveillance programs, despite President Bush’s argument that he has the inherent constitutional authority to order eavesdropping without court approval.

Several bills related to the security agency are pending in the House and Senate. One, proposed by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, would ask the FISA court to rule on the constitutionality of the eavesdropping program. That idea has the support of the White House, but has been criticized as a surrender to the administration, and its fate is uncertain.

Under the program, the agency intercepts international telephone calls and e-mail messages of Americans and others in the United States who are believed to have links to Al Qaeda. But the agency does not first get warrants from the FISA court, as the law ordinarily requires for eavesdropping inside the country.

Administration officials have suggested that the warrant requirement is too cumbersome to allow the rapid pursuit of possible terrorists. But some lawmakers who have been briefed on the secret program say there is no reason the program cannot operate in compliance with the FISA statute.

Even the administration’s critics acknowledge that procedures to get warrants may need to be updated. James X. Dempsey, of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group, called it “ridiculous in the age of BlackBerrys’’ to be applying for warrants on paper.

The discussion on Wednesday underscored the uncertainty, even among experts, about the security agency’s practices at a time when the Internet is reshaping communications. Representative Heather Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, asked whether the agency needed a warrant to intercept an Internet phone call from Sudan to Afghanistan if the call passed through the United States.

“I’m not sure that’s a resolved issue,” replied Kim Taipale, executive director of the Center for Advanced Studies in Science and Technology Policy. Committee Democrats took note of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales’s revelation on Tuesday that the president personally blocked an internal Justice Department investigation of the lawyers who approved the eavesdropping program.

Representative C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger, a Maryland Democrat whose district includes the security agency’s headquarters, said the president’s action suggested why the courts and Congress needed to oversee eavesdropping.

One goal of any legislation, Mr. Ruppersberger said, should be to clarify the rules so that agency officers “will have no insecurities about what’s legal and what’s illegal.”

    Experts Differ About Surveillance and Privacy, NYT, 20.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/20/washington/20intel.html

House votes to protect "under God" in pledge

Wed Jul 19, 2006 7:34 PM ET
Reuters
By Andy Sullivan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a move intended to preserve a reference to God in an oath recited by millions of Americans each day, the House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to prevent U.S. courts from hearing challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance.

The 260-167 vote, largely along party lines, was one of several hot-button topics brought to the House floor by Republican leaders aiming to highlight differences between the parties before November's congressional elections.

In the Senate, a similar bill has not advanced since it was introduced a year ago.

Conservatives have sought to keep the phrase "under God" in the pledge since an appeals court ruled in 2002 it amounted to an endorsement of religion in violation of the U.S. Constitution. An atheist had challenged the pledge being recited in his daughter's school. Schoolchildren across the nation commonly pledge allegiance to the flag each morning.

The Supreme Court struck down the appeals court decision on procedural grounds but left the door open for another challenge, causing Republicans to say the pledge must be placed off-limits before "activist judges" tamper with it again.

"We're creating a fence. The fence goes around the federal judiciary. We're doing that because we don't trust them," said Missouri Rep. Todd Akin.

The California man who has led the challenge against the phrase "under God" vowed to fight the new legislation if it became law and said it provided him with new legal arguments against the pledge.

"This is the greatest thing that could have happened," Michael Newdow, who is both a lawyer and a doctor, said by telephone. "They are showing the courts that this is a huge issue and that they want their religious view espoused by our government which is exactly what the Constitution forbids."

Akin and other Republicans said the reference to God, added to the pledge in 1954, did not endorse any specific religion but referred to the philosophy of the country's founders that rights such as freedom of speech were granted by a divine being, not a government.

Democrats said the measure would deprive the courts of their ability to oversee an important form of personal rights.

(Additional reporting by Adam Tanner in San Francisco)

    House votes to protect "under God" in pledge, R, 19.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-07-19T233353Z_01_N19253852_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-FLAG.xml

House G.O.P. Lacks Votes for Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

July 19, 2006
The New York Times
By KATE ZERNIKE

Correction Appended


WASHINGTON, July 18 — House Republicans failed Tuesday in an effort to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, part of a proposed “values agenda” that they hope will rally voters in midterm elections in November.

The vote was 237 to 187, with one member voting “present,” well short of the two-thirds majority needed to amend the Constitution.

The vote was largely symbolic because the Senate rejected a similar bill in May. But the amendment’s supporters said they were gaining in their efforts to define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, a move necessary to “safeguard the American family” and block “radical” judges from promoting same-sex marriage.

Democrats said such an amendment would enshrine hatred and discrimination in the nation’s founding document.

“The Constitution is for expanding rights, opportunities and aspirations,” said Representative Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, who is a lesbian. “I want to see the day when I can connect with my family, my life partner of 10 years, through the same laws, the same obligations and rights as can straight Americans.”

The Democrats accused Republicans of raising the issue even as they ignored what the Democrats said were more pressing problems, including the war in Iraq, an expanding conflict in the Middle East, high gasoline prices and North Korean missile tests.

But Representative Jack Kingston, Republican of Georgia, said the marriage issue was “just as important and a top-tier issue as any of those.”

Another Georgia Republican, Representative Phil Gingrey, said support for traditional marriage “is perhaps the best message we can give to the Middle East and all the trouble they’re having over there right now.”

A House vote on a similar amendment before the 2004 elections was 227 to 186, and Republicans vowed they would continue to make gains.

“We will be tenacious because we believe marriage is worth standing for,” said Representative Marilyn Musgrave, Republican of Colorado, who sponsored the amendment.

But Democrats said it was unfair to deny rights to partners of the same sex.

“How does the existence of same-sex marriage discourage or retard heterosexual marriage?” asked Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who is gay, calling it “the most illogical argument I’ve ever heard.”

Mr. Frank and others on the Massachusetts delegation said the state’s social fabric had not unraveled in the two years since its highest court recognized a right to same-sex marriage, a decision that set off a nationwide battle against it.

“It’s had no effect on my marriage,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, “except we get invited to more weddings.”



Correction: July 21, 2006

An article on Wednesday about a House vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage incorrectly rendered part of a statement by Representative Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat, who opposed the amendment. She said, “I want to see the day when I can protect my family, my life partner of 10 years, through the same laws, the same obligations and rights as can straight Americans.” She did not say she wanted to see the day when she could “connect with” her family and her life partner.

    House G.O.P. Lacks Votes for Amendment Banning Gay Marriage, NYT, 19.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/washington/19marriage.html?ex=1154145600&en=644f29d4a19e7687&ei=5070

Report Faults Safeguards in Religion Program

July 19, 2006
The New York Times
By NEELA BANERJEE

WASHINGTON, July 18 — The Bush administration’s program of financing social service initiatives run by religiously affiliated groups lacks adequate safeguards against religious discrimination and has yet to measure the performance of the groups, a new Congressional report says.

The report, by the Government Accountability Office, did not find evidence of a widespread diversion of government money to religious activity from social services, which had been a concern of some critics of such religion-based initiatives.

But in looking at 10 federal programs, the researchers found that only four gave an explicit statement to religious organizations about protecting the religious liberties of the people they serve.

“The Bush administration has a responsibility to make sure that federal taxpayer dollars are not being sent to organizations that discriminate, but it is failing to uphold that responsibility,” said Representative George Miller of California, the senior Democrat on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, in a written statement. “As a result, we don’t know if Americans who are eligible for services are missing out on them because of their religious beliefs.”

Alyssa J. McClenning, a spokeswoman for the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, said the program protected the separation of church and state.

“Grantees are provided with an explicit statement of the safeguard prohibiting the use of direct federal funds for inherently religious activities,” Ms. McClenning said by e-mail.

Mr. Miller and Representative Pete Stark of California, the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Health of the Ways and Means Committee, requested the report in September 2004.

Robert W. Tuttle, a law professor at George Washington University who is an expert on religion-based initiatives, said the report described problems that many had anticipated.

The Bush administration, Professor Tuttle said, has declined to provide clear information about what constitutes so-called “inherently religious” activities that would violate the separation of church and state.

In 2001, the administration created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In the 2005 fiscal year, the federal government awarded more than $2.1 billion to religious organizations, according to Mr. Stark’s office.

Part of the administration’s argument for broadening the participation of religious groups in social services has been that they perform as well as or better than their secular counterparts, experts on the initiatives said. But the accountability office report found that only one of 15 pilot programs examined had completed an evaluation of its outcomes.

“Congress didn’t put enough emphasis’’ on measuring results, said Representative Mark E. Souder, Republican of Indiana, who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, which oversees the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. “The administration has been lax on this, but it is improving.”

The report found that the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development and Labor took issue with a recommendation that articulates safeguards against religious discrimination.

“They stated that such a requirement would involve singling out faith-based organizations for greater oversight and monitoring than other program participants on the basis of presumed or confirmed religious affiliation,” the report stated. “In our view, creating a level playing field for faith-based organizations does not mean that agencies should be relieved of their oversight responsibilities relating to the equal treatment regulations.”

    Report Faults Safeguards in Religion Program, NYT, 19.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/washington/19faith.html

House to vote Thursday on renewing the Voting Rights Act

Updated 7/12/2006 7:11 PM ET
AP
USA Today

WASHINGTON (AP) — House leaders cleared the way for a vote Thursday on renewing the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act after granting conservatives a chance to loosen requirements for bilingual ballots and restrictions on Southern states.

The changes were not expected to be added to the legislation, which would renew for 25 years a law widely considered the centerpiece of the civil rights movement. The original legislation abolished racist voting practices such as poll taxes and literacy tests.

Forty years have passed, but a dozen House hearings in the last year uncovered evidence that congressional districts still are sometimes drawn to water down the influence of ethnic communities and that minority voters are in some places disenfranchised.

House leaders scheduled a vote last month but then canceled it when a group of conservatives — mostly Southerners — said the bill singled out their states for Justice Department scrutiny without giving them credit for strides on civil rights.

Hours of negotiations in recent days yielded an agreement, approved 8-3 Wednesday by the Rules Committee, to allow votes on amendments proposing the changes pushed by the objectors.

Immigration and civil rights groups and lawmakers who support them are mobilized for a fight over what they see as the latest in a long history of attempts to undercut burgeoning political influence of racial minorities.

"I hope the House will see this for what it is and vote against these amendments," said Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a veteran of the civil rights movement.

Late Wednesday, the supporters got some firepower from big business. Tyco, Comcast and Disney released letters to congressional leaders urging renewal of the act.

"Comcast's credo is to respect and reflect the customers, communities and cultures we serve," wrote executive vice president David Cohen, who noted that his company serves 21 million customers in 36 states and the District of Columbia. "We believe our support for the Voting Rights Act reauthorization is an important part of this commitment."

The amendments' sponsors — who hail from Georgia, Texas, Oklahoma, Michigan, Florida and Alabama — say the renewal as written would unfairly single out their states for another quarter of a century.

The amendment with the most appeal, sponsored by Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, would renew the law for a decade rather than 25 years.

Others would strip the law of requirements to provide multilingual ballots in districts with high populations of non-English speakers, and change the formula for which states are subject to the Justice Department oversight.

House passage would send the measure to the Senate, where the leaders support the legislation. But some senators were voicing the same objections as their counterparts in the House.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., on Wednesday questioned why Congress needed to act now, when the act doesn't expire until next year.

    House to vote Thursday on renewing the Voting Rights Act, UT, 13.7.2006, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-12-votingrightsact_x.htm

House Backs Crackdown on Gambling on Internet

July 12, 2006
The New York Times
By KATE PHILLIPS

WASHINGTON, July 11 — With bipartisan support and the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal haunting Republican efforts to pass antigambling legislation, the House approved a crackdown on Internet wagering that would ban not only sports bets but also online poker and other games that have become increasingly popular.

Voting 317 to 93, the House approved a bill that would make it illegal for financial institutions or intermediaries to process payments to offshore casinos through bettors’ electronic funds, checks, debits and other e-wallet transactions. In addition, the bill updates the Wire Act of 1961, which forbade the transmission of betting over telephone lines, to specifically outlaw online gambling through any communication network. Criminal penalties would increase to a maximum of five years in prison, from two years.

Intensive lobbying, led previously by Mr. Abramoff and others, has swirled around various versions of the bill for years, with newcomers like celebrity poker players joining the fray this time around.

Both sides of the debate cited figures that showed how the online wagering business has skyrocketed, quadrupling to nearly $12 billion worldwide since legislation was first proposed to choke off its growth. A broad coalition of the major sports leagues, banking institutions, law enforcement, family values advocates and religious groups rallied on the bill’s behalf.

Its chances in the Senate for passage this year are unclear, given the Senate’s crowded work schedule and limited amount of time in session before the November elections.

Bob Stevenson, a spokesman for Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said on Tuesday that the Republican leadership hoped to bring a similar bill to the floor by the end of this year.

On the Democratic side, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader and a former Nevada gaming commissioner, has expressed reservations about the ability to regulate Internet gambling.

The Justice Department has always considered online gambling illegal, and the Bush administration expressed overall support for the House bill.

But while supporters and opponents of the bill expressed worries on Tuesday about the addiction and debt risks that Internet gambling posed, critics were quick to point out what they considered contradictions. The House bill spares Powerball and some other games, for example, and preserves states’ rights to regulate gambling individually. They also criticized efforts to regulate cyberspace, with its lack of state lines (or even international ones).

Representative Shelley Berkley, Democrat of Nevada, said the business of Internet gambling was projected to reach $25 billion by the end of the decade.

“There is nothing in this bill — nothing in this bill — that will shut down these offshore companies who operate legally in other countries,” Ms. Berkley said. “The very nature of a free World Wide Web will continue to make online gambling available.”

Others considered the legislation an infringement on individual rights to privacy through mouse-clicking at home. Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, contended that the measure was a form of Prohibition. As long as individuals were not harming anyone else, Mr. Frank argued, they should be free to spend their money as they choose.

Some, including Ms. Berkley, who pushed unsuccessfully for an amendment that would strip out exemptions, sharply criticized what they called the bill’s “carve-outs” for the horse racing industry. Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia and a longstanding sponsor of the bill, insisted that horse racing was already regulated by the Interstate Horseracing Act.

Under the House measure, the dog-track industry would be barred from promoting interstate parimutuel wagering because it has no other law protecting it.

Other games will have to revise their rules, too. Players of fantasy sports games cannot bet on individual players or on team wins or losses, according to the House bill, but trying to guess online who is going to surpass Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak will still be allowed.

The name most invoked on Tuesday was that of Mr. Abramoff, whose powerful lobbying on behalf of online lotteries and other clients killed earlier versions of the bill. Mr. Goodlatte bears “personal scars from influence peddlers,” said Representative Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa, the primary co-sponsor of this bill.

The previous measures died, Mr. Goodlatte said, “based on the misleading representations and the flow of enormous amounts of money by Jack Abramoff, he and others carrying his water, his dirty laundry.”

He continued, “Many in this House are very determined that they have the opportunity today to purge the smear on this Congress.”

    House Backs Crackdown on Gambling on Internet, NYT, 12.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12gamble.html?hp&ex=1152763200&en=d0de011836c82add&ei=5094&partner=homepage

‘Pit Bull’ of the House Latches On to Immigration

July 11, 2006
The New York Times
By MARK LEIBOVICH

WASHINGTON, July 10 — Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. has no tolerance for illegal immigrants, either in his political life or personal life.

“My housekeeper in Wisconsin was born in Wisconsin,” says Mr. Sensenbrenner, the Republican congressman and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “My housekeeper here is a naturalized U.S. citizen from Nicaragua.”

Mr. Sensenbrenner is so loath to risk dealing with illegal immigrants that when his Cadillacs need cleaning, he prefers do-it-yourself car washes that require tokens. “They don’t have Montezuma’s picture on the front of them,” Mr. Sensenbrenner says of the tokens.

He is sitting in his Capitol Hill office dominated by two life-size portraits of himself. He looms heavily here, as he does in the thick of the national debate over immigration in which he has defied President Bush’s plans for reform and arguably holds more sway than anyone else in Congress. A bipartisan irritant from a state nowhere near the Mexican border, he has outsize influence on the fate of the country’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants.

In each portrait in his office, Mr. Sensenbrenner appears regal and contented — in contrast to the rumpled and fed-up image he conveys in real life. He is commonly described as “prickly,” “cantankerous” and “unpleasant.” And this is by his friends.

“I would describe Jim as — what’s a nice word — how about ‘idiosyncratic’?” says Representative Dan Lungren, a California Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Lungren equates Mr. Sensenbrenner’s leadership to something the Green Bay Packer guard Jerry Kramer said about his coach Vince Lombardi. “He treats us all equally,” Mr. Lungren says of Mr. Sensenbrenner. “He treats us all like dogs.”

Mr. Sensenbrenner, 63, can be neutrally described as a Washington piece of work — a big-bellied curmudgeon with a taste for old Caddies, pontoon boats and enormous cigars. He is equally at home discussing policy minutiae or the details of his Dalmatian’s recent intestinal problems. His honking voice and Upper Midwestern enunciations make him one of the most mimicked politicians on Capitol Hill. (“Noooo interviews in the hallway” is a familiar refrain as he blows past reporters.)

One could dismiss him as something of a cartoon, except that Mr. Sensenbrenner has been a feared and vital character in some defining political dramas, like the Clinton impeachment, the passage of the USA Patriot Act and the current legislative donnybrook over immigration, an issue that he calls his toughest in nearly four decades of public life.

He has approached the matter with characteristic stubbornness, righteousness and, of course, brusqueness. He delights in placing himself above the chummy niceties of Washington. (On the subject of his crotchety nature, he smiles big and becomes almost giddy — most unSensenbrenner-like.)

His conservative populism and maverick tendencies play well in a state that has elected political outliers including Senators Joseph R. McCarthy and William Proxmire. They also suit the solidly Republican district outside Milwaukee that first elected Mr. Sensenbrenner in 1978.

But he does not always suit the House Republican leadership, many Senate Republicans and the Bush White House. He has been the chief promoter of the House’s “enforcement first” approach to immigration overhaul, emphasizing border security, criminal penalties for illegal immigrants and sanctions against employers who hire them. The president and the Senate have favored a package that offers illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

In recent weeks, Mr. Sensenbrenner has refused to yield on anything, derided what he calls the “amnesty” of the Senate bill and warned that he is willing to walk away without a compromise. He says his views have been influenced by the flood of immigration-related cases coming through his office and what he sees as the failure of previous immigration reform efforts he has worked on.

He is known as one of the toughest negotiators in Congress, which invites another canine metaphor from a colleague. “Sensenbrenner is a pit bull,” says Representative Ric Keller, a Florida Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “And the Senate negotiators he’s up against are wearing Milk-Bone underwear.”

During a 50-minute interview that feels, at times, like a lecture, Mr. Sensenbrenner says:

¶“You have to be prickly to prod people into accomplishing something.”

¶“I’ve adopted a philosophy of telling it like it is.”

¶“I’ve been referred to ... as a difficult child.”

¶“If you go along to get along, you don’t get anything accomplished.”

For as much as Mr. Sensenbrenner decries the impulse to “go along to get along,” he also pays close attention to what is said about him. This is underscored by how wary colleagues are of speaking on the record about him.

Representative Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican who has been mentioned as a possible successor as Judiciary Committee chairman, said he would gladly talk about Mr. Sensenbrenner. But later, a spokeswoman for Mr. Smith called to demur, saying, “It’s not the right time for us to comment.”

To a surprising degree, Democrats on the committee praise Mr. Sensenbrenner for his fairness, efficiency and willingness to heed the concerns of the minority party. He has also been lauded for spearheading an extension of the Voting Rights Act.

“The House leadership has relied on me to do some very difficult jobs over the years,” says Mr. Sensenbrenner, who served as a House manager during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial and whose six-year stint heading the Judiciary Committee will end in January.

He clearly enjoys being a high-profile committee chairman — even his wife of 29 years, Cheryl, calls him Mr. Chairman (“but only when she’s mad at me,” he says).

He is easily annoyed when his authority is disregarded. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, for instance, recently promoted a compromise immigration plan that would have focused on enforcement and border security first, then carry out the more contentious changes. Asked about the McCain proposal, Mr. Sensenbrenner stares blankly and flips his hand dismissively.

“McCain has not called me to propose that,” he says, even though the notion had been widely discussed on Capitol Hill. It is as if no such possibility could exist until the House chairman was personally informed of it.

Mr. Sensenbrenner goes on to say that he has no relationship with Mr. McCain, with whom he served two terms in the House in the 1980’s. “There’s some senators who come back from whence they came, and McCain is not one of them,” Mr. Sensenbrenner says. ‘‘When he left, we never saw him again.’’

“I deal with Specter,” he adds, referring to Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

When asked what it is like to negotiate with Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Specter pauses for several seconds. Then he says, “He is a lot more cordial in person than his reputation.”

Mr. Sensenbrenner projects the self-assurance of a lucky man. He reaped a fortune from a great-grandfather who invented the Kotex sanitary napkin. He won $250,000 in 1997 on a lottery ticket he purchased while buying beer. He lists assets of almost $11 million, according to public filings.

Mr. Sensenbrenner was born in Chicago, graduated from Stanford University and, while at college, worked as an aide to a Republican congressman. After earning a law degree, he began an uninterrupted political career that started in the Wisconsin Assembly and landed him in the United States House of Representatives at age 35.

Not given to navel gazing, he prefers, he says, to spend time on his pontoon boat on a Wisconsin lake, smoking behemoth cigars imported from Honduras or the Dominican Republic. The family Dalmatian, Solomon — also known as Stinky — comes along, too.

Mr. Sensenbrenner concludes with an aside about Stinky — specifically, the case of giardia that the dog picked up a few weeks ago, which requires Mr. Sensenbrenner to force-feed Stinky four pills a day. This is not easy.

But the chairman says he picked up a strategy from a guy he met in the beer tent of a church festival. He places the pills in the dog’s throat, and blows in his face. Stinky then swallows them. “I’d never tried that before, blowing in a dog’s face,” Mr. Sensenbrenner marvels.

He has never tried it with a senator, either. “I have given them pills that don’t taste very good,” he says. “I’ve done that.”

    ‘Pit Bull’ of the House Latches On to Immigration, NYT, 11.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/11/washington/11sensenbrenner.html?hp&ex=1152676800&en=2bb5e6f0715b7350&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Subpoena Issued in Retaliation Case

July 6, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, July 5 (AP) — Lawmakers have issued a subpoena seeking information from the Pentagon about a soldier who says he faced retaliation for reporting abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The subpoena, from the House Committee on Government Reform, seeks all communications relating to information provided by the soldier, Specialist Samuel Provance of the Army, about the Iraq prison, where mistreatment of detainees by American troops caused an international uproar.

Representative Christopher Shays, Republican of Connecticut, said the subpoena, issued Friday, was necessary because lawmakers got no response to a March 7 letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld requesting the information.

A Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros, said Wednesday that the Pentagon had already provided much of the information to the House Armed Services Committee.

    Subpoena Issued in Retaliation Case, NYT, 6.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/06/washington/06subpoena.html

Interest Groups Lining Up to Lobby on Web Gambling

July 4, 2006
The New York Times
By KATE PHILLIPS

WASHINGTON, July 3 — While Internet gamblers lay down big money on World Cup soccer this summer, teams of lobbyists are facing off on Capitol Hill in a contest over whether the United States should choke off the growth of wagering on the Web.

Faced with bills to curb online betting, which attracts an estimated $12 billion a year in wagers worldwide, an array of interest groups like casinos here and abroad, as well as sports leagues, antigambling coalitions and even poker players, has dispatched lobbyists to argue what should be legal and what should not.

Major League Baseball wants to make sure that any measures do not diminish fantasy sports games, which it credits for a resurgence in its popularity.

The big Las Vegas casinos, which have been neutral over online betting, have embraced a proposal in the House to establish a study commission. Convenience stores are watching to see whether sales of lottery tickets might be affected, though Powerball seems to be safe for now.

The horse racing industry seems sanguine, but dog tracks are worried. Offshore casinos are fighting any restrictions.

The Justice Department has always considered Internet gambling illegal. But that has not stopped online wagering from flourishing.

Gambling opponents are pushing for bills to put teeth into enforcement. In the House, proponents of a crackdown merged two bills. The majority leader, Representative John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, announced a few days ago that the measure would be voted on this summer as part of what the Republicans call their American Values Agenda.

The odds of a bill's becoming law this year appear long. Beyond that, nearly everyone agrees that online betting may be unstoppable because of the reach of the Internet and the difficulty in regulating its activity.

David O. Stewart, an analyst and a lawyer who produced a study of online gambling for the American Gaming Association, a client of his firm, paraphrased an adage used by the Supreme Court in a campaign finance case, saying: "Money, like water, will find its way. And I really think that applies to this. The money will find a way to get to the offshore sites."

Proponents of Internet gambling argue that the Congressional trend goes against the growing tide of international wagering. As many as 80 countries allow it in some form.

The most prominent model is Britain, which through revisions of its gambling laws is about to devise a tax-and-regulatory structure that it hopes will entice offshore gambling companies to locate there.

Britain is sponsoring a fall symposium on instituting such changes.

Other countries are eyeing rulings of the World Trade Organization, where tiny Antigua, with its offshore casinos, continues to press the trade body to find that the United States is violating trade agreements by trying to block access to online gambling.

"Americans are already gaming in large numbers because it's entertainment," said Mike McComb, a spokesman for Betmaker.com, based in Costa Rica. "It's an extension of entertainment. In England, what they've found is that it's just something that needs to be regulated to protect consumers. And it's a great source of revenue."

In the United States, the fight is set to resume when Congress returns from its Fourth of July recess. The House proposal would make it illegal to use a banking instrument like a check or credit card to settle Internet wagers, and it would penalize institutions that act as intermediaries channeling money between the offshore gambling enterprises and American bettors.

The measure would also update the Wire Act of 1961 to prohibit Internet gambling specifically.

"It will not be a perfect preclusive approach, but it will be pretty strong," said Representative Jim Leach, Republican of Iowa, a co-sponsor of the bill.

The Poker Players Alliance, a relatively new player on the Hill, and others that would be affected by a ban point to big-money interests like horse racing that are is not covered under the proposal.

The bill, said Michael Bolcerek, an amateur player who is president of the alliance, is "picking winners and losers."

Celebrity players have even dealt a few hands to lawmakers in an effort to show that poker is a game of skill, not chance, a critical legal distinction in the debate.

Mr. Leach said the poker players offered a fairly persuasive argument. But he added that he still believed that there were no social benefit and few "happy aspects" to Internet gambling. Not only can gambling be addictive, with debts racked up quickly online, Mr. Leach said, but from a moral standpoint, gambling also breaks apart families and poses a danger to under-age players.

Some gambling opponents want an even broader bill. The Traditional Values Coalition, a conservative group, wrote in a letter to Congress in the spring that the exemption of horse racing showed that it paid "to pony up."

The Center for Responsive Politics calculated that a sizable part of the racing industry has contributed more than $3 million to lawmakers, presidential candidates and state and federal political action committees since 2000. Far more than half the total went to Republicans, the center said.

Mr. Leach bristled at the notion that special interests or campaign contributions influenced him. He said he did not accept PAC money.

Kathryn Rexrode, a spokeswoman for Representative Robert W. Goodlatte, the Virginia Republican who is a co-sponsor of the merged bills, said the horse racing industry contributed when Mr. Goodlatte was not sponsoring such legislation, but when he was chairman of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Leach said that "we authorize nothing new for horse racing," because it is regulated under the Interstate Horseracing Act. Even fantasy sports games, he added, would be further restricted under the bill, with bans on betting on individual teams or players.

Mr. Leach pointed to the coalition of supporters for the bills, including churches that represent many denominations, like Christian fundamentalists, that tend to have a consensus on little else.

"I just think the stars are in alignment, that Congress knows it has to deal with this issue," he said.

On the Senate side, Mr. Leach is counting on two Republicans, the majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, and Jon Kyl of Arizona. The Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid, a former gambling commissioner in Nevada, "has serious concerns about our ability to properly regulate Internet gaming," his spokesman, Jim Manley, wrote in an e-mail message.

    Interest Groups Lining Up to Lobby on Web Gambling, NYT, 4.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04gambling.html

House Votes for Expansion of Oil and Gas Exploration

June 30, 2006
The New York Times
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
 

WASHINGTON, June 29 — The House voted on Thursday to approve oil and gas exploration in coastal waters that have been protected from drilling for 25 years.

The vote was largely along party lines, 232 to 187, for a measure that would sharply expand efforts to make use of energy supplies beyond the Gulf of Mexico, the only area unaffected by executive branch and Congressional bans on drilling.

"This is really the first major step in producing domestic energy that we have taken in almost 30 years," said Representative Richard W. Pombo, Republican of California, chairman of the House Resources Committee and the chief sponsor of the bill.

Whether the drilling bans are ultimately eliminated depends on the Senate, where the chairman of the Energy Committee, Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, has been trying to build support for a measure that would expand oil and gas exploration in the gulf in an area west of Tampa, Fla., known as Lease Sale 181.

Mr. Domenici still lacks enough support to win Senate passage of his bill, but he said he was optimistic "that Congress can do something this year to increase environmentally sound energy production" in the coastal waters, known as the Outer Continental Shelf.

Passage of the House bill to a large degree reflected the persistent split in approaches to energy policy as prices for crude oil, gasoline and natural gas remain unusually high. In hours of debate before voting, Republicans repeatedly expressed a need to tap more of the resources that the United States controls, while Democrats argued for bills that encouraged conservation and placed a greater emphasis on renewable energy sources.

Under the House bill, the federal moratorium would remain in effect up to 50 miles offshore unless a state petitioned the Interior Department to allow drilling. The request would require the approval of the legislature and the governor.

Waters 50 to 100 miles offshore would be open for drilling unless the state petitioned the department to retain the moratorium.

Companies would be free to drill in waters 100 to 200 miles offshore.

The bill would also create revenue sharing between the federal government and any state where new resources were mined, a change from current policy in which all royalties are claimed by the federal government. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the change would cost the federal government $102 billion from 2007 to 2016.

But Mr. Pombo said that figure did not take into account the tax revenues lost on the billions of dollars Americans are spending on energy from foreign sources.

One of the strongest opponents of the bill was Representative Sherwood Boehlert, Republican of New York, who echoed many Democratic concerns that the bill was a giveaway to the oil companies and, at best, a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

Arguing for bolder conservation efforts, like high fuel standards for cars, Mr. Boehlert said he worried that the gas and oil that might be recovered would be more valuable to the country in a time of emergency.

"Drilling today," he said, "depletes the oil we may need tomorrow."

But other lawmakers argued that ignoring the ample supplies of natural gas that the Interior Department estimates are available would leave prices unnaturally high, harming American industries.

"This country cannot compete in the global marketplace without natural gas," said Representative John E. Peterson, Republican of Pennsylvania. "Natural gas keeps us competitive until renewables become a bigger part of our energy portfolio."

Also on Thursday the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment to the Interior Department appropriations bill that would punish companies that refused to renegotiate their offshore leases and pay full royalties during times of high prices.

The amendment, sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, passed by a vote of 15 to 13, after the panel also passed an amendment from Mr. Domenici that encouraged the Interior Department to renegotiate their leases.

    House Votes for Expansion of Oil and Gas Exploration, NYT, 30.6.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/washington/30drill.html

House Assails Media Report on Tracking of Finances

June 30, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, June 29 — The House of Representatives on Thursday condemned the recent disclosure of a classified program to track financial transactions and called on the media to cooperate in keeping such efforts secret.

Lawmakers expressed their sentiment through a resolution that was approved on a largely party-line 227-to-183 vote after days of harsh criticism by the Bush administration and Congressional Republicans aimed at The New York Times and other newspapers for publishing details of the program, which the government said was limited to following possible terrorist financial trails.

The vote followed a bitter debate in which Republicans said news accounts had jeopardized the effort, and Democrats accused Republicans of trying to intimidate the press.

Republicans criticized news organizations, and The Times in particular, saying they had not considered the potential damage of revealing the program. "The recent front-page story in the aforementioned New York Times cut the legs out from under this program," said the resolution's author, Representative Michael G. Oxley, Republican of Ohio. "Now the terrorists will be driven further underground."

Mr. Oxley and other Republicans said The Times deserved particular scorn as the first to make public the details of the administration's effort to try to identify and apprehend terrorists by tracing financial transactions processed through an international cooperative called Swift. The Los Angeles Times and The Wall Street Journal published similar accounts soon after The Times. "If you are Al Qaeda, the appropriate response to this publication is, 'Thank you,' " said Representative Spencer Bacchus, Republican of Alabama.

Democrats accused Republicans of engaging in media-bashing for political gain while practicing selective outrage since, they said, Republicans stayed largely silent on the White House disclosure of the identity of the C.I.A. operative Valerie Wilson. They also said the administration had repeatedly disclosed its determination to track money moving to terrorists.

"We are here today because there hasn't been enough red meat thrown at the Republican base just before the Fourth of July recess," said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts.

The House vote followed denunciations by President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of the disclosure, a request for prosecution of the sources of the article and Times employees and calls to revoke their press credentials.

The Republican-written resolution did not identify any publication by name. But many of the resolution's backers said The Times had acted irresponsibly.

Representative David Dreier, Republican of California, said The Times had led other news outlets in deciding to publish classified material. He dismissed arguments that the disclosure served a public interest, saying the public would rather be safe from terrorists than "all-knowing" about antiterror efforts.

Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, disputed the idea that the had paper acted cavalierly in its decision to reveal the program.

"If the members who voted for the resolution believe the press is insensitive to the risks of reporting on intelligence programs, they could not be more wrong," he said in a statement. "We take those risks very, very seriously." He said the paper had agreed in the past to withhold information when lives were at stake.

"However, the administration simply did not make a convincing case that describing our efforts to monitor international banking presented such a danger," he said. "Indeed, the administration itself has talked publicly and repeatedly about its successes in the area of financial surveillance."

Democrats complained that Republicans refused to allow a vote on a Democratic alternative, which supported tracking terror financing and raised concern about leaks of classified material, including the "names of clandestine service officers of the Central Intelligence Agency," a clear reference to the Valerie Wilson case.

Democrats said the Republican proposal made assertions about the antiterror effort that could not be known since Congress had conducted little or no oversight of it. The resolution declared that it "has been conducted in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and executive orders, that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual liberties and that Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted."

The resolution said the House "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations in protecting the lives of Americans and the capability of the government to identify, disrupt and capture terrorists by not disclosing classified intelligence programs."

Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, said Republicans were trying to stifle criticism of the administration, which he described as the most deceitful he had seen in his 50 years in Congress. Others said the administration was promoting democracy abroad while challenging a free press at home. "If anyone wants to live in a society where journalists are thrown in prison, I encourage them to move to Cuba, China or North Korea to see if they feel safer," said Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat.

    House Assails Media Report on Tracking of Finances, NYT, 30.6.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/washington/30cong.html?hp&ex=1151726400&en=976ad697004df300&ei=5094&partner=homepage

House votes to overturn mandatory gun locks

Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:15 PM ET
Reuters



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to overturn a recently enacted law requiring safety trigger locks on all hand guns sold in the United States.

The Republican-controlled House handed a victory to opponents of gun control by a vote of 230-191.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a Colorado Republican, argued that the added cost of the trigger locks is passed on to gun owners and that they "do not stop accidental shootings."

Last fall, President George W. Bush signed legislation giving gun makers broad protections from civil lawsuits, but that law contained the mandatory trigger lock provision.

The amendment overturning the requirement for trigger locks was attached to a larger law enforcement spending bill for next year that has not yet been considered by the Senate.

    House votes to overturn mandatory gun locks, NYT, 28.6.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-06-29T031519Z_01_N28182425_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-GUNS.xml

Rebellion Stalls Extension of Voting Rights Act

June 22, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, June 21 — House Republican leaders abruptly canceled a planned vote to renew the Voting Rights Act on Wednesday after a rebellion by lawmakers who said the civil rights measure unfairly singled out Southern states and unnecessarily required ballots to be printed in foreign languages.

The reversal represented a significant embarrassment for the party leadership, which had promised a vote to extend the act, the 1965 law that is credited with ending rampant discrimination at the polls and electing black officeholders throughout the South. Early last month, House and Senate leaders of both parties gathered on the steps of the Capitol in a rare bipartisan moment to celebrate its imminent approval.

But just hours before the vote was to occur Wednesday, lawmakers critical of the bill mutinied in a closed morning meeting of House Republicans, raising sufficient objections to prompt the leadership to pull the bill indefinitely.

Several lawmakers said it was uncertain whether a majority of Republicans would back the legislation without the changes sought by critics, and under the House leadership's informal rules no bill can reach a vote without the support of a majority of the Republicans.

"A lot of it looks as if these are some old boys from the South who are trying to do away with it," said Representative Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, who said it would be unfair to keep Georgia under the confines of the law when his state has cleaned up its voting rights record. "But these old boys are trying to make it constitutional enough that it will withstand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court."

Despite the resistance, the Republican leadership issued a statement pledging to move ahead quickly with a vote once Republicans were given additional time to work out their differences.

"While the bill will not be considered today, the House G.O.P. leadership is committed to passing the Voting Rights Act legislation as soon as possible," the leadership said in the statement.

Democrats and civil rights groups expressed strong disappointment in the change of plans, particularly given what appeared to be a bipartisan consensus to push ahead before major elements of the law expire in the middle of next year. The renewal would be for 25 years.

"We fear that pulling the bill could send the wrong message about whether the bill enjoys broad bipartisan support and that delaying consideration until after the July 4 recess could give those with partisan intentions space and time to politicize the issue," said Representative Melvin Watt, a North Carolina Democrat who is the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.

Democrats said they were holding their political fire to some degree in the interests of winning passage of the measure, but they predicted it could become a significant political issue if the fight dragged on too long.

The delay marked the second time in days that House Republicans had pulled back on legislation. On Tuesday, the leadership announced it would hold hearings this summer on immigration policy before trying to negotiate legislation that differs from the Senate.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law in August 1965 after a string of violence in Southern states resulting from deep resistance to voting by blacks. The law instituted a nationwide prohibition against voting discrimination based on race, eliminated poll taxes and literacy tests, and put added safeguards in regions where discrimination had been especially pronounced. Those included a requirement for the Justice Department to review any proposed changes to voting procedures to judge if they would be discriminatory.

That "preclearance" requirement would be retained for the nine states entirely covered by the law, most of them in the South, and parts of seven others. But Mr. Westmoreland and other Southern Republicans said their states have made great strides in voting access for members of minority groups, while some of the most recent irregularities have taken place in places exempt from the requirement.

"The hanging chads down in Florida, that jurisdiction is not covered," he said.

Advocates of the act say the history of discrimination in the covered states justifies their special status and that leaders who believe their jurisdictions should be exempt can apply to "bail out" through a federal review.

"The fact of the matter is that you have a small group of members who have hijacked this bill, and many of these individuals represent states that have been in violation for a long time," said Nancy M. Zirkin, deputy director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. "We believe these individuals do not want the Voting Rights Act reauthorized."

The Republican leadership of the House and the Senate decided earlier this year to proceed speedily with the renewal to put to rest fears that Republicans intended to let it expire next year, and to try to make political inroads with minority groups. If the act is allowed to expire, Democrats will almost certainly accuse Republicans of trying to turn the clock back on civil rights.

But Southern lawmakers, mainly from Georgia and Texas, continued to push their objections, with some suggesting the House hold off action pending a Supreme Court ruling on a Texas redistricting case.

A new problem arose as some Republicans, already caught up in a fight over immigration policy, began raising questions about a requirement for bilingual ballots in cases where political jurisdictions meet a certain threshold for citizens who struggle with English.

Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, has pushed a proposal to eliminate that plan, arguing that naturalized citizens should have had to prove English proficiency as part of their citizenship test and that American-born speakers of other languages are entitled to assistance at the polls.

"There is no need to print ballots in any language other than English," Mr. King said Wednesday.

But the leadership did not allow him to offer the provision, angering some Republicans. Lawmakers and aides said that Representative F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the Wisconsin Republican who is the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, also left Wednesday's meeting without answering questions about the bill, angering others. In the resulting tumult, the leadership decided to delay the vote.

    Rebellion Stalls Extension of Voting Rights Act, NYT, 22.6.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22vote.html

House Plans National Hearings Before Changes to Immigration

June 21, 2006
The New York Times
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, June 20 — In a decision that puts an overhaul of immigration laws in serious doubt, House Republican leaders said Tuesday that they would hold summer hearings around the nation on the politically volatile subject before trying to compromise with the Senate on a chief domestic priority of President Bush.

"We are going to listen to the American people, and we are going to get a bill that is right," said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who said he had informed Mr. Bush of the plan.

The unusual decision to set a new round of hearings on legislation already passed by the House and the Senate places a serious roadblock in the way of Mr. Bush's drive for major changes in immigration policy.

The timing means that formal Congressional negotiations will not begin until September, just as Congressional campaigns are entering their crucial final weeks, when lawmakers typically shy away from difficult issues.

"I don't know how likely that is," Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the House Republican whip, said about reaching an agreement before November.

Mr. Blunt suggested that final consideration might have to wait for a lame-duck session after the election. "We clearly are going to be here later in the year," he said.

But advancing significant legislation in lame-duck sessions has proved difficult. If Congress does not act this year, the House and the Senate will have to begin anew in 2007 should lawmakers want to pursue immigration changes.

A White House spokeswoman said Mr. Bush would press for legislation. "The president is undeterred in his efforts to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill," said the spokeswoman, Dana Perino, who said the White House was "committed to working with members to see if we can reach a consensus on a bill that will help solve our nation's immigration problems."

The leadership decision reflected the deep resistance among House Republicans to the bipartisan approach approved in May by the Senate and generally endorsed by Mr. Bush. That bill combined new border enforcement with a program for temporary guest workers and the ability of illegal immigrants to qualify for citizenship by meeting a series of requirements.

House Republicans passed a party-line bill late last year that focused solely on border enforcement, and they said a majority of the public backed their approach. Many House Republicans consider the Senate bill amnesty for those who have entered the country illegally.

"Our No. 1 priority is to secure the border," Mr. Hastert said, "and right now I haven't heard a lot of pressure to have a path to citizenship."

In a swipe at the Senate version, Representative Deborah Pryce of Ohio, a senior member of the Republican leadership, labeled the legislation the "Kennedy bill" — a dismissive reference to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who helped write the measure in cooperation with Republicans including Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John McCain of Arizona.

Those lawmakers held out hope on Tuesday that a final bill could be completed this year and said they accepted the House position that more scrutiny of the issue was required. "I respect their views," Mr. McCain said, "and I hope that we can still continue discussions, and hopefully we can reach an agreement."

Another Republican proponent, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, warned that voters might punish Republicans if they were unable to come up with a solution to such a pressing national problem.

"The question is, Is it better to solve the issue before the election, or is it better to make people mad and do nothing?" Mr. Graham said. "I think it is hard to go to the electorate when you have the White House, the Senate and the House and say that you cannot at least go through the effort of trying to get a bill. That would to me be a sign of inability to govern."

Democrats were highly critical of House Republicans, with Mr. Kennedy accusing them of a "cynical effort to delay or kill a comprehensive immigration bill."

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Republicans were stalling, and he called on Mr. Bush to prod members of his party. "He has complete domination over this Republican Congress," Mr. Reid said. "Let him tell us how much he really wants a bill."

The focus of the summer hearings and the schedule were uncertain Tuesday as Republicans suggested that they would be used both to explore the content of the Senate bill and to survey public opinion on the issue. But it was clear House Republicans intended to use the forums to try to expose what they saw as failings in the Senate bill and to build public opposition to that approach.

"The House bill is very different than the Senate bill, and I think we want to have a clear understanding of what is in that bill," said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House majority leader.

The hearings could also help House Republicans rally conservative supporters in advance of the election, particularly given a recent special election in Southern California in which immigration emerged as a dominant issue. But Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said Tuesday that the topic's power varied from district to district.

"It is not, in my view, a situation that has the same resonance in each district," Mr. Reynolds said.

Official Opposes Border Wall

TUCSON, June 20 (AP) —The new commissioner of Customs and Border Protection said Tuesday that he did not favor building a huge wall along the Mexican border.

"I don't support, I don't believe the administration supports a wall," the commissioner, W. Ralph Basham, said. "It doesn't make sense; it's not practical."

Fencing, including so-called smart fencing with sensors, vehicle barriers and lighting, will be part of the infrastructure improvements, Mr. Basham said. But a layered approach combining technology and air operations will be necessary, he said.

Mr. Basham, only two weeks on the job, is touring the Southwest border region to look at the challenges his agency is facing as National Guard troops arrive to begin assisting its efforts.

    House Plans National Hearings Before Changes to Immigration, NYT, 21.6.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/21/washington/21immig.html?hp&ex=1150948800&en=63a79e3775cfae97&ei=5094&partner=homepage

US House clears $427.6 billion for Pentagon

Tue Jun 20, 2006 10:23 PM ET
Reuters
By Vicki Allen

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a $427.6 billion Pentagon funding bill on Tuesday after rejecting a bid by Democrats to force the Bush administration to get court orders for its domestic surveillance program.

The House voted 407-19 for the defense bill, which includes another $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Senate has not taken up its version of the bill.

Voting 219-207 largely along party lines, the House defeated an amendment to make the National Security Agency obtain warrants before listening to the international phone calls and reading the e-mails of U.S. citizens.

The Bush administration has defended its domestic spying program conducted without obtaining warrants as essential to pursuing terrorism suspects. But Democrats and some Republicans say it tramples on U.S. citizens' privacy rights.

Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, said his amendment would make the administration comply with the Foreign Electronic Surveillance Act, which governs such programs and requires warrants.

But most Republicans said the amendment would hamper the NSA's ability to use electronic eavesdropping and infringe on President George W. Bush's war powers.

During the debate, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, agreed to hold a hearing on bills to make the program comply with FISA, which requires warrants before or within 72 hours after surveillance.

The defense spending bill's $50 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, intended to fund them through the first half of the next fiscal year starting in October, would bring their costs to $450 billion.

The bill also included an extra $500 million for equipment for the National Guard, provides a 2.2 percent military pay raise, and gives $1.5 billion to test and field new jammers to counter improvised explosive devices responsible for many U.S. military deaths in Iraq.

The bill provides $1.4 billion more than the Pentagon sought for 20 F-22A war planes, but trimmed the administration's requests for various programs including developing a missile defense system, the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft and the Army's Future Combat Systems.

The White House also complained that lawmakers shifted $4 billion from the Pentagon budget bill to help fund non-defense spending, making part of that up in emergency war spending bills not part of the Pentagon's base budget.

It threatened to veto a final defense budget bill "that significantly underfunds" the Defense Department to help meet other budget demands.

(Additional reporting by Andy Sullivan)

    US House clears $427.6 billion for Pentagon, NYT, 20.6.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-06-21T022301Z_01_N20182060_RTRUKOC_0_US-ARMS-CONGRESS.xml