Citizens said to lack legal protection from government data mining

USA TODAY
Citizens said to lack legal protection from government data mining

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government's ability to use computers to gather personal information about citizens and act on it has far outstripped the federal laws designed to protect them from secret federal dossiers, a privacy advocate told Congress on Wednesday.

Leslie Harris, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to update the Privacy Act and other laws to keep pace with the Digital Age.

She was among a handful of think-tank scholars and privacy advocates who testified Wednesday about government data-mining — the computerized searching of large banks of information for clues to the identity of terrorists or criminals. Their broadest area of agreement was that Congress needs to know much more about what the government is doing in data-mining.

Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said this hearing, the first since Democrats retook control of the Senate, was the beginning of a series on privacy-related issues.

Noting that congressional auditors in 2004 found 199 data-mining programs operating or planned in federal agencies, Leahy said, "Congress is overdue in taking stock of the proliferation of these databases."

To that end, panel member Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., introduced a bill Wednesday co-sponsored by Leahy and endorsed by several witnesses.

Feingold told the hearing that his proposed Federal Data Mining Reporting Act would require federal agencies to regularly inform Congress about their use of data mining "to discover predictive or anomalous patterns indicating criminal or terrorist activity — the types of data analysis that raise the most serious privacy concerns."

While acknowledging terrorism is a threat, Harris told the committee: "Especially in the counterterrorism context, a major shift in the data collection and use landscape is taking place without a suitable privacy and due process framework."

"The government is accessing entire buckets of data without a warrant" and without specific suspicion of particular individuals, Harris said.

An individual mistakenly designated as a possible terrorist or associate of terrorists can face "arrest, deportation, loss of a job, more intrusive investigation, discrimination, damage to reputation and a lifetime of suspicion, with little or no opportunity for redress or correction of errors," Harris said.

She said the impact of technological innovations combined with new government powers enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and outdated legal protections was illustrated by the Customs and Border Protection agency's "Automated Targeting System."

The Associated Press disclosed last month that the system had been developing risk assessments of millions of Americans over the last four years without their knowledge. The AP also reported those assessments of people who traveled aboard were to be kept for 40 years and could be shared with state, local and foreign governments and even some private contractors.

Under existing law, "a risk score developed for border screening purposes could easily migrate to other uses (years after the citizen was determined not to be a threat)," Harris said.

Customs officials say the program is legal and essential to keeping terrorists out of the country. Leahy said last month on C-Span's "Newsmakers" program he thought it violated a congressional ban using on data-mining tools to assign risk to passengers not on watch lists.

Read More...

Summary only...

Justices express support for limiting use of union fees

USA TODAY
Justices express support for limiting use of union fees
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to uphold a Washington state law that restricts when unions can use fees collected from non-members for political purposes.

The dispute is being watched closely by the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation and other anti-union groups, as well as the AFL-CIO.

The case revolves around the Washington Education Association, which bargains for the state's 70,000 teachers. About 3,500 of the teachers have refused to join the union. They are required by state law to pay "agency shop" fees to cover their share of the union's bargaining on behalf of all workers.

Under state law, the fees unions get from a non-member cannot be used for political advocacy — such as the union's lobbying the state Legislature for more school funds — unless that person consents to having his fees used for such purposes.

The teachers union opposes the policy on non-members' fees, saying it is an administrative burden that restricts the union's right to engage in political advocacy. The state's highest court agreed last year. It struck down the law as a violation of the union's speech rights.

Wednesday, many of the justices' queries focused on the rights of teachers who are not in the union.

Most of the high court, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and Samuel Alito, expressed some support for the law limiting how non-member fees are used. "It seems to me that Washington acted quite properly in saying we will use this to protect our workers' First Amendment … rights," Kennedy said.

Washington state Attorney General Robert McKenna said the law "serves the state's interest in election integrity" by ensuring that union political activity is funded voluntarily.

John West, representing the teachers union, countered that the law wrongly assumed that non-members would not back the union's lobbying.

Alito responded, "These are teachers who have chosen not to join the (union). Isn't it overwhelmingly likely that they, if you spoke to them and said, 'Would you like to give money to the union to spend on elections,' would say no?"

West said the union believes teachers support its political efforts, including those aimed at increasing teachers' cost-of-living raises and reducing class sizes.

Read More...

Summary only...

Don't Be Fooled: Bush Outfoxed America - And Maybe McCain, Too

Huffington Post
RJ Eskow
Don't Be Fooled: Bush Outfoxed America - And Maybe McCain, Too

The air will be buzzing tonight with comments about Bush's shortsightedness, his lack of a coherent war plan, and his word-parsing about "mistakes." All of that's a distraction, and a very successful one. Bush's goal since November has been to prevent a withdrawal from Iraq - one that voters demanded and the Iraq Study Group recommended.

He's succeeded beyond all expectations. A short six weeks ago it would have been impossible to believe that the Administration could avoid debating the merits of withdrawal, at least under the Study Group's relatively unambitious terms. Bush needed a way to re-frame the debate and buy himself more time. He found one.

Withdrawal is now off the table. The Administration's escalation plan isn't just a desperate military ploy. It's also a clever negotiating gambit, a way to raise their own demands so that Democrats are forced to fight for the status quo instead of pursuing positive change.

The lesson? Never underestimate the President or his advisors. Today's debate is "to surge or not to surge," rather than "to withdraw or not to withdraw."

They can finally say "mission accomplished" about something war-related.

Bush isn't concerned about his poll numbers or the 2008 election right now. He's in a desperate spot. The only possible way to salvage his reputation - and possibly his party - is to stay in Iraq in the hopes that the situation will miraculously reverse itself. That, and not the "surge" itself, is the goal of every move he's made since November. Sure, he wants troop escalation, but even if that effort fails he's delayed the real fight over the war for another day.

Bush's escalation plan wasn't just a desperate military ploy. It was a clever negotiating gambit, a way to raise his own demands so that Democrats are forced to fight for the status quo instead of pursuing positive change. Threats against Iran represent yet another new demand that puts war opponents on the defensive.

John Conyers and Russ Feingold are continuing to press for withdrawal, and Durbin was right to call this a move in the wrong direction - but I've been channel-surfing for an hour now (since the speech) and haven't heard any discussion of ending the war. I'm hearing political shop-talk, comments about Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, speculation about Iran, and talk about of the "surge." That's a good outcome for the President, given what the poll numbers say about the American people's desire for some form of withdrawal.

It's also beginning to look like there may be some high-stakes poker between Bush and McCain - tragically, with American soldiers as poker chips. McCain's been positioning himself for months as the guy who could have managed this war correctly. Since October he's been calling for 20,000 more troops, so that he could argue in 2008 that we would have "won" if Bush had only followed his advice.

My suspicion is that Bush is unwilling to see his successor elected at the expense of his own reputation, so he's called McCain's bluff by "seeing him" the 20,000 troops. Now McCain's raising him 10,000, by reversing himself this week and suggesting an additional 30,000 troops. He also said that "a short duration and a small size would be the worst of all options."

Your call, Mr. President.

A old boss of mine used to say that the smartest person in the room was sometimes the one who seems the most foolish. He said sometimes those guys can get the better of you and you never even know it. (Think Kaiser Sosay from "The Usual Suspects.")

My boss was a pretty smart guy. Sure, this war was a bad idea and its been grievously mismanaged. But we've been distracted from the most urgent topic of all: ending it.

Withdrawal? Tonight, it's not even being discussed. Color me impressed.

Read More...

Summary only...

President Bush Is Really, Really High

Huffington Post
Bob Cesca
President Bush Is Really, Really High

President Bush must be knocking back some 420 from Humboldt if he expects us to buy this plan. In fact, I have photographic proof he's toasted. Note the ornate water bong on the mantel behind him.

This address was, from beginning to end, a flim-flam. The president's "new way forward" contained so many loopholes we'd all have to be as high as him to actually believe it.

He said the attacks on our soldiers and the Iraqi people will continue despite the escalation. He said there won't be a traditional victory -- or "surrender" on a battleship, which called to mind the USS Abraham Lincoln more than it did the Japanese surrender at the end of World War II. He only outlined a plan for securing Baghdad, while his surge into Anbar, the deadliest province in the country, will constitute just one-fourth of the surge and thus leaving the al-Qaeda stronghold almost untouched. He reached across (around) the aisle to rim job his ally in the Lieberman for Connecticut Party which means absolutely nothing other than the president is now open to exclusive shout-outs to members of Congress who give it up. And when we officially engage in hostilities against Syria and Iran, he can say that he told us he would.

So in other words, the escalation of military action in Iraq leaves the president with a pile of additional excuses to wheel out when the casualties continue to stack up and the conditions on the ground continue to deteriorate. "But I said the violence would continue," he'll say months from now. "But, eh eh, you didn't listen to me, Stretch, when I said there won't be a traditional victory," he'll whine in a press conference. "But I never said that we'd fully secure Anbar," he'll mention when our military is chased out of Fallujah and Ramadi.

After four long years, and countless bloody mistakes, we should never forgive him. We should never accept his "the responsibility rests with me" lip service. No-one should be allowed another shot after bungling four years of war in which tens, if not hundreds, of thousands have been killed for politics and oil. No-one should be allowed an inch of latitude after appearing on television (with or without a bong) asking for more chances -- especially after six years of flaunting a brazen, petulant, arrogant and condescending attitude about this and other issues; the teasing and eh-eh-eh giggling and brush clearing while the nation's democracy and credibility burns all around us.

The president's surge, by his own admission, won't amount to victory. It won't amount to less violence. And he won't compromise. This is an escalation of American warfare throughout the broader Middle East -- unless he can be stopped. The good news is that it's easy to stop someone who's so flippin' high. Note to Democrats who intend to meet with the president: bring nachos.

Read More...

Summary only...

Straightforward, Satire-free, Sarcasm-free Reactions to the Speech

Huffington Post
John Seery
Straightforward, Satire-free, Sarcasm-free Reactions to the Speech

First, an obvious contradiction in the fundamental "strategy" outlined: Failure in Iraq "would be a disaster" and is thus unacceptable (1st part of the speech), yet "if the Iraqis don't follow through, they will lose our support" (2nd part of the speech). How, exactly, do those two propositions square with one another?
If the Iraqis don't follow through, then are we willing to admit failure and walk away? Or is the threat of our withdrawing support to the Iraqis a hollow one, given the dire assessment about what it would mean to fail in Iraq?

Second, Bush threw down a challenge to his critics: Go ahead and denounce the policy, but then come up with your own plans that will lead to success. Yet here's the problem that that formulation seems to overlook: What if Bush himself is now a big part of the overall problem and is even an obstacle, maybe the obstacle, to our finding success in Iraq? He has inflamed much of the Muslim world. He has profoundly alienated many of our allies, such that they don't want to work with us on this matter or go anywhere near Iraq. He has divided the American people on the Iraq war--bitterly so. He has given the Iraqi people many reasons to mistrust him and us. His administration has squandered all credibility on its war efforts and rebuilding efforts, due to past mendacity and sheer incompetence. In short, Bush cannot rally the nation or the world to this cause. If the Iraq situation admits of a solution, Bush cannot be the leader who will deliver us to that place of success. He cannot heal the wounds. He cannot oversee the recovery. He cannot restore trust. For America to find "success" in Iraq, we need new leadership at the top. In much the same way that Donald Rumsfeld had to resign in order to wipe the slate clean, so will George Bush need to exit the presidential stage before solutions in Iraq can truly commence. He is not the leader for this moment in history. If, as he said in his speech, he now takes responsibility for the past mistakes in the Iraq War, he needs to realize that those past mistakes define him and critically impair his leadership abilities.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush's 10 Fallacies on Iraq

Huffington Post
Suzanne Nossel
Bush's 10 Fallacies on Iraq

Here are 10 fallacies I heard from the White House library tonight:

1. That the strategy is "new" - Bush referred directly to the "clear, hold and build" strategy promulgated in October 1995. At best, this is a course-correction which has unaccountably taken more than 15 months to be put into effect.

2. That the strategy is any more likely to work now than in the past - Bush made two arguments as to why what failed previously will succeed now: 1) that troop levels will now be sufficient and 2) that crippling restrictions on troop movements and maneuvers will be lifted.
But rather than citing evidence for either of these, Bush made only a stilted reference to military commanders having certified to their truth. This less than a week after replacing the leaders who refused to attest to same.

3. That the strategy is "Iraqi" in impetus or direction - While Bush clearly wants to claim that the escalation of US troops will happen in support of a renewed Iraqi effort to secure itself, this is bunk. Bush is under desperate pressure to do something - anything - about Iraq. This plan is as made-in-Washington as they come, right down to the predicate laid to avoid blame for the White House. Bush is setting himself up to be able to claim that the al-Maliki government failed to come through in the crunch, even though such failure is painfully, unavoidably foreseeable from the outset.

4. That 20,000 troops will somehow change the game - The worst part of Bush's plan is that an additional 20,000 US soldiers will risk life and limb in furtherance of a "strategy" that is doomed to fail. Baghdad is a city of roughly 5 million people. The 20,000 figure is driven not by any assessment of what it would take to do the job, but by tight recruitment constraints and a straightforward political calculus of what the American public might ht possibly bear.

5. That the Iraqi government enjoys sufficient legitimacy and impartiality to curb sectarian violence - Central to Bush's plan is the ability of the Iraqi government to credibly assert itself against the militias. But the Iraqi armed services are themselves riddled with partisan militants. It is a Shia army with close links to the radical Sadr militia - the idea of their going "door to door" in Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad can only strike fear among residents.

6. That the al-Maliki government is a reliable US ally - While Bush has repeatedly affirmed his faith in AL-Milk, his advisers have grave doubts about the trustworthiness of the Prime Minister. Milk's links to Sadr, his mishandling of Saddam's execution, his failure to take control of errant ministries, his impetuous decisions affecting US military operations emblems the difficulties of forging the sort of partnership that Bush seems to be banking on.

7. That the Iraqi military has the competence to take the lead in securing Baghdad - For anyone who somehow harbors notions about the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, a quick read of the Iraq Study Group Report will dispel such notions in devastating terms. Army units are described as lacking personnel, equipment and leadership and as resistant to carrying out orders. The Iraqi police are described as "substantially worse."

8. That the terrorists and insurgents are wholly separable from the Iraqi population at large - The strategy refers repeatedly to clearing neighborhoods of insurgents. But what allows radical militias to survive is the support and protection they receive from ordinary citizens who are sympathetic to their aims. Until such backers buy into a political resolution of Iraq's strife, they will continue to support and breed the insurgency, making it impossible for US or Iraqi troops to root out.

9. That the US is in a position to "provide" a political alternative to the Middle East - It's astounding and distressing to hear Bush continue to talk in terms of the US "advancing liberty" in the Middle East through means like the Iraq war. While Bush references standing with regional actors pressing for their own freedoms, he stops well short of acknowledging the kind of broad shift of ambitions and tactics needed to guide a new US Middle East policy.

10. That disaster is still avoidable - Bush cited a series of reasons why failure in Iraq would be a disaster: because Islamic extremists would grow in strength; because Iran would be emboldened to pursue nukes; because Iraq could become a terrorist haven. But all those developments are underway right now.

Read More...

Summary only...

There Is No "Itself" There

Huffington Post
Marty Kaplan
There Is No "Itself" There

Whenever President Bush explains what "accomplishing our mission in Iraq" actually means -- "an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself" -- he gets that cat-that-swallowed-the-canary look on his face. Tony Snow, too. They're so proud of themselves for having come up with that clever answer.

For a while, the Administration dreaded the query like an unfair, trick question: What is victory in Iraq, Mr. President? What does winning really mean? For months, years, they couldn't adequately answer. But after stammering and rambling through one evasive, ineffective response after another, they finally emerged with this formulation, which they now parrot formulaically, as though it were so incontrovertibly sensible that no follow-up question could survive the gem-like flame of its wisdom.

There's only one teensy problem with their answer. There is no "itself" there.

Iraq is not a country. It is a collection of warring factions and ethnicities which happen to share a piece of land. It is no more of a country than Yugoslavia was after Tito. It is less of a country than Lebanon, than Afghanistan, than Gaza; it is hardly more of an "itself" than Somalia.

Prime Minister al-Maliki, on whom the Bush plan wants us to pin our hopes, is no Garibaldi. In the years since our invasion, no Iraqi has demonstrated the strength and the vision necessary to stop ethnic cleansing, disarm the militias, end twelve hundred years of religious strife and turn a country arbitrarily carved out of the Ottoman empire by the British and the French into an actual, functioning "itself."

Saddam Hussein, of course, did that, by wielding ruthless power. The Bush theory is that the same result can be accomplished not by a dictator's viciousness, but by a democratic ruler benevolently leading a free nation -- and that the only thing standing between us and that Rapturous outcome is extending the tours of duty of 20,000 battle-weary American troops for another couple of years.

It is as likely that this escalation will lead to an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself as it is that it will lead to an Iraq that can levitate itself, fellate itself and book itself on a cruise to Bermuda. This is terribly sad, tragic, just as it is tragic that the neocon crackpots who hatched this misbegotten adventure are not now being held accountable for the fantasy that with a wave of democracy's wand, a millennium and more of seething antagonism would blossom overnight into a civil society, a federal government and a Freedom Domino for the whole Middle East.

Bush and Cheney have not given up on this delusion. No facts on the ground will ever convince them that their mission is pathologically misconceived. Unless they are stopped, they will continue to spend American blood and treasure on it until January 20, 2009; they would rather go to their graves saying they did everything in their power to be the Founding Fathers of a democratic Iraq, then to admit that they made the most colossal what-was-I-thinking? mistake in the history of the United States.

There is no "itself" there in Iraq. There is only broken crockery. And there is no excuse for Congress to remain spellbound by the delusion that thousands of more American lives, and billions of more American dollars, will accomplish a make-or-break difference. That's how a junkie thinks, a doubling-down gambling addict, a fool. The President and the Vice President may inhabit a psychotic folie à deux, but there remains no reason for the rest of us to follow them on the road to this unspeakable hell.

Read More...

Summary only...

Analysis: Bush's new plan not all new

citizen-times.com
Analysis: Bush's new plan not all new
By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's new plan for Iraq sounds a lot like his old one. Send in more troops, set goals for the Iraqi government and assure Americans it's better to wage war there than here.

And now the U.S. military is back in Somalia, too, once again attacking suspected terrorist targets.

Bush's challenge in Iraq: show what's different now.

The plan the president will outline to the nation Wednesday night is the latest repackaging of a program that's been wrapped and rewrapped many times.

The White House recognizes that a majority of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq and that Democrats are eager to assert their new leadership on Capitol Hill by challenging his proposal to send in more troops.

But Bush advisers also believe that Americans do not necessarily support an immediate withdrawal and might be willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt if he presents a feasible, detailed plan that points the way to an eventual U.S. drawdown.

It's different this time, Bush supporters say of his new strategy - always words to beware.

For one thing, administration officials contend that the Iraqi government, while still fragile, has matured and will do much more of its part this time.

They note that Bush has reshuffled his military and diplomatic team in Iraq and has a new defense secretary, Robert Gates, to carry out the revised plan.

Bush has told lawmakers he plans to send about 20,000 more troops to Iraq. There are roughly 132,00 there now. The White House also is working on its largest-ever appeal for more war funds - a record $100 billion, at least - to be submitted along with Bush's Feb. 5 budget.

"He does understand that it's important to bring the public back to this war and restore public confidence in support for the mission," spokesman Tony Snow said Tuesday.

Still, there's clearly a been-there, done-that feel to Bush's new plan.

It's an old story: The U.S. before has temporarily raised troop levels, taken steps to encourage democracy, spent money on education and public works and set benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

In the fall of 2005, the president gave a series of speeches around the country on the way forward in Iraq. To mark the campaign, the White House issued a glossy 35-page document titled "Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq," spelling out a series of military, political and economic initiatives.

"This last summer there was a troop increase that really did no good in my opinion whatsoever," says Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

That was after Bush went to Baghdad and announced a joint effort with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to beef up security in Baghdad - and after an earlier joint effort failed to stem the tide of sectarian violence. The newer one failed too.

Skelton suggests too much attention is being paid to the latest plan's rollout.

"Whatever the president does, it is still up to the Iraqis to make or break it themselves. So let's not put any more spotlight on this decision any more than those in the past, which sadly have not been good ones," he says.

As Bush outlines his new Iraq strategy, he may well mention the new U.S. airstrikes in Somalia that targeted Islamic extremists.

He can cite the war on terrorism's multiple fronts. It fits in with his fight-them-abroad-not-at-home thesis. Administration allies suggest the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 helped strengthen the al-Qaida terror network.

"Just as the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan emboldened and enlarged al-Qaida, just as our withdrawal from Somalia encouraged them to go find more targets, our defeat in Iraq would expand the numbers of terrorists and embolden them to seek new strategic targets," said Rep. Mac Thornberry of Texas, a Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Analysts and lawmakers have mixed views on whether Bush can do anything to turn the tide in Iraq. Some say it's possible, but that the odds are low after nearly four years of war.

"Anything that would work now would have worked even better two years ago," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst at Brookings Institution who served as an adviser to the Iraq Study Group. "Increasing troops has always been an option. But this is probably the least promising time to try it of the past almost four years."

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, called for beginning to withdraw combat troops - a central recommendation Bush apparently has chosen to ignore.

Many Democrats and some Republicans await Bush's speech with skepticism.

"There is the troubling issue of the capacity of the struggling government in Iraq, consumed as it is by fractional fighting, to establish any kind of sustained governing coalition," said Ray DuBois, a Pentagon official until last March who is now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, complained that Bush initially promised that Americans would stand down as Iraqis stood up. "Now it sounds like we're being told that Americans will stand up as the Iraqis are standing up. That's a confusing difference to me."

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush lifts Alaska oil, gas drilling ban

citizen-times.com
Bush lifts Alaska oil, gas drilling ban

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush lifted a ban Tuesday on oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Bristol Bay, an area known for its endangered whales and the world's largest run of sockeye salmon.

The action clears the way for the Interior Department to open 5.6 million acres of the fish-rich waters northwest of the Alaska Peninsula as part of its next five-year leasing plan.

"There will be significant opportunities for study and public comment before any oil and gas development could take place," said Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne. But he said the bay, as well as expanded drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, "will enhance America's energy security."

Interior's tentative plans call for Bristol Bay leases being made available in 2010 and 2012, pending the environmental reviews.

Kempthorne said Alaska state officials as well as some local and native groups had asked that the ban be ended to spur the local fishing-dominated economy.

Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who in 2003 got Congress to lift its moratorium on drilling in the bay, called the president's decision "welcome news for people who live and work" there.

Alaska's newly elected Republican governor, Sarah Palin, welcomed the possibility of additional oil and gas production and promised "a very aggressive role in making sure our fisheries are protected."

There are believed to be 200 million barrels of oil and 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath the bay's federal waters three miles to 200 miles from shore. The Interior Department last year estimated energy development could produce up to 11,500 jobs and new tax revenue for the state.

But the area also is known for its fisheries with huge annual catches of salmon, cod, red king crab, halibut and huge schools of herring.

Concern over those fisheries prompted Congress to put the bay off limits to drilling in 1990 after the massive Exxon Valdez tanker oil spill on the other side of the peninsula in Cook Inlet. Later, then-President Clinton added his own drilling ban, one that had been continued by Bush.

Talk of opening the fish-rich waters to oil and gas drilling has outraged environmentalists and many of the area's fishermen.

"It's outrageous. It's a sad day for Bristol Bay," Eric Siy, executive director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, said in a telephone interview, responding to Bush's action.

"It's one of the largest and most valuable commercial fisheries in the world," said Siy. "And precisely where they intend to drill and site rigs is the critical habitat, feeding grounds of the North Pacific Right Whale, one of the most endangered on Earth."

The areas proposed for leasing also overlaps the migratory route for all of the wild salmon returning to Bristol Bay and the western Alaska river system, environmentalists say.

But others welcome the economic potential - although with caution.

"The president has opened the door for us," said Stanley Mack, a fisherman and mayor of the Aleutians East Borough, but he added, "We're going to walk through it very cautiously."

The Aleutians East Borough's administrator, Bob Juettner, said developing the offshore oil and gas presents "a wonderful opportunity" to bring jobs to area and help the economy which has declined because of competition from foreign fisheries and the growth of farm-raised salmon.

"But keep in mind our families have centered their lives around commercial and subsistence fisheries for thousands of years," he continued. "And we can't let anything threaten our traditional way of life."

Without strict safeguards, warned Juettner "we will withdraw our support."

Environmentalists maintained that local support has in any case been overstated and that many of the native groups, village leaders and fishing groups are on record opposing oil and gas development in the bay.

Last month, more than 30 people representing a wide range of interests from the national Sierra Club and World Wildlife Fund to local fishermen and native Alaskans, wrote Bush, urging him to keep oil and gas rigs out of the bay.

Kempthorne promised "thorough environmental review" before any leases are issued. Along with the newly opened areas in the Gulf, he said, "these actions will enhance America's energy security by improving opportunities for domestic energy production."

Kempthorne also announced the department would raise the royalty rate for new deep-water oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico to 16.7 percent. Most leases now charge 12.5 percent. The move was seen as a response the growing pressure in Congress to get oil companies to renegotiate flawed 1998-99 deep-water leases that has allowed them to avoid royalty payments.

---

Associated Press writer Steve Quinn in Juneau contributed to this story.

---

On the Net:

Interior Department http://www.doi.gov

Minerals Management Service http://www.mms.gov

Bristol Bay Borough: http://www.theborough.com/

Read More...

Summary only...

House passes Democratic security bill

Reuters
House passes Democratic security bill
By Thomas Ferraro and Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bill to bolster America's security cleared the U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday as Democrats began to push their "first 100-hours" agenda that helped them win control of Congress in last year's elections.

On a largely party-line vote of 299-128, the House agreed to implement long-stalled recommendations by the 9/11 commission, which investigated the 2001 attacks on the United States. The bill, the first passed by the House since the 110th Congress convened last Thursday, was sent to the Senate for consideration.

While much of the effort has broad support, House Democrats drew objections from the Bush administration and others to some of their own proposals in the bill, particularly one that would require within a few years 100 percent screening of cargo for explosives on passenger jets and incoming ships.

Critics said there is no proven technology for such screening, at least not in a timely fashion, and could create bottlenecks in global trade.

Former Rep. Timothy Roemer, an Indiana Democrat who served on the commission, told the Senate Homeland Security Committee that the effort could be counterproductive.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg scoffed to reporters after testifying before the panel, "I think the question is which decade do they want to start that."

But former Rep. Lee Hamilton, an Indiana Democrat who served as vice chair of the bipartisan commission, praised the sweeping legislation.

"If this bill ... is enacted, funded and implemented, then the American people will be safer," Hamilton said on Monday.

The White House raised objections in a statement but did not threaten a veto. It said: "The administration looks forward to working with Congress to try to address these concerns."

The measure would provide better communications equipment for emergency workers, more money for high-risk areas, strengthen the sharing of U.S. intelligence information with local authorities and seek to reduce radicalism with efforts overseas to promote development and education.

The House also approved a resolution to create an intelligence oversight panel, in line with the commission's call for greater congressional oversight.

The previous Congress, controlled by U.S. President George W. Bush's Republicans, had enacted about half the commission's recommendations, including creation of a director to oversee all U.S. intelligence agencies.

But it allowed others to languish more than two years, drawing fire from the commission as well as Democrats who made it a campaign issue.

"We are here today considering this bill for one reason -- to protect America from terrorism and from those who advocate hate and violence," said House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat.

Rep. Don Young, an Alaska Republican, charged, "This is primarily a political gesture without a great deal of results."

During the next two weeks, Democrats intend to vote on the five other bills in their "first 100 legislative hours" agenda.

It includes measures to increase the minimum wage, overturn Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, lower prescription drug prices, cut the interest rate on student loans and end some subsidies for big oil companies.

(Additional reporting by Andy Sullivan)

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush's public broadcasting chief to step down

Reuters
Bush's public broadcasting chief to step down

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Kenneth Tomlinson, who drew Democratic ire for trying to add conservative views into public television and radio, said on Tuesday he plans to step down once his successor is named.

Tomlinson has served as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the U.S. government's international programming to Cuba, the Middle East and other areas, since 2002.

Tomlinson said in a statement that he has asked President Bush not to nominate him for another term, but said he would stay on the job until his successor is confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

Bush nominated Tomlinson to a second term as chairman in 2005. However, before Democrats regained controlled of Congress in the November 2006 midterm elections, the Republican-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee said it would not schedule at vote on the nomination for the remainder of the year.

Congressional Democrats have demanded that Bush fire Tomlinson, who government auditors said used his office for personal gain.

In a letter to Bush on Tuesday, Tomlinson said he "appreciated deeply" the president repeatedly submitting his name to the Senate panel for reconfirmation.

"However, I have concluded that it would be far more constructive to write a book about my experiences rather than to seek to continue government service," Tomlinson wrote.

Tomlinson previously served as chairman of the presidentially appointed board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. He resigned that post in November 2005 after he was criticized for injecting politics into the organization.

The federally funded nonprofit CPB is the largest single source of money for U.S. public television and radio programming, including PBS and National Public Radio.

Tomlinson had sought to add more conservative-minded shows to the line-up to counter what many conservatives considered a liberal bias in public broadcasting.

Read More...

Summary only...

Sharpton may campaign for presidency

USA TODAY
Sharpton may campaign for presidency
The Associated Press

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton said Monday he is seriously considering a run for president.

"I don't hear any reason not to," Sharpton, 52, said in an interview during an urban affairs conference sponsored by another civil rights leader, the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

"If we're talking about the urban agenda, can you tell me anybody else in the field who's representing that right now?" Sharpton asked. "We clearly have a reason to run, and whether we do it or not we'll see over the next couple of months."

Sharpton mounted a long-shot bid for the White House in 2004, in which his wit and fiery denunciation of President Bush often enlivened Democratic primary debates. He dropped out of the race after losing several state primaries and endorsed the eventual nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

Despite widespread interest in the likely candidacy of another influential black Democrat, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, Sharpton said he's heard little substantive discussion of issues that might influence his decision about running.

"Right now we're hearing a lot of media razzle dazzle," Sharpton said. "I'm not hearing a lot of meat, or a lot of content. I think when the meat hits the fire, we'll find out if it's just fat or if there's some real meat there."

Sharpton said the candidate who impressed him most so far was former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who has made poverty the central issue of his campaign.

Sharpton ran for the Senate from New York in 1988, 1992 and 1994, and ran for New York City mayor in 1997.

Read More...

Summary only...

Outside Court, Roberts Hears Dissent; Critics Deride Fear of 'Constitutional Crisis' Over Judicial Pay

washingtonpost.com
Outside Court, Roberts Hears Dissent
Critics Deride Fear of 'Constitutional Crisis' Over Judicial Pay
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. usually knows just the right thing to say, his star turn during his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings being Exhibit A.

But maybe not so with the blandly titled "2006 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary," issued, as he noted, on the typically slow news day of Jan. 1. He should rest assured that it has been noticed -- and roundly razzed by some in the legal punditry and that segment of the citizenry that likes to write angry letters to the editor and leave sputtering rants on the answering machines of reporters who write about the court.

Roberts devoted his entire address to the call for a pay raise for federal judges, a subject that he noted was not new, and one -- he didn't note this -- that might never be terribly popular with those who make less than $165,200 a year, which is what federal district judges and members of Congress make (Roberts's salary is $212,000).

There are plenty of people who agree with Roberts that judicial salaries should rise to attract and retain the brightest in the legal field. But his description of the issue as a "constitutional crisis" was too much for some.

"What should we say about a Chief Justice who suggests that it is a 'constitutional crisis' if Congress takes advantage of its constitutional prerogatives to refuse to raise the salaries of federal judges?" University of Texas law professor Sanford V. Levinson asked on the legal blog Balkinization. "As it happens, I agree with him that pay raises are long overdue, but not necessarily for members of the US Supreme Court, frankly, who have cushy jobs and are treated like kings and queens."

Matthew J. Franck chimed in on National Review Online: "According to the chief, things are bad enough that we have a 'constitutional crisis that threatens to undermine the strength and independence of the federal judiciary.' In a word: balderdash."

Nor did Roberts endear himself to public-interest lawyers, public defenders, prosecutors and other lower-paid government lawyers with his worry that the judiciary not become restricted to the independently wealthy or "people for whom the judicial salary represents a pay increase." They stopped reading before they got to "Do not get me wrong -- there are very good judges in both of those categories.''

Still, not everyone reacted critically. The New York Times endorsed his plea, although its editorial said it was "tempting to dismiss as hyperbole the chief justice's characterization of this issue as a 'constitutional crisis.' "

More important, incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) signaled his quick assent, saying, "I intend again to do what I can to convince Congress to fairly evaluate this issue and the chief's arguments, so that we can see what solutions may be possible."

Read More...

Summary only...

raq Troop Surge Will Come at High Cost

ABC News
Iraq Troop Surge Will Come at High Cost
To Meet President Bush's Expected Request for More Troops for Iraq, Some Units Already There May Find Their Tours Extended
By LUIS E. MARTINEZ

Jan. 8, 2007 — - With all the attention focused on President Bush's likely announcement this week that additional American troops would be sent to Iraq, what has not generated as much attention is the possibility that some units already in Iraq could see their tours of duty lengthened, while their expected replacements would be used to provide the additional troops in Baghdad.

While those extensions are possible, ABC News has learned that the Pentagon is considering a separate request from Marine commanders in Iraq to extend the tour of duty of 2,200 Marines currently serving in the dangerous al Anbar province.

The Marines and sailors of the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit were ordered to Iraq in mid-November while in the middle of a routine six-month overseas deployment.

With the unit's deployment scheduled to end in February, the senior Marine commander in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, has asked that the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit have its tour of duty extended.

Marine spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Salas says Zilmer requested the extension to build "on the momentum the unit has generated and the good work they've done."

It is not clear how long the extension would last. Any extension would have to be approved by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The request was first reported by the military newspaper Stars and Stripes.

In the three years since the invasion of Iraq, only a small number of military units that have served in Iraq have seen their tours of duty extended. Army units serve one-year deployments to Iraq; Marine units deploy generally for seven months.

The issue is politically sensitive as military planners weigh the needs of the battle front and the expectations of service members and their families to stick to the deployment schedules.

Last year, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld witnessed firsthand the results of those expectations following the four-month extension of Alaska's 172nd Stryker Brigade.

Rumsfeld flew to Alaska for an angry meeting with family members. That last-minute extension was particularly painful to the families as some members of the unit had already returned home.

Marine officials say the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit serving in western al Anbar province near the Syrian border has improved the security situation in the province's roadways where insurgents hijack vehicles or kidnap residents for ransom.

Officials add there has been "significant progress" in al Anbar over the last 60 days in getting Sunni sheikhs to agree to cooperate with the coalition.

One indicator of that progress has been the sizeable increase in the number of police recruits in the area.

Just last month, 1,000 new police recruits signed up in the province, as to the 30 or so new recruits in prior months. Six hundred of the recruits came from violence-ravaged Ramadi, and the recruiting numbers are expected to remain high again this month.

The surge will be a combination of adding more brigades on top of existing units already in Iraq.

Pentagon planners have reportedly presented President Bush with a proposal to initially send two combat brigades directly to Baghdad to improve the security situation there.

An additional two or three combat brigades would be sent later through April and May as needed. An army brigade usually consists of 3,500 to 5,000 soldiers.

Adding these brigades would mean 20 combat brigades in Iraq, providing the 20,000 additional troops.

There are currently an estimated 132,000 American service members in Iraq.

If a surge was ordered, the first two brigades likely to be sent to Baghdad would be units that already had deployment orders to the Middle East.

These include a brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division based at Fort Bragg, N.C., and a brigade from the 3rd Infantry Division based at Fort Stewart, Ga.

Read More...

Summary only...

Blair refuses to match US troop 'surge' in Iraq; ll not send more troops to Iraq

The Evening Standard
Blair refuses to match US troop 'surge' in Iraq
Blair will not send more troops to Iraq

Tony Blair will make clear this week that Britain is not going to send more troops to Iraq even if the US pushes ahead with a "surge" of 20,000 extra soldiers.

The Prime Minister will insist that the UK will stick to its own strategy of gradually handing over to the Iraqi army, as it has been doing with success in Basra and the south.

President Bush will announce a new US policy for Iraq either tomorrow or Wednesday. There are currently 140,000 US troops in Iraq, compared to 7,000 British servicemen and women. Mr Blair, in a rare distancing from White House policy, has been keen for Britain to be seen to be acting under its own initiative.

Chancellor Gordon Brown said yesterday that as Prime Minister he would conduct a foreign policy based firmly on British interests

Read More...

Summary only...

Sprint Nextel Says It Will Eliminate 5,000 Jobs

The New York Times
Sprint Nextel Says It Will Eliminate 5,000 Jobs
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

RESTON, Va., Jan. 8 (AP) — Sprint Nextel reported Monday that its cellphone business suffered a net loss of 300,000 monthly subscribers in the fourth quarter and that it would cut 5,000 jobs.

Shares of the company plunged more than 8 percent after the financial update, which included a 2007 outlook that fell short of many Wall Street forecasts.

Sprint said that it expected its 2006 results to be in line with its previous guidance, with full-year revenue of $41 billion to $41.5 billion and adjusted operating income before depreciation and amortization of $12.6 billion to $12.9 billion. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial are looking for 2006 earnings of $1.26 a share on sales of $41.53 billion.

For 2007, the company expects operating revenue of $41 billion to $42 billion. Analysts are looking for earnings of $1.32 a share on sales of $42.04 billion.

During the fourth quarter, Sprint added 742,000 total net subscribers and ended the period with a subscriber base of 53.1 million. Those numbers include wholesale subscribers to other brands of cellphone service carried over the Sprint network, like Virgin Mobile.

The fourth-quarter net additions included 876,000 from wholesalers and affiliate companies that sell Sprint Nextel services, as well as 171,000 new customers for Boost, a wholly owned subsidiary for younger consumers.

Offsetting the gains, however, was a net decline of 306,000 direct Nextel subscribers because of complaints about worsening service quality. The Sprint brand subscriber base grew during the quarter, but not enough to offset the Nextel drop.

The company said the net decline in direct subscribers would continue in early 2007, but that the full-year figures would show a gain.

The planned job cuts, most of them expected in the first quarter, will reduce the size of Sprint’s work force to just below 60,000 positions. The cuts are expected to be applied across the company’s operations.

The update came after the close of Monday’s regular trading session. Shares of Sprint fell $1.64, to $18, in extended trading after rising 43 cents, or 2.2 percent, in regular trading.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Punishment

Read More...

Summary only...

A Sudden Curious Interest In Sound Budgets And Fair Play

Read More...

Summary only...

. . . To Slow The Enemy's Efforts To Disrupt The Government

Read More...

Summary only...

The Melting Habitat

Read More...

Summary only...

New Way Forward

Read More...

Summary only...

Pushing The Envelope . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

Do Unto Others . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

Using the same business model . . .

Read More...

Summary only...

Click On edwards08.com And You Go To hillaryclinton.com

Huffington Post
Click On edwards08.com And You Go To hillaryclinton.com

John Edwards' '08 website is johnedwards.com. But the campaign didn't buy edwards08.com. Hillary Clinton did.

Click on edwards08.com and you end with Hillary Clinton.

Read More...

Summary only...

Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire

independent.co.uk
Wesley Clark: Bush's 'surge' will backfire
The rise in troop numbers could reduce the urgency for political effort

The odds are that President George Bush will announce a "surge" of up to 20,000 additional US troops in Iraq. But why? Will this deliver a "win"? The answers: a combination of misunderstanding and desperation; and, probably not.

The recent congressional elections - which turned over control of both houses to the Democrats - were largely a referendum on President Bush, and much of the vote reflected public dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq. Most Americans see the US effort as failing, and believe that some different course of action must be taken. Most favour withdrawing forces soon, if not immediately. The report of the Iraq Study Group is widely seen as a formal confirmation of US failure in Iraq.

The country's action there has been the very centrepiece of the Bush presidency. With two years left in office, he would, of course, try to salvage the situation. Many Americans remember the 1975 evacuation of the US embassy in Saigon, with desperate, loyal Vietnamese friends clinging to the skids of the American helicopters. No one wants that kind of an ending in Iraq. And our friends and allies in the region are also hoping for the US to pull some kind "rabbit from the hat", even if it seems improbable, for a US failure would have grave consequences in the region. Iran, especially, is the beneficiary of a failure, and al-Qa'ida will also try to claim credit.

From the administration's perspective, a troop surge of modest size is virtually the only remaining action inside Iraq that will be a visible signal of determination. More economic assistance is likely to be touted, but in the absence of a change in the pattern of violence, infrastructure enhancement simply isn't practical. And if the President announces new Iraqi political efforts - well, that's been tried before, and is there any hope that this time will be different?

As for the US troops, yes, several additional brigades in Baghdad would enable more roadblocks, patrols, neighbourhood clearing operations and overnight presence. But how significant will this be? We've never had enough troops in Iraq - in Kosovo, we had 40,000 troops for a population of two million. For Iraq that ratio would call for at least 500,000 troops, so adding 20,000 seems too little, too late, even, for Baghdad. Further, in a "clear and hold" strategy, US troops have been shown to lack the language skills, cultural awareness and political legitimacy to ensure that areas can be "held", or even that they are fully "cleared". The key would be more Iraqi troops, but they aren't available in the numbers required for a city of more than five million with no reliable police - nor have the Iraqi troops been reliable enough for the gritty work of dealing with militias and sectarian loyalties. Achieving enhanced protection for the population is going to be problematic at best. Even then, militia fighters in Baghdad could redeploy to other areas and continue the fight there.

What the surge would do, however, is put more American troops in harm's way, further undercut US forces' morale, and risk further alienation of elements of the Iraqi populace. American casualties would probably rise, at least temporarily, as more troops are on the streets; we saw this when the brigade from Alaska was extended and sent into Baghdad last summer. And even if the increased troop presence initially intimidates or frustrates the contending militias, it won't be long before they find ways to work around the obstacles to movement and neighbourhood searches, if they are still intent on pursuing the conflict. All of this is not much of an endorsement for a troop surge that will impose real pain on the already overstretched US forces.

There could be other uses for troops, for example, accelerating training for the Iraqi military and police. But even here, vetting these forces for their loyalty has proven problematic. Therefore, neither accelerated training nor more troops in the security mission can be viewed mechanistically, as though a 50 per cent increase in effort will yield a 50 per cent increased return, for other factors are at work.

The truth is that, however brutal the fighting in Iraq for our troops, the underlying problems are political. Vicious ethnic cleansing is under way right under the noses of our troops, as various factions fight for power and survival. In this environment security is unlikely to come from smothering the struggle with a blanket of forces - it cannot be smothered easily, for additional US efforts can stir additional resistance - but rather from more effective action to resolve the struggle at the political level. And the real danger of the troop surge is that it undercuts the urgency for the political effort. A new US ambassador might help, but, more fundamentally, the US and its allies need to proceed from a different approach within the region. The neocons' vision has failed.

Well before the 2003 invasion, the administration was sending signals that its intentions weren't limited to Iraq; Syria and Iran were mentioned as the next targets. Small wonder then that Syria and Iran have worked continuously to meddle in Iraq. They had reason to believe that if US action succeeded against Iraq, they would soon be targets themselves. Dealing with meddling neighbours is an essential element of resolving the conflict in Iraq. But this requires more than border posts, patrols and threatening statements. Iran has thus far come out the big winner in all of this, dispensing with long-time enemy Saddam, gaining increased influence in Iraq, pursuing nuclear capabilities and striving to enlarge further its reach. The administration needs a new strategy for the region now, urgently, before Iran can gain nuclear capabilities.

America should take the lead with direct diplomacy to resolve the interrelated problems of Iran's push for regional hegemony, Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Isolating adversaries hasn't worked. The region must gain a new vision, and that must be led diplomatically by the most powerful force in the region, the United States.

Without such fundamental change in Washington's approach, there is little hope that the troops surge, Iraqi promises and accompanying rhetoric will amount to anything other than "stay the course more". That wastes lives and time, perpetuates the appeal of the terrorists, and simply brings us closer to the showdown with Iran. And that will be a tragedy for not just Iraq but our friends in the region as well.

Retired General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of Nato, is a senior fellow at UCLA's Burkle Center for International Relations

Read More...

Summary only...

Dems prepare slew of oversight hearings

Dems prepare slew of oversight hearings
By JIM KUHNHENN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In this new era of divided government, the congressional hearing room is where the executive and legislative branches will clash.

Over the next few weeks, Senate Democrats plan to hold at least 11 hearings just on Iraq. In the House, one of the Democrats' most dogged investigators is waiting to spring his committee on a different mission - suspected government fraud.

From the war to environmental policy and secret surveillance, the Democrats who now control both the House and Senate are armed with subpoena power and ready to summon panels of witnesses.

These newly empowered Democrats plan to put the Bush administration under scrutiny like never before.

"One of the clearest messages of the last election was that the Republican leadership was just AWOL when it came to holding the Bush administration accountable," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The congressional hearing room is a Washington set piece: A lonely witness at a table covered in red velvet, klieg lights glaring, a determined inquisitor across the floor. Congressional power in its rawest form.

Iraq is the focal point of Democratic efforts.

Beginning this week, when Bush is expected to disclose his new war strategy, three Senate and at least two House committees plan to call Cabinet members to testify about the president's policy.

"We will use these hearings to ask tough questions, demand real solutions and keep working to bring this war to a close," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Saturday in his party's weekly radio address.

The hearings are one way for Democrats to respond to the party's anti-war wing. Last week, as Democrats prepared to assume power in the new Congress, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and a group of protesters interrupted a Democratic press conference, chanting "De-escalate. Investigate. Troops home now!"

The outburst highlighted the limited options Democrats have on redirecting policy in Iraq. Short of cutting off money for the war - a step Democratic leaders say they will not take - Congress has little recourse but to agitate publicly against Bush's strategy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Reid wrote Bush last week to express their opposition to a potential temporary increase in the number of troops in Iraq - an idea Bush is said to be considering.

Some Democrats, so far a minority, want Congress to take a stand against an emergency spending bill that Bush is expected to send to Congress to pay for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That bill "is a vehicle for continuing the war through the end of Bush's term" in early 2009, said Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, who is running for president in 2008. "You cannot say you oppose the war and continue to fund it."

Reid on Friday reiterated that Democrats would not use spending legislation to try to change the course of the war. In fact, Democratic strategists say it is far better for the party to keep the war focus on Bush than it is to devise a detailed exit plan for Iraq.

"We are not at a point at this moment where I can say we have a specific strategy, but we have several options," said Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democratic leader.

One idea under consideration would cap the number of troops Bush could send to Iraq.

"It could be legislation that requires the president to come for congressional approval for troops over a certain level," Durbin said, quickly adding there was no Democratic agreement on such an option. "I'm giving you speculation. This is not strategy."

Besides the focus on Iraq, Democratic committee chairmen are planning their own policy oversight sessions with Bush officials.

"We need to be the watchdog," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

From his perch as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Waxman said he intends to tackle instances of "waste, fraud and abuse." He did not specify his first target, but previously has expressed interest in investigating federal contracts in Iraq and in the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina struck.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said he will examine the administration's policies on torture and other human rights issues. His request for data exposed one of the first rifts between the new Congress and the administration when the Justice Department refused to provide the committee with two secret documents that describe CIA detention and interrogation policies for suspected terrorists.

Leahy, D-Vt., stopped short of threatening the use of a subpoena to get the documents. But he told Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that he "would pursue this matter further" when the committee holds its first oversight hearing.

Now that Bush had accepted the resignation of Harriet Miers as his top in-house lawyer, the White House is preparing to revamp its counsel's office in anticipation of a more aggressive and demanding Congress.

Miers was one of Reid's favorite White House officials and the senator applauded Bush for nominating her to the Supreme Court in 2005 - though she eventually withdrew from consideration. Her replacement probably will not elicit the same warm response.

Read More...

Summary only...

ABC News Survey Shows That Knowing Then What It Knows Now, 2002 Senate Would Vote Against Giving President War Powers

ABC News
Senate Regrets the Vote to Enter Iraq
ABC News Survey Shows That Knowing Then What It Knows Now, 2002 Senate Would Vote Against Giving President War Powers
By JAKE TAPPER

Jan. 5, 2007 — - As the new Democrat-controlled House and Senate take power this month, the Iraq war will be the front-and-center issue.

And as President Bush prepares to announce his new strategy for Iraq, which may include a surge in troops, the attitude of the Senate towards the war -- and whether its members regret their overwhelming 77-23 October 2002 vote to authorize the president to use force in Iraq -- is critically important.

ABC News decided to survey the views of the senators who served in 2002, most of whom remain in the Senate. The survey indicates that those senators say that if they knew then what they know now, President Bush would never have been given the authority to use force in Iraq.

It's impossible, of course, to recreate all of the factors, pressures and information that went into this momentous vote. But given that President Bush may next week request that an additional 20,000 or more troops be sent to Iraq -- to fight a war 7 in 10 Americans think he isn't handling well -- we thought it might prove a significant indicator of the support for the war to see where these same senators from 2002 now stand. Regret, after all, may not be a valued commodity in politics, but it is not one that public officials express easily, even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. That said, a surprising number of senators who voted for the war were willing to say that they, and the Senate, made a mistake.

By ABC News' count, if the Senators knew then what they know now, only 43 -- at most -- would still vote to approve the use of force and the measure would be defeated. And at least 57 senators would vote against going to war, a number that combines those who already voted against the war resolution with those who told ABC News they would vote against going to war, or said that the pre-war intelligence has been proven so wrong the measure would lose or it would never even come to a vote.

For any Senate vote to switch from 77-23 in favor to essentially 57-43 against is quite remarkable, and far more so for a decision as significant as the one to go to war.

The issue was brought home last month by Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., who delivered an emotional address on the floor of the Senate, saying he regretted having voted for the war.

"I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day," Smith said. "That is absurd. It may even be criminal. I cannot support that any more."

Twenty-eight of the 77 senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq indicated, many for the first time, that they would not vote the same way with the benefit of hindsight. Six others indicated that, in retrospect, the intelligence was so wrong the matter would not have passed the Senate, or would not have even come up for a vote.

"This is very significant," said congressional scholar Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. "If they were asked that question a year ago, I think the likelihood of getting anywhere close to a majority voting against the war would be impossible. What this tells me is that Gordon Smith's very stunning speech was in some ways the tip of the iceberg."

The list of those who say they would vote differently is a bipartisan group whose ranks include former and current Republican Senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois, Bob Smith of New Hampshire, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

An overwhelming number of the Democratic senators who voted to authorize use of force indicated they would vote differently today, including former and current Democratic Senators Joe Biden of Delaware, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, John Breaux of Louisiana, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.

A few former Republican senators gave their answer surprisingly quickly when asked if they would cast the same vote.

"No, I would not," said former Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H. "I know now there are no weapons of mass destruction."

Smith underlines that "everyone thought he had weapons of mass destruction. As far as I know -- and I saw a lot of intelligence, what every other U.S. senator saw -- intelligence briefings indicated that Hussein had WMD that he could use perhaps against Israel or neighboring countries."

"In retrospect, it was premature," said former Sen. Nighthorse Campbell. "We rushed into there, very frankly, we were kind of pushed in. The problem with being a public official is public opinion jams you around. And public opinion then was we had to do something about all the people being abused and tortured and killed."

Moreover, Nighthorse Campbell added, "we were leaned on pretty heavily by the administration," which he said told senators "if you didn't support the president you weren't a good soldier…So we got stampeded into doing something, but unfortunately we didn't have enough international help."

He said that he thinks Saddam Hussein would have necessitated military action sooner or later, but "we should have waited until we got more commitments from more countries."

Bush: The Right Decision

President Bush has repeatedly said that he believes going to war in Iraq was the right course. As recently as last month, he said that while he has "questioned whether or not it was right to take Saddam Hussein out," he has "come to the conclusion it's the right decision."

But the realities of the war -- the lack of weapons of mass destruction, the insurgency, the sectarian strife -- have caused many erstwhile Senate supporters to change their minds.

"There is a very large level of disheartenment, dismay and despair in Congress cutting across party lines on a situation where they don't see a way out," Ornstein said.

The president, not up for re-election, can try to move forward on his plans for Iraq regardless of public sentiment, Ornstein added.

"But if Lyndon Johnson were alive today, he'd tell the president you can't keep prosecuting a war when the public -- and many of your congressional supporters -- abandon you," he said. "It makes it much, much harder to sustain it."

The results of the ABC News survey told Ornstein that "the policy of surge is going to have trouble sustaining any support inside Congress."

That's not to say the Congress would cut off funding for the troops or the war. But the "day-to-day pressure on the president to revise his policies is going to grow," he said.

'It Wouldn't Have Come Up for a Vote'

With more than 3,000 U.S. troops killed, and thousands of others wounded, to say nothing of the countless dead Iraqi civilians, this is a topic whose sensitivity borders on taboo. To imply in any way that a vote cast in favor of war was a mistake can be misconstrued to mean that honorable troops died in vain.

Apparently for that reason, five senators have come up with a different construct for public consumption. They say that knowing then what we know now, the war resolution never would have even come up for a vote.

That seems to be essentially saying the case for war was, in retrospect, so weak it wouldn't have even deserved an up-or-down vote. When one considers that as many as 43 Senators are standing by their vote, that's an even harsher assessment for a senator to make.

So in this tabulation, ABC News is counting the five senators -- Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.; Susan Collins, R-Maine; and former Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, as "No" votes.

"The intelligence was obviously wrong," said a Grassley spokeswoman. "If Congress had known the intelligence was wrong, they wouldn't have even been voting."

A spokesman for Dorgan added, "The intelligence information the president used to make the request was not accurate. If we knew then it was not accurate, the president wouldn't have been able to make that request."

"That's a way of trying to evade the question," Ornstein said. "People are very reluctant to say, 'Oh, I made a huge mistake,' or 'I would do it differently today.' That's a hard thing for anyone to do, and far more so for a public official."

But, Ornstein said, that response is "fundamentally the same thing as saying you regret your vote -- if not even more."

One other Senator, Arlen Specter, R-Pa., begged off saying how he individually would vote, but said that knowing then what we know now the Senate would not have voted to go to war.

"I believe that had we known Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, the Congress would not have authorized the invasion of Iraq," he has said, since "we operated on faulty intelligence."

ABC News chose to count Specter as one who with 20/20 hindsight would vote differently. But even not counting his vote, or that of the five senators who regard the intelligence as so weak the matter would not have even been voted on, the war resolution would fail by a vote of 49-51.

Standing by Their Vote

Many senators stood by their vote, including Republican Sens. Dick Lugar of Indiana, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Pete Domenici of New Mexico, Orrin Hatch of Utah and former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, as well as Sens. Joe Lieberman, formerly a Democrat but now an independent from Connecticut, and Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat.

Other senators that had previously expressed such sentiments included former Sen. George Allen, R-Va., and Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., who has said in retrospect he would still vote for war for "humanitarian" reasons.

In his 2004 speech to the Republican National Convention, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the issue of whether or not Saddam Hussein "possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again."

The war in Iraq remains the right decision, McCain said, because "we couldn't afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times."

Still other senators -- John Warner, R-Va., George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Blanche Lincoln, R-Ark. -- refused to engage in the hypothetical.

Former Sen. Tim Hutchinson, R-Ark., told ABC News that "the whole idea of a hypothetical is ridiculous. Hindsight is 20/20. We were voting on the basis of the intelligence information we had and that's why the vote was so overwhelming. And yes, it was certainly faulty intelligence. But we had to vote on what we knew at the time. I just don't understand the value of what you're doing except to embarrass the Bush administration."

Regrets, They Have a Few

In a few instances, the senators' expressions of regret had already been made.

Months ago, Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., both of whom are harboring presidential ambitions for 2008, said they regretted their votes.

At an October Senate debate, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, said: "If I knew then what I had known now on the weapons of mass destruction, which was a key reason I voted the way I did, I would not have voted to go into Iraq."

In December, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., also considering a White House run, told NBC's "Today" show that, "obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote, and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."

Other senators whose offices directly told ABC News they would vote differently include Democrats Biden, Dodd, Rockefeller, Max Baucus of Montana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Maria Cantwell of Washington, Tom Carper of Delaware, Dianne Feinstein of California, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Bill Nelson of Florida and former Sens. Breaux, Jean Carnahan of Missouri, Max Cleland of Georgia and Bob Torricelli of New Jersey.

Every Democratic senator serving in 2002 who supported going to war and harbors presidential ambitions in 2008, where he or she will need to appeal to anti-war liberal Democrats -- a list that includes Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, and Kerry -- has said he or she would vote differently.

On the other side of the aisle, current Republicans Smith of Oregon and Snowe were joined by former Sens. Nighthorse Campbell, Fitzgerald, and Smith of New Hampshire.

The Language of the Senate

Senators being senators, their answers were not always the clear cut "yes" or "no" the question might imply.

Daschle, the Senate majority leader at the time, would not directly comment, but a source close to him told ABC News that he would change his vote knowing then what he knows now.

Schumer told ABC News in a statement: "I believe that when the nation is attacked, you give the president the benefit of the doubt. Obviously, if we knew then how badly the president would bungle the war start to finish, we would not have given him the benefit of that doubt, and we certainly wouldn't again."

Schumer's office agreed that it would be fair to include him in the category of those who would vote differently with today's knowledge.

Former Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings, D-S.C., would not answer the question directly, but clearly and repeatedly stated that he only voted for the resolution because of something the president said that Hollings now considers a lie.

Hollings said he was torn, and leaning against voting for the war resolution until President Bush said, just days before the vote, that "we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

"When the commander-in-chief said that, I knew he knew something I didn't know," Hollings told ABC News. That changed his mind and he voted for the war resolution, a vote he now says was a "mistake"

"I was lied to and now we all know that we were lied to," Hollings said.

Others did not return repeated calls and e-mails -- including former Republican Sens. Fred Thompson of Tennessee, Don Nickles of Oklahoma and Phil Gramm of Texas, as well as former Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia -- so ABC News categorized them as standing by their votes.

Unable to respond were three senators who voted to go to war: Former Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., died in 2003 and both Jesse Helms, R-N.C., and Tim Johnson, D-S.D., are medically incapacitated.

David Chalian, Teddy Davis, Z. Byron Wolf, Tahman Bradley and Jennifer Duck assisted with this report.

Read More...

Summary only...

Bush's Strategy of Massive Resistance

Huffington Post
Paul Begala
Bush's Strategy of Massive Resistance

On October 19 I debated Bob Novak at Emory University. The topic was "Civil Liberties in a Time of War." I kicked his ass, but that's not why I mention it. In the debate I predicted that, after the Democrats captured the Congress, Pres. Bush would provoke a Constitutional crisis by refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas.

Pres. Bush, I predicted, will effectively tell Speaker Pelosi, "You send the Capitol Police to enforce your subpoena. I'll send the 82d Airborne to resist them. Let's meet on the Mall and see who wins."

Novak said I was crazy. It's beginning to look like I was right.

The only reason George W. Bush would turn loose of White House Counsel Harriett Miers - who gazes upon our president with an adoration and veneration bordering on idolatry - is because he wants a war-time consigliere.

In a way that might make Harry F. Byrd proud, our president is about to embark on a policy of massive resistance. He will instruct his lawyers to delay, deny and refuse to comply with any effort by Congress to get to the bottom of official corruption - especially as the billions squandered or stolen in Mr. Bush's war. He'll try to run out the clock, then take his chances with his hand-picked right-wing judiciary. (Keep in mind the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, through which this dispute would flow, includes such Bush appointees as Brett Kavanaugh, a Ken Starr protégé whose work in the Bush White House was described by Henry Waxman as promoting "an imperial presidency." And the Supreme Court has such presidential suck-ups as John Roberts and Sam Alito.)

Thank God the American people - and Nancy Pelosi -- have given the responsibility of oversight we have constitutional heroes like Waxman and John Dingell. They are fair and tough. But even in their combined 83 years experience in Congress they have not seen a crowd that has more contempt for the Constitution than the Bush-Cheney team. I would not be surprised to learn that, in anticipation of receiving congressional subpoenas, the Bushies were having shredding parties that would make Ollie North and Fawn Hall blush.

Let's all watch to see who Bush appoints to replace Ms. Miers. If he chooses someone like David Addington, Vice President Cheney's chief counsel, we'll know Mr. Bush intends to shred yet another Article of the Constitution.

Read More...

Summary only...

Memo to Democrats: Reverse NLRB's Decisions on Workers' Rights

Huffington Post
Steven Hill
Memo to Democrats: Reverse NLRB's Decisions on Workers' Rights
By Dmitri Iglitzin and Steven Hill

With the Democratic Party regaining control of Congress for the first time since 1994, Democratic leaders should look to undo the effects the Bush administration has had on American workers. But that won't be easy, because one institution that remains solidly in Republican and anti-worker hands is the National Labor Relations Board, the country's chief arbiter of labor
disputes.

Although nominally a quasi-judicial entity appointed by the president and empowered to adjudicate labor disputes, the NLRB actually sets the rules that govern those disputes and thereby exerts an enormous influence over who prevails. In case after case over the last several years, the Republican-dominated board has taken positions that have hurt American workers.

In one recent case, the Oakwood Healthcare decision, the board found (by its usual 3 to 2 Republican majority) that a group of Michigan nurses are excluded from the protection of the nation's most important labor laws on the spurious grounds that they are "supervisors," not employees. In one stroke, these workers--and potentially tens of thousands of others--lost the right to be in a union and to advocate collectively for workplace improvements.

The same September day as the Oakwood decision, the board also cut back on the right of employees to wear union buttons at work. That case arose out of a dispute in San Diego at the W Hotel, which, according to its owner, the Starwood Hotels & Resorts chain, seeks to give its guests a "wonderland" hotel experience where they get "whatever they want, whenever they want it." For its employees, however--mostly low-paid Latino laborers--the hotel is no wonderland. Some wore buttons bearing four words--"Justice Now! Justicia Ahora!"--and the name of their union. The W demanded workers take them off.

The NLRB sided with the W because the buttons were "controversial." W guests now need not worry about having their wonderland experience marred by seeing employees exercise their First Amendment rights. That rule is now precedent and can be applied to workers in labor disputes across the country.

But what happened in San Diego is nothing compared to what happened to workers in Jacksonville, Texas, just the day before. Back in 2000, the employees of a small meat-cutting department at a Jacksonville Wal-Mart voted to unionize. A week later, Wal-Mart announced that it was phasing out in-store meat-cutting departments nationwide. It took six years for the NLRB to conclude that Wal-Mart had unlawfully retaliated against workers trying to unionize. Even then, the board disregarded the ruling of its own administrative law judge and decided that, even though Wal-Mart violated the law, it can't be ordered to restore the unionized meat department. Add up the score: Wal-Mart--3,245 non-union stores; union-represented workers--zero.

These are just the latest in what is now a long line of literally dozens of anti-worker NLRB decisions in recent years.

The cumulative effect has been devastating, particularly in a global economy where American corporations are cutting back health care and retirement pensions for employees, and where workers rights are being eroded toward the lowest common denominator established by labor conditions in places like China and India.

A recent nationwide study by the University of Illinois at Chicago's Center for Urban Economic Development found that:

* 30 percent of employers fire pro-union workers
* 49 percent of employers threaten to close a worksite when workers try to unionize
* 82 percent of employers hire union-busting consultants to fight organizing drives
* 91 percent of employers force employees to attend anti-union meetings one-on-one with supervisors

"Our research clearly shows that firings, bribes and threats are pervasive," said Nik Theodore, director of the Center for Urban Economic Development. "These actions greatly impede workers' ability to form unions."

In 1935, when Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act, it held the philosophy that protecting the right to organize helped to restore "equality of bargaining power between employers and employees" and removed "sources of industrial strife." What's more, enabling workers to unionize was seen as a practical way to help keep the economy humming along, since higher wages would increase the purchasing power of workers as consumers. In other words, Congress saw workers' rights as good for the overall economy. Today, however, the Republican-dominated Congress and anti-worker NLRB have been motivated by a much different philosophy.

The question now shifts to where will the new Democratic majority come down on this philosophical divide? In an age of globalized economies, unions are one vehicle for workers to try and receive their fair share of the pie. President Bush can point all he wants to low unemployment and a resurgent stock market as signs of a strong economy, but the fact is most Americans don't feel so bullish. Median incomes are flat, health care costs are soaring, pensions are being de-funded and corporate employers are threatening to shred the social contract with their employees that has prevailed for 60 years. American workers have lost a lot of ground over the last six years, with stagnant wages and a fraying social net, even as corporations have enjoyed record profits.

The Democratic majority in Congress could begin rectifying the situation by passing the Employee Free Choice Act, which already has 215 co-sponsors in the House and 43 in the Senate, even before the Democrats assume the helm. That act has a number of provisions which would make it easier for workers to organize and less difficult for unions to obtain good contracts for its members. Notably, the Employee Free Choice Act would make the following changes to federal labor law:

* Workers would be able to unionize by a simple majority of worker Currently, union elections and the organizing campaigns preceding them get derailed for years by unlawful and obstructive employer tactics. But the Employee Free Choice Act provides for "card check"--that a union will be certified as the exclusive bargaining representative for employees if a majority of employees in a particular workplace sign authorization cards.

* First-contract mediation and arbitration--
Currently, hostile employers respond to a successful unionization drive among their workers by simply refusing to enter into negotiations or to sign a collective bargaining agreement with the union. But the Employee Free Choice Act provides that if an employer and a union are engaged in bargaining for their first contract and are unable to reach agreement within 90 days, either party may refer the dispute to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service for mediation. If the FMCS has been unable to bring the parties to agreement after 30 days of mediation, the dispute will be referred to arbitration and the results of the arbitration shall be binding on the parties for two years.

* Stronger penalties for retaliating against employees attempting to unionize --
The Employee Free Choice Act provides that the NLRB must seek a federal court injunction against an employer whenever there is reasonable cause to believe the employer has retaliated against or threatened employees during an organizing or first-contract drive. It also increases penalties, including the amount an employer must pay to triple back pay when an employee is retaliated against, and civil fines of up to $20,000 per violation against employers found to have violated employees' rights during an organizing campaign or first-contract drive.

Amidst the expectations unleashed by the Democrats' retaking of Congress, it should not be forgotten that American workers have given a lot in recent years but have not received their fair share. It's past time to level the playing field. Passage of the Employee Free Choice Act would go a long way towards equalizing bargaining power between workers and employers.

[Dmitri Iglitzin is a labor law attorney in Seattle and a lecturer at the University of Washington Law School. Steven Hill is political reform director at the New America Foundation and author of 10 Steps to Repair American Democracy (www.10steps.net )].

Read More...

Summary only...

Army asks dead to sign up for another hitch

CNN.com
Army asks dead to sign up for another hitch

Story Highlights
•Letters inadvertently sent out to officers killed in action
•200 wounded soldiers also receive letters
•Invitations intended for soldiers who had recently left service
•Army sending out personnel to personally apologize to families

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Army said Friday it would apologize to the families of about 275 officers killed or wounded in action who were mistakenly sent letters urging them to return to active duty.

The letters were sent a few days after Christmas to more than 5,100 Army officers who had recently left the service. Included were letters to about 75 officers killed in action and about 200 wounded in action.

"Army personnel officials are contacting those officers' families now to personally apologize for erroneously sending the letters," the Army said in a brief news release issued Friday night.

The Army did not say how or when the mistake was discovered. It said the database normally used for such correspondence with former officers had been "thoroughly reviewed" to remove the names of wounded or dead soldiers.

"But an earlier list was used inadvertently for the December mailings," the Army statement said, adding that the Army is apologizing to those officers and families affected and "regrets any confusion."

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/05/dead.letters.ap/index.html

Read More...

Summary only...

New U.S. Congress looks to boost alternate fuels

Reuters
New U.S. Congress looks to boost alternate fuels
By Chris Baltimore

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers unveiled a raft of energy-related bills in the early hours of the 110th Congress aimed at boosting fuel ethanol use, extracting liquid fuels from coal and tightening automobile fuel efficiency rules.

But instead of heaping all their ideas into a behemoth energy bill like they did in 2005, this year's Congress looks poised to pursue energy legislation on a piecemeal basis.

U.S. crude oil prices shot to nearly $80 a barrel in 2006 and sounded alarms across Capitol Hill. Mild winter temperatures, new global supplies and slowing economic growth have sparked a 10 percent decline in prices since the beginning of 2007 - the sharpest drop since December 2004.

But a rising focus on "energy security" by both the Bush administration and Congress has added momentum to efforts to employ home-grown fuel sources like ethanol and coal to temper U.S. import needs.

Harry Reid, the Senate's top Democrat, introduced a broad "message bill" that will shape near-term talks in the chamber's energy and environment panels, which together hold jurisdiction over most energy matters.

Rather than specific initiatives, the bill provides a broad framework for committee action on hot button issues like vehicle fuel efficiency, biofuels and global warming.

The Senate Energy Committee slated an all-day session on February 1 to discuss ways to expand transportation biofuel use with industry groups and other stakeholders.

The panel will also hold a January 10 hearing on global oil markets and their impacts on U.S. economic and national security.

Separately, a group of Midwest senators, including prospective presidential candidate and Illinois Democrat Barack Obama, introduced the BioFuels Security Act, which would require the United States to use 60 billion gallons of ethanol and biodiesel a year by 2030.

"It's time for Congress to realize what farmers in America's heartland have known all along - that we have the capacity and ingenuity to decrease our dependence on foreign oil by growing our own fuel," Obama said. "But what we've been lacking is the political will."

Rising ethanol use has been a boon to U.S. farmers and has driven corn prices to the highest level in a decade.

Biorefineries produced about 5 billion gallons of ethanol last year, well on the way to the U.S. target of using at least 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels annually by 2012.

POUR ON THE COAL

Obama and Sen. Jim Bunning, Kentucky Republican, also introduced the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Promotion Act of 2007, which would set the stage for large-scale production of transportation fuels from coal.

Both lawmakers come from states with prodigious coal supplies, and the United States has a 250-year supply.

The bill focuses on using a process called "Fischer-Tropsch" which turns natural gas or coal into liquid fuel. The fuel, which was used by Germany during World World II, has seen a resurgence.

The bill would extend loan guarantees and tax credits for new coal-to-liquid plants, which can cost about $2 billion.

The bill boosts a current 20 percent tax credit for coal-to-liquid plants to a maximum of $200 million for each of the first 10 plants built, and extends the expiration of excise tax credits from 2009 to 2020, among other things.

Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, senior Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, wants to raise corporate average fuel economy standards to 40 miles per gallon (mpg) by or before 2017.

The fuel economy of cars and light trucks is down to 24.6 miles per gallon from its 1987-88 peak of 25.9 mpg.

Cars account for about 25 percent of domestic oil use, according to government estimates.

Read More...

Summary only...

Banking groups urge Pentagon to narrowly apply law

Reuters
Banking groups urge Pentagon to narrowly apply law
By John Poirier

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Banking trade groups want the Pentagon to narrowly apply a law that caps interest rates and fees on military personnel to payday loans only and not to other credit services, according to a letter obtained by Reuters on Friday.

Congress recently passed legislation that imposes a 36- percent cap on annual interest rates and fees that lenders can charge on credit cards and other loans provided to U.S. military personnel. The law, passed last year, was tucked into a Defense Department authorization bill.

"Our primary concern is that a broad application of the legislation could have the unfortunate impact of ... harming servicemen and women and their spouses and dependents by limiting their access to credit or increasing their credit costs," the letter said.

Banking lobbyists are worried the law essentially creates another regulator, the Pentagon, which will be required to work with federal banking regulators to implement it by October 2007.

The law has financial institutions scrambling to find ways to avoid being affected by the cap, which lobbyists say sets a worrisome precedent that could spill over into financial products outside the military.

The letter, dated January 5, is signed by five trade groups -- American Bankers Association, Association of Military Banks of America, Consumer Bankers Association, Independent Community Bankers of America and America's Community Bankers.

In the letter, which is addressed to David Chu, undersecretary for personnel and readiness, the banking groups urge the Pentagon to implement the law to apply to "payday loans," which can carry high fees for small denomination, short-term loans.

"What we're suggesting is if DOD takes a broad approach in implementing the (law), they could cut off a lot of very legitimate, very popular credit products that are helpful to the military," said Mark Tenhundfeld, director of regulatory policy at the ABA.

The "unintended consequences" could affect products currently being offered to military personnel, such as student and personal unsecured loans, mortgage refinancings, overdrafts and loans secured by 401(k) plans and insurance policies, the groups said in the letter.

The cap was established with much prodding from the Pentagon, which is concerned its services members are falling deep into debt -- a situation the Pentagon says distracts troops and hurts their ability to focus on their missions.

Officials have said the situation is also contributing to an increasing number of personal security clearance withdrawals and rejections within the U.S. military.

Attempts to reach Defense Department officials for comment on the letter were unsuccessful.

Read More...

Summary only...