The CIA vs. the Senate: Inside the shadowy turf war at the center of American government

Πηγή: The Salon
By MARCY WHEELER
Aug 14 2015

CIA chief John Brennan refuses to acknowledge surveillance conducted on the Senate's intelligence committee.

It’s funny what our CIA Directors will apologize for — or not.

Back in May, Senators Ron Wyden, Martin Heinrich and Mazie Hirono, all members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (SSCI), sent two letters to CIA Director John Brennan asking him to apologize. One — a classified letter not made public — “asked Brennan to correct the public record regarding inaccurate public statements that he made in March on a separate topic.” It was fairly obvious the public statements referred to Brennan’s address to the Council on Foreign Relations on March 13. In response to an audience question, Brennan had claimed the CIA doesn’t work with human rights abusers, a patently false claim.

The unclassified, public letter the senators sent on the same day asked Brennan “to acknowledge” that a CIA search of a server that was supposed to be dedicated to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of CIA’s torture program “was improper.” The senators also asked for a commitment that the CIA will not conduct such searches in the future.

At issue in this request was a fight over an internal CIA review of its own torture program, usually called the Panetta Review, because Leon Panetta had asked for it early in his tenure as CIA Director. Back in January 2014, Senator Mark Udall pressured the CIA to turn over the review, which offered proof that the agency had agreed with most conclusions that the SSCI Torture Report had reached. In response, the CIA launched an investigation into how SSCI staffers had obtained that review. Brennan had made an impassioned defense of the CIA’s investigation of the committee tasked with overseeing his agency in March 2014.

Now, over a year later, the Senators on SSCI were asking Brennan to admit he had been wrong.

Almost three months passed after the senators sent the letters, with nary a peep from the CIA to either one of them. Finally, on August 6 of this year, Brennan finally responded — but to just one of them. In his response, he corrected the lie he had told at CFR, notably acknowledging in the process that the secret request (the one that had asked that he correct a public statement) pertained to his claim that CIA “will not work with entities that are engaged” in human rights abuses. And while Brennan didn’t admit to having lied — at least in part, to protect the Saudis — he did say he understood the senators “concerns about my brief, extemporaneous remarks.”

In his letter correcting his lie, however, Brennan made no mention of the request on the same day that he acknowledge the CIA shouldn’t have spied on its Senate overseers.

Brennan’s ongoing refusal to admit the CIA shouldn’t investigate the Senate is all the more inexcusable given that — according to reporting from Vice’s Jason Leopold — Brennan considered apologizing for the improper search of SSCI’s server over a year ago. The CIA even drafted a letter on July 28, 2014, stating that Brennan had recently learned that the CIA’s Inspector General had “found support for your concern that CIA staff had improperly accessed the SSCI shared drive.” Brennan’s draft letter apologized “for the actions of CIA officers.”

But Brennan never sent that letter.

Instead, days later, he sent an entirely different letter informing SSCI Chair Dianne Feinstein and Ranking Member Saxby Chambliss that he would establish an Accountability Board to review what the IG had concluded. That Accountability Board rejected what the IG had found, and instead focused largely on incriminating Senate staffers. Feinstein issued a list of 15 factual problems with the Accountability Board, problems she had identified before its release but which were not corrected in the report, including that the Board had incorrectly accused a Senate staffer of something which, in actuality, a Director of National Intelligence staffer had done.

Translation: Having already drafted a letter admitting CIA was wrong, Brennan changed course and instead doubled down on attacking the Senate.

No wonder Wyden and others are still calling on Brennan to correct the record. His ongoing silence — his refusal to admit what he effectively already did last year — that the CIA was wrong — just serves as an opportunity for him, for his agency, to keep attacking those that oversee the agency.

So while Brennan can admit, indirectly, that our partners the Saudis behead dissidents and abuse journalists, he’s still not going to give up the chance to double down against those who might oversee his own work.

Or, perhaps more importantly, he’s unwilling to meet the other request the senators made: “a commitment that CIA will not conduct such searches in the future.”

Treaty on the seas is in rough Senate waters

Πηγή: Washington Post
By Walter Pincus
May 29 2012

“Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts,” goes the maxim popularized by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.).

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, used it last week in introducing the latest effort to get the Senate to pass the Law of the Sea Convention.

The Law of the Sea Convention, in effect since 1994 and ratified by 160 countries, sets international freedom of navigation rules and the guidelines for the use of deep-sea resources, including mining and fishing. The United States has not ratified the treaty, first completed in 1982. Without signing the agreement, then-President Ronald Reagan announced in 1983 the United States would act “in accordance” with the convention’s traditional uses of the oceans except for the deep-sea mining provisions.

The treaty was amended in 1994 during the Clinton administration to meet the Reagan objections. Both the Clinton White House and George W. Bush’s administration in 2004 and ’07, along with a bipartisan group of senators, supported ratification. Nonetheless it failed to come to a vote.

Why? As then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin wrote in a Sept. 17, 2007, letter to her state’s Republican senators, “Ratification has been thwarted by a small group of senators who are concerned about the perceived loss of U.S. sovereignty.”

Today, another small group is at it again, forcing Kerry to postpone any Senate vote on ratification until after the November elections. A two-thirds majority is required.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton testified Wednesday before the foreign relations panel, along with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey. She said it was being raised again because of “security and economic urgency.”

Supporting the latter argument, she said, previously U.S. energy companies weren’t technologically prepared to take advantage of the provisions that allow a country to claim economic sovereignty to 600 nautical miles from its coasts. That’s far beyond the current 200 nautical miles.

“U.S. oil and gas companies are now ready, willing and able to explore this area,” she said, but they need “international legal certainty” from the treaty “before they will or could make the substantial investments . . . needed to extract these far offshore resources.”

Clinton described arguments against the treaty as being “based on ideology and mythology, not in facts, evidence or the consequences of continuing failure to accede to the treaty.”

For example, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) raised the prospect that “under this treaty, any country could sue the United States in the International Tribunal Law of the Sea, not in the U.S. courts, or take the U.S. before binding arbitration,” under provisions designed to “reduce and control pollution of the maritime environment.”

Inhofe went on to cite an article by William C.G. Burns which, he said, named the United States as “the most logical state to bring action against.” Burns, however, in his 2006 article, adds that the convention “does not impose an absolute prohibition against pollution” and that it would be difficult to succeed with such legal action.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) raised another concern, repeating an argument that the treaty’s language about abating air pollution would enforce the Kyoto Protocol, which the United States has not ratified. “A lot of people believe . . . the administration wants to use this treaty as a way to get America into a regime relating to carbon, since it’s been unsuccessful doing so domestically,” Corker said.

Clinton responded, “It is our legal assessment that there is nothing in the convention that commits the U.S. to implement any commitments on greenhouse gases under any other regime. . . . It doesn’t require adherence to any specific emission policies.

Sen. James E. Risch (R-Idaho) raised one of the critics’ major arguments: money paid to the International Seabed Authority as royalties for extraction of resources from the deep sea are to be distributed by the authority.

“Why do we as Americans, give up our taxing authority, handing money over to the United Nations to develop some kind of formula that we have no idea what it’s going to?” Risch said.

Clinton noted that it’s not a tax but a royalty arrangement, similar to those that exist on land and sea. The royalty doesn’t start for five years, she added, then rises at 1 percent each year until it caps at 7 percent.

One of the 1994 modifications to the convention gives the United States a permanent seat on the Council of 36 signatories that sets the policies for royalties as well as approves their distribution. Those decisions must be made by consensus, meaning unanimous approval.

“We would have a permanent veto power over how the funds are distributed, and we could prevent them from going anywhere we did not want them to go,” Clinton said.

She later added that consensus is necessary to deal with “any decision that would impose an obligation on the United States” or any country.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) repeated several criticisms then added that the signatories “also help get to define the rules of engagement for the U.S. Navy all over the world.”

Dempsey diplomatically responded, “Where in the treaty do you see our rules of engagement or our activities limited, because they’re not limited in any way.”

One main selling point, emphasized by Clinton, is that “the largest single portion of the U.S. extended continental shelf is in the Arctic,” where Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark, through its ownership of Greenland, are already establishing their claims.

As Palin wrote in her 2007 letter, “If the U.S. does not ratify the convention, the opportunity to pursue our own claims to offshore areas in the Arctic Ocean might well be lost. As a consequence, our rightful claims to hydrocarbons, minerals, and other natural resources could be ignored.”

Perhaps it’s time for conservative Republicans to listen to Palin on something she knows about firsthand.

Senate blocks competing infrastructure plans as quarrel continues over Obama jobs plan

President Obama speaks in front of the Key Bridge, which spans Arlington, Va. and Washington, Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2011, urging Congress to pass the infrastructure piece of the American Jobs Act.

Πηγή: Washington Post

By AP
Nov 3 2011


WASHINGTON — Republicans in the Senate Thursday dealt President Barack Obama the third in a string of defeats on his stimulus-style jobs agenda, blocking a $60 billion measure for building and repairing infrastructure like roads and rail lines.

Supporters of the failed measure said it would have created tens of thousands of construction jobs and lifted the still-struggling economy. But Republicans unanimously opposed it for its tax surcharge on the wealthy and spending totals they said were too high.

The 51-49 vote fell well short of the 60 votes required under Senate procedures to start work on the bill. Every Republican opposed the president, as did Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska and former Democrat Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who still aligns with the party.

Obama’s loss was anything but a surprise, but the White House and its Democratic allies continue to press popular ideas from Obama’s poll-tested jobs package in what Republicans say is nothing more than a bare-knuckle attempt to gain a political edge by invoking the mantra of jobs but doing little to seek compromise.

“The truth is, Democrats are more interested in building a campaign message than in rebuilding roads and bridges,” said Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “And frankly, the American people deserve a lot better than that.”

“Their goal is to do everything they can to drag down this economy, to do anything they can to focus attention negatively on the President of the United States in hopes that he can get my job, perhaps, and that President Obama will be defeated,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said. “So let’s not talk about campaign speeches here on the Senate floor. Let’s talk about reality.”

After Republicans blocked Obama’s infrastructure plan, the president’s Democratic allies immediately killed a competing GOP infrastructure plan that would have extended existing highway and transit spending programs and paid for the spending with a $40 billion cut in unspent funding for other domestic programs. The White House opposed the measure over its spending cuts and provisions that would block recent clean air rules and make it harder for the administration to issue new rules.

Obama unveiled his $447 billion jobs plan in September and has launched a campaign-style effort — featuring multiple rallies in states crucial to his re-election bid — to try to get it passed. In votes last month, Republicans blocked the entire $447 billion jobs package and a subsequent attempt by Democrats to pass a $35 billion piece of it aimed at preventing layoffs of teachers and firefighters.

Another political flash point is the way Democrats have sought to pay for Obama’s jobs measures — a surcharge on income exceeding $1 million. The idea enjoys wide backing in opinion polls but is stoutly opposed by Republicans, who say it would hit small business owners and therefore threaten job growth.

With the demise of Thursday’s measure, an announcement could come as early as Friday on what’s the next piece of Obama’s jobs agenda to break out for a stand-alone vote. Democratic aides say the next measure would be legislation to provide a $4,800 tax credit for hiring an unemployed veteran and increasing the tax credit for hiring a veteran with a service-related disability to up to $9,600.

Republicans back the idea of the veterans hiring tax credit.

Thursday’s legislation would have provided an immediate $50 billion investment in roads, bridges, airports and transit systems. It also called for a $10 billion bank to leverage private and public capital for longer-term infrastructure projects.

The measure would be financed by a 0.7 percent surcharge on income over $1 million.

After Obama’s full $447 billion jobs bill was filibustered to death last month, the White House immediately announced it would seek votes on component pieces. That’s a way to exert political pressure on Republicans sensitive about their own jobs agenda, which so far has centered on relaxing regulations and boosting offshore oil exploration and drilling.

Obama last week uncorked a “We Can’t Wait” initiative that relies on executive authority rather than legislation from a bitterly divided Congress to help homeowners refinance “underwater” homes and give borrowers relief from their student loans.

Meanwhile, House GOP leaders are casting blame on the Senate for failing to act on 15 “forgotten” jobs bills, including a measure to repeal a law requiring federal, state and many local governments to withhold 3 percent of their payments to contractors until their taxes are paid.

Also Thursday, the House is poised to approve bipartisan legislation to remove a Securities and Exchange Commission ban that prevents small, privately held companies from using advertisements to solicit investors. The SEC ban, says bill sponsor Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., unfairly limits the ability of small companies to raise capital.

“While the president is out doing campaign events all over the country, what he could do is to actually come to Washington and be focused on trying to help pass bills that would create a better environment for job creation and help put the American people back to work,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said.

US Senate rejects Obama jobs bill

Barack Obama has spent weeks demanding that Congress pass a full version of a bill designed to boost growth

Πηγή: ABC News
By AFP
Oct 12 2011


In a blow to president Barack Obama, the US Senate effectively killed a jobs bill at the heart of his efforts to turn the US economy around in the run-up to the November 2012 elections.

Politicians voted 50-49 to advance the $US447 billion ($452 billion) plan, falling short of the 60 senators needed to do so, in the face of fierce opposition from Republicans eager to deny the president a second term.

"Tonight's vote is by no means the end of this fight," Mr Obama said in a statement released before the vote was over, but after its outcome was unmistakable, vowing to move his plan piecemeal "as soon as possible".

And he vowed to pile political pressure on Republicans in a series of votes aimed at forcing them to oppose funds aimed at helping middle class families and block tax hikes on the very richest Americans to pay for the plan.

 "With so many Americans out of work and so many families struggling, we can't take 'no' for an answer. Ultimately, the American people won't take 'no' for an answer," the embattled president said.

 The bare majority vote inflated Senate support for the measure, as some Democrats who backed ending debate on the legislation had said they would oppose its final passage - a point that led Republicans to crow that a bipartisan majority was rejecting the bill.

Mr Obama has spent weeks demanding Congress pass a full version of a bill designed to boost growth, cut the unemployment rate of 9.1 per cent and shield the fragile US recovery from the threat of European debt contagion.

Senate leaders announce bipartisan agreement to avert government shutdown

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., speaks with reporters Sept. 13 on Capitol Hill.

Πηγή: Washington Post
By Paul Kane and Rosalind S. Helderman

Sep. 27 2011

Senate leaders agreed to a deal Monday evening that is almost certain to avert a federal government shutdown, a prospect that had unexpectedly arisen when congressional leaders deadlocked over disaster relief funding.

After days of brinkmanship reminiscent of the budget battles that have consumed Washington this year, key senators clinched a compromise that would provide less money for disaster relief than Democrats sought but would also strip away spending cuts that Republicans demanded. The pact, which the Senate approved 79 to 12 and the House is expected to ratify next week, is expected to keep federal agencies open until Nov. 18.

“It will be a win for everyone,” said Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the plan “a reasonable way to keep the government operational.”

Aides to House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said he will support the compromise.

The spending battle marked the third time this year that congressional acrimony has brought the government to the edge of calamity. In April, Boehner and President Obama reached a deal on funding for 2011 about 90 minutes before a government shutdown was to begin. On Aug. 2, just hours before the deadline, Congress gave final approval to legislation lifting the government’s borrowing authority, averting a partial shutdown and the potential for a default on the federal debt.

Although this week’s fight ended with days, rather than hours, to spare, it drained many in Congress, who thought it was a senseless fight. Reid summed up the feeling of many lawmakers when he quoted Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who said there was too little money in dispute to raise the specter of a shutdown and to halt payments to those affected by natural disasters.

“Let’s fight when there’s something to fight about,” Reid quoted Isakson as saying during a speech on the Senate floor.

At issue was a dispute over how to fund disaster relief, a concern that was heightened in late August after an earthquake struck central Virginia and Hurricane Irene caused flooding in the Northeast.

Although Democrats said the Federal Emergency Management Agency needed more funding, they agreed to accept a Republican plan to spend $3.65 billion in disaster relief money, $1 billion of which would have gone toward the budget for the current fiscal year, which will end Friday. Republicans, concerned about adding to the budget deficit, refused to support the funding without $1.6 billion in accompanying cuts. Their largest target was an auto loan program popular with Democrats, leading to the standoff.

The showdown between the two sides was averted on Monday, when FEMA said it could make ends meet through the end of the week. That led to an agreement that calls for the agency and other government disaster relief programs to forgo the $1 billion in proposed funding for this week. Beginning Saturday and running to Nov. 18, FEMA can begin to tap the remaining $2.65 billion for ongoing efforts.

With the House out of session this week, the Senate approved a resolution that will keep the government open through next Tuesday. The House is expected to approve that extension in a voice vote Thursday, which does not require all members to be present, and then approve the longer-term bill next Tuesday.

Some lawmakers from hard-hit states are unhappy with the compromise, saying that it would result in a slight delay in processing aid to victims, and that the overall total of FEMA funding wouldn’t be enough to account for the damage caused by the disasters.

“They would delay the process by punting back to the House,” said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). The deal “also stripped $1 billion in disaster relief and provides less emergency funding for Missourians in the wake of record flooding and tornadoes,” he added.

The debate over the budget bill turned on sharp — and familiar — political lines that scuttled earlier talk that the two parties were going to tone down their attacks.

Republicans, particularly House conservatives, said they were unwilling to add to the federal deficit, even for disaster funding, and accused Democrats of overspending. Democrats used the debate to portray Republicans as “holding hostage” relief checks for those struck by tornadoes, flooding, forest fires and droughts, focusing much of their criticism on House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R), who represents Mineral, Va., the epicenter of the earthquake.

Although the agreement lifts the imminent specter of a government shutdown, it will not resolve the fight over how much FEMA needs to help disaster victims and whether that money must be offset with spending cuts.

The White House has said FEMA will need $4.6 billion for the next fiscal year — a figure many Democrats say underestimates the agency’s needs.

Democrats will push to fully fund FEMA’s request and perhaps broaden it during negotiations over spending for the rest of the year, but they were split Monday over what the compromise would mean for future funding battles.

“This is a very big and important move. It says we met each other halfway. We saved the jobs,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), referring to the the auto loan program. “We figured out a way to fund FEMA that was acceptable to them. It’s a template. We have to figure out how to meet each other halfway here.”

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), whose state was hit hard by flooding from Hurricane Irene, said the deal would solve the disaster issue — but only temporarily.

“I’m concerned about the fact that we give blank checks to Iraq and [Afghanistan] and we don’t want to take care of America for Americans,” he said. “It’s wrong, it’s foolish and it will come back to haunt us.”

Senate rejects House spending bill, leaving open possibility of government shutdown

Πηγή: Washington Post
By Felicia Sonmez, Rosalind S. Helderman and Paul Kane

Sep. 23 2011


The Senate on Friday defeated, 59 to 36, a GOP-authored short-term funding measure designed to keep the government running through mid-November, ratcheting up the pressure on party leaders to resolve an impasse on federal disaster relief funds ahead of a deadline at the end of next week.

With both chambers scheduled to begin a week-long recess later Friday, the next step on the funding resolution remains unclear. The Federal Emergency Management Agency could run out of funding as early as Monday, and the resolution currently keeping the federal government open is set to expire on Sept. 30.

At a Capitol news conference ahead of the Friday morning vote, House Republican leaders urged the Senate to take up the House-passed measure.

“With FEMA expected to run out of disaster funding as soon as Monday, the only path to getting assistance into the hands of American families immediately is for the Senate to approve the House bill,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said.

Hours earlier, the House had approved its version of the legislation by a 219-203 vote in an after-midnight roll call. But Democrats in both chambers have balked at the inclusion of more than $1 billion in cuts elsewhere in the budget in order to offset the additional disaster relief funding.

The vote in the upper chamber came after a midnight roll call, when House Republican leaders persuaded conservatives early Friday morning to support a stop-gap measure nearly identical to one they had rejected just 30 hours earlier. By a narrow margin, 213 Republicans supported the plan, along with six Democrats; 179 Democrats opposed it, joined by 24 Republicans.

Without a resolution, FEMA’s disaster relief fund will run out of money early next week and the rest of the government would be forced to shutdown Oct. 1.

FEMA said its Disaster Relief Fund had just $175 million as of Friday morning and would go broke by early next week, likely on Tuesday.

An unprecedented depletion of the fund would trigger federal laws governing how agencies are supposed to operate in the absence of funds, and the agency said it is consulting with Obama administration lawyers to determine how to proceed.

“The administration is committed to doing all it can under current legal authorities to continue vital operations, including assistance to individuals,” FEMA spokeswoman Rachel Racusen said in an e-mail. “ But there is no question this is a critical situation and one we are watching closely.”

House leaders contend that the Senate is responsible for blocking desperately needed disaster dollars from flowing to FEMA.

“You saw the House act,” said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) as he left the Capitol early Friday morning. “We are intending that the money gets to FEMA and to disaster victims as they need it.”

“I think Harry Reid’s political ploy is not going to work,” Cantor continued. “I guess Harry Reid will have to bear the burden of denying disaster victims the money they need.”

Friday’s House vote marked a reversal of fortunes for Boehner, who after losing the initial Wednesday vote on the House spending resolution found himself roaming the contours of a familiar dilemma — capitulate to fiscal hawks in his own party who want to spend less, or compromise with Democrats who want to spend more.

Instead, Boehner found another route: He huddled all day and night Thursday with his rank-and-file, warning them he would give them one more chance to approve the bill or he would be forced to agree to drop the offsetting cut, as Democrats had demanded.

In addition, after a 90-minute meeting with the House GOP Conference on Thursday afternoon, the leadership agreed to an additional, largely symbolic cut by striking $100 million from a loan program that funded the bankrupt solar panel manufacturerSolyndra. That company, which received the loan guarantees through the Obama administration’s 2009 stimulus legislation, has become a favorite target for Republicans in their critique of the White House’s handling of the economy.

As for the swipe at the program that had funded Solyndra, Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.) told colleagues on the House floor late Thursday that the goal was to “ensure that hard-earned dollars of the American people are not wasted in the way that we have seen” with the company.

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.) countered that the measure had hardly changed after a day of wrangling and still made “unacceptable cuts to an essential manufacturing jobs program to pay for equally essential disaster relief.”

The blow-up over what Boehner had once hoped would be a routine matter — a bill to merely keep government operating until Nov. 18 — illustrated what has become a central reality for the Republican speaker: He controls the House majority only on paper.

On any given vote, he must contend with a sizable bloc of his own members willing to buck his leadership in the name of shrinking government.

This leaves him in the uncomfortable position of having to consider alliances with Democrats — and facing negotiating those alliances from a position of weakness.

Despite the embarrassing loss on Wednesday’s vote, Republicans defended the decision to hold the vote even though they realized it was likely to fail. The GOP leadership wanted to demonstrate to the recalcitrant conservatives that their actions had real consequences. One senior Republican adviser called the process “an educational experience.”

“I’ve always believed in allowing the House to work its will. I understood what the risk was yesterday. But why not put the bill on the floor and let the members speak? And they did,” Boehner said Thursday morning at his weekly press briefing.

According to GOP lawmakers and aides, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) had reported to Boehner and Cantor that a few dozen Republicans would oppose the legislation, mostly because they thought its spending levels were too far above those they voted for in the spring when they approved the 2012 budget originally proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

Boehner’s leadership team knew that it would need Democratic votes to approve the plan, but only by Wednesday afternoon did they fully understand that House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) were whipping their caucus to oppose the measure and make Boehner deliver nearly all Republican votes for passage. Rather than pulling the bill from the floor, Boehner told his deputies to hold the vote.

The extraordinary effort required to pass such a basic bill suggests even bigger battles later in the fall on potential blockbuster deficit-reduction plans.

The stopgap spending bill is necessary because the House and Senate have stalemated over how to fund government through the whole year. Without a stopgap in place to buy time for further negotiations, the government will shut down at month’s end.

House leaders had hoped to pass the short-term funding bill without the strife that had characterized recent debates, which they knew would erode financial markets’ confidence and spark further disgust among voters. They would do it by agreeing to set spending in the bill at a rate of $1.043 trillion for the year, the amount set in the rancorous August deal to raise the nation’s debt ceiling.

But that plan ran headlong into the political realities of their divided chamber — as well as a congressional calendar that provides for a week-long recess starting Friday so that Jewish lawmakers can observe their holidays next week.

Democrats, stung by accusations that they had made too many concessions in the debt fight during the summer, stood unified against the measure over a Republican decision to pair $3.65 billion in funding for disaster relief with a $1.5 billion spending cut to the the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing program, which offers loans to car companies to encourage the production of energy-efficient cars. That particular cut was anathema to many Democrats, who argued that the loan program has generated tens of thousands of jobs.

Democrats relished the prospect that their unified opposition forced Boehner to publicly struggle.

“In the House, the majority controls all the mechanisms,” said Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.). “You’d better be able to produce the votes. You just cant go willy-nilly to the floor and then say, ‘Well, oopsy.’ ”

Senate Armed Services Committee Says "No" to Worldwide War; Overreaches on Indefinite Detention

Πηγή: ACLU

Jul 6th, 2011

By Sam Milgrom, Washington Legislative Office

Hooray! With your help, we prevented the Senate from authorizing the president to engage in worldwide war.

For months, we have been pushing to prevent Congress from passing legislation that would give this president (and any of his successors) the authority to engage our country in a worldwide war without a defined enemy.

A couple of weeks ago, the Senate Armed Services Committee passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 (NDAA), H.R. 1253. The committee recently released the official language— and the worldwide war authority provision was nowhere to be found!

We can take only a moment to pat ourselves on the back because the fight is far from over. We now need to turn our attention to the devastating indefinite detention provisions that the committee did include in the bill.

These provisions are inconsistent with fundamental American values embodied in the Constitution and in this country's adherence to the rule of law.

If enacted, the provisions could:
authorize the federal government to imprison indefinitely without charge or trial civilians — including American citizens— apprehended both inside and outside the United States, including individuals who had no role in the 9/11 attacks or any actual hostilities (the bill would mark the first time since 1950 that Congress explicitly authorizes the detention without charge or trial of American citizens)
mandate military detention of some civilians who would otherwise be outside of military control, including civilian suspects apprehended within the United States itself
transfer to the Department of Defense core prosecutorial and investigative responsibilities now held by the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, and the Marshals Service, as well as by the state attorneys general of the 50 states.

These provisions could significantly cut back on the historic protections provided to American citizens by the Non-Detention Act of 1971 and to all U.S. residents by the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. To ensure that Congress adheres to the laws of our nation's Constitution, it is of the utmost importance that the proper committee presides over such critical national security decisions.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, not the Senate Armed Services Committee, has jurisdiction over whether state and federal civilian law enforcement will continue to have authority over civilian suspects who are not otherwise under military control, and over whether the military may carry out the domestic law enforcement function of detaining civilian suspects picked up within the United States. Therefore, we are encouraging the Senate Judiciary Committee to assert its jurisdiction and prevent military control over what should be federal, state and local law enforcement decisions.

Last Friday we sent this letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee asking them to assert their jurisdiction over these issues. Please join our efforts and take action. We saw great success on the worldwide war provision earlier this summer and we need your help again. Urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on these provisions, and to assert its jurisdiction to markup sections 1031, 1032, and 1036 before the NDAA goes to the Senate floor.

And check back here for the latest on the NDAA!

US Senate drops Libya resolution to focus on national debt

US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has pulled a resolution to authorize the US military conflict in Libya from the Senate schedule

The US Senate hastily dropped plans to vote Tuesday on a symbolic resolution authorising the US role in Libya amid a Republican insurrection to demand action instead on the national debt.

Πηγή: The Telegraph 10:54PM BST 05 Jul 2011

Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority leader, said: "We've agreed, notwithstanding the broad support for the Libyan resolution, the most important thing for us to focus on this week is the budget."

His comments came after several angry speeches from Republicans who complained that Libya was the wrong measure at the wrong time and noted Mr Reid had cancelled an annual week-long recess to make progress in stalled debt talks.