Ahhhh oversight.

[wordsmythe]

Senate Judiciary Chairman subpoenas Karl Rove Nick Juliano
Published: Thursday July 26, 2007

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy announced Thursday he had subpoenaed White House adviser Karl Rove and his deputy. He accused them of stonewalling a widening probe into the firing of federal prosecutors.

"The Bush-Cheney White House continues to place great strains on our constitutional system of checks and balances," Leahy said in issuing the subpoenas. "Not since the darkest days of the Nixon Administration have we seen efforts to corrupt federal law enforcement for partisan political gain and such efforts to avoid accountability."

The Judiciary Committee issued subpoenas to Rove and Deputy White House political director J. Scott Jennings. The deadline for testimony and documents is Aug. 2 at 10 a.m.

"We have now reached a point where the accumulated evidence shows that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States Attorneys last year," Leahy said, according to The Associated Press.

In a letter to Rove, Leahy lamented that the subpoena he issued was a last resort.

"I have issued this subpoena after exhausting every avenue for voluntary cooperation from you and the White House," Leahy wrote. "I hope that the White House takes this opportunity to reconsider its blanket claim of executive privilege, especially in light of the testimony that the President was not involved in the dismissals of these U.S. Attorneys. I am left to ask what the White House is so intent on hiding that it cannot even identify the documents, the dates, the authors and recipients that they claim are privileged."

Democrats on the Judiciary Committee also called for a special prosecutor to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales lied under oath when he testified before Congress.

"It has become apparent that the attorney general has provided at a minimum half-truths and misleading statements," four members of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote in a letter to Solicitor General Paul Clement.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, has not yet weighed in on the Rove subpoenas, and is expected to speak at a press conference Thursday afternoon.

E-mails released by the Justice Department have shown Rove was involved in discussions over the firing of US Attorneys. Nine attorneys were dismissed or resigned abruptly last year, and Democrats argue they were dismissed for political reasons.

The White House quickly defended its political brain-trust, accusing Democrats of partisanship in their pursuit of information about the US Attorneys' dismissal.

"Every day congressional Democrats prove that they're more interested in headlines than doing the business Americans want them to do," White House spokesman Tony Fratto told the AP. "And Americans are now taking notice that this Congress, under Democratic leadership, is failing to tackle important issues."

But Leahy said the investigation and subpoenas were necessary to maintain transparent, balanced government.

"[A]n ever-growing series of controversies and scandals have revealed an Administration driven by a vision of an all-power Executive over our constitutional system of checks and balances, one that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness, and ideology over competence," Leahy said.

The Judiciary Committee earlier this year heard limited testimony from former Rove aide Sara Taylor, who cited President Bush's executive privilege in refusing to answer some questions. Former White House counsel Harriet Miers is facing contempt of Congress charges authorized by the House Judiciary Committee after refusing to appear when it subpoenaed her earlier this month.

In his letter to Rove, Leahy outlined the evidence of White House involvement in the US Attorney scandal. E-mails obtained by the Judiciary Committee show Rove was interested in sacking US Attorneys as early as 2005 and that he raised political considerations in advancing the dismissal of New Mexico US Attorney David Iglesias, Leahy says.

The letter also contends that Rove tried to encourage the Justice Department to pursue voter fraud cases in the run-up to elections. Such cases are against Justice Department policy because they can influence election results by disenfranchising voters.

"The evidence of untoward White House interference with federal law enforcement threatens our elections and has seriously undercut the American people’s confidence in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement," Leahy wrote.

[Highwayman]

The 110th Congress

Over 300 executive branch investigations or inquiries.
400 requests for documents, interviews or testimony.
Over 550 officials testified.
More than 600 oversight hearings.
87,000-plus hours spent responding.
430,000 pages of documents.

Results 0

Legislative agenda items passed

Results 1. (Minimum wage and they had to cave on troop withdrawal to get that.)

The primary function of Congress is to legislate. It’s time for Congress to stop pissing away the taxpayers money and go to work doing their jobs. Congress promised to have all of its appropriations bills done this month and hasn’t. The end of the month is next Tuesday and we all know these clowns don’t work Mondays and Fridays.

[wordsmythe]

Think Progress » Senate Speaks: No Permanent Bases In Iraq

Senate Speaks: No Permanent Bases In Iraq
Yesterday, the Senate unanimously passed an amendment to the Iraq supplemental spending bill proposed by Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) that would require the Bush administration not to use any appropriated funds for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq. The amendment also called for the U.S. not exercise control over Iraqi oil. Biden’s amendment reads as follows:

To provide that no funds made available by title I of this Act may be made available to establish permanent United States military bases in Iraq or to exercise control by the United States over the oil infrastructure or oil resources of Iraq.

Earlier this year, the House passed an amendment offered by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) that similarly stated no funds should be used for permanent base construction.

Congress has now spoken with a clear and unambiguous voice a time when there are troubling signs that the administration wants to make the U.S. presence permanent in Iraq. For example, the administration is currently constructing a $592 million U.S. embassy in Baghdad that spans the size of 80 football fields.

Will this be yet another law that the administration chooses to ignore?

[wordsmythe]

House may pass security bill today - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON - The House is expected to pass a homeland security bill and send it to President Bush as early as today. Last night, the Senate approved the package of security measures recommended by the 9/11 Commission, shifting more federal money to high-risk states and cities and requiring more stringent screening of air and sea cargo.

The measure passed by a 85-8 vote.

House passage would give Democrats a much-needed legislative victory just a week before Congress adjourns for its August recess.

Along with a boost in the minimum wage, which went into effect on Tuesday, the 9/11 Commission bill would be at the top of the Democratic majority's achievement list if President Bush signs it into law.

The White House has expressed opposition to several provisions in the bill, particularly a requirement that within five years all ship containers be scanned for nuclear devices before they leave foreign ports for the United States, but it has not issued a veto threat.

The administration has questioned the feasibility of installing radiation monitoring equipment in more than 600 foreign ports. To soften opposition, the bill's authors gave the Homeland Security secretary authority to delay implementation in two-year increments if needed.

The bill also requires the screening of all cargo on passenger aircraft within three years.

The independent 9/11 Commission in 2004 came out with 41 recommendations to prevent another terrorist attack, covering tighter domestic security, reform of intelligence gathering and new foreign policy directions.

Congress and the White House followed through on several of those recommendations, including creating the new position of director of national intelligence and tightening screening procedures on land borders.

But Democrats, in taking over Congress, charged that the GOP response to the recommendations had been insufficient. The House passed its version of the 9/11 bill on the first day of Democratic control last January, and the Senate approved its bill in March.

Efforts to reach a House-Senate compromise on the issue gained momentum only after Democrats agreed to drop language, which had prompted a veto threat, that would have given airport screeners collective bargaining rights.

Other Democratic priorities have met with less success: Immigration reform couldn't get through the Senate, the president vetoed stem cell research legislation, and the House and Senate were still trying to work out a deal on lobbying reform.

The 9/11 bill would change the formula for distributing federal security grants to ensure that high-risk states and urban areas get a greater share. High-risk cities such as New York and Washington have complained that the current formula, which divides money more evenly around the country, does not reflect the realities of the terrorist threat.

The bill also establishes a new interoperability grant program to assure that local, state and federal officials can communicate with each other and approves $4 billion over four years for rail, transit and bus security.

It strengthens security measures for the Visa Waiver Program, which allows travelers from select countries to visit the United States without a visa and, in another provision opposed by the White House, requires that the total amount appropriated for the intelligence community be made public.

Final House-Senate agreement this week came only after Democrats agreed to a Republican demand that gives protection from lawsuits to people who in good faith report what they believe is terrorist activity around airplanes, trains and buses. The issue grew out of an incident last fall when six Muslim scholars were removed from a Minneapolis flight after other passengers said they were acting strangely. The scholars have filed suit, saying their civil rights were violated.

___

The bills are H.R.1 and S.4

[wordsmythe]

FOXNews.com - Senators Agree to Extra $3 Billion for Border Security - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Senators Agree to Extra $3 Billion for Border Security


WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed Thursday to devote an additional $3 billion to gaining control over the U.S.-Mexico border.

The move puts Congress on a path to overriding President Bush's promised veto of a $38 billion homeland security spending bill.

The deal, approved by an 89-1 vote, resurrects a GOP plan to pass some of the most popular parts of Bush's failed immigration bill. That includes money for additional Border Patrol agents and fencing along the southern border.

Democrats liked the money. But they objected to Republican proposals such as allowing law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status and cracking down on people who overstay their visas.

Efforts broke down Wednesday to make progress on a compromise containing only the border security money.

But Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, resolved their differences overnight and announced agreement Thursday morning. Cornyn won a promise to use some money to pursue immigrants who had entered the United States legally but had overstayed their visas.

Reid had apparently thought that Cornyn wanted harsher language.

"I was wrong and Senator Cornyn was right," Reid acknowledged.

The measure initially was opposed by the White House, top Republicans said, and it clearly puts the president in a box. Bush had promised a veto of the overall homeland security bill for spending $2.3 billion more than he requested.

But the White House signaled it would at least accept the added money for the border.

"To the extent Congress supports additional emergency funding, we want to work with them to make sure it is spent on the highest border security priorities," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

Now, Bush's stalwarts in Congress, including Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., are poised to override the president's veto on the entire bill.

Cornyn predicted the bill would "pass by a veto-proof margin" and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters the bill might get 90 votes in the 100-member Senate.

The measure probably will be the first spending bill for the budget year beginning Oct. 1 that will arrive on Bush's desk. The president, however, demanded on Thursday that the Democratic-controlled Congress focus on delivering the Pentagon's budget to him before lawmakers take their August vacation.

The money approved Thursday would go toward seizing "operational control" over the U.S.-Mexico border by using additional Border Patrol agents, vehicle barriers, border fencing and observation towers. In addition, there is Cornyn's effort against people who overstay their visas.

Graham said the $3 billion would pay for "more boots on the ground, more people patrolling our border making it harder for somebody to come across illegally. We should have done this a long time ago."

Bush and Republicans such as Graham and Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona had argued during last month's immigration debate that a comprehensive approach to overhauling immigration policy was the only way to attract bipartisan support.

The bill was condemned by conservative talk radio and congressional foes as offering "amnesty." After it failed to pass, Graham and others changed their minds and offered the border security plan.

Graham and Kyl said the public will not accept the more contentious parts, especially the plan to give millions of illegal immigrants a way to earn U.S. citizenship, until the border with Mexico is made more secure.

"Border security is the gate that you must pass through to get to overall comprehensive reform," said Graham. The senator is up for re-election next year and faces political heat at home for backing Bush's unpopular immigration plan.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said he is circulating a plan that would grant some legal status to illegal immigrants but would stop short of giving them citizenship.

That approach "would take the teeth out of the amnesty argument," Specter said. "I think we can act this year. I think this bill is very close to doable."

[Army_of_One]

[quote=wordsmythe;47009]

Democrats liked the money. But they objected to Republican proposals such as allowing law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status and cracking down on people who overstay their visas./QUOTE]

So what would be wrong with that? WHo's side are the DEms on?

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

Think Progress » Senate Speaks: No Permanent Bases In Iraq

Senate Speaks: No Permanent Bases In Iraq

Old news. This was passed last year under the previous Congress. Note the date of the post; May 4, 2006.

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

House may pass security bill today - Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON - The House is expected to pass a homeland security bill and send it to President Bush as early as today. Last night, the Senate approved the package of security measures recommended by the 9/11 Commission, shifting more federal money to high-risk states and cities and requiring more stringent screening of air and sea cargo.

The bills are H.R.1 and S.4

In the works but not a done deal yet.

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

FOXNews.com - Senators Agree to Extra $3 Billion for Border Security - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Senators Agree to Extra $3 Billion for Border Security


WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats and Republicans agreed Thursday to devote an additional $3 billion to gaining control over the U.S.-Mexico border.

The move puts Congress on a path to overriding President Bush's promised veto of a $38 billion homeland security spending bill.

The deal, approved by an 89-1 vote, resurrects a GOP plan to pass some of the most popular parts of Bush's failed immigration bill. That includes money for additional Border Patrol agents and fencing along the southern border....

...But Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, resolved their differences overnight and announced agreement Thursday morning. Cornyn won a promise to use some money to pursue immigrants who had entered the United States legally but had overstayed their visas.

Reid had apparently thought that Cornyn wanted harsher language.

"I was wrong and Senator Cornyn was right," Reid acknowledged......

Senator Reid was wrong. It was only a little tantrum. Here’s the sound bite of Harry eating crow.

YouTube Video