http://www.treeoflife.nu/gabriel-cousens-m-d/activism-outreach/bill-510/
Senate Bill S510 Makes it Illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food
By Steve Green
S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US.
It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.
“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.” It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food." ~ Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower.
Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes.
S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food AND FARMING.
History
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.
S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.
1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.
2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.
4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.
5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds – How to criminalize them, for more details.
6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.
7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production – put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.
8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.
9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed — the Five Pillars of Food Safety — are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.
10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review.
It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the US.
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) is the sponsor of this bill.
The bill's co-sponsors are:
Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
Jeff Bingaman [D-NM]
Richard Burr [R-NC]
Roland Burris [D-IL]
Saxby Chambliss [R-GA]
Christopher Dodd [D-CT]
Michael Enzi [R-WY]
Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Judd Gregg [R-NH]
Thomas Harkin [D-IA]
Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
John Isakson [R-GA]
Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Ben Nelson [D-NE]
Tom Udall [D-NM]
David Vitter [R-LA]
Write these senators today and tell them to revoke their support of Senate Bill 510!
You may use the following letter in your correspondence:
Dear Congress(wo)man,
I am writing to express my deep concern over your sponsorship of Senate Bill 510. This bill represents yet another attempt to place more power into the hands of a centralized government, while taking power away from states and individual citizens. The danger of this bill is that it does so in the domain of our food. It sets in place a number of preconditions for manipulation of America's food supply and threatens to strip us of our freedoms to grow, sell, and buy food. We the people have elected you to office to serve us, not to disempower us and make us subject to bureaucratic regulations lacking our best interests. Please remove your sponsorship from Bill S510.
Sincerely,
(your name)
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Friday, July 30, 2010
Friday, December 11, 2009
Coburn, Vitter plan to ridicule public option backfires
http://salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2009/12/04/amendment
Friday, Dec 4, 2009
Coburn, Vitter plan to ridicule public option backfires
When GOP senators wrote an amendment designed to embarrass Democrats, they got a little surprise
By Emily Holleman
At the town halls this summer, people who came to protest against healthcare reform had a few different messages and complaints. One ended up turning into a refrain: If the public option is so great, the protesters would ask their senators and representatives, then why won't Congress be using it?
Now, as the Senate's debate over its version of reform legislation kicks into gear, two Republicans -- Sens. Tom Coburn and David Vitter -- have picked up that theme and are running with it. The two authored an amendment they want attached to the bill; it would require members of Congress to enroll in whatever version of the public option the final legislation creates, if it includes one.
Both Coburn and Vitter are vehement opponents of the public option, and they're hoping to prove themselves right by showing that no senator who's in his or her right mind would want their healthcare covered by it. They've gotten a surprise, though: Genuine support for their amendment from someone on the other side of the aisle -- and a proponent of the public option, at that -- Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.
Brown doesn't have any illusions about why Coburn and Vitter decided to introduce the amendment. "It's clear they just want to score political points. They hate the public option… they want to introduce [the amendment] and have it lose," the senator said in an interview with Salon on Friday.
But Brown's a strong supporter of the public option, and he's actually been taking a stand like this one since he was first elected to the House nearly 17 years ago, keeping a campaign promise to pay for his own coverage until Congress passed health insurance for everyone. For most of that time, he paid out of pocket; now, he's on his wife's plan, which costs him a fair amount than just using the coverage he's entitled to as a senator would. So he decided he wanted to co-sponsor Coburn and Vitter's amendment.
Senators are usually eager to collect co-sponsors for their bills and amendments, especially ones from the other party, for the simple reason that this helps the bill pass. It turns out their attitude is a bit different when the amendment in question is actually a political ploy, however. Brown's office contacted Coburn's about co-sponsorship of the amendment nine times last week, to no avail.
"We did get an email back saying they would check with their boss," Brown says, but that was the extent of the response.
So on Friday, Brown took matters into his own hands, going to the Senate floor and asking to be added as a co-sponsor to the amendment by unanimous consent. Since objecting under these circumstances is pretty much unheard of, Brown was finally added as a co-sponsor, along with fellow Democrats Chris Dodd and Barbara Mikulski.
Afterwards, Coburn spokesman John Hart claimed that his boss is "happy to have [Brown] on." He did note, however, that Brown had opposed a similar amendment when a reform bill was in the Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Asked by Salon about his earlier vote, Brown said, "The one I voted against was to include all of the congressional staff. And the public option is an option. And one of the beauties of the public option is that people have a choice. I don't want to tell the people … in my office what their families should do."
Friday, Dec 4, 2009
Coburn, Vitter plan to ridicule public option backfires
When GOP senators wrote an amendment designed to embarrass Democrats, they got a little surprise
By Emily Holleman
At the town halls this summer, people who came to protest against healthcare reform had a few different messages and complaints. One ended up turning into a refrain: If the public option is so great, the protesters would ask their senators and representatives, then why won't Congress be using it?
Now, as the Senate's debate over its version of reform legislation kicks into gear, two Republicans -- Sens. Tom Coburn and David Vitter -- have picked up that theme and are running with it. The two authored an amendment they want attached to the bill; it would require members of Congress to enroll in whatever version of the public option the final legislation creates, if it includes one.
Both Coburn and Vitter are vehement opponents of the public option, and they're hoping to prove themselves right by showing that no senator who's in his or her right mind would want their healthcare covered by it. They've gotten a surprise, though: Genuine support for their amendment from someone on the other side of the aisle -- and a proponent of the public option, at that -- Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio.
Brown doesn't have any illusions about why Coburn and Vitter decided to introduce the amendment. "It's clear they just want to score political points. They hate the public option… they want to introduce [the amendment] and have it lose," the senator said in an interview with Salon on Friday.
But Brown's a strong supporter of the public option, and he's actually been taking a stand like this one since he was first elected to the House nearly 17 years ago, keeping a campaign promise to pay for his own coverage until Congress passed health insurance for everyone. For most of that time, he paid out of pocket; now, he's on his wife's plan, which costs him a fair amount than just using the coverage he's entitled to as a senator would. So he decided he wanted to co-sponsor Coburn and Vitter's amendment.
Senators are usually eager to collect co-sponsors for their bills and amendments, especially ones from the other party, for the simple reason that this helps the bill pass. It turns out their attitude is a bit different when the amendment in question is actually a political ploy, however. Brown's office contacted Coburn's about co-sponsorship of the amendment nine times last week, to no avail.
"We did get an email back saying they would check with their boss," Brown says, but that was the extent of the response.
So on Friday, Brown took matters into his own hands, going to the Senate floor and asking to be added as a co-sponsor to the amendment by unanimous consent. Since objecting under these circumstances is pretty much unheard of, Brown was finally added as a co-sponsor, along with fellow Democrats Chris Dodd and Barbara Mikulski.
Afterwards, Coburn spokesman John Hart claimed that his boss is "happy to have [Brown] on." He did note, however, that Brown had opposed a similar amendment when a reform bill was in the Senate Health, Education Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee.
Asked by Salon about his earlier vote, Brown said, "The one I voted against was to include all of the congressional staff. And the public option is an option. And one of the beauties of the public option is that people have a choice. I don't want to tell the people … in my office what their families should do."
Senator Sanders Offers Medicare-for-All Amendment
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/04-4
Friday, December 4, 2009
Physicians for National Healthcare Program (PNHP)
Senator Sanders Offers Medicare-for-All Amendment in Senate
WASHINGTON -- Challenging head-on the powerful private insurance and pharmaceutical industries, Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced an amendment to the Senate health reform bill Wednesday that would replace the bulk of the Senate bill's language with provisions establishing a single-payer, Medicare-for-All program.
Joining with Sanders, I-Vt., in co-sponsoring the measure, known as Senate Amendment 2837, were Senators Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Roland Burris, D-Ill. Other senators, including Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, have previously declared their support for single-payer health reform. The vote on the measure could take place in the next few days.
"This amendment starts from the premise that health care is a human right, and that every citizen, rich or poor, should have access to health care, just as every citizen has access to the fire department, the police or public schools," a statement from Sanders' office said.
The single-payer approach embodied in Sanders' amendment stands in sharp contrast to the reform models being offered by the Senate and House leadership and the White House. Those bills would enhance the central role of private health insurers.
Sanders' amendment, on the other hand, would replace the present crazy-quilt array of for-profit insurers with a single nonprofit, public financing agency, thereby slashing administrative waste in the system and redirecting the savings to clinical care.
Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program, said, "This historic move by Sen. Sanders and his colleagues - it's the first time single payer will be voted upon on the floor of the Senate - is yet another sign of the strong and growing support for an improved Medicare for All among the public and the medical profession.
"In contrast, the Senate leadership's deeply flawed bill doesn't expand coverage until 2014, would still leave 24 million uninsured, and would place no effective constraints on exploding costs," he said. "Sanders amendment would cover everyone from the start and allow for effective cost-containment.
"Physicians and patients alike stand to gain enormously from the adoption of this measure," Young said. "No effort should be spared to ask every senator to vote yes on Senate Amendment 2837."
Sanders' measure, which is largely patterned after a bill he introduced last March, the American Health Security Act (S. 703), would cover all of the 46 million Americans who currently lack coverage and improve benefits for all Americans by eliminating co-pays and deductibles and restoring free choice of physician.
Highlights of the amendment include the following:
* Patients go to any doctor or hospital of their choice.
* Comprehensive benefits, including coverage for dental, mental health, and prescription drugs.
* By eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry, along with the burdensome paperwork imposed on physicians, hospitals and other providers, the plan saves at least $400 billion annually - enough money to provide comprehensive, quality care to all.
* Community health centers are fully funded, giving the 60 million Americans now living in rural and underserved areas access to care.
* To address the critical shortage of primary care physicians and dentists, the bill provides resources for the National Health Service Corps to train an additional 24,000 health professionals.
* The program is paid for by combining current sources of government health spending into a single fund with modest new payroll and income taxes amounting to less than what most businesses and people now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.
* While federally funded, the program is to be administered by the states.
Sanders, who serves on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, is a longtime advocate of fundamental health care reform.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Physicians for National Healthcare Program (PNHP)
Senator Sanders Offers Medicare-for-All Amendment in Senate
WASHINGTON -- Challenging head-on the powerful private insurance and pharmaceutical industries, Sen. Bernie Sanders introduced an amendment to the Senate health reform bill Wednesday that would replace the bulk of the Senate bill's language with provisions establishing a single-payer, Medicare-for-All program.
Joining with Sanders, I-Vt., in co-sponsoring the measure, known as Senate Amendment 2837, were Senators Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Roland Burris, D-Ill. Other senators, including Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, have previously declared their support for single-payer health reform. The vote on the measure could take place in the next few days.
"This amendment starts from the premise that health care is a human right, and that every citizen, rich or poor, should have access to health care, just as every citizen has access to the fire department, the police or public schools," a statement from Sanders' office said.
The single-payer approach embodied in Sanders' amendment stands in sharp contrast to the reform models being offered by the Senate and House leadership and the White House. Those bills would enhance the central role of private health insurers.
Sanders' amendment, on the other hand, would replace the present crazy-quilt array of for-profit insurers with a single nonprofit, public financing agency, thereby slashing administrative waste in the system and redirecting the savings to clinical care.
Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program, said, "This historic move by Sen. Sanders and his colleagues - it's the first time single payer will be voted upon on the floor of the Senate - is yet another sign of the strong and growing support for an improved Medicare for All among the public and the medical profession.
"In contrast, the Senate leadership's deeply flawed bill doesn't expand coverage until 2014, would still leave 24 million uninsured, and would place no effective constraints on exploding costs," he said. "Sanders amendment would cover everyone from the start and allow for effective cost-containment.
"Physicians and patients alike stand to gain enormously from the adoption of this measure," Young said. "No effort should be spared to ask every senator to vote yes on Senate Amendment 2837."
Sanders' measure, which is largely patterned after a bill he introduced last March, the American Health Security Act (S. 703), would cover all of the 46 million Americans who currently lack coverage and improve benefits for all Americans by eliminating co-pays and deductibles and restoring free choice of physician.
Highlights of the amendment include the following:
* Patients go to any doctor or hospital of their choice.
* Comprehensive benefits, including coverage for dental, mental health, and prescription drugs.
* By eliminating the high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry, along with the burdensome paperwork imposed on physicians, hospitals and other providers, the plan saves at least $400 billion annually - enough money to provide comprehensive, quality care to all.
* Community health centers are fully funded, giving the 60 million Americans now living in rural and underserved areas access to care.
* To address the critical shortage of primary care physicians and dentists, the bill provides resources for the National Health Service Corps to train an additional 24,000 health professionals.
* The program is paid for by combining current sources of government health spending into a single fund with modest new payroll and income taxes amounting to less than what most businesses and people now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.
* While federally funded, the program is to be administered by the states.
Sanders, who serves on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, is a longtime advocate of fundamental health care reform.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Al Franken's Mick Jagger could liven up Senate
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/franken-did-you-hear-the-one-about-the-comedian-who-becomes-a-us-senator.html
Al Franken's Mick Jagger impersonation could liven up Senate
It's official. After an election tally recount that lasted eight months, cost millions of dollars and tied up several courts, Al Franken, one of the early stars of NBC's "Saturday Night Live," is finally joining that exclusive club known as the U.S. Senate.
Democrats on Capitol Hill and at the White House were delighted at the news, seeing in Franken's arrival a 60th vote that would help them deter Republican filibusters.
For his part, the new senator -- restrained since the November election by a court fight against Sen. Norm Coleman -- was exuberant. Flanked by his wife Frannie, he thanked voters and added, "I can't wait to get started."
Mindful of the pitfalls of being a national figure before he was a name in state politics, Franken said he considered himself not the 100th senator but Minnesota's second senator.
"I know there's been a lot of talk about the fact that when I'm sworn in I'll be the 60th member of the Democratic caucus, but that's not how I see it," said Franken, who's expected to be seated Monday. "I'm going to Washington to be the second senator from the state of Minnesota, and that's how I'm going to do this job."
The reticence is well-placed. Even with Franken's vote, Democrats don't have a slam-dunk majority. Some, like Massachusetts' Sen. Ted Kennedy and West Virginia's 91-year-old Robert Byrd, are ailing. Others, like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, are moderates who sometimes vote with Republicans.
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, asked recently what difference Franken's election would have, quipped, "It's one more vote." Noting that he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been forced to sweat a lot of votes, Durbin added, "We have this tough situation with Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy, so on a good day, we have 57. Al Franken makes it 58. It lightens my load a little bit, and Harry's as well, to find the additional votes to reach 60. And that's what it's all about."
In terms of policy, there's no question Franken is a liberal. He has already signaled his support for a pro-labor bill making it easier for unions to recruit workers. President Obama said he looked forward to Franken's help on two other administration priorities -- "lowering healthcare costs and investing in the kind of clean energy, jobs, and industries that will help America lead in the 21st century." And Franken is a likely vote for the upcoming vote for Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
Franken is not the first person from the world of entertainment to sign up for politics. President Reagan was a onetime president of the Screen Actors Guild. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is, let's face it, more famous worldwide as The Terminator.
And, frankly, he may not be the funniest person in the Senate. Only they know for sure.
Still, Franken's antics as a comedian are likely to follow him to the U.S. Senate, sometimes referred to, in all seriousness, as "the world's greatest deliberative body."
Of course at the rate scandals are coming out of Washington, maybe a comedian is just what the U.S. Senate needs.
-- Johanna Neuman
Al Franken's Mick Jagger impersonation could liven up Senate
It's official. After an election tally recount that lasted eight months, cost millions of dollars and tied up several courts, Al Franken, one of the early stars of NBC's "Saturday Night Live," is finally joining that exclusive club known as the U.S. Senate.
Democrats on Capitol Hill and at the White House were delighted at the news, seeing in Franken's arrival a 60th vote that would help them deter Republican filibusters.
For his part, the new senator -- restrained since the November election by a court fight against Sen. Norm Coleman -- was exuberant. Flanked by his wife Frannie, he thanked voters and added, "I can't wait to get started."
Mindful of the pitfalls of being a national figure before he was a name in state politics, Franken said he considered himself not the 100th senator but Minnesota's second senator.
"I know there's been a lot of talk about the fact that when I'm sworn in I'll be the 60th member of the Democratic caucus, but that's not how I see it," said Franken, who's expected to be seated Monday. "I'm going to Washington to be the second senator from the state of Minnesota, and that's how I'm going to do this job."
The reticence is well-placed. Even with Franken's vote, Democrats don't have a slam-dunk majority. Some, like Massachusetts' Sen. Ted Kennedy and West Virginia's 91-year-old Robert Byrd, are ailing. Others, like Nebraska's Ben Nelson, are moderates who sometimes vote with Republicans.
Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, asked recently what difference Franken's election would have, quipped, "It's one more vote." Noting that he and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been forced to sweat a lot of votes, Durbin added, "We have this tough situation with Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy, so on a good day, we have 57. Al Franken makes it 58. It lightens my load a little bit, and Harry's as well, to find the additional votes to reach 60. And that's what it's all about."
In terms of policy, there's no question Franken is a liberal. He has already signaled his support for a pro-labor bill making it easier for unions to recruit workers. President Obama said he looked forward to Franken's help on two other administration priorities -- "lowering healthcare costs and investing in the kind of clean energy, jobs, and industries that will help America lead in the 21st century." And Franken is a likely vote for the upcoming vote for Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
Franken is not the first person from the world of entertainment to sign up for politics. President Reagan was a onetime president of the Screen Actors Guild. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is, let's face it, more famous worldwide as The Terminator.
And, frankly, he may not be the funniest person in the Senate. Only they know for sure.
Still, Franken's antics as a comedian are likely to follow him to the U.S. Senate, sometimes referred to, in all seriousness, as "the world's greatest deliberative body."
Of course at the rate scandals are coming out of Washington, maybe a comedian is just what the U.S. Senate needs.
-- Johanna Neuman
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Senate passes $787 billion stimulus bill
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/house_final_stimulus/?postversion=2009021318
Senate passes $787 billion stimulus bill
Senate votes to approve the historic legislation aimed at reviving the economy. Bill is now sent to President Obama for signing.
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 13, 2009
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It's a done deal. Still controversial, but a done deal.
The Senate on Friday evening passed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was drawn up, amended and negotiated in record time.
The bill got 60 votes -- the minimum it needed to pass. Three Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins, R-Me., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Olympia Snowe, R-Me. -- voted for it. Earlier in the day, no Republicans in the House voted for the legislation, which nevertheless passed 246 to 183, with just 7 Democrats voting against it.
President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law soon.
"The goal at the heart of this plan is to create jobs. Not just any jobs, but jobs doing the work America needs done: repairing our infrastructure, modernizing our schools and hospitals, and promoting the clean, alternative energy sources that will help us finally declare independence from foreign oil," President Obama said Friday morning.
The Obama economic team estimates the stimulus plan will create or save between 3 million and 4 million jobs.
"We've done something today that's transformational for the nation," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a press conference after the House vote.
During the House floor debate earlier on Friday, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisc., characterized the bill as "the largest change in domestic policy since the 1930s."
Republican discontent
The bill's final passage would represent far less than the bipartisan victory Obama had hoped for weeks ago, a hope he tabled as it became clear that Republicans and some fiscally conservative Democrats were adamantly opposed to the size and contents of the bill.
Republican critics believe there are more targeted and effective ways to create jobs than the measures in the bill, including more spending on infrastructure and more tax relief.
They frequently cite the tag line to describe what Democrats have often said makes stimulus measures effective -- that they be timely, targeted and temporary. "This bill fails on all three points," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Friday.
In the House, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., blasted the bill as misguided.
"Republicans are not about saying 'No' but about saying 'Yes' to solutions that put Americans back to work," Pence said. "[This legislation] will not grow our economy. It will grow our government."
And they frequently cite the burden of such an expensive package on the country's record high deficit and the burden that will place on the next generation.
In response to Republican critics, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., cited provisions in it that will help families facing job loss, education expenses and mortgage troubles.
"Consider the impact on the next generation if their parents lose a job ... if their home is foreclosed upon ... if they're forced out of college because their parents can't pay the bills," Durbin said.
Democrats have also countered the Republicans' debt argument by noting that record deficit levels were achieved as a result of borrowing to pay for the cost of the Iraq war and to finance a series of tax cuts -- both decisions made during a Republican administration.
The compromise bill was crafted after intensive negotiations in recent days between the House, Senate and White House, although Republicans said repeatedly they felt excluded from the process. And on Friday, several said they did not think it was fair that they were being asked to vote on a 1,000-page-plus bill that was posted online only late Thursday night.
How the bill breaks down
The package devotes $308.3 billion -- or 39% -- to appropriations spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That includes $120 billion on infrastructure and science and more than $30 billion on energy-related infrastructure projects, according to key congressional committees.
It devotes another $267 billion -- or 34% -- on direct spending, including increased unemployment benefits and food stamps, CBO said.
And it provides $212 billion -- or 27% -- for tax breaks for individuals and businesses, although the biggest piece of that is for individuals. (Here's a quick breakdown of those breaks.)
Depending on how tax measures are categorized, the percentage of the bill devoted to tax relief is 35%, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Unlike the CBO, the committee counts all portions of tax credits that are refundable. A refundable credit is one that may be paid to tax filers even if the credit exceeds a tax filer's liability. In other words, it is money the government needs to spend. The CBO, by contrast, treats that money as an outlay.
Republicans have advocated for more tax relief in the bill -- they wanted at least 40% -- and they often oppose tax credits going to those who pay less in income tax than they receive in refunds.
Democrats counter that the lowest-income families do pay money into the system by way of payroll tax for Social Security and through sales taxes. And they note that it is those low-income families most likely to quickly spend any tax relief they get, thereby making it more stimulative for the economy.
What it can - and can't do
For months, economists -- both liberal and conservative -- have urged lawmakers to act quickly to help stem the economic downturn. They argue that while tax cuts can be put out more quickly than infrastructure spending, they may not be as stimulative as spending because tax filers are likely to save at least a portion of what they receive.
There also has been debate over how large the total package should be. Many economists think it should be larger -- to help combat what is expected to be a $2 trillion shortfall in the country's output this year and next. But at this point, though they're not enamored with every provision in the bill -- they say it's necessary to do something.
Proponents of the bill aren't promising the economic recovery package will be a panacea for the economy. "No one thinks this is the answer," said House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
But, they say, it's needed to stem the downturn and ease the financial strains hurting Americans. Indeed, Obama's economic team last month said they expect that the unemployment rate likely will go up in the near term but having a stimulus package could bring it down to around 7% by the end of 2010. That's slightly below the rate of 7.6% today.
- CNN's Ted Barrett and CNNMoney.com's David Goldman contributed to this report.
Senate passes $787 billion stimulus bill
Senate votes to approve the historic legislation aimed at reviving the economy. Bill is now sent to President Obama for signing.
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNNMoney.com senior writer
February 13, 2009
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- It's a done deal. Still controversial, but a done deal.
The Senate on Friday evening passed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was drawn up, amended and negotiated in record time.
The bill got 60 votes -- the minimum it needed to pass. Three Republicans -- Sens. Susan Collins, R-Me., Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Olympia Snowe, R-Me. -- voted for it. Earlier in the day, no Republicans in the House voted for the legislation, which nevertheless passed 246 to 183, with just 7 Democrats voting against it.
President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law soon.
"The goal at the heart of this plan is to create jobs. Not just any jobs, but jobs doing the work America needs done: repairing our infrastructure, modernizing our schools and hospitals, and promoting the clean, alternative energy sources that will help us finally declare independence from foreign oil," President Obama said Friday morning.
The Obama economic team estimates the stimulus plan will create or save between 3 million and 4 million jobs.
"We've done something today that's transformational for the nation," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., in a press conference after the House vote.
During the House floor debate earlier on Friday, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wisc., characterized the bill as "the largest change in domestic policy since the 1930s."
Republican discontent
The bill's final passage would represent far less than the bipartisan victory Obama had hoped for weeks ago, a hope he tabled as it became clear that Republicans and some fiscally conservative Democrats were adamantly opposed to the size and contents of the bill.
Republican critics believe there are more targeted and effective ways to create jobs than the measures in the bill, including more spending on infrastructure and more tax relief.
They frequently cite the tag line to describe what Democrats have often said makes stimulus measures effective -- that they be timely, targeted and temporary. "This bill fails on all three points," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Friday.
In the House, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., blasted the bill as misguided.
"Republicans are not about saying 'No' but about saying 'Yes' to solutions that put Americans back to work," Pence said. "[This legislation] will not grow our economy. It will grow our government."
And they frequently cite the burden of such an expensive package on the country's record high deficit and the burden that will place on the next generation.
In response to Republican critics, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., cited provisions in it that will help families facing job loss, education expenses and mortgage troubles.
"Consider the impact on the next generation if their parents lose a job ... if their home is foreclosed upon ... if they're forced out of college because their parents can't pay the bills," Durbin said.
Democrats have also countered the Republicans' debt argument by noting that record deficit levels were achieved as a result of borrowing to pay for the cost of the Iraq war and to finance a series of tax cuts -- both decisions made during a Republican administration.
The compromise bill was crafted after intensive negotiations in recent days between the House, Senate and White House, although Republicans said repeatedly they felt excluded from the process. And on Friday, several said they did not think it was fair that they were being asked to vote on a 1,000-page-plus bill that was posted online only late Thursday night.
How the bill breaks down
The package devotes $308.3 billion -- or 39% -- to appropriations spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That includes $120 billion on infrastructure and science and more than $30 billion on energy-related infrastructure projects, according to key congressional committees.
It devotes another $267 billion -- or 34% -- on direct spending, including increased unemployment benefits and food stamps, CBO said.
And it provides $212 billion -- or 27% -- for tax breaks for individuals and businesses, although the biggest piece of that is for individuals. (Here's a quick breakdown of those breaks.)
Depending on how tax measures are categorized, the percentage of the bill devoted to tax relief is 35%, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.
Unlike the CBO, the committee counts all portions of tax credits that are refundable. A refundable credit is one that may be paid to tax filers even if the credit exceeds a tax filer's liability. In other words, it is money the government needs to spend. The CBO, by contrast, treats that money as an outlay.
Republicans have advocated for more tax relief in the bill -- they wanted at least 40% -- and they often oppose tax credits going to those who pay less in income tax than they receive in refunds.
Democrats counter that the lowest-income families do pay money into the system by way of payroll tax for Social Security and through sales taxes. And they note that it is those low-income families most likely to quickly spend any tax relief they get, thereby making it more stimulative for the economy.
What it can - and can't do
For months, economists -- both liberal and conservative -- have urged lawmakers to act quickly to help stem the economic downturn. They argue that while tax cuts can be put out more quickly than infrastructure spending, they may not be as stimulative as spending because tax filers are likely to save at least a portion of what they receive.
There also has been debate over how large the total package should be. Many economists think it should be larger -- to help combat what is expected to be a $2 trillion shortfall in the country's output this year and next. But at this point, though they're not enamored with every provision in the bill -- they say it's necessary to do something.
Proponents of the bill aren't promising the economic recovery package will be a panacea for the economy. "No one thinks this is the answer," said House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
But, they say, it's needed to stem the downturn and ease the financial strains hurting Americans. Indeed, Obama's economic team last month said they expect that the unemployment rate likely will go up in the near term but having a stimulus package could bring it down to around 7% by the end of 2010. That's slightly below the rate of 7.6% today.
- CNN's Ted Barrett and CNNMoney.com's David Goldman contributed to this report.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Senate vote gives Bush eavesdropping power
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/03/fisa.upgrade.ap/
Senate vote gives temporary boost to Bush's eavesdropping power
Story Highlights
Senate OKs more power to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists
House rejects Democratic version of bill, leaving its fate uncertain
White House applauds Senate vote, urges House to quickly follow suit
Senate Republicans said FISA update would ease national security concerns
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown over national security, voted late Friday to temporarily give President Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants.
The House, meanwhile, rejected a Democratic version of the bill.
Democratic leaders there were working on a plan to bring up the Senate-passed measure and vote on it Saturday in response to Bush's demand that Congress give him expanded powers before leaving for vacation this weekend.
The White House applauded the Senate vote and urged the House to quickly follow suit.
The bill "will give our intelligence professionals the essential tools they need to protect our nation," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "It is urgent that this legislation become law as quickly as possible."
Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan largely crafted by the White House after Bush promised to veto a stricter proposal that would have required a court review to begin within 10 days.
The Senate bill gives Bush the expanded eavesdropping authority for six months. The temporary powers give Congress time to hammer out a more comprehensive plan instead of rushing approval for a permanent bill in the waning hours before lawmakers begin their monthlong break.
The Senate vote was 60-28. Both parties had agreed to require 60 votes for passage.
Senate Republicans, aided by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, said the update to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, would at least temporarily close gaps in the nation's security system.
"Al Qaeda is not going on vacation this month," said Sen. Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "And we can't either until we know we've done our duty to the American people."
In the House, Democrats lost an effort to push a proposal that called for stricter court oversight of the way the government would ensure its spying would not target Americans.
"The rule of law is still critical in this country," Rep. John Tierney, D-Massachusetts, said before the losing the mostly party-line 218-207 vote that fell short of two-thirds majority needed for passage. "It is exactly when the government thinks that it can be the sole, fair arbiter that we most need a judicial system to stand in and strike the balance."
"We can have security and our civil liberties," he said.
Current law requires court review of government surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States. It does not specifically address the government's ability to intercept messages believed to come from foreigners overseas.
The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the special FISA court that barred the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites. See President Bush call for update on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act »
Democrats agreed the law should not restrict U.S. spies from tapping in on foreign suspects. However, they initially demanded the FISA court to review the eavesdropping process before it begins to make sure that Americans aren't targeted.
By the final vote, Senate Democrats had whittled down that demand and approved a bill that largely mirrored what the Bush administration wanted.
Before the vote, Democrats excoriated the GOP plan, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, said "provides a weak and practically nonexistent court review."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, angrily chastised his colleagues for bending to the administration's will.
"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S. Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy -- not the executive branch."
Likewise, civil liberties advocates said they were outraged that Democratic-led Senate would side with the White House.
"We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats," said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they're in control -- it's mind-boggling."
It was not immediately clear whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would endorse the Senate bill after days of rejecting White House offers.
"I hope that there are no attacks before we are able to effectively update this important act," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Bush has said he would reject any bill that his intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an attack on the country."
"We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk," Bush said after meeting with counterterrorism and homeland security officials at FBI headquarters Friday morning. "Time is short."
Presidents have authority to call Congress back in session from a recess, but the last time it was used was in 1948, by Harry Truman.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called the administration plan "more likely to protect the American people against terrorist attacks by those who want to do us harm."
Senate vote gives temporary boost to Bush's eavesdropping power
Story Highlights
Senate OKs more power to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists
House rejects Democratic version of bill, leaving its fate uncertain
White House applauds Senate vote, urges House to quickly follow suit
Senate Republicans said FISA update would ease national security concerns
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate, in a high-stakes showdown over national security, voted late Friday to temporarily give President Bush expanded authority to eavesdrop on suspected foreign terrorists without court warrants.
The House, meanwhile, rejected a Democratic version of the bill.
Democratic leaders there were working on a plan to bring up the Senate-passed measure and vote on it Saturday in response to Bush's demand that Congress give him expanded powers before leaving for vacation this weekend.
The White House applauded the Senate vote and urged the House to quickly follow suit.
The bill "will give our intelligence professionals the essential tools they need to protect our nation," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "It is urgent that this legislation become law as quickly as possible."
Senate Democrats reluctantly voted for a plan largely crafted by the White House after Bush promised to veto a stricter proposal that would have required a court review to begin within 10 days.
The Senate bill gives Bush the expanded eavesdropping authority for six months. The temporary powers give Congress time to hammer out a more comprehensive plan instead of rushing approval for a permanent bill in the waning hours before lawmakers begin their monthlong break.
The Senate vote was 60-28. Both parties had agreed to require 60 votes for passage.
Senate Republicans, aided by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, said the update to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, would at least temporarily close gaps in the nation's security system.
"Al Qaeda is not going on vacation this month," said Sen. Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "And we can't either until we know we've done our duty to the American people."
In the House, Democrats lost an effort to push a proposal that called for stricter court oversight of the way the government would ensure its spying would not target Americans.
"The rule of law is still critical in this country," Rep. John Tierney, D-Massachusetts, said before the losing the mostly party-line 218-207 vote that fell short of two-thirds majority needed for passage. "It is exactly when the government thinks that it can be the sole, fair arbiter that we most need a judicial system to stand in and strike the balance."
"We can have security and our civil liberties," he said.
Current law requires court review of government surveillance of suspected terrorists in the United States. It does not specifically address the government's ability to intercept messages believed to come from foreigners overseas.
The Bush administration began pressing for changes to the law after a recent ruling by the special FISA court that barred the government from eavesdropping on foreign suspects whose messages were being routed through U.S. communications carriers, including Internet sites. See President Bush call for update on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act »
Democrats agreed the law should not restrict U.S. spies from tapping in on foreign suspects. However, they initially demanded the FISA court to review the eavesdropping process before it begins to make sure that Americans aren't targeted.
By the final vote, Senate Democrats had whittled down that demand and approved a bill that largely mirrored what the Bush administration wanted.
Before the vote, Democrats excoriated the GOP plan, which Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, said "provides a weak and practically nonexistent court review."
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, angrily chastised his colleagues for bending to the administration's will.
"The day we start deferring to someone who's not a member of this body ... is a sad day for the U.S. Senate," Feingold said. "We make the policy -- not the executive branch."
Likewise, civil liberties advocates said they were outraged that Democratic-led Senate would side with the White House.
"We're hugely disappointed with the Democrats," said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union. "The idea they let themselves be manipulated into accepting the White House proposal, certainly taking a great deal of it, when they're in control -- it's mind-boggling."
It was not immediately clear whether House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would endorse the Senate bill after days of rejecting White House offers.
"I hope that there are no attacks before we are able to effectively update this important act," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee.
Bush has said he would reject any bill that his intelligence director deemed unable "to prevent an attack on the country."
"We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk," Bush said after meeting with counterterrorism and homeland security officials at FBI headquarters Friday morning. "Time is short."
Presidents have authority to call Congress back in session from a recess, but the last time it was used was in 1948, by Harry Truman.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, called the administration plan "more likely to protect the American people against terrorist attacks by those who want to do us harm."
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Panel moves to cut off funds to Cheney
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_on_go_co/democrats_cheney;_ylt=AoEGtRNyTKLGSk3VShgu0L_MWM0F
Panel moves to cut off funds to Cheney
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jul 10, 2007
Senate Democrats moved Tuesday to cut off funding for Vice President Dick Cheney's office in a continuing battle over whether he must comply with national security disclosure rules.
A Senate appropriations panel chaired by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., refused to fund $4.8 million in the vice president's budget until Cheney's office complies with parts of an executive order governing its handling of classified information.
At issue is a requirement that executive branch offices provide data on how much material they classify and declassify. That information is to be provided to the Information Security Oversight Office at The National Archives.
Cheney's office, with backing from the White House, argues that the offices of the president and vice president are exempt from the order because they are not executive branch "agencies."
The funding cut came as the appropriations panel approved 5-4 along party lines a measure funding White House operations, the Treasury Department and many smaller agencies.
Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said Cheney's office was flouting requirements that it comply with the reporting requirements on classified information.
"Neither Mr. Cheney or his staff is above the law or the Constitution," Durbin said. "For the vice president to believe that he has no responsibility to meet this requirement of the law is a dereliction of duty."
The tempest originally attracted widespread media attention after Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., charged that Cheney's office's had originally argued to the Archives that it did not have to comply with the order because it was not "an entity within the executive branch."
The vice president is also the president of the Senate, able to vote to break ties and preside over the chamber, though he is not eligible to sponsor legislation or participate in debates.
Cheney's office, Waxman said, also blocked the archives from doing an onsite inspection of his office to make sure classified information was being properly protected.
Republicans on the Senate panel said Durbin was going overboard in using Congress' power of the purse to try to force Cheney to conform with the order.
Such a step, said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., would set a terrible precedent in relations between the executive and legislative branches of government, which have historically let each other set their own budgets.
"This is going to further erode any sort of working relationship back and forth," Brownback said. "This is a patently bad idea."
The House last month narrowly rejected a comparable attempt by Democrats to cut off funding for Cheney's office.
On Tuesday, two panel Democrats — moderates Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska — registered discomfort with Durbin's move, though they backed him when Republicans forced a vote.
Brownback said the executive order does not apply to Cheney's office because it is not an agency. But Durbin insisted that Cheney's office is explicitly covered because the order applies to "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."
Panel moves to cut off funds to Cheney
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
Tue Jul 10, 2007
Senate Democrats moved Tuesday to cut off funding for Vice President Dick Cheney's office in a continuing battle over whether he must comply with national security disclosure rules.
A Senate appropriations panel chaired by Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., refused to fund $4.8 million in the vice president's budget until Cheney's office complies with parts of an executive order governing its handling of classified information.
At issue is a requirement that executive branch offices provide data on how much material they classify and declassify. That information is to be provided to the Information Security Oversight Office at The National Archives.
Cheney's office, with backing from the White House, argues that the offices of the president and vice president are exempt from the order because they are not executive branch "agencies."
The funding cut came as the appropriations panel approved 5-4 along party lines a measure funding White House operations, the Treasury Department and many smaller agencies.
Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said Cheney's office was flouting requirements that it comply with the reporting requirements on classified information.
"Neither Mr. Cheney or his staff is above the law or the Constitution," Durbin said. "For the vice president to believe that he has no responsibility to meet this requirement of the law is a dereliction of duty."
The tempest originally attracted widespread media attention after Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., charged that Cheney's office's had originally argued to the Archives that it did not have to comply with the order because it was not "an entity within the executive branch."
The vice president is also the president of the Senate, able to vote to break ties and preside over the chamber, though he is not eligible to sponsor legislation or participate in debates.
Cheney's office, Waxman said, also blocked the archives from doing an onsite inspection of his office to make sure classified information was being properly protected.
Republicans on the Senate panel said Durbin was going overboard in using Congress' power of the purse to try to force Cheney to conform with the order.
Such a step, said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., would set a terrible precedent in relations between the executive and legislative branches of government, which have historically let each other set their own budgets.
"This is going to further erode any sort of working relationship back and forth," Brownback said. "This is a patently bad idea."
The House last month narrowly rejected a comparable attempt by Democrats to cut off funding for Cheney's office.
On Tuesday, two panel Democrats — moderates Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska — registered discomfort with Durbin's move, though they backed him when Republicans forced a vote.
Brownback said the executive order does not apply to Cheney's office because it is not an agency. But Durbin insisted that Cheney's office is explicitly covered because the order applies to "any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information."
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Fred Thompson aided Nixon on Watergate
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070707/ap_on_el_pr/thompson_watergate
Fred Thompson aided Nixon on Watergate
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jul 7, 2007
Fred Thompson gained an image as a tough-minded investigative counsel for the Senate Watergate committee. Yet President Nixon and his top aides viewed the fellow Republican as a willing, if not too bright, ally, according to White House tapes.
Thompson, now preparing a bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, won fame in 1973 for asking a committee witness the bombshell question that revealed Nixon had installed hidden listening devices and taping equipment in the Oval Office.
Those tapes show Thompson played a behind-the-scenes role that was very different from his public image three decades ago. He comes across as a partisan willing to cooperate with the Nixon White House's effort to discredit the committee's star witness.
It was Thompson who tipped off the White House that the Senate committee knew about the tapes. They eventually cinched Nixon's downfall in the scandal resulting from the break-in at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington and the subsequent White House cover-up.
Thompson, then 30, was appointed counsel by his political mentor, Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker, the top Republican on the Senate investigative committee. Thompson had been an assistant U.S. attorney in Nashville, Tenn., and had managed Baker's re-election campaign. Thompson later was a senator himself.
Nixon was disappointed with the selection of Thompson, whom he called "dumb as hell." The president did not think Thompson was skilled enough to interrogate unfriendly witnesses and would be outsmarted by the committee's Democratic counsel.
This assessment comes from audio tapes of White House conversations recently reviewed by The Associated Press at the National Archives in College Park, Md., and transcripts of those discussions that are published in "Abuse of Power: The New Watergate Tapes," by historian Stanley Kutler.
"Oh shit, that kid," Nixon said when told by his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, of Thompson's appointment on Feb. 22, 1973.
"Well, we're stuck with him," Haldeman said.
In a meeting later that day in the Old Executive Office Building, Baker assured Nixon that Thompson was up to the task. "He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella," the senator told Nixon.
Publicly, Baker and Thompson presented themselves as dedicated to uncovering the truth. But Baker had secret meetings and conversations with Nixon and his top aides, while Thompson worked cooperatively with the White House and accepted coaching from Nixon's lawyer, J. Fred Buzhardt, the tapes and transcripts show.
"We've got a pretty good rapport with Fred Thompson," Buzhardt told Nixon in an Oval Office meeting on June 6, 1973. The meeting included a discussion of former White House counsel John Dean's upcoming testimony before the committee.
Dean, the committee's star witness, had agreed to tell what he knew about the break-in and cover-up if he was granted immunity against anything incriminating he might say.
Nixon expressed concern that Thompson was not "very smart."
"Not extremely so," Buzhardt agreed.
"But he's friendly," Nixon said.
"But he's friendly," Buzhardt agreed. "We are hoping, though, to work with Thompson and prepare him, if Dean does appear next week, to do a very thorough cross-examination."
Five days later, Buzhardt reported to Nixon that he had primed Thompson for the Dean cross-examination.
"I found Thompson most cooperative, feeling more Republican every day," Buzhardt said. "Uh, perfectly prepared to assist in really doing a cross-examination."
Later in the same conversation, Buzhardt said Thompson was "willing to go, you know, pretty much the distance now. And he said he realized his responsibility was going to have be as a Republican increasingly."
Thompson, who declined comment for this story, described himself in his book, "At That Point in Time," published in 1975, as a Nixon administration "loyalist" who struggled with his role as minority counsel. "I would try to walk a fine line between a good-faith pursuit of the investigation and a good-faith attempt to insure balance and fairness," Thompson wrote.
When Dean began testifying on June 25, he implicated Nixon in the break-in and cover-up. But his testimony had little legal impact because it was his word against the president's.
During Dean's testimony, Baker asked the question that became the embodiment of the Watergate scandal: "What did the president know and when did he know it?" Thompson is sometimes credited with supplying the question to Baker.
The question was widely perceived at the time as an example of Baker's willingness to press for truth at the expense of his party's leader. Historian Kutler, however, said he believes that in the context of Dean's testimony, the question was Baker's attempt to point out that the evidence hinged on one witness's word.
It was not until three weeks later — after the disclosure of the existence of tape recordings that might either corroborate or disprove Dean's testimony — that Baker's question took on new meaning, Kutler said.
At a hearing on July 16, Thompson asked former White House aide Alexander Butterfield: "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?"
Butterfield's confirmation of the recordings set off a cascade of events that led to Nixon's resignation 13 months later.
The question made Thompson instantly famous. His political Web site — http://www.imwithfred.com — prominently notes: "Friends in Tennessee still recall seeing the boy they'd grown up with on TV, sitting at the Senate hearing-room dais. He gained national attention for leading the line of inquiry that revealed the audio-taping system in the White House Oval Office."
What rarely is mentioned is that Thompson knew the answer to the question before he asked it. Investigators for the committee had gotten the information out of Butterfield during hours of behind-the-scenes questioning three days earlier, on July 13.
Thompson was not present, but a Republican investigator immediately tracked him down at the Carroll Arms Hotel bar where he was meeting with a reporter. Thompson called Buzhardt over the weekend to tip off the White House that the committee knew about the tapes.
"Legalisms aside, it was inconceivable to me that the White House could withhold the tapes once their existence was made known. I believed it would be in everyone's interest if the White House realized, before making any public statements, the probable position of both the majority and the minority of the Watergate committee," Thompson wrote in his book.
Scott Armstrong, a Democratic investigator for the committee who was part of the Butterfield questioning, said he was outraged by Thompson's tip-off.
"When the prosecutor discovers the smoking the gun, he's going to be shocked to find that the deputy prosecutor called the defendant and said, 'You'd better get rid of that gun,'" Armstrong said in an interview.
The committee chairman, Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C., had agreed to allow Thompson to question Butterfield first at the July 16 hearing as a show of bipartisanship because a GOP investigator had elicited the initial information from Butterfield.
"Fred (Thompson) and Baker carried water for the White House, but I have to give them credit — they were watching out for their interests, too," Kutler said. "They weren't going to mindlessly go down the tubes for this guy."
___
On the Net:
Nixon presidential materials: http://tinyurl.com/2bqg9a
Fred Thompson aided Nixon on Watergate
By JOAN LOWY, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jul 7, 2007
Fred Thompson gained an image as a tough-minded investigative counsel for the Senate Watergate committee. Yet President Nixon and his top aides viewed the fellow Republican as a willing, if not too bright, ally, according to White House tapes.
Thompson, now preparing a bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, won fame in 1973 for asking a committee witness the bombshell question that revealed Nixon had installed hidden listening devices and taping equipment in the Oval Office.
Those tapes show Thompson played a behind-the-scenes role that was very different from his public image three decades ago. He comes across as a partisan willing to cooperate with the Nixon White House's effort to discredit the committee's star witness.
It was Thompson who tipped off the White House that the Senate committee knew about the tapes. They eventually cinched Nixon's downfall in the scandal resulting from the break-in at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate complex in Washington and the subsequent White House cover-up.
Thompson, then 30, was appointed counsel by his political mentor, Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker, the top Republican on the Senate investigative committee. Thompson had been an assistant U.S. attorney in Nashville, Tenn., and had managed Baker's re-election campaign. Thompson later was a senator himself.
Nixon was disappointed with the selection of Thompson, whom he called "dumb as hell." The president did not think Thompson was skilled enough to interrogate unfriendly witnesses and would be outsmarted by the committee's Democratic counsel.
This assessment comes from audio tapes of White House conversations recently reviewed by The Associated Press at the National Archives in College Park, Md., and transcripts of those discussions that are published in "Abuse of Power: The New Watergate Tapes," by historian Stanley Kutler.
"Oh shit, that kid," Nixon said when told by his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, of Thompson's appointment on Feb. 22, 1973.
"Well, we're stuck with him," Haldeman said.
In a meeting later that day in the Old Executive Office Building, Baker assured Nixon that Thompson was up to the task. "He's tough. He's six feet five inches, a big mean fella," the senator told Nixon.
Publicly, Baker and Thompson presented themselves as dedicated to uncovering the truth. But Baker had secret meetings and conversations with Nixon and his top aides, while Thompson worked cooperatively with the White House and accepted coaching from Nixon's lawyer, J. Fred Buzhardt, the tapes and transcripts show.
"We've got a pretty good rapport with Fred Thompson," Buzhardt told Nixon in an Oval Office meeting on June 6, 1973. The meeting included a discussion of former White House counsel John Dean's upcoming testimony before the committee.
Dean, the committee's star witness, had agreed to tell what he knew about the break-in and cover-up if he was granted immunity against anything incriminating he might say.
Nixon expressed concern that Thompson was not "very smart."
"Not extremely so," Buzhardt agreed.
"But he's friendly," Nixon said.
"But he's friendly," Buzhardt agreed. "We are hoping, though, to work with Thompson and prepare him, if Dean does appear next week, to do a very thorough cross-examination."
Five days later, Buzhardt reported to Nixon that he had primed Thompson for the Dean cross-examination.
"I found Thompson most cooperative, feeling more Republican every day," Buzhardt said. "Uh, perfectly prepared to assist in really doing a cross-examination."
Later in the same conversation, Buzhardt said Thompson was "willing to go, you know, pretty much the distance now. And he said he realized his responsibility was going to have be as a Republican increasingly."
Thompson, who declined comment for this story, described himself in his book, "At That Point in Time," published in 1975, as a Nixon administration "loyalist" who struggled with his role as minority counsel. "I would try to walk a fine line between a good-faith pursuit of the investigation and a good-faith attempt to insure balance and fairness," Thompson wrote.
When Dean began testifying on June 25, he implicated Nixon in the break-in and cover-up. But his testimony had little legal impact because it was his word against the president's.
During Dean's testimony, Baker asked the question that became the embodiment of the Watergate scandal: "What did the president know and when did he know it?" Thompson is sometimes credited with supplying the question to Baker.
The question was widely perceived at the time as an example of Baker's willingness to press for truth at the expense of his party's leader. Historian Kutler, however, said he believes that in the context of Dean's testimony, the question was Baker's attempt to point out that the evidence hinged on one witness's word.
It was not until three weeks later — after the disclosure of the existence of tape recordings that might either corroborate or disprove Dean's testimony — that Baker's question took on new meaning, Kutler said.
At a hearing on July 16, Thompson asked former White House aide Alexander Butterfield: "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?"
Butterfield's confirmation of the recordings set off a cascade of events that led to Nixon's resignation 13 months later.
The question made Thompson instantly famous. His political Web site — http://www.imwithfred.com — prominently notes: "Friends in Tennessee still recall seeing the boy they'd grown up with on TV, sitting at the Senate hearing-room dais. He gained national attention for leading the line of inquiry that revealed the audio-taping system in the White House Oval Office."
What rarely is mentioned is that Thompson knew the answer to the question before he asked it. Investigators for the committee had gotten the information out of Butterfield during hours of behind-the-scenes questioning three days earlier, on July 13.
Thompson was not present, but a Republican investigator immediately tracked him down at the Carroll Arms Hotel bar where he was meeting with a reporter. Thompson called Buzhardt over the weekend to tip off the White House that the committee knew about the tapes.
"Legalisms aside, it was inconceivable to me that the White House could withhold the tapes once their existence was made known. I believed it would be in everyone's interest if the White House realized, before making any public statements, the probable position of both the majority and the minority of the Watergate committee," Thompson wrote in his book.
Scott Armstrong, a Democratic investigator for the committee who was part of the Butterfield questioning, said he was outraged by Thompson's tip-off.
"When the prosecutor discovers the smoking the gun, he's going to be shocked to find that the deputy prosecutor called the defendant and said, 'You'd better get rid of that gun,'" Armstrong said in an interview.
The committee chairman, Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C., had agreed to allow Thompson to question Butterfield first at the July 16 hearing as a show of bipartisanship because a GOP investigator had elicited the initial information from Butterfield.
"Fred (Thompson) and Baker carried water for the White House, but I have to give them credit — they were watching out for their interests, too," Kutler said. "They weren't going to mindlessly go down the tubes for this guy."
___
On the Net:
Nixon presidential materials: http://tinyurl.com/2bqg9a
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
