Durbin Defends Plans for Illinois Prison Purchase

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Dec. 17, 2009 – 1:36 p.m.

Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin hit back hard Thursday against GOP criticism of President Obama’s decision to buy a prison in Durbin’s home state of Illinois to house Guantánamo Bay detainees.

The partisan sniping is a sign of the continuing political volatility of the issue. If the administration wants to move any detainees into the United States for indefinite imprisonment before the Sept. 30 end of fiscal 2010, Congress will have to authorize it.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky took to the Senate floor on Wednesday in opposition to the move. McConnell said moving the detainees to a facility in Thomson, Ill., would “increase the threat to security at home.”

McConnell also criticized the efforts of both the administration and Durbin to cast the move as economically beneficial to Thomson and the surrounding area.

In a letter to McConnell on Thursday, Durbin said that state and local officials in Illinois are welcoming the prospect of detainees being incarcerated there.

“We’re not scared by vague predictions of escape attempts or terrorist attacks,” Durbin wrote.

Durbin said he hoped to talk to McConnell about the subject “before you take to the floor again with inaccurate and incomplete information.”

Interested in more from Midday Update? Sign up

House GOP Leader Says He’ll Back Clean War Funding Bill

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Dec. 17, 2009 – 1:30 p.m.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner said Thursday he will help President Obama win House approval next year for an expected multibillion-dollar spending request to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

But the Ohio Republican warned Obama not to attach any money for transferring terrorist suspects from the Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba to a site in rural Illinois.

The administration, which announced this week that it wants to send the Gitmo prisoners to a state prison the federal government would take over in tiny Thomson, Ill., hasn’t said when those prisoners would be moved, how much it will cost to upgrade the prison to the highest security standards, or whether it would even seek a special appropriation for such a project.

Boehner has some leverage. Democrats are divided on the surge, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said Wednesday that she will not help the president round up Democratic votes for a war funding bill. That means Obama will need solid Republican support.

“I will work to see our troops get everything they need to succeed,” Boehner told reporters.

The GOP leader initially withheld support for Obama’s plan because the president said the additional troops sent to Afghanistan would start to come home within 18 months. Boehner and other Republicans said that such a timetable would send a dangerous signal to the Taliban and al Qaeda to simply wait out U.S. forces.

But he said that after hearing congressional testimony from top administration officials and the Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, he feels there is sufficient flexibility in the withdrawal timetable to take into account conditions on the ground in the country.

“I told the president” at a recent White House meeting “that I had listened,” Boehner said. “I think they presented a plausible plan for success in Afghanistan.”

Interested in more from Midday Update? Sign up

Sen. Nelson Still Not Ready To Support Health Care Bill

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Dec. 17, 2009 – 2:19 p.m.

Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson reiterated Thursday that he will not support the Senate’s health care overhaul unless its restrictions on insurance coverage for abortion are strengthened.

Senate Democrats need Nelson’s vote to give them the 60 they need to advance the legislation. But he said he could not yet support a compromise on the issue proposed by Sen. Bob Casey , D-Pa.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., asked Casey – an abortion opponent, like Nelson – to draft the language that can secure Nelson’s vote. Nelson reviewed Casey’s proposal on Wednesday.

“As it is right now, without further modifications, it isn’t sufficient,” Nelson told KLIN, a Lincoln, Neb., radio station.

Meanwhile, there were hints of a problem on Senate Democrats’ left flank, as well. Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., published an op-ed in Roll Call saying that he “ absolutely will not support” a health bill that repeals the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). The Senate bill as written (HR 3590) does not provide funding to continue CHIP beyond 2013, though it would not repeal the program.

Still, Nelson is Reid’s biggest problem. The White House has mounted a concerted effort to reassure unhappy liberals that this isn’t the last chance to get some of their health care priorities enacted — either now or in future years.

In the radio interview, Nelson complimented Casey for offering amendments to the bill aimed at reducing the frequency of abortion by increasing federal aid for low-income pregnant women and families seeking to adopt.

“There’s a lot of improvement in the legislation,” he said, “but the basic question about funding for abortion has not been answered yet.”

A spokesman for Casey declined to comment.

Interested in more from Midday Update? Sign up

Top General, Ambassador Close Ranks Behind Obama’s Afghanistan Plan

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Dec. 8, 2009 – 2:08 p.m.

The top U.S. military and civilian leaders in Afghanistan told skeptical lawmakers of both parties Tuesday that they support President Obama’s new strategy in the war there.

Republicans peppered the pair with questions about a July 2011 deadline to begin a drawdown of troops, while Democrats were edgy about the troop surge ordered by the president.

Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry faced questions from the House Armed Services Committee that were similar to those asked of the secretaries of State and Defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last week.

Both men said they supported the president’s strategy to put an additional 37,000 U.S. and allied forces into Afghanistan within six months, and said they each participated closely in the process. McChrystal had originally wanted a larger deployment, while Eikenberry had opposed sending more U.S. forces.

Neither expressed any reservations about the approach chosen by Obama.“I believe we will absolutely be successful,” McChrystal said. Nonetheless Republicans pointedly tried to draw out McChrystal about the risks a timeline might cause.

Howard P. “Buck” McKeon of California, ranking Republican on the panel, asked, “In your judgment, does the deployment of 30,000 troops to the Eastern and Southern parts of the country and the 18-month timeline provide the least risk and most opportunity for success compared to the other options you gave to the commander in chief?”

McChrystal’s response was that “nothing” was without risk. But he said he thought the plan carried “appropriate risk.”

“In the long term, what, in fact, we have done is provided the Afghans the assurance that we are going to be strategic partners with them,” he said. “Now, that likely will not involve combat forces. It would involve different things over time. But it’s a very important part of the long-term commitment to them.

“I believe for this 18 months we’re going to make tremendous progress against this while we simultaneously grow Afghanistan’s capacity to provide for its own security.”

When asked by Silvestre Reyes , D-Texas, for clarity about the July 2011 date, McChrystal said he did not see it as a deadline, but just a “natural part of what we are doing.” He said withdrawals would begin at that point, but those withdrawals would be based on conditions on the ground.

Defense Conferees Defy Obama on Warplane Engines

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Oct. 6, 2009 – 1:42 p.m.

In a snub of President Obama, negotiators on the defense authorization bill plan to back continued development of a second engine for the F-35 warplane, according to aides familiar with the deliberations.

At stake is potentially $100 billion worth of jet-engine business. The incumbent contractor is Connecticut’s Pratt & Whitney. Under the alternate program, some F-35 jets would be powered by engines made in Ohio, Indiana and elsewhere by General Electric Co. and Rolls Royce.

The two companies — and their allies in Congress — have long sparred over whether competition from the GE-Rolls Royce team would drive down the costs and improve the performance of all the engines built for the program.

The final fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill would authorize $560 million for the GE-Rolls Royce program, aides said.

Obama has sharply criticized the second-engine program, and the administration has threatened a veto over the issue. But Congress kept the second-engine program going over the objections of President George W. Bush , and it may be poised to continue that tradition.

House and Senate conferees on the bill are expected to meet Wednesday to cement their agreement, and the House may vote on it Oct. 8.

The apparent decision to back the second engine provides momentum for the GE-Rolls Royce program ahead of a House-Senate conference on the fiscal 2010 Defense appropriations bill that will probably get under way later this month.

“The White House has 24 hours to turn this thing around behind the scenes,” said an aide who supports the single-engine approach. “Will they do it? Or will this be just another moment when Congress dismisses the president’s agenda?”

Compromise Version of Defense Measure Expected Soon

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Oct. 5, 2009 – 2:19 p.m.

The House plans to name its conferees for the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill Tuesday, perhaps setting the stage for final action on the legislation by the end of the week.

Aides said conferees are expected to meet just once, on Oct. 7, signaling that House and Senate authorizers have figured out how to reconcile their differences on several important issues. If all goes according to plan, the House would take up the conference report Oct. 8.

Lawmakers and aides have been meeting since late July to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill, which authorizes national security programs run by the Defense and Energy departments.

The House-passed version would authorize expenditures totalling $680.5 billion, while the Senate version would authorize $679.8 billion. Both measures would authorize a 3.4 percent pay raise for the military. President Obama requested a 2.9 percent increase.

Conferees have been grappling with whether to retain a Senate provision unrelated to defense that would extend federal hate-crime laws to offenses motivated by the gender identity, sexual orientation or disability of victims. Two years ago, defense conferees dropped a similar provision out of concern that it could jeopardize final action on the bill, particularly in the House.

Conferees also have confronted whether to authorize continued spending on a second type of engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, as the House prefers, or to allow funding for only one engine, as the White House and Senate want.

The House bill, but not the Senate version, would restrict Obama’s ability to move detainees at the U.S. prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, from being released into the United States or transferred to U.S. jails until the president submits a plan to Congress. Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee fought to make the transfer provisions more stringent and are likely to raise the issue again in conference.

Targeted Immigration Provisions Hitch Ride on Spending Bill

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Aug. 21, 2009 – 1:53 p.m.

Although a comprehensive immigration overhaul appears to be too much for Congress to contemplate this year, some targeted proposals still may advance when lawmakers return to work in September.

Several immigrant visa programs, as well as a worker eligibility verification tool, are set to expire at the end of the current fiscal year on Sept. 30, and efforts to renew them are well under way.

For instance, a Senate amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill would make permanent an immigrant visa category that offers green cards, or permanent resident status, to wealthy investors who do business in the United States and hire American workers.

The provision calls for a permanent reauthorization of the Regional Center Pilot Program, which distributes up to 3,000 visas annually to foreigners willing to invest at least $1 million in a new or existing business and create at least 10 jobs for U.S. citizens. In exchange, they receive an EB-5 immigrant visa, which allows them permanent residency and a path to citizenship.

Also set to expire is E-Verify, the government’s Internet-based worker eligibility verification program that was reauthorized through six-month patches within stopgap spending bills. The latest patch expires Sept. 30.

The Senate’s Homeland Security spending bill also was amended with a provision to make the E-Verify program permanent and require its use by all government contractors — reflecting a Bush administration rule that the Obama administration has delayed implementing until Sept. 8.

Bush Officials Defend the Use of Intelligence Contractors

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Aug. 20, 2009 – 1:03 p.m.

Two former top Bush administration officials Thursday defended using contractors at intelligence agencies, the same day media reports surfaced that the CIA hired the private security firm Blackwater USA as part of a secret program to capture or kill al Qaeda leaders.

Although former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said he would not comment on the New York Times story’s specifics, he noted that under Office of Management and Budget guidance on what constitutes “inherently governmental” activities, intelligence analysis and collection is an area where agencies can hire contractors. Hayden spoke on a panel at the National Press Club.

Going simply on the New York Times story, which said it was unclear whether the contractor, now known as Xe Services LLC, would participate in capturing and killing al Qaeda operatives, Hayden said some of the functions mentioned — planning, training, surveillance — could have been “scooped up” under the definition of intelligence analysis and collection.

Asked afterward whether he would be comfortable asking a contractor to carry out operations, Hayden said, “I don’t know.” He said he would have had to consult with CIA lawyers.

Hayden said there is a perception in some circles that the intelligence community hires contractors when it doesn’t want to take responsibility for an action.

“That’s absolutely not true,” he said. “We have the same moral and legal responsibilities” whether the agency uses contractors or full-time employees.

At the CIA, Hayden said he paid little attention to whether a contractor or full-time employee was doing the work, to the point that when members of Congress asked, he often had to check. His emphasis was on using the “best athlete in the draft” and Washington needed to move away from a “contractor bad, government employee good” dynamic, he said.

Congress legislates how many full-time employees can serve in the intelligence community, so when those numbers are not increased, agencies have no alternative but to turn to contractors, he said.

Hayden said he reduced the use of contractors because those firms were luring CIA personnel to work in the private sector, and the agency was forced to pay more for their services since it still needed their expertise.

Inouye Ignores Veto Threat Against F-35 Engine Funding

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Aug. 12, 2009 – 1:11 p.m.

In a rebuff to President Obama, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its Defense Subcommittee says he will support continued funding of a second engine for the F-35, the newest U.S. fighter jet.

Daniel K. Inouye , D-Hawaii, disclosed in a brief interview that when his committee writes the Defense bill in September he will back continued development of the competitive engine, as he has in the past, “because,” he said, “it makes good sense.”

President Obama has called spending several billion dollars on a second engine wasteful and has said it could trigger a veto of the Defense spending bill. Inouye and other supporters of the second engine argue that competition between two engine manufacturers could drive down prices, as well as reduce risks that problems in a single design could ground large numbers of F-35s, if not the entire fleet. The president and other supporters of one engine say the savings are mythical and the risks of a widespread grounding are slim.

Inouye’s stance runs against the grain of not only the White House but also Senate votes last month effectively endorsing the single engine strategy during consideration of the defense authorization bill.

But the defense appropriations bill is another matter. When the final version of that measure is written, Inouye will be joined in supporting the second engine by his House counterpart, John P. Murtha , D-Pa.

Inouye’s refusal to back down from his support of a two-engine program is noteworthy, given that he relented in his support of the F-22 fighter jet under circumstances similar to those at play on the F-35 engines. In both cases, Obama issued a veto threat and the Senate acceded to his wishes on the defense authorization bill.

For now, at least, Inouye is standing firmly behind two F-35 engines.

Lawmakers Weigh Stiffer Standards for Regional Airlines

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Aug. 12, 2009 – 1:09 p.m.

Six months after the fatal crash of a Continental Connections regional jet in Buffalo, N.Y., lawmakers are still grappling with how best to deal with the aviation safety gaps exposed in the investigation.

The February crash, coupled with a string of other regional jet crashes in recent years, has elevated scrutiny of regional air carriers. Lawmakers are examining issues of pilot fatigue, training standards and the relationship between regional airlines and the large carriers that use regionals almost as a kind of subcontractor.

Byron L. Dorgan , D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Aviation Subcommittee, says half of today’s commercial flights are operated by regional carriers “who are paying less for their crews.” That, he adds, “just leads to an obvious question: Do we have the same standards if we have less experienced, lower-paid crews?”

The FAA says there are no differences between the training and operational standards that must be met by regional carriers and by the major airlines. But lawmakers say that they are different in practice, because big airlines typically hire pilots who have much more than the minimum required experience.

Representatives of both types of airlines appearing before Dorgan’s subcommittee last week sought to reassure the panel that although regional jet pilots may be young, they are still fully qualified professionals.

“The young people who come into our cockpits today have so much more to work with now than they did even a decade ago,” said Philip H. Trenary, president and chief executive officer of Pinnacle Airlines Corp., which owns two regional carriers, Colgan Air and Pinnacle Airlines.

But House Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman James L. Oberstar , D-Minn., has introduced a bill that would, among other things, dramatically increase the minimum flight hours needed to qualify for a commercial pilot’s license from 250 to 1,500.

It also would mandate the creation of a database to give airlines access to a pilot’s comprehensive record. Current law requires the release of information only for the previous five years.

Defense Appropriator Backs Off Proposed VIP Jet Purchase

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Aug. 11, 2009 – 1:26 p.m.

The chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee is backing away from his panel’s proposal to fund VIP jetliners that the Obama administration did not request.

John P. Murtha said in a statement that he will no longer push for funding of the additional planes. The money would have come through the $636.3 billion Pentagon spending bill for fiscal 2010.

The administration had sought four planes — one Gulfstream V and three Boeing 737s for $220 million — but the House-passed bill would have doubled the order, at a cost of $550 million.

“If the Department of Defense does not want these aircraft, they will be eliminated from the bill,” said Murtha, D-Pa.

Murtha’s retreat came amid opposition to the additional spending from the Pentagon and from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in both chambers of Congress.

This week, three Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, which plans to begin writing the Senate’s version of the bill next month, came out in opposition to the additional planes. In response to queries, the offices of Democrats Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota and Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland said they oppose any unrequested jetliners. Republican Christopher S. Bond of Missouri also is against the additional planes, his spokeswoman confirmed.

Murtha, in his statement, defended the notion of procuring the additional planes, even as he backed away from saying they would remain in the bill. He said the older planes that would be replaced pose potential safety risks and are saddled with costly maintenance expenses. He also pointed out that the executive branch, not lawmakers, use the planes most often.

“Over the last five years, 85 percent of the use of these planes has been by the executive branch,” Murtha said.

Governors Object to Pentagon Disaster Proposal

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Aug. 10, 2009 – 1:37 p.m.

The National Governors Association opposes a Defense Department proposal to expand the military’s authority to respond to domestic disasters.

In a letter Friday to Paul N. Stockton, assistant secretary of Defense for homeland defense and Americas’ security affairs, the governors said the proposal could lead to confusion over who’s in charge during domestic emergencies and unnecessarily duplicate response efforts.

“We are concerned that the legislative proposal you discuss in your letter would invite confusion on critical command and control issues, complicate interagency planning, establish stove-piped response efforts, and interfere with governors’ constitutional responsibilities to ensure the safety and security of their citizens,” Govs. Jim Douglas , R-Vt., and Joe Manchin III , D-W.Va., wrote on behalf of the group.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond Monday to a request for comment on the letter.

In their letter, the governors elaborate on their concerns over expanding the Pentagon’s independent authority to operate military forces in domestic incidents.

To carry out homeland defense and homeland security responsibilities, governors have to retain control over the domestic use of their National Guard and active and reserve military operating in their states, the letter said.

One of the key lessons of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the response to hurricanes Katrina and Rita was the need for clear chains of command, the governors wrote.

“Without assigning a governor tactical control of [military] forces assisting in a response, and without the use of a dual-hatted National Guard commander to ensure coordination between [National Guard] and [federal] forces, strong potential exists for confusion in mission, execution and the dilution of governors’ control over situations with which they are more familiar and better capable of handing than a federal military commander,” they wrote.

A similar proposal was contained in the House’s version of the fiscal 2009 Defense authorization legislation but was removed in conference because of governors’ concerns, the letter said.

The Guantanamo Officers' Club

********************************************

This is a very interesting article that I found. Deserves a very careful reading.

Ary Dias

********************************************

By Jeff Stein | April 14, 2009 9:58 PM | Permalink

About 20 years ago I had the privilege to interview Gen. George L. Mabry, the second most decorated soldier in the history of the U.S. Army, at his home in Columbia, S.C.

Mabry had been awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroics in World War Two. The young captain had already earned a chestful of ribbons for his "Saving Private Ryan" performance at Utah Beach on June 6, 1944. Only the legendary Audie Murphy earned more medals.

But five months later, in the Huertgen Forest near Schevenhutte, Germany, Mabry, 27, raced past his forward observers to cut through some mine-rigged Concertina wire.
Clearing a path for his soldiers, and he then captured three enemy bunkers in succession, killing three German soldiers, disabling another with his rifle butt and another with his bayonet. He captured nine other Germans.

You can read the entire citation at the Medal of Honor site, here.

What you will not read in his citation is what he told me in his quiet study, only months before he died in 1990.

It was blurry-hot outside. You could hear the cicadas beyond the closed blinds.

His men, he recalled, were enraged as they came upon haggard American prisoners who had been tortured by the Germans.

One day a junior officer retaliated, executing a group of German POWs. The lieutenant was a West Point graduate, and Mabry, the son of a minor league catcher, had gotten his ROTC commission at a tiny Bible school in South Carolina.

But Mabry broke him on the spot.

"You fight like hell during the battle," he lectured his men, "but when it's over your enemy is due the privileges of a prisoner, just like you and I are. I will not countenance the murder of a POW and will immediately relieve any other officer I suspect of carrying it out."

The atrocities stopped. But his main point was that an officer's primary duty is to maintain control of his men. It didn't matter that the Germans "deserved to die." Executing them was murder.

Mabry came into my mind while I was reading the transcript of an interview with a former Guantanamo guard, Brandon Neely, for the documentary "Torturing Democracy."

Produced by perennial award winner Sherry Jones, "Torturing Democracy" won a top award Tuesday from the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights.

I get the sense that a lot of people bray on this subject of torture without ever listening to the guards talk about it themselves.

The ones that bray and clap after listening to the guards, well, that's another story.

Here's Neely, talking about his time at Gitmo:

"The situation on the block was that a detainee had called a female MP 'bitch' a couple times. For punishment, the IRF [Immediate Response Force] team was called upon to enter the cage and hog-tie the detainee. The female MP was very upset, yelling 'Whip his ass!' ... The whole IRF team was on top of him hitting, punching, and kicking him. It seemed like a long time, but in reality it lasted 15-20 seconds."

I don't know about you, but that made my skin crawl. It was hardly the worst thing that happened at Gitmo, much less Abu Ghraib. But here again was a bunch of GIs totally out of control.

Sure, the guards were mad. The 9/11 attacks had been carried out only six months ago.

So what? Is the one-day trauma of 9/11 somehow harder to control than six years of the Nazis and Japanese?

Where were the officers who are supposed to step in and stop such bedlam?

Were they in air-conditioned offices, looking the other way, blocking their ears, playing cards, writing e-mails to loved ones?

Why did it take an FBI agent, Jack Cloonan, to say No?

What kind of officers have the Army (or Marines) raised?

Who's responsible for this? Forget about Donald Rumsfeld, John Yoo and the rest of the Top Six at risk of being arrested now if they step on European soil.

They "set the tone?" So what?

And let's put aside for the moment the hapless enlisted men and women being scape-goated for these things, as bad as they acted.

They're not innocent, but where were the lieutenants, captains and majors? And where are they now? Why isn't Congress calling them to explain how they ignored their oaths?

Malcolm Nance is a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape school, known as SERE, whose techniques were turned on their head and used against prisoners.

In other words, Nance is a tough guy -- really tough. Go look at his picture on the documentary site. Read what he has to say.

Nance, author of a book on the Iraqi insurgents and fluent in five languages, including Arabic, is disgusted by what happened at Guantanamo, Baghram, the CIA secret sites and, of course, Abu Ghraib. He went through "enhanced interrogation techniques" himself, including water boarding -- as part of his own training. It's torture.

SERE was taught to "high risk" U.S. personnel - combat pilots, behind-the-lines operators and so forth -- who might be captured, as he puts it, by "totalitarian evil nations, who disregard the Geneva Convention and human rights."

"How it got to Guantanamo is a crime," Nance says in the film, "and somebody needs to figure out who did it, how they did it, who authorized them to do it, and shut it down ..."

He adds, "because our servicemen will suffer for years."

Gen. George L. Mabry, I am sure, would agree.

You calling him a sissy?

Sotomayor Confirmed

FROM POLITICAL WIRE - CQ Press

The U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the 111th justice of the Supreme Court by a vote of 68 to 31.

No Democrat voted against her, while all but 9 of the Senate's 40 Republicans did so. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), who is battling brain cancer, did not vote.

Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the court.

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON THE CONFIRMATION OF JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR

Diplomatic Reception Room 3:38 P.M. EDT


THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody. Well, I am pleased and deeply gratified that the Senate has voted to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as our nation's 111th Supreme Court justice.

I want to thank the Senate Judiciary Committee, particularly its Chairman, Senator Leahy -- as well as its Ranking Member, Senator Sessions -- for giving Judge Sotomayor a thorough and civil hearing. And I thank them for doing so in a timely manner so that she can be fully prepared to take her seat when the Court's work begins this September.

The members of our Supreme Court are granted life tenure and are charged with the vital and difficult task of applying principles set forth at our founding to the questions and controversies of our time. Over the past 10 weeks, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate have assessed Judge Sotomayor's fitness for this work. They've scrutinized her record as a prosecutor, as a litigator, and as a judge. They've gauged her respect for the proper role of each branch of our government, her commitment to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand, and her determination to protect our core constitutional rights and freedoms.

And with this historic vote, the Senate has affirmed that Judge Sotomayor has the intellect, the temperament, the history, the integrity and the independence of mind to ably serve on our nation's highest court.

This is a role that the Senate has played for more than two centuries, helping to ensure that "equal justice under the law" is not merely a phrase inscribed above our courthouse door, but a description of what happens every single day inside the courtroom. It's a promise that, whether you're a mighty corporation or an ordinary American, you will receive a full and fair hearing. And in the end, the outcome of your case will be determined by nothing more or less than the strength of your argument and the dictates of the law.

These core American ideals -- justice, equality, and opportunity -- are the very ideals that have made Judge Sotomayor's own uniquely American journey possible. They're ideals she's fought for throughout her career, and the ideals the Senate has upheld today in breaking yet another barrier and moving us yet another step closer to a more perfect union.

Like so many other aspects of this nation, I'm filled with pride in this achievement and great confidence that Judge Sotomayor will make an outstanding Supreme Court justice. This is a wonderful day for Judge Sotomayor and her family, but I also think it's a wonderful day for America.

Thank you very much, everybody.

Q Are you happy with the 68 votes, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: I'm very happy.

Bond Says He Will Support Sotomayor

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Aug. 5, 2009 – 1:53 p.m.

Christopher S. Bond of Missouri on Wednesday became the seventh Republican senator to declare support for the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

“I do not believe that the Constitution tells me that I should refuse to support her merely because I disagree with her on some cases,” Bond said in a floor speech during debate on the nomination. “I will support her.”

Bond had said July 28 when the Judiciary Committee approved the nomination that he was inclined to support her.

Twenty-nine Republicans have declared their opposition, the latest being John Barrasso of Wyoming, and four remain undecided. Since all Democrats are expected to support her, the only mystery left in the confirmation process is the precise number of Republican votes Sotomayor will pick up.

Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski has not declared her position. Neither have Republicans Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming and George V. Voinovich of Ohio.

The Senate debate on Sotomayor’s nomination is expected to go late Wednesday, and conclude Thursday with her confirmation.

For their part, Democrats arranged something Republicans cannot match — a series of floor speeches by five female senators in support of the nomination.

Only four of the Senate’s 17 female senators are Republicans, and two of those, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, are supporting Sotomayor.

“She knows the law, she knows the Constitution,” said Sen. Amy Klobuchar , D-Minn. “But she knows America too.”

Sotomayor’s Republican opponents argue that she is too much of an ideologue to serve on the Supreme Court.

Sen. Richard M. Burr , R-N.C., said although Sotomayor assured him privately that she follows the law, “her judicial record indicates otherwise.”

Senate Panel Approves GOP Rep. McHugh as Army Secretary

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
Aug. 4, 2009 – 2:09 p.m.

Rep. John M. McHugh moved closer to confirmation as Army secretary Tuesday when the Senate Armed Services Committee approved his nomination by voice vote.

Democratic leaders are seeking unanimous consent to have him confirmed by the full Senate by the end of the week, spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle said.

President Obama nominated McHugh, of New York, the former ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, on June 2.

McHugh has represented New York’s 23rd District for 16 years and served on the Armed Services Committee since 1993. He succeeded Duncan Hunter , of California, as the ranking Republican on that panel in January and left the post after his nomination was announced.

Beyond McHugh’s qualifications, his selection is thought to have political implications. Unlike many other Republicans from Northeastern states, McHugh easily survived his last two elections, but Democrats have had increasing success at the local level in his rural district, which has sent Republicans to the House since 1872. Democrats hope removing his name from the ballot could favor a Democratic candidate in a resulting special election.

From McHugh’s perspective, New York is at risk of losing at least one congressional district in the next round of redistricting, meaning his career in the House was at risk of ending despite his political success.

Military Ordered To Find $60 Billion in Savings Over Next Five Years

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
July 28, 2009 – 2:01 p.m.

The military will need to come up with $60 billion in savings over the next five years to pay for new priorities to be set by the Defense secretary, a top Pentagon official said Tuesday.

The order from Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is based on an assumption that there will be no real growth in defense budgets over the next five years, a radical departure for a department whose budgets have increased more than 80 percent since 2001.

Pentagon officials say new spending priorities will be informed by an ongoing review of the nation’s military posture, known as the Quadrennial Defense Review. The review is a deep analysis of the overall structure of the military, meant to guide overall planning and program decisions.

One of the driving factors so far in the evaluation is the prospect that defense budgets largely will be static in fiscal 2011 through fiscal 2015, said David Ochmanek, deputy assistant secretary of defense for force transformation and resources.

The military services must “find offsets” to make room for the new capabilities that Gates wants to add or expand, he said. “They’re now busily looking for those billpayers,” said Ochmanek. “That’s how the zero growth assumption manifests itself.”

In late August, the military services will submit their budgets to the Pentagon leadership, which will use those figures to negotiate with the White House Office of Management and Budget, he said. Pentagon planners hold out hope that more money could be forthcoming.

The $60 billion in offsets will be directed toward research and procurement accounts, Ochmanek said.

Senate Judiciary Approves Sotomayor Nomination

CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS – LEGAL AFFAIRS
July 28, 2009 – 12:24 p.m.
By Keith Perine and Seth Stern, CQ Staff

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court on a nearly party-line vote Tuesday, teeing up a Senate confirmation vote next week.

The committee voted 13-6 to approve the nomination in the same cavernous hearing room in the Hart Building in which Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing took place two weeks ago. South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham joined all 12 Democrats on the panel in voting for Sotomayor.

“It is with enthusiasm and hope that I am going to vote in favor of this historic nomination,” committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy , D-Vt., said before the vote.

If confirmed as expected, Sotomayor will be the third woman and first Hispanic to serve on the high court. She will succeed retired Justice David H. Souter , a member of the narrowly divided court’s liberal bloc.

But Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the committee, said, “Based on her record as a judge and her statements, I am not able to support this nomination.” Sessions said he doesn’t believe Sotomayor can put aside her “personal opinions and biases” on the bench. Continue - LINK

Senate Showdown Over F-22 Fighter Delayed

CQ TODAY MIDDAY UPDATE
July 14, 2009 – 1:43 p.m.

A Senate vote on the future of the controversial F-22 fighter jet has been delayed until Wednesday at the earliest, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee said Tuesday.

Chairman Carl Levin , D-Mich., and ranking Republican John McCain , R-Ariz., have offered an amendment to delete a provision in the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill authorizing $1.75 billion to procure seven more of the fighter jets. The Obama administration wants to terminate the F-22 program and asked for no additional aircraft in its first defense budget request.

President Obama has threatened to veto the defense bill if it endorses continued F-22 production, even though the funds for more planes would have to be appropriated separately.

As maneuvering continues over the amendment, all sides are watching closely. Obama’s veto threat over the F-22 is his first, and the vote represents a potential clash between the White House and Congress over a jobs-producing program that has considerable support on Capitol Hill.

The House version of the defense bill, passed last month, included $369 million to procure parts for 12 F-22s that would be funded fully in fiscal 2011. In January, 44 senators wrote Obama requesting that he back production of more F-22s.

The lobbying battle has kicked into high gear in recent days. Obama wrote senators Monday to repeat his veto threat and spell out again his reasons — both military and fiscal — for ending the F-22 program.

On the other side, many state National Guard leaders have weighed in to promote additional F-22 procurements to replace aging F-15 and F-16 fighters.

What’s more, three top labor organizations — the AFL-CIO, United Steelworkers and International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers — have lent their voices to the pro-F-22 caucus in recent days.

Sotomayor Says Personal Views Won’t Affect Judging

CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS – LEGAL AFFAIRS
July 14, 2009 – 11:08 a.m.
By Seth Stern, CQ Staff

Sonia Sotomayor defended herself Tuesday against Republican charges that she is unable to put aside her personal views on the second day of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing.

“I do not permit my sympathies, personal views or prejudices to influence the outcome of my cases,” Sotomayor said in response to a question from the panel’s top Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Statements Sotomayor made off the bench were the focus of many of Sessions’ questions. Chairman Patrick J. Leahy , D-Vt., first offered Sotomayor the chance to explain statements she made suggesting that a wise woman or Latina might come to a better decision than a white male judge.

“I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt that I do not believe that any racial ethnic or gender group has an advantage in sound judgment,” Sotomayor said. “I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.”

Sotomayor explained that in those speeches she was attempting to inspire many of the women in the audience “to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system because different life experiences and backgrounds always do.”

“I believe my 17-year record on the two courts would show that in every case I render, I first decide what the law required under the facts before me and what I do is explain to litigants why the law required a result,” Sotomayor said. “Whether their position is sympathetic or not, I explain why the result is commanded by the law.”

But Sotomayor’s explanations did not satisfy Sessions, who made clear he believes her statements are part of a larger “troubling” pattern that calls her impartiality into question.

“It’s a body of thought over a period of years that causes us difficulty,” Sessions said.

Sotomayor told Sessions that while judges strive for impartiality, “life experiences have to influence you. We’re not robots.”

“We have to recognize those feelings and put them aside,” Sotomayor added.

Sessions also asked Sotomayor about a speech at Duke University where she suggested policy is made in the intermediate appellate courts, where she currently serves.

“I wasn’t talking about the policy reflected in the law that Congress makes, that’s the job of Congress to decide what the policy should be for society,” Sotomayor said.

Sotomayor stressed that she was trying to explain that while trial judges apply law to the facts of a given case, the U.S. Courts of Appeals “establish precedent” and “decide what the law says in a particular situation.”

“That precedent has policy ramifications because it binds not just the litigants in that case, but binds all litigants in similar cases and cases that may be influenced by that precedent,” Sotomayor said.

Keith Perine contributed to this story.