18 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/29/07 1:52am)
WASHINGTON – Two-thirds of parents say their children will trick-or-treat this Halloween, but fewer minorities will let their kids go door to door, with some citing safety worries, a poll shows.\nThe survey found that 73 percent of whites versus 56 percent of minorities said their children will trick-or-treat on Wednesday.\nThat disparity in the survey is similar to the difference in how people view the safety of their neighborhoods, according to the poll by The Associated Press and Ipsos. Lower-income people and minorities are more likely to worry that it might not be safe to send their children out on Halloween night.\nThomas Link, 50, and his family are new to their trailer park in Palatka, Fla. He said he considers it unsafe because he does not know many neighbors, but had not decided whether to let his three young children trick-or-treat.\n“I’m very particular about who I let my kids deal with,” he said.\nOverall, 86 percent of those questioned in the survey said their neighborhoods are safe for trick-or-treating. Ninety-one percent of whites, compared with 75 percent of minorities, said they felt their kids would be secure when they went out seeking candy in their area.\nSimilarly, 93 percent of people earning $50,000 or more said their communities are safe for trick-or-treating, compared with 76 percent of those making less than $25,000.\nEven many people who view their neighborhoods as safe take precautions.\nKristi Nichols, 35, of Seaford, Del., who said she lives in the community where she grew up, accompanies her children on their Halloween rounds.\n“I’m a forensic nurse and I know what happens,” she said. “It’s very different from when I was little.”\nNearly two-thirds of the people in the survey said their households will distribute Halloween treats to children who come to call; the likeliest to pass out goodies include younger and higher-earning people.\nSeventy percent of people in the poll who consider themselves liberals and 67 percent of the moderates questioned said they would hand out treats, compared with 55 percent of conservatives.\nOf those adults whose children will not trick-or-treat this year, one-quarter cited safety worries and about one-half said they do not celebrate Halloween.\n“It’s demonic,” said Donna Stitt, 37, a nursing aide from Barto, Pa., with four young children. “People are celebrating the dead. I’m not into that.”\nLast October, a Gallup Poll found 11 percent said they do not celebrate Halloween for religious reasons.\nOn a night known for antics that sometimes go too far, 86 percent of the people in the AP survey said they had little or no concern that their property might be the target of Halloween vandalism or pranks. Women under age 45 were about twice as likely as men of that age to worry about it, with lower-income people, minorities and urban residents also among the most apprehensive.\nThe poll involved telephone interviews with 1,013 adults conducted from Oct. 16-18. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.\nAP Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson and AP News survey specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.
(10/24/07 3:11am)
WASHINGTON – It didn’t take Heather Pate long to figure out why her beloved Auburn University football team had begun losing. It was the pink toothbrush.\nPate, a lifelong fan of the school, has long refused to own anything with even a hint of red, the color of archrival Alabama. That puts her among the one in five sports fans who say they do things in an attempt to bring good luck to their favorite team or avoid jinxing them, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday.\nThe survey showed no real difference by gender, race or education in whether people try finding a way to help their team win. But those who do tend to be younger and make more money than those willing to risk letting the athletes determine a game’s outcome. They also are more likely to be single.\nA nurse from Eldridge, Ala., Pate said she refuses to own a red car or purchase anything crimson. So when she recently had to spend time in a hospital after the birth of her twin sons, she was aghast when she noticed someone had brought her a pink toothbrush. Auburn promptly dropped two straight games.\nIt was all because of that “red toothbrush,” Pate, 28, said this week after responding to the AP survey.\nThere was no significant difference among the fans of various sports in how superstitious they were, the poll showed.\nTwenty-four percent of college basketball fans admitted to trying something lucky to help their team and 20 percent of professional basketball followers said the same thing. Fans of professional baseball, and of college and professional football, fell in-between.\nOther fans who answered the poll had their own techniques for influencing the final score.\nLisa Rawlinson, 40, a pharmaceutical sales manager from Huntington, W.Va., won’t watch crucial Cleveland Indians games on television. She didn’t watch Sunday night but her Indians somehow lost the decisive game anyway against the Red Sox, allowing Boston to creep into the World Series, which starts Wednesday.\nTodd Williams, 33, of Lexington, Ky., likes to watch University of Kentucky games clad in Kentucky blue-and-white apparel – and clutching his lucky basketball. For Yankees fan Paul Hegyi, 31, of Sacramento, Calif., it’s a lucky bat – which failed him last week when the Indians bumped New York from the playoffs.\n“I don’t really believe it” works, Texas Christian University football fan Paul Belding, 68, of Weatherford, Texas, said of the baseball caps he wears in hopes of victory. “But I don’t want to take the chance” by not wearing one.\nMario Alvarado, 40, of Houston leaves Houston Texans’ football games if they are trailing. He did so Sunday and by the time he turned the game on at home, the Texans had taken a lead – only to lose as the Tennessee Titans kicked a game-winning field goal as time expired.\n“If I hadn’t turned it on, I probably wouldn’t have jinxed them,” he said.\nThe poll was conducted from Oct. 16-18 and involved telephone interviews with 1,013 adults. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
(01/26/05 5:21am)
WASHINGTON -- As Congress started to digest a new Bush administration request of $80 billion to bankroll wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, its top budget analyst projected Tuesday $855 billion in deficits for the next decade, even without the costs of war and President Bush's Social Security plan.\nThree senior administration officials said the White House would request $80 billion or a bit more for the wars soon after Bush submits his budget for fiscal year 2006 to lawmakers Feb. 7. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the program has not yet been announced, said $75 billion would cover U.S. military costs, with the rest including funds to train and equip Iraqi and Afghan forces, aid the new Palestinian leadership, build an embassy in Baghdad and help victims of warfare in Sudan's Darfur province.\nCongress approved $25 billion for the wars last summer. Using figures compiled by the Congressional Research Service, which prepares reports for lawmakers, the newest request would push the totals provided for the conflicts and worldwide efforts against terrorism beyond $300 billion. That includes $25 billion already provided for rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan.\nIn a written statement, Bush said the money would support U.S. troops and help the United States "stand with the Iraqi people and against the terrorists trying desperately to block democracy and the advance of human rights."\nAmid the White House's preparations, the Congressional Budget Office predicted the government would accumulate another $855 billion in deficits over the next decade.\nThe projection for the years 2006 through 2015 is almost two-thirds smaller than what congressional budget analysts predicted last fall. The drop occurred largely because of quirks in budget estimates that required the agency to exclude future Iraq and Afghanistan war costs and other expenses. Last September, the 10-year deficit estimate was $2.3 trillion.\nThe CBO also projected this year's shortfall will be $368 billion. That was close to the $348 billion deficit for 2005 that it had forecasted last fall. The two largest deficits ever in dollar terms were last year's $412 billion and the $377 billion gap of 2003.\nThe budget office estimated that if U.S. troop strength in Iraq and Afghanistan declines gradually after 2006, those wars would add $590 billion to deficits over the next decade. Including war costs, this year's shortfall should hit about $400 billion, the budget office said.\nOne of the administration officials said the White House will project this year's deficit at $427 billion, citing higher overall spending estimates than the congressional estimators used.\nBesides lacking war costs, the budget office's deficit estimates also omitted the estimated price tag of Bush's goal of revamping Social Security, which could cost $1 trillion to $2 trillion and dominate this year's legislative agenda.\nAlso omitted were the price of extending Bush's tax cuts and easing the effect the alternative minimum tax would have on middle-income Americans, which could exceed $2.3 trillion, the report said.\nWhen those items are included, Bush is a long way from his goal of cutting deficits in half by 2009, Democrats said.
(01/07/05 4:47am)
WASHINGTON -- Congress certified President Bush's re-election Thursday but only after Democrats forced a challenge to the quadrennial count of electoral votes for just the second time since 1877.\nBush's Election Day triumph over Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was never in doubt. After a near four-hour delay to consider and reject a dispute over voting in Ohio, lawmakers in joint session affirmed Bush's 286-251 electoral vote victory -- plus a single vote that a "faithless" Kerry elector cast for his running mate, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. A total of 270 votes are needed for victory.\n"This announcement shall be a sufficient declaration of the persons elected president and vice president of the United States for the term beginning Jan. 20, 2005," Vice President Dick Cheney, who presided over the session, read without emotion when the final votes were tabulated.\nIn a drama that was historic if not suspenseful, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., formally protested that the Ohio votes "were not, under all known circumstances, regularly given." That, by law, required the House and Senate to convene separately and debate the Ohio irregularities.\nBoxer, Tubbs Jones and several other Democrats, including many black lawmakers, hoped the showdown would underscore the problems such as missing voting machines and unusually long lines that plagued some Ohio districts, many in minority neighborhoods, on Nov. 2.\n"If they were willing to stand in polls for countless hours in the rain, as many did in Ohio, then I can surely stand up for them here in the halls of Congress," Tubbs Jones said.\nDemocratic leaders distanced themselves from the effort, which many in the party worried would make them look like sore losers. Bush won Ohio by 118,000 votes and carried the national contest by 3.3 million votes, and Kerry himself -- meeting with troops in the Middle East -- did not support the challenge.\nThe debates were tinged by memories of the 2000 election, when Bush edged Democrat Al Gore after six weeks of recounts and turmoil in Florida.\n"There's a wise saying we've used in Florida the past four years that the other side would be wise to learn: Get over it," said Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla.\nThe joint session began as required by law at 1 p.m. EST, with Cheney presiding as the Senate's president and about 100 lawmakers in attendance.\nOne by one and in alphabetical order, certificates of each state's electoral votes were withdrawn from ceremonial mahogany boxes and read aloud. The session usually goes quickly, but when Ohio's votes were read 16 minutes into the meeting, Tubbs Jones and Boxer issued their challenge to Ohio's 20 electoral votes. The state had put Bush over the top.\nBy law, a protest signed by members of the House and Senate requires both chambers to meet separately for up to two hours to consider it. The Senate session lasted just over an hour and ended when the chamber voted 74-1 to uphold Ohio's votes, with Boxer the lone vote. The House used its full time and upheld the Ohio results, 267-31.\nFor Ohio's votes to be invalidated, both Republican-controlled chambers would have had to back the challenge.\nRep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., said the Democratic complaints were "outrage based on fantasy conspiracies." House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, called the effort "a shame" and its goal "not justice but noise." At the White House, spokesman Scott \nMcClellan said it was time to move forward and "not engage in conspiracy theories or partisan politics of this nature."\nSenate Democratic aides said new Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., initially opposed challenging the Ohio vote, and questioned Boxer about it when she told him she would join the protest.\nHe spoke briefly during the Senate debate, saying, "The sacrifice of our military demands that we ensure that our own elections are fair"
(11/15/04 4:18am)
WASHINGTON -- With the Republicans' election triumph behind them, members of Congress return Tuesday for a lame-duck session amid hopes they can finish a huge pile of spending bills stalemated all year.\nLegislators also must vote on raising the government's tapped-out borrowing limit, now at $7.4 trillion. In addition, they would like to pass a bill to put in place the Sept. 11 commission's vision of reshaping intelligence agencies, although House-Senate disputes make the chances appear dim.\nCongressional aides of both parties were working toward an agreement that could let lawmakers quickly finish eight of the nine remaining spending bills for the federal budget year that started Oct. 1.\nThe deal would involve extra money for veterans, NASA and other White House and congressional priorities while imposing across-the-board cuts of perhaps 0.75 percent on other programs, said aides who spoke on condition of anonymity.\n"One way or another, we're going to get done," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla.\nLawmakers have ample motivation for a quick postelection session, perhaps lasting little more than a week.\nRepublicans are eager to clear the decks for President George W. Bush's second-term initiatives, which he would like to feature overhauls of the tax laws and Social Security.\nMany Democrats want to settle now for spending increases they consider modest, knowing the elections mean next year's Congress will be more conservative and probably will look less kindly on domestic programs.\n"It's important that Congress get its work done, and we're very encouraged by what we see," said Noam Neusner, spokesman for the White House budget office.\nA postelection session has become a congressional habit, to the dismay of lawmakers who used to spend Novembers and Decembers at home. This will be the fifth consecutive election year in which members of the outgoing Congress have returned to the Capitol, including those who were defeated.\nAmong them will be outgoing Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., the only Senate incumbent to lose on Election Day.
(11/04/04 5:03am)
WASHINGTON -- A triumphant phalanx of conservative candidates paved the way as Republicans used Election Day to strengthen their grip on Congress and vanquish one of the Democrats' most visible national leaders.\nAs undecided races in the House and Senate dwindled to a handful, both chambers' GOP leaders rejoiced in their added muscle. In the next Congress, Republicans will have at least 231 seats and probably one more for what would be a three-seat pickup in the 435-member House.\nThe GOP will control the new Senate 55-44 plus a Democratic-leaning independent, a four-seat gain.\n"Last night was a monumental victory for the United States Senate," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.\nFrist, who will still need to muster 60 votes to fend off Democratic filibusters that can derail bills, spoke during a whirlwind one-day victory lap through four of the five southern states where Republicans grabbed seats from retiring Senate Democrats.\nThe GOP's favorite scalp was that of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the 18-year Senate veteran and leading Democratic voice whom Republicans disparaged for obstructing their agenda. Former Rep. John Thune, R-S.D., made Daschle the only Senate incumbent to lose Tuesday, ousting him by fewer than 4,600 votes and leaving his party's senators without a high-profile leader. Democrats were left searching for explanations.\n"We did everything within our control to be in a position to win," said Sen. Jon Corzine, D-N.J., who led his party's Senate campaign apparatus. "What we could not control was a map which was tilted decidedly in our opponent's direction and an unexpectedly strong showing by President Bush."\nSen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., Daschle's No. 2, easily won re-election and prepared to announce his own run for the top job. Though not viewed as telegenic or inspiring, Reid is seen by many colleagues as a hard worker who has earned the chance. If a challenge does come, the Democrat most often mentioned was Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.\nAs for the Democrats' next move, Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California at San Diego, who studies Congress, said, "They do some navel gazing for a while and they figure out how to reverse things."\nCongressional Republicans not only increased in number but are a more conservative lot, chiefly by consolidating their hold on Southern and other GOP-leaning states.\nAmong the newly minted GOP lawmakers with clear conservative tastes were incoming Sens. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, and Reps.-elect Ted Poe and Louis Gohmert of Texas. Most Democratic pickups in the House and Senate came in Democratic-leaning states and districts.\n"There's no question, the red states get redder and the blue states get bluer," said Stephen Moore, president of the conservative Club for Growth.\nUnderscoring the conservative tide, the National Rifle Association said 14 of the 18 Senate candidates and 241 of the 251 House candidates it endorsed had won. It circulated long lists of incoming House and Senate freshmen it considered "pro-gun."\nSen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., perhaps the Senate's most moderate Republican, told The Providence Journal that he might switch parties if President Bush were re-elected. "I'm not ruling it out," he said.\nChafee spokesman Stephen Hourahan seemed to try tamp down rumblings of a switch, Wednesday, saying of his boss, "He has no intention of making an announcement of anything in the near future."\nModerate Republicans took note of what happened and began staking out their territory.\nThe likely new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, moderate Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., warned the White House against trying to fill any upcoming Supreme Court vacancies with judges who would oppose abortion rights or invite Democrats to block them for being too conservative.\n"I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning," said Specter, who was elected Tuesday to a fifth six-year term.\nThe Republican Main Street Partnership, an organization of GOP centrists, issued a statement praising Bush's victory but reminding colleagues that its members will continue supporting efforts to clean the environment.\n"We are proud to work with President Bush and will continue to strive to achieve balance for the priorities of all Americans," the partnership said in a statement.\nAnd moderate Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, praised Bush's strong leadership and said she hoped he "will reach out to all Americans to unite our nation"
(09/16/04 4:20am)
WASHINGTON -- A Senate committee voted Wednesday to scuttle new rules that critics say would deny overtime pay to millions of workers, as Democrats won the latest round in their election-year bout with President George w. Bush over the issue.\nThe 16-13 vote by the Republican-run Senate Appropriations Committee came less than a week after the GOP-led House embarrassed Bush by approving a similar measure.\nDespite the twin rebukes by Congress, the provision could well disappear when House-Senate bargainers write a final version of the spending bill to which it was attached. GOP leaders and the White House will dominate that part of the legislative process.\nWin or lose, Democrats hope the overtime fight will galvanize their union supporters to vote in the November election.\n"Working families across the country are demanding that Bush put their interests above those of big business," AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said after the vote.\nThe reverse effect might also benefit Republicans, who rely on campaign contributions from companies and corporate executives, many of whom favor the new regulations.\nThe Bush administration and most Republicans support the rules, which took effect Aug. 23. They said the regulations, the most thorough rewrite of the rules in five decades, are a badly needed update.\n"We ought to let it run for a while so we can judge what the effect of this rule is," said Appropriations Panel Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.\nTwo Republicans joined the committee's Democrats in voting to derail the overtime rules: Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, seeking re-election this year in a state with a strong labor presence, and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado, who is retiring.\nThe language was offered by Sen. Tom Harkin, D- Iowa, who said the new rules would remove overtime protection for up to 6 million workers.\n"They undermine the 40-hour work week," said Harkin of the rules, adding, "The economic health of too many workers is at stake."\nSen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., called the estimate of 6 million workers losing overtime "totally bogus."\nThe overtime provision was added to a $145.9 billion spending bill financing labor, health and education programs. The overall measure was approved by 29-0.\nLast Thursday, the House voted 223-193 to add similar language to its version of the same bill, underscoring the sensitivity that Republicans from labor districts have on the issue.\nThe White House has threatened a veto of the entire spending bill if the overtime language survives. House leaders have said they believe the provision will be removed from the final House-Senate compromise.\nDemocrats and their labor allies say the new regulations would threaten the overtime payments of chefs, nurses, police officers, journalists, athletic trainers, lower-level computer employees and those who perform small amounts of supervisory work.\nThat is disputed by the White House and the Labor Department, which argue that the new rules clarify who is entitled to overtime in a work force that has changed dramatically over the decades. They say the rules would reduce confusion that has led to expensive lawsuits.\nThe Bush administration says about 107,000 white-collar workers making $100,000 or more could lose eligibility.\nThe new regulations would also require overtime pay for workers earning up to $23,660. That is triple the annual salary above which overtime was previously required, an increase the Labor Department said would protect 1.3 million workers.\nHarkin's amendment would let all those workers newly entitled to overtime to receive it, and would only affect those who stand to lose it.\nThe new rules would chiefly affect white-collar workers earning between $23,660 and $100,000. Their overtime status now depends on new definitions of the job duties of professional, administrative and executive employees.\nFor example, while professional employees with professional degrees have been exempt from overtime, the new rule lets employers also use certain work experience as grounds for exemption.
(07/22/04 2:20am)
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon faces a $12.3 billion shortfall through September for the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and its worldwide effort against terrorism, congressional auditors estimated Wednesday.\nThe amount is triple what Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, projected in April he would need to make it through September. Lawmakers of both parties said at the time that his projection seemed too low, so the projection was not a surprise.\nThe election-season report immediately roiled the political waters. Democrats used it to criticize President Bush for underestimating the burden the wars -- especially in Iraq -- have thrust on taxpayers.\n"He has grossly mismanaged the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq," said Mark Kitchens, deputy press secretary to Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Kitchens called the study "another example of how George W. Bush planned for best case scenarios and failed to prepare for the realities of war."\nRep. John Spratt, D-S.C., who requested the study, said it underlined "another in a long line of miscalculations" by Bush on Iraq.\nAt the White House, budget office spokesman Chad Kolton defended the president.\n"When it comes to making decisions about resources for our men and women in uniform, the only thing that matters is ensuring they have what they need to get the job done," Kolton said.\nThe report was written by the Government Accountability Office, Congress' investigative arm formerly called the General Accounting Office.\nIts release came a day before Congress was expected to approve a $417.5 billion defense bill for next year that includes $25 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That $25 billion will be available as soon as Bush signs the measure, but it is unclear that the administration will use any of that money until the fall.\nAfter Congress provided $87 billion last November for Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House began this year insisting it would need no extra money until next year. Under congressional pressure, it requested $25 billion in May for use beginning next October, when the government's new budget year begins.\nRather than using the new $25 billion to plug any gaps, the Pentagon could try shifting money from other funds or delaying some expenditures. Democrats said they believed Bush would do that because spending part of the $25 billion would drive up this year's budget deficit, already expected to set a record in the $450 billion range.\n"Ascribing all these other theories" about how Bush will handle a shortfall "have nothing to do with it whatsoever," Kolton said.\nPentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Rose-Ann Lynch said the Defense Department believes it has enough money for this year -- if Congress gives it authority to transfer an extra $1.1 billion within its existing budget, which is roughly $400 billion.\nShe said defense officials have planned to use the $25 billion to cover operations from October through next March. Even so, she said department officials do not believe the report is necessarily wrong.\n"We always said it was going to be tight," Lynch said.\nHouse Budget Committee Democrats estimated that the Pentagon has $5 billion in unspent funds it can use to help plug the gap, still leaving it more than $7 billion short.\nThe GAO report found that most of the projected shortfall -- $9.4 billion -- would come from the Army, which is conducting the brunt of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the rest, $1.4 billion would come from the Air Force, $1 billion from the Navy and $500 million from the Marines.\nMost of the projected gap is for operations and maintenance items like the costs of transporting troops and refurbishing equipment.\nTo free up funds, the Army is planning to defer equipment repairs while the Air Force and Navy are trimming peacetime flying hours, the report said.\nSo far, Congress has provided $191 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan and global efforts against terror, including money to help rebuild those two countries.
(09/23/03 5:23am)
WASHINGTON -- The administration wants $100 million for an Iraqi witness protection program, $290 million to hire, train and house thousands of firefighters, $9 million to modernize the postal service, including establishment of ZIP codes.\nA Bush administration document, distributed to members of Congress and obtained by The Associated Press, goes far beyond the details officials have publicly provided for how they would spend the $20.3 billion they have requested for Iraqi reconstruction.\nThe 53 pages of justifications flesh out the size of the task of rebuilding the country, almost literally brick by brick. It also paints a painstaking picture of the damage Iraq has suffered.\n"The war and subsequent looting destroyed over 165 firehouses throughout the country. There are no tools or equipment in any firehouse," according to the report, written by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-led organization now running Iraq.\nThe report's estimated cost of rebuilding Iraq's fire service, including hiring and training 5,000 firefighters: $290 million.\nAt another point, the report says the headquarters and three regional offices of the border police "will require complete renovation." Two thousand new recruits must be trained because the agency previously used conscripts, "almost all of whom deserted."\nReviving that and other border protection agencies should cost $150 million, the report said.\nThe proposal was part of the $87 billion plan that President Bush sent Congress Sept. 7 for Iraq and Afghanistan. The biggest piece of that package was $66 billion to finance U.S. military operations in both countries and elsewhere.\n"Expeditious approval of this emergency appropriation is critical for the coalition to lay the groundwork for an Iraq governed by and for the people of Iraq, to serve as the model for democracy in the Mideast and to help fight the global war on terrorism by providing an alternative framework for governance," the request states.\nCongress, just beginning work on Bush's proposal, is expected to approve it largely intact. But the political soft spot has been the $20.3 billion for reconstruction, because of record federal deficits facing this country and demands by Democrats for increased domestic security spending.\n"The administration fought against a $200 million boost for America's police officers, firefighters and paramedics," Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said Monday at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing. "But Iraqi first responders would get $290 million through this" Bush proposal.\nByrd made his comments at a hearing where L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, testified that the plan would help prevent terrorists from establishing a foothold there.\nOther projects and their estimated costs listed in the report:\n-- Spend $100 million to protect witnesses and their families who testify against former government officials, terrorist groups or organized crime figures. "Without an effective witness protection program, it is simply not possible to prosecute these cases," the report says.\n-- Hire, train and equip 20,000 guards to protect Iraqi government facilities, $67 million.\n-- Retain 500 experts to investigate crimes against humanity by former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government, for $100 million.\n-- Build and modernize 26 jails and prisons for 8,500 inmates, $99 million.\n-- Spend $9 million to modernize Iraq's postal system, including establishment of ZIP codes.\n-- Rebuild the country's badly damaged electrical system, install at least 11 40-megawatt gas turbine generation plants and several larger units, replace power lines and towers, $2.9 billion.\n-- Spend $55 million for an oil pipeline repair team that can respond quickly to new reports of sabotage or other problems, as part of a $2.1 billion effort to rebuild Iraq's oil industry.\n-- Use $1 billion to provide drinkable water to 75 percent of Iraq's urban population, an additional 2.7 million people, up from 60 percent today. An additional $530 million would be spent to serve 75 percent of the rural population, an additional 1.3 million, many of whom now rely on water trucked in as infrequently as once every 10 days. Eventual goal: serve 90 percent of the population, $2.8 billion.\n-- Spend $130 million to construct 10 major irrigation and drainage projects.\n-- Use $125 million to rebuild railroad tracks.\n-- Start building at least 3,528 new houses next year as part of a $100 million housing initiative.\n-- Designate $150 million to start building a new children's hospital in Basra.\n-- Spend $35 million to subsidize on-the-job training for private businesses.
(07/14/03 1:14am)
WASHINGTON -- The House handed a narrow defeat Thursday to conservatives who wanted to forbid the National Institutes of Health from giving grants to researchers conducting four sexual research projects, including studies of older men and of San Francisco's Asian prostitutes and masseuses.\nThe 212-210 vote derailed an effort led by Rep. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., to block the grants for next year, which are expected to total $1.4 million.\nThe debate recalled fights waged in Congress a decade ago over arts projects financed by the National Endowment for the Arts. Conservatives led by former Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., argued that taxpayers should not finance objectionable works of arts, a controversy that resulted in the endowment revamping the way it decides which projects to back.\n"I ask my colleagues, who thinks this stuff up?" Toomey said of the sexual research projects he singled out. "These are not worthy ... of taxpayer funds."\nOpponents said it would be a dangerous precedent for lawmakers to kill the projects.\n"We have no business making political judgments on those issues," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis.\nThe National Institutes of Health receive 120,000 grant applications a year, awarding funds to about one-third of them, said Rep. Ralph Regula, R-Ohio. The agency, a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services, is the government's main source of biomedical research.\nToomey is challenging moderate GOP Sen. Arlen Specter for their party's Senate nomination next year.\nAccording to Toomey's office, the grants and their estimated cost next year are:\n• Mood arousal and sexual risk taking, $237,000, conducted by the Kinsey Institute at IU.\n• Sexual habits of older men, $69,000, at New England Research Institutes Inc. in Watertown, Mass.\n• Drug use and HIV-related behavior by San Francisco's Asian prostitutes/masseuses, $641,000, University of California-San Francisco's Department of Medicine.\n• American Indian and Alaskan Native lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered and "two-spirited individuals," $500,000, University of Washington in Seattle.
(03/25/03 4:32am)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is expected to ask Congress for about $75 billion to pay for the war with Iraq, assuming the war will last about 30 days, and to strengthen counterterrorism efforts at home, lawmakers and congressional aides said Monday.\nThe money measure, which the president planned to describe to congressional leaders he invited to the White House, is dominated by $62.6 billion for the Department of Defense. It is based on an assumption that the U.S.-led effort to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein takes 30 days of combat, said aides.\nThe request was also expected to include up to $3 billion for domestic security, chiefly for police and other so-called first responders. And it will contain about $8 billion for aid to Israel, Afghanistan and other U.S. allies, a down payment on humanitarian aid for Iraq and for rebuilding the country, and money to increase security for American diplomats.\nAt Monday's meeting, Bush was expected to ask congressional leaders to send him a completed version of the bill by April 11, when lawmakers are scheduled to begin their Easter recess.\nThough lawmakers are eager to demonstrate their support for U.S. troops, Democrats and many Republicans are expected to have problems with parts of the proposal.\nOf the $62.6 billion for the Defense Department, the administration is proposing setting aside $59.9 billion in an emergency reserve fund that the Pentagon could largely spend at its own discretion with limited input from Congress, said Democrats who said they were familiar with a preliminary version of the proposal.\n"We need to provide every single dime the troops need, but I do think we need to know where it's going and for what purpose," said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.\nObey said that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "wasn't appointed to be the U.S. Congress with the power of the purse . . . We're supposed to know what we're doing before we open the purse strings."\nDemocrats were also expected to complain that Bush's request had only $500 million in humanitarian aid for Iraq and $1.7 billion to rebuild the country. Prior congressional and private estimates suggested the long-range expenses for both those efforts would be many times those amounts, though administration officials are hoping allied nations will help with the financing.\nDemocrats said they were also unhappy that the measure lacks additional money for other domestic programs such as tightening security at U.S. ports, borders, dams and facilities that generate radioactive materials.\nBush was preparing to send the Republican-controlled Congress his request just as lawmakers write a $2.2 trillion budget for 2004, which so far has excluded any funds for a war.\nDemocrats have complained repeatedly that the fiscal framework -- which controls new tax cuts proposed by Bush -- cannot be written without knowing what the war will cost. Some Democrats believe the information might undercut support for Bush's proposed tax reductions.\nThe administration had refused to provide its war estimate until now, arguing that there were too many uncertainties on the battlefield.\nThe requested defense funds will include $10.4 billion for the call-up of Reserves and National Guard troops and extra salary paid to troops in combat, said one congressional aide speaking on condition of anonymity.\nAlso included for the Pentagon will be $44.6 billion for operations and maintenance, and $6.5 billion for purchasing new munitions and for research and development.\nForeign aid will include $1 billion in grants plus federal backing for up to $9 billion in guaranteed loans for Israel; $1.1 billion for Jordan; less than $1 billion for Egypt and other funds for countries including Oman and Bahrain.\nAfghanistan would get $400 million for humanitarian aid.\nThe measure might contain $1 billion for Turkey, though those funds might be omitted from a final version of the bill. That country has balked at letting the United States base troops there for an invasion of Iraq from the north, but has allowed some U.S. use of its air space.\nThe request will also include $500 million for the FBI, plus funds for the Coast Guard.
(02/04/03 4:26am)
Washington -- President Bush shipped lawmakers a $2.23 trillion budget for 2004 on Monday bearing record deficits and seeking deep new tax cuts, an ambitious expansion of Medicare and bolstering security at home and abroad at the expense of domestic programs.\nThough Republican majorities in Congress mean Bush's plans will get a better reception than last year's did when Democrats ran the Senate, some elements will clearly be reshaped, like his call for a 10-year, $1.3 trillion tax cut. Whatever happens, the proposal sets the stage for a partisan battle over fiscal priorities likely to rumble right into next year's White House and congressional elections.\nDemocrats said the budget would deepen government debt just as it should be shoring up Social Security and Medicare for the approaching retirement of the 76 million-strong baby boom generation.\n"Buried in President Bush's budget is a plan to dismantle Social Security and Medicare," said Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, the House Ways and Mean's Committee's top Democrat. "By demanding large tax cuts again even though there are no longer surpluses, the administration will starve the government of funds."\nThe president said his plan focused on the most important challenges facing the nation. \n"A recession and a war we did not choose have led to the return of deficits," Bush said in a message accompanying the five-volume, 13.5-pound blueprint. "My administration firmly believes in controlling the deficit and reducing it as the economy strengthens and our national security interests are met."\nOne item sure to get special attention on Capitol Hill was Bush's proposal to give NASA a modest 3 percent increase to $15.5 billion in the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.\nThe budget, completed before Saturday's space shuttle Columbia disaster, included $3.97 billion for the shuttle. The administration said that was 4.7 percent more than it expected Congress to approve for 2003 when lawmakers finish this year's overdue spending bills.\nThe Justice and Labor departments were the only Cabinet-level agencies whose overall budgets would decline. But to contain burgeoning red ink, proposed cuts included some Army Corps of Engineers water projects, rural development, high technology aid to business, and state grants for fighting drugs in schools and for clean water.\nWhile Bush predicted last year that the government would dip its toe into deficits for just three years, Monday's spending plan acknowledged hefty shortfalls as far as the eye can see -- a projection both parties fought to turn to their advantage.\nBush projected deficits of $304 billion this year and $307 billion in 2004, easing to $190 billion in 2008, the final year shown. Not factored in was a possible war with Iraq likely to cost at least tens of billions of dollars.\nThe highest deficit on record was $290 billion in 1992, when Bush's father was president.\nLess than two years after Bush projected $5.6 trillion in surpluses for the next decade, on Monday he estimated $1.08 trillion in cumulative deficits for the coming five years alone. The budget mostly projected five years ahead instead of the 10 years customary recently, with administration officials saying longer forecasts are guesswork. Democrats said Bush was avoiding showing the full, bleak picture.\n"You'd think in the face of a reversal like that, they'd offer a process or plan to right the budget. There is none," complained Rep. John Spratt of South Carolina, lead Democrat on the House Budget Committee.\nAlso weighing in were presidential contenders like Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., who said, "According to the president's budget, what he cares most about is giving a tax cut to the taxpayers who need it the least."\nWhite House budget chief Mitchell Daniels responded that balancing the budget "is not the top, let alone the only priority." He said eliminating deficits could only be achieved by strong economic growth and spending restraint.\nHouse Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., called the plan "a common sense budget" that "makes the necessary investments in the future without spending our nation into bankruptcy."\nStrikingly, the $1.3 trillion in tax cuts Bush proposed Monday amid looming deficits was only marginally less than the $1.6 trillion he proposed two years ago as projected surpluses soared.\nThe lion's share of his new proposal was $695 billion for stimulating the economy, dominated by a slash in taxes on corporate dividends. That benefit became $25 billion more generous at the 11th hour.\nBush also proposed to make the 2001 tax cuts permanent at an additional cost of $588 billion. That package, enacted at $1.35 trillion, would otherwise expire after 2010.\nThe president called for setting aside $400 billion over the next decade for revamping Medicare, the health-insurance program for 41 million elderly and disabled people, including adding prescription drug coverage. But he provided few details, ensuring a battle with Democrats already claiming that his proposal is inadequate and would force seniors into managed care plans.\nBush proposed to give states more latitude in spending federal funds for Medicaid, which provides health coverage for the poor, and for Head Start preschools in low-income neighborhoods. Democrats say Bush's plans, his response to states reeling from their own deep deficits, are a step toward dismantling both programs.\nThe president would spend $782 billion next year for the operations of all federal agencies, excluding the two-thirds of the budget that covers automatic benefits like Social Security. That is $30 billion, or 4 percent, more than Bush has so far sought in the bills for this year that lawmakers are still writing.\nOf that, half would be for the Pentagon, giving it a 4.2 percent increase over this year to $380 billion. That number paled compared to the 11 percent boost the military won in 2002.\nThe new Department of Homeland Security would grow to $26.7 billion, $1.3 billion more than its component agencies are on course to get this year.\nOther increases would go for veterans health care, education for disabled and low-income children, and fighting AIDS in Africa and elsewhere overseas.
(11/14/02 5:31am)
WASHINGTON -- The House voted emphatically Wednesday to create a Homeland Security Department, propelling President Bush nearer his goal of answering last year's terrorist attacks with the biggest restructuring of government in half a century.\nThe 299-121 roll call -- and a pair of favorable procedural votes in the Democratic-run Senate -- signaled that lawmakers were ready to award a legislative triumph to a president whose hand was strengthened by Republican victories in last week's congressional elections. Bush began supporting the idea of a huge new department combining 22 agencies this summer after initially coming to office seeking to diminish the role of government in Americans' lives.\n"Times have changed and it's imperative to the security of our country and the security of our families that our government change as well," said Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio.\nOpposition came mostly from Democrats arguing that the bill still lacked adequate job protections for the new agency's 170,000 workers. Voting for the measure were 212 Republicans and 87 Democrats, while six Republicans, 114 Democrats and one independent voted "no."\nThe bill is "just another example of the Bush administration's union-busting policies," said Rep. Corrine Brown, D-Fla.\nAmong the agencies the bill would combine are the Coast Guard, the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Customs Service.\nIn the Senate, Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., predicted the bill would pass by next week. Underlining the shift in momentum, he said he might vote for it despite his own objections to its labor provisions.\n"It's a lame duck. The president has said he wanted the bill," Daschle said in explaining why a bill snagged in the Senate for two months was sailing toward enactment.\nThe Senate began debating the bill and voted 89-8 to end procedural delays and 50-47 to kill a more pro-labor Democratic alternative. Though opponents will have other chances to slow the measure, the votes reflected that senators realized it was now politically impossible to kill.\nThe idea of combining the government's far-flung domestic security functions into a single agency was originally proposed last year by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and other members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee as a response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.\nThe Bush administration initially opposed the plan, offering its own proposal last summer when congressional support for the concept became overwhelming.\nWith hopes of wrapping up its business for the year, the House also voted 270-143 to keep federal agencies open through Jan. 11, a bill required by this year's budget deadlock between Congress and the White House. Senate passage was needed.\nOnly two of the 13 spending bills for the federal fiscal year that started Oct. 1 have become law. The remainder will have to be revisited by the new Congress next year.\nThe temporary bill would keep most spending at last year's levels. That meant domestic security and other programs for which Bush proposed big increases would not receive additional funding unless Congress votes for it later.\nDemocrats complained that Republicans stuffed provisions into the homeland security bill limiting liability for producers of the smallpox vaccine and makers of high technology airport screening equipment, as well as for many airport private security companies.\nIt also has vaguely worded language that would make Texas A&M University eligible for federal homeland security research -- a provision inserted by Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, whose district is nearby.\nThe measure would allow airline pilots to carry guns in cockpits, give airports a one-year delay in the Dec. 31 deadline for installing equipment to inspect all checked bags for explosives, and let the new agency sign contracts with U.S. companies that have relocated abroad to dodge taxes.\nAn earlier version passed the House easily in July. But the Senate deadlocked over Bush's insistence on national security grounds that he needed the power to hire, fire and deploy workers without the civil service protections most federal workers have.\nThe final bill requires a month of talks with unions and another month of federal mediation, but would let the agency do what it wants anyway. It would also let the president strip department workers of collective bargaining rights, though that decision would be revisited every four years.\nSensing that last week's election had turned the tide, three pivotal moderate senators accepted the new language and embraced the bill, ensuring it had the votes needed to break the stalemate. They are Sens. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I.; John Breaux, D-La.; and Ben Nelson, D-Neb.\nRepublicans say the voters punished Democrats on Election Day for taking the side of public employee unions and blocking the earlier version of the bill.\nRep. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who did not serve in the military, emphasized the issue in his successful campaign to oust Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, a Vietnam War triple amputee. And some Democrats worried that if the bill was not approved, it could hurt Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., in the runoff election she faces next month.\nDaschle said he believed Bush and the GOP played politics with the bill.\n"In my view, he didn't want the bill before the election, with the expectation and hope they would use it for political purposes," Daschle said. "They have"
(11/13/02 3:37pm)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush said Tuesday the creation of a Homeland Security Department is the "single-most important business" before the lame-duck Congress, and summoned lawmakers to the White House for private arm-twisting sessions.\nAs the House and Senate began what will be an abbreviated postelection session, some lawmakers were expected to join in the president's push to end a Senate stalemate over the proposed agency. Democrats, who will control the Senate for a little while longer, have fought Bush in connection with labor rights provisions of the bill.\nA defiant Bush said he will not sign a bill unless it gives him authority to lift labor rights in response to a national emergency.\n"I will not give up national security authority at the price of creating a department we badly need," he said after touring the operations center of the District of Columbia Police Department.\nAs both sides considered potential compromise, Bush said he was confident the lame-duck session will create the new department.\n"I believe we can get this done. I believe Congress can show the country that they can finish their work on a high note of achievement," the president said.\nLater, Bush was to sit down to a White House strategy session with House and Senate Republican leaders and, separately with Dean Barkley, the interim senator from Minnesota, to try to win his vote.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle tested positive for anthrax on Monday as the bioterrorism scare rattling the nation reached the halls of Congress. \nThe discovery of anthrax in Washington followed earlier instances in Florida, New York and Nevada in which at least 12 people were exposed to spores of the potentially deadly bacteria. Monday night, another case of the disease was announced in New York. \nThe 7-month-old child of an ABC News employee has tested positive for anthrax, ABC News President David Westin said. The child is expected to recover. New York police commissioner Bernard Kerik said news agencies around the city were being inspected for anthrax contamination. \nThe piece of mail in Daschle's office, which contained a powdery substance, was dispatched to an Army medical research facility at Fort Detrick, Md., for further examination, said Capitol Police Lt. Dan Nichols. \nThe Fort Detrick findings could be available as early as Tuesday, officials said. Nichols and others warned that the initial tests were not necessarily accurate. \nBush told reporters "there may be some possible link" between the spate of anthrax incidents across the country and Osama bin Laden, who administration officials say was behind the Sept. 11 airline hijack attacks. \n"I wouldn't put it past him, but we don't have any hard evidence," Bush said. \nDaschle was in the Capitol and was not exposed to the letter, which was opened in his other office a block away in the Hart Senate Office Building. \nOfficials would not identify the person who opened the letter, though Nichols referred to the aide as a female. Aides who may have been exposed to the letter were tested with nasal swabs and being treated with the antibiotic Cipro as a precaution, said Dr. John Eisold, attending physician in the Capitol. \n"They are innocent people caught up in a matter for which they have nothing to do," a somber-looking Daschle, D-S.D., told reporters at a news conference outside the Capitol. "I am very, very disappointed and angered." \nNichols said a criminal investigation led by the FBI was under way. \nThe suspension of the tours -- which had already been curtailed after the Sept. 11 attacks -- was planned before Monday's incident, Nichols said. \nBush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said precautions were being taken at the White House with regard to mail, but added she was not aware of any tainted letters being delivered there. Other White House aides said they've been told strict limits will be put on deliveries, including food. \n"Like everybody else, we are being very cautious about what we open," Rice said. \nIn Trenton, N.J., Postal Inspector Tony Esposito and FBI officials said the letter to Daschle was postmarked in Trenton on Sept. 18, the same date and postmark on a letter that infected an NBC employee in New York last week. \nOfficials also were testing a female mail carrier and male maintenance worker in Trenton who reported possible symptoms of anthrax, Esposito said.
(07/25/02 8:23pm)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush called Wednesday for nearly $50 billion in additional military spending for the war on terrorism, the largest increase for the Pentagon in two decades.\nPrivately, he assured Republican and Democratic leaders that he has "no ambition whatsoever" to exploit the war on terrorism for political gain in this election year.\nWith his chief political strategist, Karl Rove, seated behind him in the Cabinet Room, Bush gave House and Senate leaders an update on the fight against terrorists and added, "I have no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue. There is no daylight between the executive and the legislative branches."\nNo one in the room for the closed-door morning meeting responded, according to congressional and White House sources who related the scene to The Associated Press.\nRove had caused a stir among Democrats last week when he told a GOP conference that Republicans would do well to talk up the popular war in this year's midterm elections.\nIn an afternoon address to the Reserve Officers Association, Bush gave the first details of the $2 trillion budget that he submits to Congress Feb. 4.\nThat spending plan will ask Congress to give the Pentagon an increase of $48 billion, bringing its budget within range of $380 billion. If approved by the House and Senate, the funds would amount to the largest increase in military spending in 20 years, Bush said.\nThe extra money would give service personnel another pay raise, acquire more precision weapons and build missile defenses. \n"Buying these tools may put a strain on the budget but we will not cut corners when it comes to the defense of our great land," Bush said to cheers from the Reserve officers.\nThe new spending would include a $10 billion "war reserve" that Bush wants to have on hand for active military operations, White House budget chief Mitchell Daniels said.\nSen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee on defense, was skeptical that lawmakers would support the big increase in these tight budget times. \n"They'd be reluctant to, unless the president can justify it," Inouye said.\nTo keep Americans safe from terrorists here at home, Bush said his budget will also call for hiring 30,000 airport security workers and an additional 300 FBI agents, buying new equipment to improve mail safety, and beefing up research on bioterror threats.\nFor the budget year beginning Oct. 1, Bush is expected to request roughly double the current $13 billion for homeland security, a spending item that did not exist a year ago.\nAfter four consecutive years of federal surpluses, Bush's budget will project deficits of $106 billion for this year, $80 billion for 2003, with a stream of surpluses beginning again in 2005 with $61 billion in black ink, Daniels said.\nTo address the recession, which Bush blames for the return to deficits, lawmakers emerged from their White House meeting and expressed commitment on both sides to a compromised economic package.\nSenate Republican Leader Trent Lott told reporters in the White House driveway that the middle-ground plan offered by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., has potential to break the long partisan stalemate over how to boost the economy and help millions of unemployed Americans.\n"It is a focus of our attention. It's a process that could get us into considering the bill and reaching a conclusion," said Lott, R-Miss.\nHouse Speaker Dennis Hastert agreed, for the most part.\n"We made a commitment to at least start the discussion and try to work things out. I'm committed, and I think other leaders are that we need some type of a stimulus package," said Hastert, R-Ill.\nDaschle, who for much of the holiday recess was locked in a long-distance war of words with the White House over economic policy, suggested detente was in the works.\nBush invited Daschle and the other leaders to continue the White House breakfast meetings he began after launching the anti-terror war in Afghanistan, Daschle said.\n The breakfasts will shift from a weekly happening to once every two weeks, with the first already scheduled for Tuesday, aides said.\n Daschle chuckled when Bush jokingly wondered whether they would be able to keep the breakfasts going "as things heat up" in the election year, the Capitol Hill and White House sources said.\n "A new year brings a new opportunity to start over. We're going to do that and work, hopefully, in a very positive and a bipartisan spirit," Daschle said.\n "We talked today about the areas for which we both have a high priority, and it was amazing. I thought it was identical -- trade, energy the economy, election reform, prescription drugs, patients bill of rights, agriculture."\n Bush wants tens of billions of dollars more for homeland defense and military spending. On the economic front, he's pushing to break the stalemate over his economic revival package of tax cuts -- mostly for businesses -- and extended unemployment benefits.\n Daschle proposes that Republicans and Democrats work on a compromised economic plan requiring both sides to make concessions.\nDemocrats would shelve raising unemployment benefits and subsidizing health care premiums for the newly unemployed under the Daschle plan, while Republicans would drop accelerating the income tax cuts enacted last year and repealing the corporate alternative minimum tax.
(05/23/02 2:37am)
WASHINGTON -- Republican leaders scurried to tamp down last-minute problems Wednesday and push a bipartisan $29 billion anti-terrorism package through the House.\nAcross the Capitol, the Democratic-led Senate Appropriations Committee prepared to approve its own $31 billion version of the measure. Unlike the House plan, the Senate bill was running into White House objections because it departs from several of President Bush's priorities, including outspending his original proposal by nearly $4 billion.\n"President Bush asked Congress to resist the temptation to overspend," said Trent Duffy, spokesman for the White House budget office. "The House has done that and should be commended. The Senate should exercise the same restraint."\nAmid recent administration warnings of renewed terrorism threats, there was broad bipartisan support for the House measure. It would beef up spending for the Pentagon, aviation safety and other domestic security programs, and support for Afghanistan, Israel and other U.S. allies.\nFirst, GOP leaders needed to nail down support for a preliminary vote on procedures for considering the bill.\nVirtually all Democrats planned to oppose it because of language Republicans added paving the way for increased federal borrowing, which the Bush administration has sought for months. Democrats blame last year's tax cuts for the red ink and oppose burying the issue in the anti-terrorism measure.\nDemocratic opposition meant nearly unanimous GOP support was needed for the procedural vote. GOP leaders were trying to satisfy Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee, who were balking at limits the measure would put on spending for next year.\nAlso built into the procedural vote was language boosting Medicare reimbursements for hospitals in the districts of GOP Reps. Sue Kelly of New York and Don Sherwood of Pennsylvania -- in exchange for their support in a recent trade vote, said congressional aides. There were also provisions helping domestic textile manufacturers to cement more trade support, and bolstering mail service in Alaska.\nThe Senate measure provides $3 billion more than the $5.3 billion Bush wanted for police, inspecting shipping containers, buttressing nuclear laboratory safety, and other domestic security programs.\n"We are still vulnerable. We need to do more to protect Americans here at home," said Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., who reached broad agreement on the bill with Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the panel's top Republican.\nThe Senate bill also takes a slap at the White House by making Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge's job one that requires Senate confirmation. That provision continues the battle between the administration and lawmakers over Ridge's refusal to testify to Congress.\nThe House version of the bill has wide bipartisan support.
(10/31/01 5:55am)
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats lost an effort Tuesday to add money to a program aimed at keeping Russian nuclear weapons away from terrorists.\nBy voice vote, House lawmakers working with senators to craft a compromise energy and water spending bill rejected an effort by Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Texas, that would have added $131 million to a $173 million program that helps Russia guard its nuclear facilities.\nThe $173 million is the same amount that was provided for the program last year.\n"That's business as usual," Edwards said after the meeting. "We're faced with a war against terrorism, and the terrorists have declared war on us."\nOpponents objected to Edwards' plan to take the money from a separate program for nuclear-armed cruise missiles. But they also agreed that nuclear nonproliferation efforts must be strengthened and told him they look for extra money in future bills.\n"There's no question we should be helping the Russians," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who chairs the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that oversees energy and water spending. "It's really in our interest to help them."\nOverall, the bill contains $803 million for nuclear nonproliferation, including money for other programs that create jobs for Russian nuclear scientists so they won't be tempted to work for terrorist groups. That is $69 million less than this year, but $29 million more than President Bush requested.\nThe bill has a $24.6 billion price tag, $573 million more than last year and $2 billion above Bush's request. The measure must now be approved by the full House and Senate.\nThe legislation includes $60 million for new water projects, a favorite of lawmakers, and extra money for renewable energy research and cleanups of Energy Department nuclear waste sites.\nBargainers also decided to drop House-approved language that would have blocked the Army Corps of Engineers from seasonally altering water flows on the Missouri River, a battle that has pitted upstream and downstream business interests against each other.\nA Senate-passed provision, which remains in the bill, lets the Corps study various alternatives. The battle will be fought again next year.\nHouse-Senate bargainers also adopted a second spending bill, a near $3 billion measure to finance Congress' own operations. It is $245 million higher than was spent last year, and $13 million more than Bush sought.