Connecticut Senate Votes for Gun Limits; House Passage Is Expected - New York Times

HARTFORD — With the memories of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School as fresh as an open wound, the Connecticut Senate passed on Wednesday what members called the nation’s most comprehensive package of gun control legislation. The House was expected to approve it later in the night.

The vote came in a deeply divided Capitol packed with angry and frustrated gun owners who arrived in buses and vans carrying signs reading “Connecticut the Un-Constitution State,” “N.R.A. Stand and Fight” and “Shall Not Be Infringed.” And it came in a state that has historically been at the heart of the American gun manufacturing industry.

But 110 days after Adam Lanza blasted his way through a locked glass door at the school and fired 154 shots in about 4 minutes with a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, killing 26 children and educators, senators voted 26 to 10 for gun, school safety and mental health legislation drawn up over the past month by a bipartisan group of legislative leaders.

Legislators called it the most divisive issue in memory and said the legislation was an imperfect response to an impossibly complex issue. Several objected to the rushed pace in which the 138 pages became available only that morning.

Donald E. Williams Jr., a Democrat from Brooklyn, Conn., and the Senate president pro tempore, began discussion of the legislation by recalling the morning of the killings, on Dec. 14, when “for a few seconds, it was hard to breathe” as people took in the news. He concluded it by saying mass killings were not solely about mental health issues, as gun advocates say, but also about firearms.

“It’s access to the weapons of war, the access to the weapons that can kill mass amounts of children or adults in our schools and in our communities,” Senator Williams said. “That’s the essential issue when it comes to mass killings.”

The Senate minority leader, John McKinney, a Republican from Fairfield who represents Newtown, where the school is, called the legislation the most important of his 14 years in the Senate and concluded by reading the names of those who died at the school.

Senator Beth Bye, a Democrat from West Hartford, choked up as she held up a picture of one victim, Ana Marquez-Greene.

“Ana Grace would have turned 7 this week,” Ms. Bye said. “Anyone who has seen her picture or heard her sing knows that our whole world lost a Connecticut treasure that day.” She added: “We can’t turn back the clock, we can only go forward. And we’ve gone forward with collaborative, innovative, groundbreaking legislation.”

Many were far less pleased, including gun owners and gun manufacturers who said the bill was too broad and focused on the wrong issues. They also criticized its becoming effective immediately, saying that put an impossible burden on manufacturers and retailers.

“It’s a mental health issue, not a firearms issue,” said Jake McGuigan, director of government relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation in Newtown. “Nothing in this legislation would have stopped what happened in this horrible tragedy in Sandy Hook.”

Asked if there were any limits he could support on the sale or possession of weapons or magazines, he said: “No. We believe in going after the individual and not the cosmetic features of firearms.”

Two gunmakers, Mark Malkowski of Stag Arms and Jonathan Scalise of Ammunition Storage Components, both in New Britain, declined to say whether they would continue to operate in the state.

The legislation includes a ban on the sale of magazines carrying 10 or more bullets and requires registration of existing ones. It also includes an expansion of the existing assault weapons ban, requires background checks on all firearms sales and sets up a registry of weapons offenders. Among the mental health measures are changes intended to require insurers to make faster decisions on coverage for mental health and substance abuse issues, a program to help educators recognize signs of mental illness and a doubling in the number of specialized treatment teams providing intensive support to people with serious mental illness.

Hundreds of opponents of the bill gathered throughout the day at Cabela’s sporting goods in East Hartford, where a line of buses supplied by the National Rifle Association waited to transport them to the Capitol. They were joined at the Capitol by supporters of the legislation, many wearing green to commemorate Sandy Hook. The two sides mingled, sometimes engaging in relatively respectful debate, often keeping their distance.

At Cabela’s, Jim and Elma Stoveken of Ridgefield brought along two of their elementary-school-age grandsons.

“We’re not crazed for guns or anything like that,” Mr. Stoveken, 73, a retired financial manager, said. “We just have guns for target shooting and home protection.”

Legislative debate was respectful and often emotional, with legislators citing constitutional, mental health and public safety issues and the proper role of government.

On the Senate floor, Senator Tony Guglielmo, a Republican from Stafford Springs, said the legislation would affect law-abiding citizens more than criminals.

“The premise is wrong,” he said. “How do you get Adam Lanza tied up with the Rockville Rod and Gun Club? That’s what I want to know.”

Two of 22 Democrats voted against the legislation, and 6 of 14 Republicans voted for it.

Senator Catherine Osten, a Democrat who represents a rural stretch of eastern Connecticut, said she supported elements of the bill but could not support adding new regulations on people who follow the law.

“I also cried when those children died that day, as everyone here did, and if I could assure those parents that this legislation would stop that from happening again, I would vote yes,” she said.

Senator Michael McLachlan, a Danbury Republican, said that much in the bill made him uncomfortable, but that the Newtown shooting “changed a lot of people’s viewpoints on a lot of things, on the preciousness of life, on the priority of our lives, and it certainly affected me in a very great way.”

“Under different circumstances, I would look at this bill very differently,” he said, “But today I’m supporting this bill in hopes that I am properly honoring Caroline Phoebe Previdi.”

View the original article here

Ashley Judd says she won't run for Senate - Politico

LOUISVILLE, Ky. — Ashley Judd, the Hollywood movie star and eighth-generation Kentuckian, has decided not to launch a star-studded campaign to unseat Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Judd made her announcement via Twitter Wednesday afternoon.

Continue Reading

Quiz: Do you know Ashley Judd?

Play Slideshow

Ashley Judd on political activism

Judd had been publicly and privately flirting with a bid for several months, reaching out to Louisville fundraisers, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in Washington and a handful of top Democrats here, including Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear to express interest in a potential run against McConnell.

(WATCH: Crossroads ad mocks ‘radical’ Ashley Judd)

She also spoke with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this week, a person familiar with the call told POLITICO.

“After serious and thorough contemplation, I realize that my responsibilities & energy at this time need to be focused on my family,” Judd wrote on her Twitter page.

“Regretfully, I am currently unable to consider a campaign for the Senate. I have spoken to so many Kentuckians over these last few months ~ who expressed their desire for a fighter for the people & new leader,” she added. “While that won’t be me at this time, I will continue to work as ~ as hard as I can to ensure the needs of Kentucky families are met by returning this Senate seat to whom it rightfully belongs: the people & their needs, dreams, and great potential. Thanks for even considering me as that person & know how much I love our Commonwealth. Thank you!”

Judd was hamstrung by several factors: namely her continued residency in Tennessee and her lack of political experience let alone against a ruthless campaigner like McConnell.

Moreover, a number of Kentucky Democrats were worried her staunchly liberal views — such as strongly condemning the practice of mountaintop removal mining — would be too difficult to overcome in rural parts of the state where the coal industry has a dominant presence. They feared her candidacy would be too risky in a year when they believe McConnell is perhaps more vulnerable than he’s ever been in his nearly three decade Senate career.

According to a source close to Judd, Alison Lundergan Grimes’s interest in the race made her decision easier because it wouldn’t leave the Democrats without any prospects against McConnell.

In addition, Judd’s decision could change in the future — she’s been encouraged by the support and enthusiasm from Kentuckians and will continue to be active in politics.

Still, Judd’s decision will be viewed as a let down to activists on the left and some Democrats here, including Rep. John Yarmuth, who argued that she would be able to energize the party, raise a flood of cash and give her a huge platform to take on McConnell and the millions of dollars in his campaign war chest.

Judd’s decision to skip a run is certain to put new pressure on the 34-year-old Grimes, the Kentucky secretary of state who has been mum about a possible run. Grimes is also weighing a possible run for attorney general or governor in 2015, and given her age, she may decide to run for the Senate seat when there’s a better chance of winning, whether it’s in 2016 against GOP Sen. Rand Paul or a later cycle, Democrats here say.

But with Judd out and if Grimes were to skip a bid, Democrats would have few options here in the Bluegrass State. They will search for a possible self-funder, similar to McConnell’s 2008 opponent, Bruce Lunsford, who lost by six points after a hard-fought campaign. And there are a crop of state legislators who may yet emerge, though they too would certainly be untested against McConnell and the political machine he’s built in the state.

View the original article here

'Vote-a-rama': The Senate budget votes that tell the tale - Politico

A handful of proposed amendments on the Senate floor will matter. | AP Photo

A big chunk of the upcoming Senate budget vote-a-rama will be a waste of time — like votes on senators’ pet causes or generic partisan issues.

But there’s some good news buried in the dozens of amendments expected to come across the Senate floor in a marathon session Friday: A handful of them will matter.

Continue Reading

None of them will actually become law, but some will test support for important bills to come later this year or beyond. Others could define possible 2016 candidates. And others still could tell President Barack Obama whether he’s got a shot at a grand bargain.

(Also on POLITICO: Rare vote-a-rama set for Senate)

But to spare you sitting through the full slog, here’s a list of amendments to watch.

The Ryan budget

What it does: Democrats will offer the latest version of Paul Ryan’s budget, which the House approved Thursday.

Why it matters: Sure, it’s a messaging vote, but one with weight.

If any Senate Republicans don’t vote for it, it weakens the GOP bargaining position going into future talks.

And if they all vote for it, Democratic ad-makers will have the easiest job in the world for next year’s Senate races.

(Also on POLITICO: House passes Ryan budget)

A telling sign: Sen. Jeff Sessions doesn’t want to offer Ryan’s budget himself.

At a Thursday press conference, Sessions insisted that “I’ve supported the Ryan in the past,” but argued that the focus should stay on the Democratic plan — even though the whole point of the press conference was to call for a balanced budget. The Democrats just want to shift the focus from their budget to Ryan’s budget, he said, “and I’m not interested in doing that.”

Internet sales tax

What it does: GOP Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming is offering an amendment that endorses a bill that would help states collect their sales taxes when people buy products from out-of-state online retailers.

Why it matters: This vote isn’t likely to break along the usual partisan lines. It’s a vote of support for the Marketplace Fairness Act, a bipartisan bill, and its supporters include not just Enzi, but leading Democrats like Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota — both of whom spoke in support of the amendment Thursday afternoon.

If it gets a big bipartisan vote, the amendment could put pressure on top committee chairmen — including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) — who don’t want to move ahead with the bill in its current form. “Our momentum is growing,” Klobuchar said in a Senate floor speech.

School choice

What it does: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants a vote on his amendment to promote private-school “scholarships” for low-income children. It’s based on his bill to encourage organizations to grant the scholarships by offering them tax credits.

Why it matters: It’s not really going to jump-start the school choice debate, especially in a Democratic Senate that’s wary of it. But it’s Marco Rubio — and this is the issue he chose for the star power he brings to the budget debate. That alone makes it worth watching — if not now, then for whatever he might do with the issue in 2016.

View the original article here

Senate passes government funding measure; House to vote Thursday - Washington Post

A short-term funding measure that would ensure the government continues operating beyond this month cleared the Senate Wednesday, awaiting only final House passage on Thursday to avert any possibility of a shut-down.

The process of approving the proposal has been unfolding remarkably smoothly for a divided Congress that has gone to the brink repeatedly over spending issues.

Video

The Washington Post’s Ed O’Keefe explains one way Congress copes with big disagreements over the federal budget.

More from PostPolitics

Sean Sullivan

THE FIX | A strong showing and a very tight battle for second place were welcome developments for the former governor on Tuesday.

Glenn Kessler

FACT CHECKER | Sen. John Barrasso made this claim recently. We explore the data behind it.

Chris Cillizza

It's madness! Political March Madness!

Read more

If the House approves the bill before it leaves for a two-week holiday recess on Friday, funding will be assured a full week before the March 27 expiration of the resolution that is now keeping the government in operation.

And yet the 73 to 26 final Senate vote came days later than leaders had hoped. Passage was slowed by a familiar disagreement over how many amendments the chamber should consider for a bill that outlines spending priorities for every federal agency for the final six months of the fiscal year.

Few if any of the amendments were ever expected to pass.

The amendment tussle aside, the legislation has proceeded through both chambers with relatively few hiccups so far. That’s something of a surprise given that some House Republicans, smarting from the year-end “fiscal cliff” drama, had promised to use the must-pass measure to force concessions from Democrats on deficit reduction, including entitlement reform.

Instead, House Republicans now seem content with a bill that locks in the spending cuts of the so-called sequester for the rest of the year. Likewise, Democrats, who want to reverse the sequester, agreed the short-term bill would leave it in place for now.

They have instead proposed replacing the sequester in part with higher tax revenues, but doing so through broader budget negotiations that outline future spending.

But on Wednesday, in more of the legislative squabbling that has slowed the pace of the Senate almost to a crawl, senators in both parties tried to force votes on their favorite issues.

Many were attempts to blunt the impact of the $85 billion across-the-board sequester spending cuts on specific programs or agencies.

By late last week, senators had filed 126 separate amendments they wanted to be heard on the floor. Five senators, for instance, proposed slightly different versions of proposals to cut off foreign aid to Egypt.

“I love the Senate. And we love to talk. And we love to amend...But we are now at the point where the bill must really come to a close,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), the chairwoman of the appropriations committee responsible for the bill, as she proposed a procedure on Monday that would help shepherd it to final passage.

Ultimately, the Senate voted on 10 amendments.

One, proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), would have shifted $6 million in parks funds to free up money to potentially allow the White House, Yellowstone National Park and the Flight 93 Memorial in Shanksville, Pa. to reopen to public tours.

It failed on a 45 to 54 vote, with Democrats in opposition.

Another, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), would transfer $55 million in agriculture dollars to prevent furloughs among food inspectors and a third would require tuition assistance programs for military service members, suspended due to the sequester, to be restarted.

They passed.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) wanted an amendment to keep air traffic controllers on the job--some towers at smaller airports are scheduled to close due to the sequester’s cuts. He didn’t get a vote at all.

Just before the Senate voted on the full bill, Mikulski praised senators for working in a bipartisan fashion to improve on a bill that had been passed by the House earlier this month. “We didn’t want brinkmanship politics. We didn’t want ultimatum politics,” she said.

To blunt the impact of the sequester, the House introduced new priorities for military spending in its version of the bill. The Senate bill added several other areas to the bill, including agriculture, commerce, science, justice and homeland security.

The result is to add money to certain key programs; all were offset with cuts elsewhere.

The broader budget negotiation process begins this week with passage of budget blueprints in both chambers.

Ed O’Keefe contributed to this report.

Discuss this topic and other political issues in the politics discussion forums.

View the original article here

ND Senate OKs ban on abortions based on defects - Seattle Post Intelligencer

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — North Dakota on Friday moved closer to adopting what would be the most restrictive abortion laws in the country, with lawmakers sending the Republican governor measures that could set the state up for a costly legal battle over the U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized the procedure.

The North Dakota Senate overwhelmingly approved two anti-abortion bills Friday, one banning abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy and another prohibiting women from having the procedure because a fetus has a genetic defect, such as Down syndrome. North Dakota would be the first state in the U.S. to adopt such laws.

Supporters said their goal is to challenge the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion up until a fetus is considered viable, usually at 22 to 24 weeks, though anti-abortion activists elsewhere have expressed concern about the strategy.

"It's a good day for babies," said Rep. Bette Grande, a Republican from Fargo who introduced both bills. The state's only abortion clinic is in Fargo, and abortion-rights advocates say the measures are meant to shut it down.

Gov. Jack Dalrymple hasn't said anything to indicate he would veto the measures, and the bills have enough support in each chamber for the Legislature to override him.

Debate Friday was brief, with the Senate taking about an hour to pass both measures. No one spoke against the so-called fetal heartbeat bill, which the Senate took up immediately after passing the genetic abnormalities bill. The votes were largely on party lines, with Republicans supporting the measures and Democrats opposing them.

Opponents, who have promised legal challenges to both measures if they become law, urged Dalrymple to veto the bills. North Dakota is one of several states with Republican-controlled Legislatures and GOP governors that is looking at abortion restrictions. But the state is better positioned than most for a long court fight: It has budget surplus nearing $2 billion thanks to new-found oil wealth.

The American Civil Liberties Union called the measures "extreme," saying they would make North Dakota "the first state in the nation to ban most abortions."

"In America, no woman, no matter where she lives, should be denied the ability to make this deeply personal decision," ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said in a statement.

Arkansas passed a 12-week ban earlier this month that prohibits most abortions when a fetal heartbeat can be detected using an abdominal ultrasound. That ban is scheduled to take effect 90 days after the Arkansas Legislature adjourns.

A fetal heartbeat can generally be detected earlier in a pregnancy using a vaginal ultrasound, but Arkansas lawmakers balked at requiring women seeking abortions to have the more invasive imaging technique.

North Dakota's measure doesn't specify how a fetal heartbeat would be detected. Doctors performing an abortion after a heartbeat is detected could face a felony charge punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Women having an abortion would not face charges.

While some abortion opponents welcomed Arkansas' new law as a bold challenge to Roe v. Wade, others favor more incremental strategies, fearing such bans could lead to emphatic rejections in court.

A similar fetal heartbeat bill was debated by Ohio lawmakers last year before being blocked by the Senate president. The measure, which could be revived this year, fractured Ohio's anti-abortion movement in a debate over its tactical effectiveness.

Grande told lawmakers that fears about a legal challenge shouldn't prevent them from approving the North Dakota measure.

"Whether this is challenged in court is entirely up to the abortion industry," Grande told lawmakers this week. "Given the lucrative nature of abortion, it is likely that any statute that reduces the number of customers will be challenged by the industry."

During the Senate debate, one senator who had spoken out against the genetic abnormalities bill left the chamber in protest. The move forced the Senate to briefly halt debate, because the chambers rules require senators to be formally excused. The Senate was able to move forward with proceedings on the bill by passing a motion to excuse the senator.

"It was absolutely a silent protest," Sen. Connie Triplett told The Associated Press after the vote. "North Dakota will have a harder time recruiting and retaining doctors because doctors will not want to be arrested for advising women on abortion issues."

Sen. Margaret Sitte, a Republican from Bismarck, said the genetic abnormality bill is meant to ban the destruction of life based on "an arbitrary society standard of being good enough." Some test results pointing to abnormalities are incorrect, she said, and doctors can perform surgeries even before a baby is born to correct some genetic conditions.

Sitte's voice cracked as she described developmentally challenged children she knows. "Their hugs are tighter, their laughter louder and their empathy more sincere" than so-called "normal people," she said.

The genetic abnormalities bill also bans abortion based on gender selection. Pennsylvania, Arizona and Oklahoma already have such laws, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion restrictions across the U.S.

The Senate approved the genetic abnormalities bill 27-15; the House vote was 64-27. The Senate approved the fetal heartbeat bill 26-17; the House vote was 63-28.

___

Follow James MacPherson on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/macphersonja .

View the original article here

Senate hears from victims of sexual assault in the military - Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — Survivors of sexual assault in the military urged lawmakers to require independent review of claims, taking the final authority out of the hands of high-ranking officers who have in some cases reversed decisions by military juries. That, they testified in a Senate hearing Wednesday, is the best way to end widespread underreporting of sexual assaults in the military.

In the first Senate examination of sexual assault in the military in nearly a decade, the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on personnel weighed a range of potential solutions to a long-standing problem that permeates every branch of the military.

The controversy was amplified by a recent case in which an Air Force lieutenant general overturned a military jury's verdict and sentence for Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, who had been found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to one year in prison.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) pressed officers from each branch of the military who were assembled at the hearing on whether they thought justice was served in that case. She asked them whether they thought the jury was mistaken. In her view, Gillibrand said, "justice was not done."

Rebekah Havrilla, a survivor of military sexual assault who has become an advocate of reform through the Service Women's Action Network, said the Wilkerson case was a high-profile instance of a common occurrence in the military.

Of the 2,439 formal reports submitted in 2011, only 240 proceeded to trial. Anonymous surveys of military personnel for the same year showed that 19,000 instances of sexual harassment or assault went unreported in 2011.

Havrilla testified she had endured sexual harassment and been raped while serving in the Army in Afghanistan. She hesitated to report the rape because she had seen previous accusations against her commanding officer go nowhere. Also, she added, "the unit climate was extremely sexist and hostile in nature toward women."

Havrilla and other survivors described an "old boys club" atmosphere among military officers that causes complaints to be suppressed.

Military officers testified about a number of efforts in recent years to improve training of investigators. The Air Force has implemented a pilot program to provide independent counsel for victims.

The officers raised concerns that the outside reviews suggested by reform advocates could threaten the leadership roles of commanding officers and could slow responses to the reports they do receive.

wes.venteicher@latimes.com

View the original article here

Paul ends Senate filibuster of CIA nominee over drone concerns after nearly 13 ... - Fox News

Nearly 13 hours after he started, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., ended a dramatic, old-fashioned filibuster early Thursday morning -- having held the floor for most of the day and night to rail against the administration's drone program while holding up the nomination of John Brennan for CIA director.

Business in the Senate ground to a halt Wednesday as Paul, aided by colleagues from both parties, launched into the filibuster as he challenged the president’s authority to kill Americans with drones.

Paul's filibuster was longer than most in U.S. history, as most flame out by the 10-hour mark. Paul finished speaking around 12:40 a.m. local time, and his filibuster lasted 12 hours and 52 minutes. 

"My legs hurt. My feet hurt. Everything hurts right now," Paul told Fox News shortly after stepping off the Senate floor, saying he believes "we did the best that we could."

"I would be surprised if we didn’t hear back from the White House," Paul said. 

Watch Paul discuss his filibuster on Fox News at 2:05 p.m. ET on Thursday. 

In a show of support, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell came to the Senate floor and congratulated Paul for his "tenacity and for his conviction." McConnell also called Obama's choice of Brennan a "controversial nominee."

The late Rep. Strom Thurmond holds the record for the longest filibuster, at more than 24 hours.

Paul is one of several lawmakers -- on both sides of the aisle -- who has raised concerns about the legal justification for launching drone strikes against Americans overseas. But Paul took to the floor after receiving a statement from Attorney General Eric Holder that creaked open the door to the possibility of using a drone to kill an American inside the United States.

“To allow one man to accuse you in secret -- you never get notified you've been accused,” Paul said on the floor. “Your notification is the buzz of propellers on the drone as it flies overhead in the seconds before you're killed. Is that what we really want from our government?”

Paul said he’d be raising the same complaints under a Republican president.

“No one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country,” he said.

The senator, speaking for hours, was later joined by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, as well as fellow Republican senators -- all of whom dragged out the filibuster by asking Paul lengthy and drawn-out questions. At one point, after the filibuster neared it's eleventh hour, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas began reading numerous Tweets in favor of Paul.

That tactic allowed Paul to take brief breaks -- which included a snack break when the senator ate a Milky Way candy bar -- before resuming his speech. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid briefly interrupted to ask Paul if he planned to allow a vote to end debate. When Paul said he wouldn't, Reid concluded that other senators should acknowledge that their work for the day is "through" and plan to come back Thursday.

Paul, who started speaking shortly before noon, said he will filibuster Brennan's nomination “until I can no longer speak,” though he later suggested he would back down if he received a written assurance from Attorney General Eric Holder that the administration would not carry out drone strikes on noncombatant Americans.

This kind of filibuster is rare – typically, senators “filibuster” by refusing to grant the majority the 60 votes needed to proceed to a final vote on certain bills.

Paul, though, said he wanted to raise the “alarm” about the drone issue.

He spoke after receiving letters from Holder on drone authority.

In one letter, Holder said the U.S. has never carried out a drone strike against one of its citizens on American soil, and called a situation where such a strike may occur "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur."

However, Holder did not entirely rule out that such a scenario may occur in the future, and indicated that such a strike would be legal under the Constitution.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the president to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States," Holder said. 

Holder said "catastrophic" attacks such as the Sept. 11 attacks or the attack on Pearl Harbor are examples of circumstances where the president could conceivably feel such an action is necessary.

Testifying on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, Holder agreed that it would be unconstitutional to use a drone on American soil against a U.S. citizen and suspected terrorist who did not pose an imminent threat.

Brennan has been a staunch supporter of the administration’s drone program. But, after members of the Senate Intelligence Committee extracted key documents on the program from the administration, the panel on Tuesday voted 12-3 to approve the nomination.

Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report. 

View the original article here

Senate, in a More Affable Mode, Backs Treasury Nominee - New York Times

WASHINGTON – The Senate on Wednesday easily and, for the most part, affably confirmed President Obama’s pick for Treasury secretary, Jacob J. Lew, just one day after the president’s nominee for defense secretary narrowly survived a highly politicized confirmation vote.

Little of the acrimony that held up the nomination of Chuck Hagel, the former Nebraska senator who began his first day as defense secretary on Wednesday, was present in the debate over Mr. Lew.

The final vote was 71 to 26, with 20 Republicans joining the Democratic majority in support of the nomination.

Mr. Obama expressed gratitude for the decision to confirm his former chief of staff and top budget adviser.

“Jack was by my side as we confronted our nation’s toughest challenges,” the president said in a statement. “His reputation as a master of fiscal issues who can work with leaders on both sides of the aisle has already helped him succeed in some of the toughest jobs in Washington.” 

The vote meant that for the moment at least, the Senate returned to its traditional role of affording the president deference in selecting his cabinet. Historically, the Treasury secretary position has been an easy one for presidents to fill, with nominees typically receiving unanimous support from the Senate.

Mr. Obama’s previous Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, was a notable exception. After disclosures that Mr. Geithner was delinquent in paying some taxes, many Republicans objected. He was confirmed by a 60-to-34 vote.

Some Republicans who voted for Mr. Lew spoke of the need to give the president flexibility to name his own cabinet even if they ultimately disagreed with a nominee’s politics.

“My vote in favor of Mr. Lew comes with no small amount of reservation, and I don’t fault any of my colleagues for choosing to vote against him,” said Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, the senior Republican on the Finance Committee. “I hope he and the president take note that I am bending over backwards to display deference.”

Though Mr. Hagel’s nomination was stymied as he faced criticism over past statements on Israel and Iran and stumbled over questions in his confirmation hearing, Mr. Lew faced few objections. Other than questions that arose from an unusual $685,000 severance payment he received after he left New York University for a job at Citigroup, the confirmation process was relatively smooth.

One particularly vocal objection on Wednesday came from one of the Senate’s most liberal members, Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont.

“We need a secretary of the Treasury who does not come from Wall Street but is prepared to stand up to the enormous power of Wall Street,” Mr. Sanders said from the Senate floor. “Do I believe that Jack Lew is that person? No, I do not.”

Still, even though the Senate approved Mr. Lew, he received far fewer votes than other Treasury secretary nominees. With the exception of Mr. Geithner, Senate records show that the last nominee to receive fewer than 92 “yes” votes was George P. Schultz, Richard Nixon’s pick in 1972.

Mr. Obama faces another possible battle over a high-level nominee in the coming days as the Senate is set to start considering John Brennan, the White House’s choice as director of central intelligence.

View the original article here

Hagel Approved for Defense in Sharply Split Senate Vote - New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Senate voted Tuesday to break a filibuster against the nomination of Chuck Hagel as defense secretary, clearing the way for his confirmation despite Republican complaints about his readiness for the job.

More than a dozen Republicans joined Senate Democrats on the 71-to-27 vote to cut off the debate. Republicans who opposed Mr. Hagel, a former Republican senator from Nebraska, had insisted that they needed more time to examine his record.

The Senate scheduled a vote on the nomination for Tuesday afternoon. Mr. Hagel requires a simple majority of 51 to be confirmed.

Democrats said that Mr. Hagel was a strong pick for the job, considering his background in public office and as a soldier in the Vietnam War. They said that the Senate needed to clear Mr. Hagel’s nomination so he could get to work at the Pentagon, given national security issues around the world and pending budget cuts at home.

Republicans said they believed that a shaky performance by Mr. Hagel at his confirmation hearing and his past statements on Israel and a variety of other issues had disqualified him.

John Cornyn, the No. 2 Senate Republican, said Mr. Hagel’s worldview was “dangerously misguided,” and he warned that the nominee was ill prepared to handle such a major post. “I don’t think we want a secretary of defense that has to learn on the job,” he added.

But Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, accused Republicans of stalling the nomination earlier this month for political gain.

“What has their filibuster gained? Twelve days later, nothing has changed,” he said. “Senate Republicans have delayed for the better part of two weeks for one reason and one reason only: partisanship.”

The action in the Senate on Tuesday will help bring to a close one of the most unusually contentious cabinet-level nomination fights in years, a clash that surprised many in Washington for how personal and bitter it became considering that Mr. Hagel, a Republican senator for two terms, worked alongside many of his antagonists until just four years ago.

But even before Mr. Hagel takes office, questions are growing about whether the fight will wound his ability to lead the Pentagon at a time of upheaval both at home and overseas. With a series of huge budget cuts known as the sequester set to go into effect at the end of the week — cuts that will fall hard on the Defense Department if Congress cannot negotiate a compromise — Mr. Hagel will inherit myriad challenges.

Further, the tension between the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill will not end with Mr. Hagel’s confirmation. Republicans have already trained their sights on the next nominee they see as vulnerable: John O. Brennan, who is President Obama’s pick to become director of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Senator John McCain of Arizona and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have threatened to hold up Mr. Brennan’s nomination over questions about the attack last year on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. Both men made similar demands of Mr. Hagel, who, unlike Mr. Brennan, has had no role in formulating the Obama administration’s defense and national security policies.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has asked Mr. Brennan to answer questions about a topic that has been thrust to the forefront of the debate over national security: the government’s use of drones.

But even if a handful of vocal Republicans succeed in temporarily blocking Mr. Brennan, they face the reality that they are unlikely to be able to hold up his nomination indefinitely.

The Hagel vote came as the Finance Committee agreed by a margin of 19 to 5 that the Senate should confirm Mr. Obama’s nominee for Treasury secretary, Jack Lew, suggesting that the president’s cabinet picks were moving ahead.

View the original article here