Bipartisan Bill Would Hasten Troop Withdrawal From Afghanistan

Considering President Obama’s call to bring all troops from Iraq home for the holidays, a bipartisan group of senators is now calling for an expedited troop drawdown in Afghanistan as well.

Earlier in the year, Preside Obama announced that all troops currently deployed in Iraq would return home before the new year. The president also set a similar withdrawal plan for Afghanistan by the end of 2014. Now, Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) are amending the Defense Authorization bill with a measure requiring Obama to expedite the transition in Afghanistan.

“It is time to have a clear missive from the President on how he plans to end our presence in Afghanistan,” Paul said. “We cannot continue endless nation-building efforts overseas while here at home we face expounding national debt, crumbling infrastructure and out-of-control spending in Washington.”

The effort to amend the major defense authorization bill will likely face an uphill battle considering the intensified debate over a controversial detainee provision.

The debate over the Defense Authorization bill has escalated within the Senate Armed Services Committee over language that would place future terror suspects into the custody of the United States military, something both the Pentagon and some Democrats have opposed. Despite the support the detainee provision has from Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the White House has since released a statement threatening to veto the bill as it stands.

The Administration’s threat to veto the bill puts a damper on the efforts put forth by this bipartisan group of senators. According to a statement released by the senators, American military presence in Afghanistan costs nearly $10 billion per month, an amount of money they argue is unacceptable at a time domestic economic turmoil.

“With the death of Osama Bin Laden, we have now accomplished [our] goals. It is time to end our presence in Afghanistan and refocus our attention on fighting terrorists wherever they may be,” said Merkley.  “At a time of high unemployment, a wave of foreclosures and growing debt, we need to  concentrate on nation-building here at home.”

The resolution put forth would call on Obama to expedite the transition of military responsibility to Afghanistan and would provide the Commander-in-Chief with 90 days to present a new timeframe and expected completion date for an accelerated troop withdrawal. Considering the hot water the Defense Authorization bill is simmering in with the White House’s veto threat, it’s unclear whether such a measure has much life.

Senate Dems Intro Constitutional Amendment To Combat Campaign Financing

In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case of 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibited the censorship of political broadcasts when funded by unions or corporations. 

On Tuesday, Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Michael Bennett (D-Colo.) introduced a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the authority to regulate that practice. 

“[We] refuse to stand by idly and watch our elections be fundamentally degraded by the flood of corporate and special interest money,” Udall said. “Campaigns should be about the best ideas not the biggest checkbooks. It’s time to put elections back in the hands of American voters.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the amendment, argued that the problem with campaign financing did not originate with the Citizens United case, but rather is rooted in the Buckley v Valeo case of 1976. The 1976 decision set limits on campaign contributions but ruled that spending money to influence elections was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

“Buckley v. Valeo was one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court has rendered in the past 100 years,” Schumer said. “Then, making matters worse, cam Citizens United - Buckley on steroids - which really took the First Amendment to an illogical, almost anti-democratic extreme.” 

The constitutional amendment the gang of Democrats introduced authorizes Congress to regulate and limit the amount of money raised and spent on federal campaigns, including independent expenditures. It would also extend this authority to the states.  

“Time and again I have chided my colleagues who would amend the Constitution every other day,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said. “But i think this one gets to the heart of our future as a nation and the heart of whether or not congressional reform can actually take place.”

New Mexico Lawmakers Want More Money For Nuclear Waste Cleanup

By Andrea Salazar

Times may be tough but nuclear waste is no area to skimp on.

That’s what Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) are arguing as Congress begins appropriating spending for the 2012 fiscal year budget.

In a letter to Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Ranking Member Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the New Mexico duo urged for more funding for New Mexico’s Water Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in Carlsbad and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) “fence-to-fence” cleanup.

“The senators acknowledge the constraints of the current budget climate and that things are very difficult right now,” said Udall spokeswoman Marissa Padilla. “But what Sen. Udall and Sen. Bingaman are saying is that these are, essentially, two top priorities for New Mexico. They have great importance to the country, and it’s important that they’re properly funded.”

Regarding LANL, waste in the area affects the local community greatly because it affects their drinking water, Padilla said. However, it also has an impact on the country because WIPP receives waste shipments from around the country.

The senators are asking for an increase of $30 million over last year’s funding for WIPP and a budget of $358 million for LANL’s cleanup efforts. They cited safety and a need to comply with the Department of Energy’s consent order to clean up LANL by 2015 as reasons for the increased budgets.

“The importance of removing TRU (transuranic) waste from the site was clearly highlighted this summer when the massive Las Conchas forest fire threatened various laboratory facilities,” the senators wrote in their letter to the subcommittee.

Neither Feinstein nor Alexander could be reached for comment.

Senate Democrats Rail Against Murkowski Resolution

By Linn Grubbstrom
Talk Radio News Service

Before the Senate voted on Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) Environmental Protection Agency disapproval resolution earlier today, Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M), called for rejecting the measure, which would block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

"A vote for this resolution would force the United States to use another 450 million barrels of oil, most of which would be imported," said Udall. "A vote for this resolution would let special interests continue to profit while Americans pay the prices. And a vote for this resolution would put at risk landscapes and water supplies."

Udall argued that the disaster caused by a massive oil spill almost two months ago in the Gulf of Mexico should be enough of a warning sign to reject the resolution. Merkley added that the only benefactors of the resolution would be large oil companies.

"What benefits Big Oil is not in the interests of the citizens of the United States, not in the interests of the economy of the United States, not in the interests of the national security of the United States," he said.

Senate rules dictate that Murkowski only needs a simple majority of votes to pass her resolution. So far, the Alaska Republican has 40 co-sponsors, including three Democrats -- Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (La.).

Update: Murkowski's resolution was defeated on Thursday by a vote of 47-53.

Filibuster Rules Need To Be Reevaluated, Says Sen. Udall

By Antonia Aguilar - University of New Mexico / Talk Radio News

Senate rules on the filibuster, a procedure that allows a single Senator to block legislation indefinitely, need to be modified to prevent minority obstruction, Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), a member on the Senate Rules and Administration Committee said Friday.

“Over the past couple of years the impact of the filibuster has become even more pronounced,” Udall said during remarks before an audience at the Center for American Progress. “Senators from both sides of the aisle have increasingly used it as a weapon of partisan warfare.”

Udall proposes using the constitutional, often derided as 'nuclear,' option to prevent the abuse of the filibuster. Through the option, any legislation would only need a majority vote, as opposed to the 60 currently needed through a cloture vote.

“You only have to look at the lengthy and winding path of health care reform to understand that something is seriously broken in the system,” said Udall.

Udall will push for rule reform in the Senate and says he hopes to establish new rules that serve both the minority and the majority by next January.