State Department made "grievous mistake" over Benghazi: Senate report

The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a protest by an armed group said to have been protesting a film being produced in the United States September 11, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Esam Al-Fetori

By Tabassum Zakaria and Mark Hosenball

WASHINGTON | Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:24pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The State Department made a "grievous mistake" in keeping the U.S. mission in Benghazi open despite inadequate security and increasingly alarming threat assessments in the weeks before a deadly attack by militants, a Senate committee said on Monday.

A report from the Senate Homeland Security Committee on the September 11 attacks on the U.S. mission and a nearby CIA annex, in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans died, faulted intelligence agencies for not focusing tightly enough on Libyan extremists.

It also faulted the State Department for waiting for specific warnings instead of improving security.

The committee's assessment, "Flashing Red: A Special Report On The Terrorist Attack At Benghazi," follows a scathing report by an independent State Department accountability review board that resulted in a top security official resigning and three others at the department being relieved of their duties.

Joseph Lieberman, an independent senator who chairs the committee, said that in thousands of documents it reviewed, there was no indication that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had personally denied a request for extra funding or security for the Benghazi mission. He said key decisions were made by "midlevel managers" who have since been held accountable.

Republican Senator Susan Collins said it was likely that others needed to be held accountable, but that decision was best made by the Secretary of State, who has the best understanding "of how far up the chain of command the request for additional security went."

The attacks and the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens put diplomatic security practices at posts in risky areas under scrutiny and raised questions about whether intelligence on militant activity in the region was adequate.

The Senate report said the lack of specific intelligence of an imminent threat in Benghazi "may reflect a failure" by intelligence agencies to focus closely enough on militant groups with weak or no operational ties to al Qaeda and its affiliates.

"With Osama bin Laden dead and core al Qaeda weakened, a new collection of violent Islamist extremist organizations and cells have emerged in the last two to three years," the report said. That trend has been seen in the "Arab Spring" countries undergoing political transition or military conflict, it said.

NEED FOR BETTER INTELLIGENCE

The report recommended that U.S. intelligence agencies "broaden and deepen their focus in Libya and beyond, on nascent violent Islamist extremist groups in the region that lack strong operational ties to core al Qaeda or its main affiliate groups."

Neither the Senate report nor the unclassified accountability review board report pinned blame for the Benghazi attack on a specific militant group. The FBI is investigating who was behind the assaults.

President Barack Obama, in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, said the United States had "very good leads" about who carried out the attacks. He did not provide details.

The Senate committee said the State Department should not have waited for specific warnings before acting on improving security in Benghazi.

It also said it was widely known that the post-revolution Libyan government was "incapable of performing its duty to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel," but the State Department failed to fill the security gap.

"Despite the inability of the Libyan government to fulfill its duties to secure the facility, the increasingly dangerous threat assessments, and a particularly vulnerable facility, the Department of State officials did not conclude the facility in Benghazi should be closed or temporarily shut down," the report said. "That was a grievous mistake."

The Senate panel reviewed changing comments made by the Obama administration after the attack, which led to a political firestorm in the run-up to the November presidential election and resulted in U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice withdrawing her name from consideration to replace Clinton, who is stepping down early next year.

Rice had said her initial comments that the attack grew out of a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam film were based on talking points provided by intelligence agencies.

Lieberman said it was not the job of intelligence agencies to formulate unclassified talking points and they should decline such requests in the future.

The report said the original talking points included a line saying "we know" that individuals associated with al Qaeda or its affiliates participated in the attacks. But the final version had been changed to say: "There are indications that extremists participated," and the reference to al Qaeda and its affiliates was deleted.

The report said that while James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, had offered to provide the committee with a detailed chronology of how the talking points were written and evolved, this had still not been delivered to Capitol Hill because the administration had spent weeks "debating internally" whether or not it should turn over information considered "deliberative" to Congress.

(Editing by Warren Strobel and David Brunnstrom)

View the original article here

Senate, House agriculture committees in deal to avert milk price spike

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON | Sun Dec 30, 2012 10:19pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Farm-state lawmakers have agreed to a one-year extension of the expiring U.S. farm law that, if enacted, would head off a possible doubling of retail milk prices to $7 or more a gallon in early 2013.

The extension would end a 32-month attempt to update farm subsidies dating from the Depression era, when farmers were crushed by low prices and huge crop surpluses, to meet today's high-wire challenges of tight food supplies, high operating costs and volatile markets.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican, said on Sunday he hoped the legislation would be passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama by Tuesday to avoid higher prices for milk in grocery stores.

The bill was listed among measures that could be called for a vote on Monday in the House of Representatives although action was not guaranteed.

Despite consensus on the need to extend the farm bill, lawmakers continue to discuss how long the extension should be.

Representative Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, told reporters late on Sunday a nine-month farm bill extension was being considered as part of deal being crafted in the Senate to stave off the "fiscal cliff" of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts that begin kicking in on January 1.

"There's good chance that if there is a package out of the Senate, it will include something on the farm bill. The easiest thing to get done would be nine months of current law," Cole said.

A second Republican, Representative Steven LaTourette, said a nine-month extension could be part of the fiscal cliff package or could move separately if the fiscal talks fail.

House Republican leaders refused to call a vote during the fall on a full-scale, $500 billion farm bill on grounds it might fail because it did not cut spending enough.

Grain, soybean and cotton growers would get another round of the $5 billion "direct payment" subsidy that all sides agreed to kill in a new farm bill. The payments are made regardless of need. Reformers say the payments are unjustified when crop prices and farm income are at near-record levels.

DISASTER MONEY AND A NEW DAIRY PROGRAM

Also in the extension, lawmakers would revive agricultural disaster-relief programs that ran out of money a year ago and create a new dairy subsidy program. It would compensate dairy farmers whenever milk prices are low and feed prices are high. The so-called margin protection program would require farmers to limit production to avert a long run of low dairy prices.

Traditionally, the dairy program sets a minimum price for milk through government purchase of butter, cheese and dry milk. If Congress does not act, the dairy support price will revert on Tuesday to the level dictated by an outmoded 1949 law and which is roughly double the price now paid to farmers.

The potential retail milk price has been estimated at $6 to $8 a gallon versus current levels near $3.50.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, during an interview broadcast by CNN, said higher milk prices - if it comes to that - would ripple throughout all commodities "if this thing goes on for an extended period of time."

Senator Debbie Stabenow, chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said the "responsible short-term farm bill extension ... not only stops milk prices from spiking, but also prevents eventual damage to our entire agriculture economy."

TWO FALLBACKS IF EXTENSION FALTERS

House Republican leaders readied two alternatives, if needed, to the one-year extension. One was a one-month extension of the now-expired 2008 farm law without disaster funds or the new dairy program and the other was a one-month suspension of the dairy provisions of the 1949 law.

It was not clear which bill would be called for debate, a farm lobbyist said on Sunday. A small-farm activist said any package passed by Congress must include rural economic development funds and money for soil conservation on "working lands," the largest of USDA's conservation programs.

"If a new farm bill doesn't pass this Congress, we'll soon hold another mark-up and just keep working until one is enacted next year," said Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat.

It would be the first time on record that Congress began drafting a farm bill during a two-year session and had to carry it into the following session, congressional researchers said. Hearings on the new farm bill began April 21, 2010.

HOUSE, SENATE DISPUTE ON BIG CUTS

While dairy producers generally support the so-called margin-protection program as the answer to high feed costs, processors and foodmakers oppose it. They say it is wrong-minded in its premise of curtailing production when prices are low, and it will destroy a healthy export market for dairy products.

The rejuvenated disaster programs would cover losses from this year's widespread drought, especially for livestock producers, although tree farmers, honey bees and farm-raised fish are also covered. Maximum payment would be $100,000.

Senators passed a farm bill in June estimated to save $23 billion over 10 years, with most of the cuts in crop subsidies and conservation programs. The House Agriculture Committee approved a bill with $35 billion in cuts in July, half of it in food stamps for the poor - the biggest cut in food stamps in a generation.

Fiscally conservative House Republicans have called for larger cuts in farm subsidies and food stamps while some House Democrats opposed any food stamp cuts.

(Additional reporting by Charles Abbott, David Lawder and Richard Cowan; Editing by Ros Krasny, Maureen Bavdek, Jan Paschal and Eric Walsh)

View the original article here

Senate, House ag committees in deal to avert milk price spike

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON | Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:11pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Farm-state lawmakers have agreed to a one-year extension of the expiring U.S. farm bill that, if enacted, would head off a possible doubling of retail milk prices to $7.OO or more a gallon in 2013.

The compromise measure resulted from bipartisan discussions in the House of Representatives' Agriculture Committee and talks with colleagues in the U.S. Senate, Frank Lucas of Oklahoma, the House panel's chairman, said in a statement Sunday.

"It is not perfect - no compromise ever is - but it is my sincere hope that it will pass the House and Senate and be signed by the President by January 1," Lucas, a Republican, said.

It was not immediately clear whether House and Senate leaders would bring the measure to a vote soon enough to avoid putting the so-called "dairy cliff" milk price spike into action.

Separately, lawmakers are working on a last-ditch effort to avert the similarly timed "fiscal cliff," when the biggest tax increases ever to hit Americans are set to start, paired with significant federal spending cuts

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, in an interview with CNN taped Friday and aired on Sunday, urged Congress to come up with such a solution, if only an extension of the old law that expired nearly three months ago, lest milk prices start rising after January 1, 2013.

Absent a new bill or an extension of current law, milk prices would revert to rules set in 1949, the last "permanent" farm legislation in the United States. Government price supports would kick in, based on production costs 64 years ago, plus inflation. The potential retail milk price has been estimated at $6.00 to $8.00 a gallon versus current levels near $3.50.

Lucas said in the statement that time had run out in Congress' current session to enact a new five-year farm bill, as farm-state lawmakers and the dairy lobby had hoped.

Vilsack told CNN that soaring milk prices - if it comes to that - would ripple throughout all commodities "if this thing goes on for an extended period of time."

The price of milk will not double on January 1, if Congress fails to act. Instead, prices would rise gradually as supplies are removed from normal markets and land instead in U.S. Department of Agriculture storage facilities.

With supplies more scarce in normal marketing channels, some milk distributors and dairy product manufacturers could have turned to imported supplies.

The Department of Agriculture is reviewing a range of options for administering programs should a permanent law become legally effective on January 1, a spokesman said on Friday.

The Senate passed its new five-year farm bill in June, and the House Agriculture Committee followed with a version in July.

But the House bill, with large cuts in food-stamp funding for lower-income Americans, has never been brought to a vote by the full House. The Senate and House have for months remained far apart on the issues of food stamps and crop subsidies.

Lucas said the year-long extension "provides certainty to our producers and critical disaster assistance to those affected by record drought conditions."

It would also mean another round of the direct subsidies to farmers that cost about $5 billion a year, and that both sides of debate had agreed earlier to eliminate.

(Additional reporting by Charles Abbott; Editing by Ros Krasny and Maureen Bavdek)

View the original article here

Senate approves $60.4 billion Superstorm Sandy aid bill

1 of 2. Clouds roll over destroyed homes, almost two months after superstorm Sandy caused damage in the region of Breezy Point of Queens borough, New York, December 27, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Lucas Jackson

By Doug Palmer and David Lawder

WASHINGTON | Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:19pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Senate on Friday approved a $60.4 billion aid package to pay for reconstruction costs from Superstorm Sandy, which ravaged mid-Atlantic and northeastern states, after defeating Republican efforts to trim the bill's cost.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urged the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to quickly take up the bill, which includes $12 billion to repair and strengthen the region's transportation system against future storms.

"There is no time to waste," Reid said.

Both chambers have to agreed on a package by January 2, when the current term of Congress is expected to end, or restart the process of crafting legislation in 2013. The Senate approved the bill 62-32, with most Republicans voting no.

"We beat back all of the crippling amendments," said Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, which suffered the largest monetary damage in the storm.

"The century-old tradition of different parts of the country rallying to help those who are beleaguered because of difficult natural disasters continues," Schumer said.

The bill's chances in the next few days could depend on whether President Barack Obama and congressional leaders reach a deal to avert the "fiscal cliff" of tax increases and spending cuts set to begin taking effect in the new year.

House Republican leaders have not yet decided whether to take up the Senate bill, a Republican aide said.

The bill also provides $17 billion in Community Development Block Grants to help rebuild homes, schools, hospitals and other buildings destroyed by the late October storm, help small businesses and improve the power infrastructure.

Senate Republicans complained the $60.4 billion reconstruction package requested by Obama is more than the annual budgets for the departments of Interior, Labor, Treasury and Transportation combined.

HOUSE ACTION UNCLEAR

Senator Dan Coats, an Indiana Republican, offered an alternative that would have provided $23.8 billion in funding to help victims of the storm through the end of March and give Congress time to determine additional needs.

"Let me just say, we simply are allowing three months for the Congress of the United States, the representatives of the taxpayers' dollars, to assess, document and justify additional expenditures that go beyond emergency needs," Coats said just before his amendment was defeated.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, a Republican from Kentucky, would still prefer to pass a stop-gap bill to meet immediate needs and wait to do another package after better estimates come in, a committee aide said.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated about $8.97 billion of the Senate bill would be spent in 2013, with another $12.66 billion spent in 2014 and $11.59 billion spent in 2015.

The Senate bill is considerably less than the $82 billion in aid requested by New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, the states that bore the brunt of damage from the storm.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican, was in Washington this month, lobbying lawmakers for the larger amount.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief fund now has less than $5 billion available.

The damage to New York and New Jersey coastal areas was on a scale not seen since Hurricane Katrina slammed the Gulf Coast and flooded New Orleans in 2005. Two weeks after that storm hit, Congress approved $62.3 billion in emergency appropriations.

Lawmakers passed numerous subsequent emergency funding requests over several years to cover damages from Katrina, which topped $100 billion. A number of Gulf State Republicans supported the Sandy relief bill.

Republicans were successful in requiring offsetting spending cuts for $3.4 billion in mitigation work to prevent future disasters. Some Democrats said this would set a precedent for future disaster aid bills.

(Reporting By Doug Palmer and David Lawder; editing by Todd Eastham)

View the original article here

Newark Mayor Cory Booker exploring Senate bid in New Jersey

Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, Cory A. Booker reacts during the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina September 4, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Jim Young

View the original article here

Senate Republicans aim to cut Sandy aid bill down to $24 billion

By David Lawder

WASHINGTON | Wed Dec 19, 2012 10:48pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Republicans sought to slash a $60.4 billion aid bill to cover reconstruction after Superstorm Sandy, proposing on Wednesday to fund only $23.8 billion in immediate disaster relief while assessing longer-term needs.

The far smaller initial amount is one of a number of Republican amendments aimed at cutting projects from a bill that they see as a "slush fund" loaded with questionable requests for spending on unrelated programs and big infrastructure.

Senator Daniel Coats of Indiana said his plan for $23.8 billion in initial funding would provide sufficient money for immediate needs through March 27, for work such as debris cleanup, repairing damaged equipment, rebuilding destroyed homes and businesses.

"It seems to me the most logical, responsible way to move forward is to identify the immediate needs and provide the immediate funding to meet those needs," said Coats, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

He said longer-term needs could be considered next year, as Congress works on approving new money to keep government agencies and programs funded after a stopgap measure runs out on March 27.

Senate Democrats are trying to push through President Barack Obama's full $60.4 billion Sandy disaster aid request before the end of the year.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief fund had about $4.3 billion as of Tuesday, but the request for new funding has become tangled up with Congress' tense talks over the year-end "fiscal cliff" of automatic tax hikes and spending cuts.

"We don't have time right now to get all the way through and analyze the actual losses that were attributable to Sandy," said Republican senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, adding that the full $60.4 billion looked like a "slush fund."

KATRINA FUNDS FLOWED SWIFTLY

Democrats argue that the full funding amount is needed to ensure that local businesses, municipalities and transit agencies in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut can launch full-fledged reconstruction projects immediately with the confidence that they will be fully reimbursed. Without the money approved, there will be delays, they say.

"This amendment will unnecessarily prolong the suffering of those affected by Superstorm Sandy, and needlessly leave entire communities vulnerable to future severe weather incidents," Senator Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, said in a statement. "The whole nation will feel the economic impact of a northeast crippled by languishing transportation infrastructure, forsaken small businesses, and families left without homes."

The move would mark a significant shift from Congress' actions following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the last storm to wreak destruction on a similar scale as Sandy. Within two weeks after Katrina's storm surge flooded New Orleans and other Gulf Coast communities, Congress had appropriated $62.3 billion, and storm costs eventually topped $100 billion.

"When we had the devastation in New Orleans, we got the aid to those states very quickly," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said on the Senate floor, noting that far more people were affected by Sandy's path of destruction in a heavily populated area.

"We have to make a decision on this very, very important legislation before we leave here this week," Reid said. "I would hope that everyone would cooperate, but we have to do this."

The $23.8 billion offered in the Republican plan would be less than 30 percent of the initial $82 billion aid request made by New York, New Jersey and Connecticut earlier this month, based on early damage estimates from the October 29 storm.

The Republican plan would eliminate some $13 billion in infrastructure improvements aimed at helping to prevent damage from future storms. Among these are projects to keep New York City subway tunnels from flooding and to build sand barriers to protect some shorelines from storm surges.

It labels $5.4 billion to make transportation systems more resilient as "non-Sandy related." The Amtrak passenger rail agency, a frequent target of Republican budget-cutting efforts would get only $32 million under the bill, instead of $336 million.

Coats said such mitigation efforts were "long-term projects" that should not be immediately funded without further study.

The Republicans also aim to cut out $150 million for rebuilding fisheries, including those damaged by disasters in Alaska and the Gulf Coast. It would exclude a $58.9 million Department of Agriculture request to replant trees on private property due to "unsubstantiated" estimates for damage from Sandy.

The plan and other amendments to the Sandy aid measure are expected to be considered on Thursday and Friday.

Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which normally acts first on spending bills, is hanging back to see whether Senate Republicans are successful in cutting the request down to size.

Asked if he would also proceed with an amount below the $60.4 billion sought by Obama, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, a Republican from Kentucky, said: "Let's see what the Senate does first."

(Reporting By David Lawder; editing by Christopher Wilson)

View the original article here