Bush Details $70 Billion War Funding Request for 2009
By Andrew Taylor
The Associated Press
Friday 02 May 2008
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/050308Z.shtml
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSHIRAQFUNDING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-05-02-21-13-09
Washington - President Bush sent lawmakers a $70 billion request Friday to fund U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan into next spring, which would give the next president breathing room to make his or her own war policy.
Friday’s request fills in the details of the $70 billion placeholder that the White House asked for when it sent its budget to Congress in February. The money is for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.
Congressional analysts say Bush’s request would bring the total spending since Sept. 11, 2001, to fight terrorism and conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to $875 billion.
The request comes as Democrats on Capitol Hill are struggling to move Bush’s pending $108 billion request for the current year. Democratic leaders say they’re likely to add the $70 billion for next year to that measure, which would allow them to avoid a politically painful vote on war funding in the heat of campaigning for the November elections.
Anti-war Democrats are frustrated at their inability to force the president to scale back war operations and hate to vote to keep the Iraq war going. At the same time, Bush has promised to veto the war funding bill if Democrats add money for domestic programs and present him with a bill over his request.
The bulk of the new money, $45 billion, would fund U.S. combat operations, but there’s also $3 billion to deal with roadside bombs and $2 billion to cope with rising fuel costs.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Congress has provided $526 billion for the Iraq war alone, with the two pending requests coming on top of that. Operations in Afghanistan have cost $140 billion.
Friday’s request also contains $770 million in additional food aid and other assistance to try to ease the global food crisis. There’s also $2.6 billion to airlift new mine-resistant vehicles into the war zone and maintain them there.
The Afghan military would receive $3.7 billion for counterinsurgency efforts; the Iraqi military would get $2 billion for the same purpose.
Bush also asked for $1.7 billion for infrastructure, social programs and economic development initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan under programs designed to win the support of local populations.
Pakistan, a key ally in fighting terrorism, would receive $193 million in aid.
Reid, Pelosi ready snub on Iraq bill
By Manu Raju and Mike Soraghan
Published in The Hill
Posted: 05/01/08 07:32 PM [ET]
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-pelosi-ready-snub-on-iraq-bill-2008-05-01.html
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) prepared to snub Capitol Hill’s most powerful money men, suggesting Thursday that they could hold votes on a massive wartime spending bill without letting appropriators touch the legislation first.
Such a move risks creating a big battle over Iraq in an election year. The final decision has not been made, but lawmakers and aides familiar with discussions say there’s a strong chance the shortcut plan will go ahead.
Appropriations panels would slow the bills down and probably mean the measure would be loaded with extraneous provisions. This, in turn, could lead to a veto fight with the White House over one of the few must-pass bills left before November’s elections.
Leaders appear to favor moving the bill directly to the chamber floors, limiting the number of amendments that could be offered.
This has infuriated Republicans and Democratic appropriators, who would be shut out of the process.
Plans to short-circuit the process come after the Senate’s 90-year-old Appropriations chairman, Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), whose recent frailty has raised questions about his capacity to run the panel, ignored leadership negotiations and scheduled a committee markup next week.
Democratic leaders reacted coolly to Byrd’s move. “It’s easy to cancel a markup,” Reid said Thursday, and suggested that Byrd was motivated by a desire to “protect” the appropriators’ turf.
Reid was studiedly dismissive of the panel, saying, “I don’t know whether there is a need to have a markup over here with the Appropriations Committee.”
A spokesman for Byrd declined to comment on Reid’s statements.
The majority leader is waiting to see what emerges from the House before he settles on a strategy for moving a bill. President Bush wants it limited to $108 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Byrd’s move inspired Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.), the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, to ask Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) to hold a markup. In a letter, he told Obey that bypassing the committee would be a “shameful power grab by House and Senate leaders.”
Nevertheless, similar considerations are being taken in the House. A bill is being drafted behind closed doors and could hit the floor as soon as next week.
Pelosi said Thursday that she did not want to send Bush a bill that he would veto, which would require starting over.
“We’d rather save time and get it over with,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi said she wants to include the so-called GI Bill of Rights, which would expand veterans’ benefits such as tuition payments.
While Republicans have complained bitterly about the idea to bypass the panel, it has drawn measured complaints from House Democrats.
Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a member of the Appropriations Defense subcommittee, said he’s satisfied that members of the defense panel are being consulted.
But Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), also a member of the Defense subcommittee, said she does not like the maneuver.
“When you don’t fully debate the bill in subcommittee and committee, you don’t fully represent America,” Kaptur said.
Speaking on the House floor Thursday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the decision to bring the bill to the floor, “candidly, it is still up in the air.”
On the Senate side, Reid said “there was no kickback” during a Tuesday meeting with his conference over a detailed discussion over procedure. He also said “it’s no big deal” if the bill doesn’t get completed by Memorial Day since there would still be money left for Iraq.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), an appropriator who also serves as the majority whip, withheld his support for holding a markup, saying the chamber would wait for the House to act.
In addition to Byrd, several Democratic appropriators have called for the bill to be open for amendments in committee.
“You always have a risk of a veto, but that can’t scare us because if it comes, we’ll just fight back,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), an appropriator up for reelection this year.
Bob Cusack contributed to this article.
Democrats May Push $172 Billion for War
By Maya Schenwar
t r u t h o u t | Report
Friday 25 April 2008
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042508J.shtml
Bogged down by election concerns, will Democrats in Congress opt to give Bush more war funding than he asked for?
While America is busy deciding which of the Democratic candidates is most likely to end the war, Congress is debating behind closed doors how much of a priority ending the war should be.
Although most Democrats in Congress favor withdrawing troops from Iraq, many are pushing for a $172 billion war spending package that would fund the occupation beyond the end of the Bush administration. In the next few weeks, the House Appropriations Committee may bring to the floor a bill combining Bush’s supplemental war funding requests for 2008 and 2009, according to a spokeswoman for Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey.
Bush asked for about $102 billion for 2008 and $70 billion for 2009, the latter of which was not expected to be addressed until September.
The Democrats’ proposal essentially speeds up the appropriations process. Instead of approving war funding for 2008 and 2009 separately - which would mean two different debates over the war, stretching over several months - it would clear the way for the rest of the year in one blow. Such a bill could pay for the war through March 2009.
The last time a war supplemental came to the floor, Congress approved less than half of Bush’s more-than-$170 billion request. The Democrats’ goal in approving only partial funding was to keep the issue of Iraq on the radar, ensuring that the war would be debated again in a few months, when the president would have to come back to ask for the remainder of the funding. Why would Congress now choose to throw in the towel and send almost a year’s worth of war funding Bush’s way?
Election Jitters
With both presidential candidates running on loosely antiwar platforms, a vote on the supplemental during the election season seems welcome for Democrats: it would draw attention to the enormous sum being funneled toward Iraq. However, according to Travis Sharp, military policy analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, the leadership is worried about accusations of not supporting the troops. A funding debate always conjures up images of troops left starving and ammo-less in the field, waiting for DOD coffers to refill. Thus, powerful Democrats figure, it’s better to get Iraq funding off the table until after the election.
“In going up against John McCain, Obama or Clinton will be facing someone who looks very strong on national security,” Sharp told Truthout. “The Democrats have made the determination that pushing hard for withdrawal will reflect negatively upon them.”
Some Democrats also fear that a strong antiwar bill would die a quick, embarrassing death, calling voters’ attention to Congress’s repeated failures to change the course of the war, even after the 2006 Democratic landslide election signaled Americans’ dissatisfaction with Iraq policy. Erik Leaver, Foreign Policy in Focus’s policy outreach director, who has been meeting with senior Congressional staffers, says they’re worried that any legislation aimed at ending the war would get even fewer votes than similar legislation has in the past. Incumbent members of Congress in conservative districts would be hesitant to cast an antiwar vote right before an election. Plus, some may believe the surge is succeeding and would moderate their votes accordingly.
In pushing for a $172 billion war fund package, the House leadership is not only working off the assumption that nothing can be done to end the war until Bush is gone; it’s also assuming a Democrat will win the general election, according to Sharp. Clinton and Obama both promise to begin withdrawing troops within 60 days of inauguration, so, presumably, either one would use the remainder of the $170 billion to commence withdrawal. By that logic, if all goes according to plan, the Democrats could skip war votes for the next nine months and still count on a timeline for withdrawal once the new administration slides in.
However, grassroots groups charge that there’s no excuse for deprioritizing the war. Staking an electoral victory on avoiding a discussion on Iraq doesn’t make sense, according to John Bruhns, legislative action coordinator for United For Peace and Justice (UFPJ).
“The Democrats want to appropriate this funding in the dark of night and hope no one notices,” Bruhns told Truthout.
A Key Time
Though the supplemental is probably headed to the floor with a $172 billion tag, according to a recent Congressional Quarterly report, its specifics are still very much in the works.
An Appropriations Committee meeting on Tuesday, expected to yield a plan to move forward on the bill, proved fruitless, said Cleve Mesidor, a spokeswoman for Representative Barbara Lee, who sits on that committee.
"Basically, nothing came out of the meeting besides what went into the meeting," Mesidor told Truthout, adding that a main item of discussion was a House leadership proposal to attach an economic stimulus package to the supplemental. Many progressives, including Lee, oppose this move, and argue for quick passage of the economic stimulus before hauling out the supplemental for a real war debate.
Lee, with Representatives Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters, met with Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday, urging her to keep the two bills separate, so that members of Congress voting against war funding would not have to sacrifice their domestic priorities.
On the Senate side, the supplemental plan is still wide open, according to John Bray, a spokesman for Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd. Senate Republicans may play the supplemental strategically: Representative Jerry Lewis (R-California) said yesterday that he would attempt to tack onto the funding legislation a bill granting telecommunications companies immunity from prosecution for disclosing customer information to the government. Republican senators are almost universally opposed to attaching domestic funds to the supplemental. "There has been no decision made yet" on whether the Senate version will include the 2009 funds, Bray told Truthout.
Originally, the House had planned to vote on the measure in the first week of May, but according to Mesidor, the second week is a more realistic bet - and even that might be optimistic.
Activists, analysts and progressive members of Congress alike are hoping that the extended pre-vote period will allow time for objections to ring clear. Bruhns is encouraging members of UFPJ and other antiwar groups to contact their representatives, especially Congressional leadership. Leaver is applying pressure to Congressional staffers, stressing that by avoiding an autumn vote on funding, Congress could miss its last chance before the election to demonstrate the difference between Democrats and Republicans on the war.
"I've argued to these offices that they need to have these votes, because they've blown it in the past 18 months," Leaver said, referring to Congress's failing record since the 2006 election. "They need to go down the home stretch fighting."
Leveraging for Policy Change
Despite their funding concession, Democrats probably aren't planning to offer the White House an immediate, all-out victory, according to Sharp. In the last few funding votes, their first-round bill has included a timeline for redeploying troops. This supplemental will probably include a similar provision.
However, if precedent holds, the timeline won't stay in the bill. The withdrawal goals included in the last two supplementals were promptly knocked down: once by the president and once by the Senate. The House acquiesced and sent the president a "clean" bill with no major restrictions on the use of war funds.
Craig Jennings, federal fiscal policy analyst at the government watchdog group OMB Watch, notes that a rejection of the House's bill needn't have stopped Congress members - who, in the end, retain the "power of the purse" - from pushing their case.
"Purse strings always supply Congress with some leverage, but the important questions are 'how much [leverage]?" and "are they willing to use it?'" Jennings said.
Sharp suggests a new strategy. In addition to a withdrawal timeline, he recommends that Congress include a variety of policy provisions, such as a ban on torture, an improved GI bill, restrictions on military contractors and a mandate that the president gain Congressional approval before signing a long-term agreement to keep troops in Iraq. When the president vetoes withdrawal, Congress could still keep some of those restrictions in the bill it sends back to him.
"Bush is going to get his money," Sharp said. "But if Congress can get language in the bill that says the administration has to come to Congress before approving a long-term agreement, that'll be a big victory."
However, if Congress goes through with the combined $172 billion plan, it may be giving up its best chance to pass war restrictions this year, according to Jeff Leys, co-coordinator of Voices for Creative Nonviolence.
Voting on the 2008 and 2009 supplementals separately would allow Congress to attach the second supplemental to the general defense spending bill for the coming year - a huge piece of legislation that must pass in some form this fall. If a withdrawal timetable were attached to a defense bill that also contained war money, rejecting withdrawal would also mean withholding money from the troops and running the rest of the Department of Defense (DOD) dry.
"This move would put Bush in the position of either signing such a law into place with timetables for withdrawal or vetoing the entire baseline Department of Defense budget," Leys said.
The DOD budget generally passes easily (it was one of the only spending bills approved promptly last year), so any attempt by the president to hold it up would likely draw negative attention.
Although passing a $172 billion plan would eliminate most of Congress's leverage in pushing for an end to the war, it wouldn't necessarily mean an end to the year's war funding. Regardless of the supplementals' fate, small amounts of money for ammunition, reconstruction, training and other needs may well be included in the Defense and State Department budgets this fall.
Maya Schenwar is an assistant editor and reporter for Truthout.
House Leadership Set to Pass Biggest War Spending Bill Yet!
While the House leadership was sharply critical of recent reports by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, they now appear ready to give President Bush an additional $172 Billion in war funding.
Here’s what we know about what they plan to bring up for a vote:
1) On top of the $102 Billion requested by the Bush administration, the Democratic Party leadership is proposing to offer an unsolicited additional $70 Billion to cover the first quarter war funding for FY2009. In other words, this will be a whopping $172 Billion!
2) This funding will cover the rest of this fiscal year, which runs to Sept. 30th, and go well into the next fiscal and calendar years. This means this would be the last supplemental funds voted on before the November elections. If passed, this funding will also carry over into the next presidency and the new Congress.
3) There is speculation that the House version of the funding bill will be “clean” and not have any other items attached to it. It this happens there would be a straight up-or-down vote before it moves to the Senate where additional spending is likely to be added.
4) According to the Democratic leadership, this unconscionable allocation of $172 Billion is an attempt to avoid a presidential veto. However, President Bush promises to veto any war funding bill that exceeds $108 billion dollars or includes a timetable for withdrawal.
It appears that the decision to vote on such a massive allocation of new funds now is based on the desire to remove the funding issue from the electoral calendar. This is exactly what the antiwar movement does not want! As the country heads into the elections, we believe that every Senator and Representative should stand up and be counted on the question of this war and how they intend to stop it.
What the House leadership is doing is nothing short of outrageous! Their proposed funding will ensure the Bush administration’s ability to continue to execute the war and occupation in Iraq without any Congressional challenge: not even a debate.
Before it’s too late, we urge you to place two critical phone calls:
• Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at 202-225-0100
• Chair of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee John Murtha at 202-225-2847
Tell them another blank check of $172 Billion for this war is totally unacceptable. The Congress needs to act now to bring the troops home! Remind them that the people of this country – the voters of this country - want the U.S. military occupation of Iraq to end!
And be sure to let your own Congressional Representative know that you expect them to stand up to the White House and to the House leadership on the war funding and refuse to support the present policies.
John Bruhns
Legislative Action Coordinator
UFPJ
CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION – APPROPRIATIONS
April 23, 2008 – Updated 11:44 p.m.
Anti-War House Democrats Want Stand-Alone War Supplemental Bill
By David Clarke, CQ Staff
Anti-war House Democrats raised their voices Wednesday against a plan to include domestic spending in a war-funding bill, adding another difficult calculus as Democratic leaders try to assemble a spending package.
Leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, which has more than 70 members, warned that they don’t want party leaders to add domestic funding or any economic stimulus provisions to the bill, even though they support the non-war-related initiatives.
“We don’t want the supplemental and economic stimulus linked in any way,” said Maxine Waters , D-Calif., an anti-war leader.
That wish was at odds with comments by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , DMd., who indicated that the supplemental spending plan would almost certainly include funding for domestic programs. Hoyer said Democrats will not be deterred by President Bush’s threat to veto any bill that exceeds the $108.1 billion he has requested to fund military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the rest of the fiscal year.
“I’m sure it will, contrary to the administration sending its tablets down from the mount,” Hoyer told reporters when asked whether the cost of the supplemental would exceed the president’s top line. “We’re going to pass a supplemental that we believe is necessary and required by the facts as we see them in this country and abroad.”
A House Democratic aide said Wednesday night that leaders are close to agreeing on a plan that would limit the amount of domestic funding added to the bill. They also are strongly considering adding a package of education benefits for veterans, a limited extension of unemployment insurance and language blocking Bush administration rules designed to reduce federal Medicaid costs. The Medicaid language would mirror a bill ( HR 5613 ) passed by the House 349-62 on Wednesday. All three potential policy additions have at least some bipartisan support.
House Democrats have been trying to limit what might be added to the supplemental to prevent Republicans and the White House from accusing them of including unnecessary spending in a war funding bill. The aide said the Appropriations Committee has been going over the domestic funding to make sure the items can be defended as meeting urgent needs.
Senate appropriators have shown more interest in adding funding and do not appear as concerned about the administration’s threat to veto the war spending bill if it includes added domestic funding.
But the stance of the Out of Iraq Caucus illustrates the problems even limited additions could cause.
Waters, fellow California Democrat Lynn Woolsey and other war opponents said they want any legislation dealing with the struggling economy to be voted on separately. In addition, they said they planned to tell Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., that they want to offer a floor amendment to the supplemental that would call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
House defense appropriators, in their recommendations to leadership, have focused on three war-policy provisions that they hope will be included in the bill: a timeline for withdrawing troops; expansion of torture prohibitions to cover all government agencies, including the CIA; and mandated rest time at home for soldiers equal to the length of their overseas deployments.
Members of the Out of Iraq Caucus said they will support only funding that goes solely to protecting troops and redeploying them from Iraq.
Bush and House Republicans oppose any funding restrictions, meaning Democrats cannot afford to lose many votes from their own ranks if they want to include any war-policy restrictions in the bill. If adding domestic and economic recovery provisions won’t attract votes from the strongest war critics, most of whom say they will only support a bill that directly leads to troops leaving Iraq, House leaders will be in a difficult spot.
“They want to do what’s convenient for them,” Waters said of leadership. “That’s not my problem.”
A floor vote on the war bill will likely be held late next week, but a final decision has not been made, said a senior House Democratic aide.
Democratic leaders have been wrestling with how much to add to the war funding bill. It has become an attractive vehicle for adding domestic spending, because it’s considered one of the few must-pass bills during this election year.
The bill also may represent the best leverage Democrats have to get the president to accept such programs as increased unemployment insurance and infrastructure funding that they argue are needed to help the unemployed and create jobs during the economic downturn.
Hoyer said the supplemental is not necessarily being viewed as the vehicle for a second stimulus package, but he acknowledged it may contain funding that could be characterized as stimulative.
Democrats have yet to define what should be in a second stimulus package, leaving it unclear what items they could add to the war bill and what they will hold back.
On Wednesday, Pelosi wrote Minority Leader John A. Boehner , R-Ohio, to suggest Democrats and Republicans get together and decide what policies are needed to help the economy, as they did in January. Her letter came in response to Boehner’s request that she outline exactly what Democrats want resolved before they will schedule a vote on the Colombia free-trade pact they indefinitely delayed earlier this month.
“As I said to the president, until we pass a legislative package for jobs and economic growth here at home, it will be extremely difficult to approve any trade legislation,” Pelosi wrote.
Republicans have urged waiting until the stimulus package enacted in February ( PL 110-185 ) has time to affect the economy — tax rebates will be sent out starting next month — before deciding whether a second package is needed. The White House and its GOP allies on the Hill also remain angry at Pelosi’s move against the trade bill and are in no mood to deal while that issue remains unresolved.
The administration reiterated that the president is ready for a fight on the supplemental.
“Majority Leader Steny Hoyer may have said today that he is sure that the cost of an upcoming war supplemental bill will exceed the president’s request for $108 billion,” White House Budget Director Jim Nussle said in a statement. “I would like to make clear that I am sure the president will veto it.”
Liriel Higa, Josh Rogin and Chuck Conlon contributed to this report.
First posted April 23, 2008 12:23 p.m.
Source: CQ Today Print Edition
Round-the-clock coverage of news from Capitol Hill.
© 2008 Congressional Quarterly Inc. All Rights Reserved.
House Dem leaders may add unemployment benefits to war bill
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 2 minutes ago
House Democratic leaders plan to add extended unemployment benefits and new education funding for veterans to President Bush’s war funding bill while dropping lots of other party priorities.
Facing a veto threat, Democrats such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi don’t want to try to add billions of dollars for roads, bridges and other ideas such as heating subsidies for the poor and increases in food stamp benefits.
Democratic aides say Pelosi’s plan is tentative and had not been widely shopped to rank and file lawmakers. Pelosi said Thursday that she had yet to brief her colleagues.
The still-emerging plan is a sign that Democrats want to avoid loading up the war funding bill and losing a veto and public relations clash with the president, who insists lawmakers keep his bill free of add-ons.
Senate Democrats have not signed off on the plan, and leaders in that chamber are working to tamp down demand from those seeking to load up the measure with additional funding.
“I think it’s more likely at this point to be smaller rather than larger,” said Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.
Bush is certain to oppose the effort, which would add to the war spending legislation a $12.7 billion plan to give 13 additional weeks of unemployment checks to people whose benefits have run out and 13 weeks beyond that in states with especially high unemployment rates. He’s also likely to oppose the even more expensive plan for higher GI Bill benefits for veterans.
But the plan would make it more palatable for anti-war Democrats to provide money until the next president takes office.
Bush has promised to veto any bill that exceeds his pending $108 billion request to fund U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s a tougher line than he took last spring, when he accepted about $17 billion in domestic funding as part of a $120 billion war funding measure.
Democrats are in fact planning on not only providing the $108 billion to fund the war through the Sept. 30, the end of the 2008 budget year, but they’re likely to add another $70 billion for next year so they don’t have to vote on war funding again in the fall election season.
But the hard line from the White House has Democrats scaling back plans to use the must-pass bill as an engine to carry everything from a summer jobs programs to a Senate proposal for $10 billion for infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges and new schools.
Republicans are eager for a battle with Democrats over add-ons to the war funding bill. Despite record low approval ratings and his status as a lame duck, Bush has to be rated as a clear favorite in any veto battle.
“If the president stands his ground on this he’ll win,” House GOP Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said. “And I believe he’s prepared to stand his ground and we’ll stand with him.”
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters Wednesday that proposals that don’t make it into the war spending bill may instead be carried by a second economic stimulus bill. That’s where the unemployment benefit extension ultimately may wind up anyway, assuming Bush carries out his veto threat.
The tentative bill also would carry a plan to block new Bush administration regulations that would cut federal spending on Medicaid health care for the poor by $13 billion over the next five years. That bill passed the House Wednesday by an overwhelming 349-62 vote despite a Bush veto threat.
Money to fight wildfires in the West — backed by many GOP allies of the president — also would make it into the measure, the aides said, as would additional help for victims of Hurricane Katrina. The wildfire funds could total about $400 million, while the state of Louisiana wants to ease current requirements that it put up 35 percent of the funds for a multibillion-dollar project to rebuild levees around New Orleans.
Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
