WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to give the Treasury Department the power to ban future "unreasonable and excessive" compensation at companies receiving federal bailout money. The bill would give Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner greater say on executive compensation. The Pay for Performance Act of 2009, which passed by a vote of 247-171, would empower Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to define what constitutes reasonable compensation, as well as to ban bonuses not based on performance standards. Geithner's guidelines would apply to companies receiving assistance from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Democrats provided heavy support for the bill, with only eight from that party voting against the measure. Republicans, who are in the minority in the House, were mostly opposed, with only 10 crossing party lines to support it. Two weeks ago, the House passed legislation taxing individuals on any bonuses received in 2009 from companies getting $5 billion or more in money from the TARP. Bonuses for people with incomes over $250,000 would be taxed at a 90 percent rate, but the measure has failed to clear the Senate.  Watch Rep. Barney Frank spar with CNN's Lou Dobbs over bonus bill » Public outrage followed the recent revelation that insurer AIG paid $165 million in bonuses even as it received at least $170 billion of taxpayer money in federal bailouts, plus an $85 billion loan from the Federal Reserve.

Question:
What does Bill allow?
Who does it apply to?
Who or what does this bill affect?
What did House pass?
What does this bill do?
What Act did the House pass?

Answer: greater say on executive compensation.

Answer: TARP.

Answer: companies receiving federal bailout money.

Answer: The Pay for Performance Act of 2009,

Answer: would give Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner greater say on executive compensation.

Answer: Pay for Performance

Summary:
NEW: House passes Pay for Performance Act by 237-171 vote .
Bill would allow Geithner to define what constitutes reasonable compensation .
It would apply only to companies receiving federal bailout money .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Iraq war has strained U.S. forces to the point where they could not fight another large-scale war, according to a survey of military officers. U.S. troops patrol Haifa Street in Baghdad last week. Of those surveyed, 88 percent believe the demands of the Iraq war have "stretched the U.S. military dangerously thin." On the other hand, 56 percent of the officers disagree that the war has "broken" the military. Eighty percent of officers believe it is unreasonable to expect the U.S. military to wage another major war successfully at present. Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for a New American Security on Tuesday issued the U.S. Military Index, a survey of 3,400 present and former U.S. military officers. "We asked the officers whether they thought the U.S. military was stronger or weaker than it was five years ago," said Michael Boyer, who helped write the report. "Sixty percent said the U.S. military is weaker than it was five years ago," Boyer told reporters. The report found that officers "see a military apparatus severely strained by the grinding demands of war." More than half of the officers responding cited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the "pace of troop deployments" needed for those conflicts, the survey said. The report comes a few weeks before the five-year anniversary of the Iraq war, where a troop "surge" is winding down by summer. The U.S. military is proposing a pause in troop reductions for a period of review before any more decisions on withdrawals. The officers have "an overwhelmingly negative view" of many of the early decisions shaping the Iraq war, but most believe the present U.S. counterinsurgency strategy and troop increases are good omens for success in Iraq. A majority of officers in the Iraq war say some policy decisions have "hindered the prospects for success there." "These include shortening the time units spend at home between deployments and accepting more recruits who do not meet the military's standards. Even the military's ability to care for some of its own -- mentally wounded soldiers and veterans -- was judged by most officers to be substandard," the survey found. At the same time, 64 percent of the officers believe morale in the military remains high. Nearly three-quarters of the officers believe civilian leaders set "unreasonable goals for the military in post-Saddam Iraq." "They believe more troops were needed on the ground at the start of the fighting. They believe disbanding the Iraqi military was a mistake," the survey said. However, nearly nine of 10 think the surge and Gen. David Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy are "raising the U.S. military's chance for success there." The officers believe "that either China or Iran, not the United States, is emerging as the strategic victor" in the Iraq war. "The United States has been preoccupied away from Asia," said Kurt Campbell, the head of the group that conducted the survey. China's rising influence worldwide predates the war but is part of a "great game under way in Asia for influence, for relationships," Campbell said. The U.S. focus on Iraq "sends a message to our friends and others that maybe we're not as focused on the drama that's playing out there," he said. Iran has gained from the war because of the removal of Iraq "as a strategic counterweight," the report said. The survey portrayed Iran, the Taiwan Strait (where tensions have flared between China and Taiwan), Syria and North Korea as four potential hot spots and sought opinions of how prepared the U.S. is "to successfully fight a major combat operation there." Officers were asked to judge the preparedness of the U.S. on a scale of one to 10, with 10 meaning "fully prepared" and one indicating "unable to execute." Iran was rated 4.5, the Taiwan Strait ( where there have been tensions between China and Taiwan) 4.9, Syria 5.1, and North Korea 4.7. The officers ranked the Navy and

Question: What percent of officers disagree that the Iraq war has "broken" the military?

Question: what percentage of officers think its unreasonable?

Question: Does the U.S. military establishment support engaging in another major war?

Question: how many officers disagree?

Question: How many officers were surveyed?

Question: how many were surveyed?

Question: What is the overwhelming view of early decisions shaping Iraq war?

Answer: 56

Answer: Eighty percent

Answer: Eighty percent of officers believe it is unreasonable to expect the

Answer: 56 percent

Answer: 3,400

Answer: 3,400

Answer: "Sixty percent said the U.S. military is weaker than it was five years ago,"

Summary:
Eighty percent of officers: It's unreasonable to expect U.S. to wage another major war .
Officers have "overwhelmingly negative view" of early decisions shaping Iraq war .
Fifty-six percent of officers disagree that the Iraq war has "broken" the military .
Results based on survey of 3,400 present and former U.S. military officers .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Justice Department on Thursday announced 300 additional arrests in a four-year operation that it says produced nearly 1,200 arrests and seizures totaling 11.7 tons of illegal drugs. Authorities look through seized property after a drug raid at a house near Atlanta, Georgia, on Wednesday. Attorney General Eric Holder announced the wrap-up of Project Coronado, which resulted in arrests in 15 states in the past two days. Holder said the operation targeted the distribution network of a major Mexican drug trafficking organization known as La Familia. About 3,000 federal agents participated in the investigation and raids, officials said. "This unprecedented, coordinated U.S. law enforcement action -- the largest ever undertaken against a Mexican drug cartel -- has dealt a significant blow to La Familia's supply chain of illegal drugs, weapons and cash flowing between Mexico and the United States," Holder said in a news conference.  Watch Holder announce the arrests » Michele Leonhart, acting chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration, said the cartel was known for specializing in the trafficking of methamphetamine and for its brutal violence, including beheadings. Authorities said the arrests made Wednesday and Thursday occurred in California, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Washington. Dozens of arrests occurred in the Dallas, Texas, area where agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives filed charges against cartel members believed to have illegally purchased and shipped high-powered firearms to the cartel, which was based in the Mexican state of Michoacan. U.S. officials vowed to indict cartel leaders and extradite them to the United States. One leader, Servando Gomez-Martinez, was indicted in New York on Thursday. He remains at large, and is presumed to be in Mexico. A senior law enforcement official involved in the operation, who asked not to be identified, said he was certain the latest crackdown on La Familia would affect the methamphetamine market in the United States for months. "It'll make a difference not only because of how hard we hit 'em, but where we hit 'em," the official said. Another official said during the course of the investigation that labs run by La Familia had been discovered in Atlanta, Georgia, and San Jose, California. To date, Project Coronado has led to 1,186 arrests in 44 months. During that time, agents seized $32.8 million in U.S. currency, and about 1,225 kilograms (2,700 pounds) of methamphetamine, 2,000 kilograms (4,409 pounds) of cocaine, 13 kilograms (29 pounds) of heroin and more than 8 tons (7,200 kilograms) of marijuana.

Question: How many states were involved?

Question: How many drugs were seized?

Question: What will the crackdown affect?

Question: Who was targeted?

Question: What will crackdown in the US?

Question: What did officials say about Project Coronado?

Question: How long was the operation?

Answer: 15

Answer: about 1,225 kilograms (2,700 pounds) of methamphetamine, 2,000 kilograms (4,409 pounds) of cocaine, 13 kilograms (29 pounds) of heroin and more than 8 tons (7,200 kilograms) of marijuana.

Answer: the methamphetamine market in the United States

Answer: the distribution network of a major Mexican drug trafficking organization known as La Familia.

Answer: La Familia

Answer: operation targeted the distribution network of

Answer: four-year

Summary:
In past two days, Project Coronado resulted in arrests in 15 states .
Officials: 4-year operation produced nearly 1,200 arrests, 11.7 tons of drugs seized .
AG says operation targeted La Familia, a top Mexican drug trafficking group .
Law enforcement official: Crackdown will affect methamphetamine market in U.S.


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The National Transportation Safety Board began four days of hearings Tuesday on how to stem the "drastic increase" in medical helicopter accidents.

Smoke rises from Spectrum Health Butterworth Hospital in Grand Rapids, Michigan, after a helicopter crash in May.

Over a recent 12-month period, the board probed nine fatal medical helicopter accidents that killed 35 people, a development that one board member called "alarming."

Medical helicopters "provide an important service to the public" in swiftly transporting ill and injured patients and donor organs, the board said on its Web site. Chopper pilots must operate "safely and quickly" in bad weather, at night or on "unfamiliar landing sites," the board added.

"This hearing will be extremely important because it can provide an opportunity to learn more about the industry so that possibly we can make further recommendations that can prevent these accidents and save lives," said Robert Sumwalt, chairman of the hearing's board of inquiry.  Watch Sumwalt's remarks at hearing »

Flying at night in poor weather conditions likely contributed to the crashes in Texas and Alaska of three medical helicopters that killed 11 people, the NTSB said. The three crashes occurred near South Padre Island, Texas, in February 2008; Huntsville, Texas, in June; and Whittier, Alaska, in December 2007. iReport: Watch smoke pour from a medical chopper crash in Michigan

A December 2007 accident in Cherokee, Alabama, was likely caused by the pilot flying too low over trees, the NTSB said. The helicopter was shining a searchlight on a hunter who had been lost as rescue personnel on the ground tried to reach him. The pilot, a paramedic and a flight nurse were killed, the NTSB said.

Among the issues to be discussed at the hearing will be flight operations, aircraft safety equipment, training and oversight.

Expert witnesses such as pilots, medical personnel, managers and Federal Aviation Administration officials will give sworn testimony on what has been an "ongoing concern" of the safety board, which issued a report on emergency medical services operations in 2006.

The NTSB said there were 55 EMS-related aviation accidents -- both fatal and nonfatal -- between January 2002 and January 2005 that could have been prevented with "simple corrective actions." In those crashes, 54 people were killed, and 18 were seriously injured, the NTSB said.

The agency recommended to the FAA in January 2006 that all medical chopper operators be required to develop and implement risk evaluation programs, use dispatch and flight procedures that include up-to-date weather information, and install "terrain awareness and warning systems" on their aircraft. A fourth recommendation would require medical flight operators to follow federal regulations regarding their flights.

The recommendations have not been fully implemented, the NTSB said.

Question: How many people were killed?

Question: what have the board examined

Question: what was not fully implented

Question: how many were killed during a one year period

Question: What is the safety board beginning?

Question: What was not fully implemented?

Question: What does the board examine?

Question: Who begins four days of hearings?

Answer: 35

Answer: probed nine fatal medical helicopter accidents that killed 35 people,

Answer: The recommendations

Answer: 35

Answer: four days of hearings

Answer: The agency recommended to the FAA in January 2006 that all medical chopper operators be required to develop and implement risk evaluation programs, use dispatch and flight procedures that include up-to-date weather information, and install "terrain awareness and warning systems" on their aircraft. A fourth recommendation would require medical flight operators to follow federal regulations regarding their flights.

Answer: how to stem the "drastic increase" in medical helicopter accidents.

Answer: The National Transportation Safety Board

Summary:
Transportation safety board beginning four days of hearings .
Board examines reported "drastic increase" in accidents and deaths .
Nine air ambulance crashes killed 35 people during one-year period .
Board's 2006 safety recommendations not fully implemented, it says .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The National Transportation Safety Board said Thursday that it is investigating an incident in which a panel separated from the wing of a Boeing 757 while it was in flight last week. iReporter and Flight 1250 passenger Paul Shepherd took this photo of the damage through the aircraft's window. The incident occurred Saturday on US Airways Flight 1250 from Orlando, Florida, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the NTSB said in a statement. The separation occurred over Maryland. The aircraft landed in Philadelphia about 30 minutes later, and none of the 174 passengers or six crew members aboard was injured. The panel, on the trailing edge of the upper side of the left wing, broke loose and struck several windows toward the rear of the aircraft, causing the outer pane of one window to crack, the agency said. Pressurization of the cabin was not compromised. The wing panel has not been located. NTSB investigators are using a computer program to pinpoint the area where it might be and will notify local authorities that an aircraft part may be there, the statement said. The plane's cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder have arrived at the NTSB laboratory in Washington, the agency said, and are being evaluated. E-mail to a friend

Question: What is investigating the US Airways flight?

Question: What was the plane's route?

Question: Where was the plane headed

Question: Where did the plane land?

Question: What was cracked?

Question: Where is Philadelphia?

Question: where was the plane en route to?

Question: Who is investigating the flight?

Answer: The National Transportation Safety Board

Answer: from Orlando, Florida, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

Answer: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

Answer: Philadelphia

Answer: outer pane of one window

Answer: Pennsylvania,

Answer: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,

Answer: National Transportation Safety Board

Summary:
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating US Airways flight .
Plane was en route from Orlando, Florida, to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .
Wing panel struck several windows, cracking the outer pane of one .
Plane landed in Philadelphia about 30 minutes after the incident with no injuries .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Navy is investigating how thousands of dollars went missing in the rescue of the captain of the Maersk Alabama in April, a Pentagon source told CNN. The USS Bainbridge tows the lifeboat in which Capt. Robert Phillips was held for days. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service opened an investigation into how $30,000 disappeared after special forces snipers shot and killed three pirates, ending the multi-day siege and freeing the captain, who had been held hostage. Investigators are talking to anyone who may have had contact with the money or knowledge about what happened to it, the source said, including military personnel on the warship, Navy SEALs who rescued Capt. Richard Phillips, and the crew of the Maersk Alabama. The NCIS and the Maersk Line Ltd., which owns the Maersk Alabama, have not responded to CNN's request for comment. In a criminal complaint filed against the one surviving alleged pirate, Abduwali Muse, the government contends the alleged pirate demanded money from the ship's captain and led him by gun point to the ship's safe.  Watch CNN's Chris Lawrence on the investigation » "The captain opened the safe and took out approximately $30,000 in cash. Muse and two other pirates then took the cash," the criminal complaint contends. It goes on to allege that Muse distributed some of the money to the other pirates who retreated to a lifeboat where they were holding the captain as a captive.  See timeline of events that led to piracy case » All three of the other pirates were killed by U.S. Special Forces snipers during the rescue but the complaint does not list any money recovered from the boat after the rescue. It only lists rifles, a hand gun, artillery, cell phones and handheld radios.

Question: What was the captain called?

Question: How much money disappeared?

Question: How many pirates were killed during the siege ?

Question: About what is the NCIS opening an investigation ?

Question: Seals shot and killed how many pirates?

Question: NCIS opened what investigation?

Question: What did the Naval Criminal Investigative Service open an investigaion for?

Question: How much money disappeared during the captain's rescue ?

Question: How many pirates were killed by SEAL?

Answer: Robert Phillips

Answer: $30,000

Answer: three

Answer: how $30,000 disappeared after special forces snipers shot and killed three pirates,

Answer: three

Answer: into how $30,000 disappeared after special forces snipers shot and killed three pirates, ending the multi-day siege and freeing the captain, who had been held hostage.

Answer: into how $30,000 disappeared

Answer: $30,000

Answer: three

Summary:
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service opened an investigation into missing cash .
$30,000 disappeared after rescue of captain of Maersk Alabama by Navy SEALs .
SEALs shot and killed three pirates, ending multi-day siege, freeing captain in April .
Pirates reportedly led captain at gun point to the ship's safe .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration has decided to rescind invitations to Iranian diplomats for July Fourth celebrations overseas because of violent crackdowns against protesters in Iran, the White House said Wednesday. President Obama on Tuesday toughened his stance on Iran's crackdown on protesters. "July Fourth allows us to celebrate the freedom and the liberty we enjoy: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble peacefully, freedom of the press," White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters. "Given the events of the past many days, those invitations will no longer be extended." The administration had decided to invite Iranians to the celebrations at overseas posts as part of the president's policy of engaging the Iranian regime. In late May the State Department sent a cable to its embassies and consulates worldwide informing them they "may invite representatives from the government of Iran" to their July Fourth celebrations. But in a fresh cable sent to all embassies and consulates Wednesday evening, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ordered posts "to rescind all invitations that have been extended to Iranian diplomats for July Fourth events. "Unfortunately the circumstances have changed and participation by Iranian diplomats would not be appropriate in light of the Iranian government's continued violent and unjust actions against its own people," said the cable, obtained by CNN. "For invitations which have been extended, posts should make clear that Iranian participation is no longer appropriate in the current circumstances. For invitations which have not been extended, no further action is needed." A senior administration official said Clinton made the decision, and then informed President Obama. The U.S. receptions marking Independence Day usually feature symbols of Americana, such as hot dogs, red-white-and-blue decorations and remarks by U.S. officials about America's founding fathers. One senior administration official said Wednesday the reconsideration of the July Fourth invitations is consistent with Obama's comments Tuesday, in which he said he was "shocked and appalled" at the violence against demonstrators. "The president said yesterday how this plays out will affect what we do," the official said. Obama said Tuesday, "If Iran chooses a path that abides by international norms and principles, then we are interested in healing some of the wounds of 30 years in terms of U.S.-Iranian relations." Watch Obama ramp up criticism of Iran » On Tuesday, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida, the top Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said an invitation to Iranian diplomats would send the wrong message to Iranians "who are bravely standing up for the same rights and freedoms which Americans celebrate on this day." "The Fourth of July is a day when we celebrate democracy and reflect on the gift of freedom which all Americans cherish," she said in a statement. "The Iranian people are no less worthy of freedom and self-governance than citizens of the United States." Earlier this year, as part of the policy to engage Iran, Obama videotaped a message for the Iranian people on the Persian new year and U.S. officials have engaged members of the Iranian government. In March, Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, spoke briefly with Iran's deputy foreign minister, Mohammad Mehdi Akhondzadeh, at an Afghanistan conference in The Hague. Administration officials believe the U.S. will engage Iran at some point to address issues of U.S. national security, including the nuclear issue, but the idea of bilateral engagement is in a holding pattern while the violence continues. "I wouldn't say engagement is off the table, but it is certainly on ice," a senior administration official said this week.

Question:
What did the administration plan?
What caused the change?
What had administration planned?
What was the violence against?
What did Clinton say?
What has caused the change?

Answer: The Obama administration has decided to rescind invitations to Iranian diplomats

Answer: violent crackdowns against protesters in Iran,

Answer: to invite Iranians to the celebrations at overseas posts

Answer: demonstrators.

Answer: "to rescind all invitations that have been extended to Iranian diplomats for July Fourth events.

Answer: violent crackdowns against protesters in Iran,

Summary:
Administration had planned to invite Iranians to celebrations at overseas posts .
Clinton: Participation not appropriate given "continued violent and unjust actions"
Violence against election protesters in Iran has caused the change, officials say .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration is abandoning a controversial plan to charge private insurers for treatment of veterans' service-connected ailments.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel met with veterans' groups on Wednesday.

In an statement Wednesday night, the White House said that although the president believes the plan would raise more money for veterans' care, the administration is dropping the idea after hearing the objections of veterans groups.

"The President listened to concerns raised by the VSOs [veterans service organizations] that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families' ability to access health care," the White House said. "Therefore, the president has instructed that its consideration be dropped."

News of the change of heart originally came from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who disclosed the decision to reporters while meeting with a group of veterans on Capitol Hill.

"President Obama has listened to the concerns expressed by veterans' leaders and veterans' service organizations," Pelosi said. "We will leave no veteran behind."

Veterans' representatives and members of Congress have angrily opposed the proposal, which White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said was never finalized.

Leaders from 11 veterans groups discussed their position in a meeting Wednesday afternoon with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

"We stood firm on our stance that there is no way to support charging veterans' insurance companies for service-connected treatment," said Jim King, executive director of AMVETS, a leading veterans' advocacy organization.

Emanuel indicated that the proposal was "a dead issue," King added. "The administration was quick to say [that if veterans were] going to fight it, [the White House wasn't] going to push it."

Another attendee, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Executive Director Paul Rieckhoff, said Emanuel was quick to come back after hearing the veterans' groups stand firm and tell them, "Let's clarify, it is dead."

"They made the right move -- they listened to us. Now we can move on to bigger more important issues," Rieckhoff said.

The meeting was very short, said King. Despite the difference in opinion, King said the atmosphere was cordial and "everybody seemed comfortable."

On Monday, the groups met with President Obama, Emanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, director in charge of defense spending for the Office of Management and Budget.

The administration saw the plan as a way of raising more than $500 million in revenues for the Department of Veterans Affairs. However, veterans groups saw it is a violation of what they said is the government's moral obligation to treat veterans injured during service to their country.

In addition, they believed it would lead to veterans and their families losing their private insurance or premiums rising because of the high costs of treating many service-related injuries.

The head of the Senate Veterans Affairs committee, Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, said Tuesday his committee would "not advance any such legislation."

His counterpart in the House, Bob Filner, D-California, said his committee wouldn't take up the proposal either. In a statement released by his office, Filner said the idea is "DOA" and said the budget "cannot be balanced on the backs (or legs, or kidneys, or hearts) of our nation's combat-wounded heroes."

The president pushed back during the meeting on Monday, telling the groups that private insurance companies were getting a free ride. He challenged the veterans to come up with an alternative way to raise revenues.

AMVETS planned to propose that billings be pursued more aggressively for injuries not related to service.

But AMVETS director King said Emanuel didn't ask for suggestions in Wednesday's meeting.

A 2008 Government Accountability Office study found that about $1.7 billion in treatment that could have been charged to private insurance never was, nor was it collected by the VA.

CNN's Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

Question: who did administration want to charge?

Question: who opposed the proposal?

Question: Who did the administration want to charge?

Question: who meets with veteran groups?

Question: What did vet groups oppose?

Question: Who did WH chief of staff meet with?

Answer: private insurers

Answer: Congress

Answer: private insurers

Answer: White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel

Answer: controversial plan to charge private insurers

Answer: veterans' groups

Summary:
White House chief of staff meets with veterans groups .
Administration wanted to charge private insurers for treatment of veterans .
Vets' groups and members of Congress have angrily opposed the proposal .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration is giving General Motors 60 days worth of financing for restructuring, according to senior administration officials. General Motors' Rick Wagoner, CEO of the company since 2000, is on his way out, sources say. Chrysler will receive as much as $6 billion and 30 days to complete an agreement with Italian automaker Fiat, the officials said. Meanwhile, White House and GM sources told CNN Sunday that GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner will resign as part of the federal government's bailout strategy for the troubled automaker. Wagoner's departure comes as President Obama is expected to announce Monday the latest details of the government's plans for restructuring GM and Chrysler LLC, which have been pushed to the brink by huge losses and a sharp decline in sales. Fritz Henderson, GM's chief operating officer, is expected to be named GM's interim CEO, according to two GM sources. A GM spokesman declined to comment on reports of Wagoner's resignation. A company statement said: "We are anticipating an announcement soon from the administration regarding the restructuring of the U.S. auto industry." GM and Chrysler face a Tuesday deadline to prove to the Treasury Department that they can be viable in the long term. Without such a finding, the government can recall the $13.4 billion it already loaned to GM and the $4 billion it loaned to Chrysler. Wagoner, a 32-year company veteran, has been CEO of General Motors since 2000. Before becoming CEO, he was chief operating officer and led the company's North American operations. He also served as chief financial officer from 1992 to 1994. A senior GM official official told CNN that the White House and its auto task force had "sent very clear signals" that the key to more help was "new leadership" and something that would help the administration see real change. General Motors has been hit hard as auto sales have plummeted. Sales have continued to tumble through the early months of this year, falling 40 percent across the industry and about 50 percent at GM and Chrysler. The companies and industry analysts have slashed their sales estimates for the year, and that has heightened the need for more loans to keep GM and Chrysler afloat. Last month, the two companies filed reports on their restructuring efforts. GM said it needed up to $16.6 billion more in loans. Chrysler asked for an additional $5 billion, and said it would need the money by the end of March to avoid running out of cash. The Obama administration had been widely expected to approve the requests. Obama has repeatedly spoken about the importance of saving the struggling auto industry, and on March 19, the Treasury Department announced $5 billion in federal help for GM's and Chrysler's auto parts suppliers. CNN's Kate Bolduan and John King contributed to this report.

Question: What does GM, Chrysler need to prove to the Treasury

Question: What did Chrysler get?

Question: What was considered key to aid

Question: Who is the GE CEO?

Answer: that they can be viable in the long term.

Answer: $6 billion and 30 days to complete an agreement with Italian automaker Fiat,

Answer: "new leadership"

Answer: Rick Wagoner,

Summary:
Departure of General Motors' CEO part of government's bailout strategy, sources say .
GM official: White House signaled that "new leadership" was key to more aid .
Officials: GM to get 60 days of financing; Chrysler could get $6 billion .
GM, Chrysler were told to prove viability to Treasury Department by Tuesday .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration's efforts to help struggling homeowners will aid "responsible" borrowers, not deadbeats or speculators, Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan said Sunday.

The plan is aimed at "folks who are playing by the rules," Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan says.

President Barack Obama announced the plan Wednesday, saying it will help up to 9 million people keep their homes in a housing market ravaged by foreclosures. But critics, including several leading Republicans and some commentators, said the $75 billion proposal will unfairly help some people at the expense of others.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs acknowledged Friday that some people who made "bad decisions" might end up getting help under the proposal. But Donovan, Obama's secretary of housing and urban development, told CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday that "there are no 'flippers,' investor-owners or scammers that are eligible for this program."

"We're going check everybody's income when they come into this program. We're going to make sure that people are paying their bills. And more than anything, we're targeting the folks who are playing by the rules," Donovan said.

The administration's proposal would make it easier for homeowners to afford their monthly payments either by refinancing the mortgages or having their loans modified. And it would vastly broaden the scope of the government rescue by focusing on homeowners who are still current in their payments but at risk of default. Read more about the plan

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican who also has criticized the administration's stimulus package, called the mortgage plan "a horrible idea."

"About 95 percent of folks are playing by the rules and struggling, but still paying their mortgages. The idea that somebody down the street gets a different system, I think, is ultimately something that's going to undermine a whole lot of other folks with regard to paying their mortgage," Sanford told "Fox News Sunday."

In particular, he singled out a provision that would allow judges to modify or reduce the principal of loans for borrowers in bankruptcy -- an idea Sanford called "incredibly dangerous for the precedent it sets."

But Donovan told CBS's "Face the Nation" that judges already have that power for second homes or vacation homes.

"It's only for people who have one home and are living in it or are in trouble where you can't have a modification of that loan in bankruptcy," he said. But he said the administration would limit the plan to existing loans, not future ones, and considered it a "last resort."

"There seems to be growing consensus that this is an important part of the solution," he said.

About $50 billion of the money would come from the $700 billion financial industry bailout package, a senior administration official said Friday. Nationalized mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will contribute more than $20 billion to the loan modification program, mainly to subsidize interest rates so troubled borrowers' monthly payments can be lowered to affordable levels.

But those companies are on shaky financial ground themselves and are expected to report billions in losses in the next week or two. To stabilize them, the foreclosure prevention program calls for doubling their lines of credit with the federal government to $200 billion each.

Donovan said 45 percent of home sales in December were "distressed," meaning either sellers were facing foreclosure or the homes were already seized by the bank, driving down home prices further in an already-battered market.

"We've got to make clear, here, that a foreclosure hurts every American," he told CNN.

In releasing his proposal Wednesday, Obama said it would help both responsible homeowners suffering from falling home prices and borrowers either at risk of or already in default. But it does virtually nothing for the unemployed, who often don't have enough income to make any reasonable monthly payment affordable. And since it relies more heavily on lowering interest rates than on reducing principal, it does little for borrowers concerned their homes will never recoup

Question: Who have the critics said it will unfairly help?

Question: Who does Donovan say the plans target?

Question: What have critics said about the plan?

Question: Who said "We're targeting the folks who are playing by the rules"

Question: What position does Shaun Donovan hold?

Question: Who is the Housing Secretary?

Question: What folks are being targeted?

Question: What did critics say the plan will do?

Question: Name of the Housing Secretary?

Question: Who does Shaun Donovan NOT want to help?

Question: Shaun Donovan stated who won't be helped

Answer: some people at the expense of others.

Answer: "folks

Answer: "a horrible idea."

Answer: Shaun Donovan

Answer: Housing Secretary

Answer: Shaun Donovan

Answer: "folks who are playing by the rules,"

Answer: unfairly help some people at the expense of others.

Answer: Shaun Donovan

Answer: deadbeats or speculators,

Answer: deadbeats or speculators,

Summary:
Housing Secretary Shaun Donovan: Scammers, speculators won't be helped .
Critics have said plan will unfairly help some people at the expense of others .
Donovan: "We're targeting the folks who are playing by the rules"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pacific island nation of Palau has agreed to take in 17 Chinese Muslims held at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the country's ambassador to the United States said Wednesday. The map shows the Pacific island nation of Palau in relation to China. Details of the transfer are still being worked out, Ambassador Hersey Kyota told CNN. But Kyota said his country, a former U.S. Pacific trust territory, has agreed to take in the ethnic Uighur detainees "for humanitarian reasons" and because of the "special relationship" between Palau and the United States. U.S. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly would not comment on the announcement, telling reporters, "We're still involved in ongoing discussions." The agreement includes some U.S. aid for Palau, Kyota said, but he said those details remained to be worked out as well. The country, with a population of about 20,000, is about 1,000 miles southeast of Manila, Philippines, and about 4,600 miles west of Hawaii. Palau has received nearly $900 million in U.S. aid since independence in 1994, according to congressional auditors, and depends on Washington for defense. The "Compact of Free Association" between Palau and the United States is up for review, but Kelly said any additional aid offer "is not linked to any other discussions we may be having with the government of Palau." The Uighurs were accused of receiving weapons and military training in Afghanistan. Some of the prisoners have been cleared for release from the Guantanamo Bay facility since 2003, but the United States would not send them back to China out of concern that Chinese authorities would torture them. A federal court ordered the men released, but an appeals court halted that order. China has said no returned Uighurs would be tortured, but it has warned other countries against taking the men. Foreign Ministry spokesman Jiang Yu told reporters in February that the men "must be handed over to China and brought to justice."

Question: Which country is getting aid?

Question: Who are the Chinese Muslims?

Question: who wouldn't send Uighur detainees to China due to torture concerns?

Question: Wh agreed to take 17 Uighurs ?

Question: What concerns are there in China?

Answer: Palau,

Answer: Uighurs

Answer: the United States

Answer: The Pacific island nation of Palau

Answer: Chinese authorities would torture them.

Summary:
Country's ambassador to U.S. says agreement includes some aid to Palau .
Uighurs are native Chinese Muslims .
Palau agrees to take 17 Uighurs from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba .
U.S. wouldn't send Uighur detainees to China due to torture concerns .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon is portraying India as a major customer for U.S. military equipment, worth an estimated $6 billion in the past decade, even as U.S. companies are shut out of a multibillion dollar bid for fighter jets that India is starting this week.

In the newest edition of a congressionally mandated report, the Defense Department signaled that it was hoping to interest India in its top-of-the-line and most expensive weapon, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, still being tested.

Arms sales, as well as more frequent military exercises and exchanges, are seen as an important ways to cement ties between the two countries.

But India doesn't always buy American. Recently, India considered and then rejected a major purchase of U.S. F-16 and F-18 fighters, a expensive setback for U.S. arms sales and the U.S. aviation industry. That deal -- now between the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon -- is a reminder of the vast sums in play.

"With a potential contract price of US$9 billion to US$14 billion, this is the single biggest competition in the global defence aviation industry at the moment and offers both bidders a much-needed opportunity in a major market," said James Hardy, Asia Pacific Editor at IHS Jane's Defence Weekly said in a statement.

Arms sales, as well as more frequent military exercises and exchanges, are seen as an important ways to cement ties between the two countries.

The Defense Department downplayed any suggestion that arms sales and other contacts could backfire and that next-door Pakistan may feel new pressure both in its already-strained relationship with Washington and with its historical enemy, India.

"It's important that none of us think about relationships in this region as a zero-sum game," said Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Scher at the Pentagon. "We have valuable relationships with Pakistan and valuable relationships with India and these things can co-exist."

Scher signaled that he hoped the relationship, and the arms sales would continue to grow.

"I think there is a great potential to do much more," Scher said in a briefing at the Pentagon. "India sees the U.S. as a reliable defense supplier and we have been able to provide some top-of-the-line equipment. Is there some potential for more? Certainly there is. That is for the government of India to decide"

Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation, a long-time observer of U.S. and Indian affairs, said the report should be a catalyst to deepen defense ties and possibly lead to a loosening of present export and licensing controls.

"The Defense Department offer to provide India with information on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter sends a clear signal that the U.S. considers India one of its most important future defense partners and is willing to consider co-production of some of its most sophisticated defense technology," Curtis told CNN.

The Pentagon's government-to-government program of foreign military sales to India have included C-17 and C-130 aircraft, radar systems, Harpoon weapons and specialized tactical equipment.

Any consideration of India's role in the region must include China and U.S. concerns about the Chinese modernization of its armed services especially its navy.

"The attention given to maritime security cooperation in the report should be seen in light of a series of maritime incidents in which Chinese naval vessels have challenged other countries' naval vessels in the South China Sea," Curtis said.

"It is clear that the U.S. views India as a leader in helping to maintain freedom of navigation in the Indian Ocean region and will likely look for ways to enhance India's involvement in maritime security endeavors throughout the Indo-Pacific in the future."

Question: What fighter is still being tested?

Question: Which country recently rejected the puchase of other U.S. fighters?

Question: In what way could US-Indian relations be cemented?

Question: Which country might buy the jets?

Question: Sales of what are seen as a way of cementing relations between the U.S. and India?

Question: Which fighter is still being tested?

Answer: F-35 Joint Strike

Answer: India

Answer: Arms sales, as well as more frequent military exercises and exchanges,

Answer: India

Answer: Arms

Answer: the F-35 Joint Strike

Summary:
The Pentagon tells Congress it hopes to interst India in its most expensive weapon .
The top-of-the-line F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is still being tested .
But India recently rejected purchase of other U.S.-built fightrers .
Arms sales are seen as a way to cement relations between the U.S. and India .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Richard Nixon Presidential Library will allow access Tuesday to about 154 hours of Nixon White House tape recordings and 30,000 pages of documents that were formerly classified. President Nixon announces the U.S. incursion into Cambodia during the Vietnam War in April 1970. Among the tapes and documents are conversations about the Vietnam War, Nixon's second inauguration, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 and the first Watergate trial, according to a library statement. Tuesday's release is the 13th opening of Nixon White House tapes since 1980, the statement said. The new Nixon tapes and documents will be available on the Internet and in the Richard Nixon libraries in College Park, Maryland, and Yorba Linda, California. Nixon resigned August 9, 1974, over the Watergate scandal -- the first president to resign from office. President Ford pardoned Nixon the following month, saying it was necessary for the nation to heal after Watergate.

Question: Who is to open access to 154 hours of recordings?

Question: Who was Richard Nixon?

Question: What do the tapes include?

Question: What are the taped conversations about?

Question: How many pages of formerly classified documents?

Question: Pages of documents released where?

Question: What will the Richard Nixon Presidential Library open access to?

Answer: The Richard Nixon Presidential Library

Answer: President

Answer: conversations about the Vietnam War, Nixon's second inauguration, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 and the first Watergate trial,

Answer: the Vietnam War, Nixon's second inauguration, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 and the first Watergate trial,

Answer: 30,000

Answer: The Richard Nixon Presidential Library

Answer: White House tape recordings and 30,000 pages of documents that were formerly classified.

Summary:
Richard Nixon Presidential Library to open access to 154 hours of recordings .
Tapes include conversations about Watergate, Roe v. Wade, Vietnam War .
Release also includes 30,000 pages of formerly classified documents .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Salvadoran immigrant suspected in the 2001 slaying of Washington intern Chandra Levy told at least two people he killed her, according to an affidavit filed in the case. Ingmar Guandique is serving a 10-year sentence for two assaults in the park where Chandra Levy's body was found. Ingmar Guandique, 27, also kept a magazine photo of Levy in his prison cell, stated the affidavit detailing evidence supporting a warrant for his arrest for first-degree murder. Guandique is in prison in California for two assault convictions. Guandique boasted of his ties to the violent Salvadoran gang Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, and told witnesses that he was known as "Chuckie" -- the name of a demonic doll in a series of horror movies -- because he had a reputation for "killing and chopping up people," the affidavit states. D.C. Metro police and federal prosecutors released the affidavit on Tuesday, announcing they would charge Guandique with first-degree murder in the Levy case. He has not been charged with any other slayings.  Watch the police announce arrest » The affidavit revealed that Levy, 25, fought for her life, scratching her attacker on his face and giving him a "fat lip." Guandique said he received the injuries in a fight with his girlfriend. But the girlfriend later told police that while Guandique struck and bit her at times, she never hit him, the document says. Guandique is serving concurrent 10-year sentences in connection with attacks on two other joggers in the park during the summer of 2001. He told probation officials the attacks were motivated by robbery, but no valuables were taken from either victim. Guandique was arrested after the second attack -- exactly two months after Levy's slaying. D.C. Metro police began to take a hard second look at him in 2008, the affidavit shows. He has repeatedly denied to authorities that he killed Levy, and his public defenders have cautioned against a rush to judgment, citing what they called flaws in the investigation. The affidavit details a case built largely on circumstantial evidence collected over the eight years since Levy disappeared, apparently while jogging along the Western Ridge trail in Washington's Rock Creek Park. It portrays Guandique as an opportunistic attacker who came up behind female joggers, grabbing them as they were tiring and becoming winded. The affidavit includes highlights from interviews with a dozen witnesses, who are not identified by name and are instead given numbers. One witness, who frequently exchanged letters with the suspect, told police Guandique had told him as early as 2003 that he killed a young woman in the park. During a taped 2008 phone conversation with the witness, "Guandique acknowledged that he had told W9 about the 'girl who's dead,''' the affidavit says. Another witness told police that Guandique said he and two male teenagers were sitting on a bench in a park smoking marijuana laced with cocaine when a woman with dark, thick hair jogged by. The witness said Guandique thought she "looked good" and told the two teens that he was going to "get her." Guandique told the witness that the three followed her along a path, then grabbed her and forced her off the trail. When she started screaming, he grabbed her by the neck and choked her to death, so that other people in the park would not hear her cries for help. It is not clear from the affidavit whether the two teens Guandique said were with him actually exist. Police have said no other arrests are imminent, but the investigation is continuing.  Timeline of Levy's disappearance » Levy's skull was found in the park on May 22, 2002 -- more than a year after she disappeared. A search turned up other remains, as well as clothing later identified as hers strewn down the side of a ravine. Her running shoes were unlaced. He clothes were turned inside out, the pants knotted in tight restraints around her legs. "It appears that Guandique wanted Ms. Levy naked and incapacitated," states the affidavit, signed by D.C. Metro Det. Todd Williams. Also among the witnesses are two

Question: What did the affidavit say about the suspect?

Question: What was signed on Tuesday?

Question: WHat did the suspect keep?

Question: What was the suspect known as?

Question: What did the witness say?

Answer: he killed a young woman

Answer: affidavit,

Answer: kept a magazine photo of Levy in his prison cell,

Answer: "Chuckie"

Answer: Guandique said he and two male teenagers were sitting on a bench in a park smoking marijuana laced with cocaine when a woman with dark, thick hair jogged by.

Summary:
NEW: Affidavit says suspect kept a magazine photo of Chandra Levy in prison cell .
NEW: Witnesses say suspect known as "Chuckie," like demonic movie doll .
An arrest warrant for Ingmar Guandique was signed Tuesday .
Levy disappeared in May 2001; her body was found a year later .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate Wednesday approved a bill to put new rules in place for intelligence agency eavesdropping on suspected terrorists. Communication technologies like mobile phones have made the 1978 FISA bill out of date, supporters say. The bill also effectively protects telephone companies from being sued for cooperating with a government surveillance program launched in the wake of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. The White House pushed hard for the provision, with a threat to veto the bill if it did not contain protection for phone companies. The vote was 69-28, with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois voting in favor. Republican candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona was not present for the vote. President Bush said Wednesday afternoon he will sign the bill, calling it "vital" and "long overdue."  Watch Bush praise the new FISA bill » The bill, formally known as the FISA Amendments Act, updates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It will: Opponents argued that the provision creating a judicial review of cases against the telecommunication companies is a sham. The bill essentially grants immunity to the telecommunication companies, the opponents said, because all of the telephone carriers received government certifications saying their participation in the program was legal. Obama was criticized for backing away from his early opposition to the bill by liberal bloggers and individuals commenting on his campaign Web site. Before voting for the bill, Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, that would have stripped the language granting immunity to telecommunications companies. Civil liberties groups have vowed to fight the legislation in court. "This fight is not over. We intend to challenge this bill as soon as President Bush signs it into law," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project, said in a statement issued minutes after the Senate approved the bill. "The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans' international telephone and e-mail communications. It plainly violates the Fourth Amendment." President Bush acknowledged in 2005 that he ordered the secretive National Security Agency to intercept communications between U.S. residents and people overseas suspected of having ties to terrorism. The administration says the program was authorized when Congress approved military action against al Qaeda after the 2001 attacks. CNN's Pam Benson contributed to this report.

Question: How much did the senate pass the measure by?

Question: What did the recent Bill update?

Question: What did the sentate pass?

Question: What do civil liberties groups vow to do?

Question: What does the bill update?

Question: What did civil liberties groups vow to do?

Answer: The vote was 69-28,

Answer: 1978 Foreign Intelligence

Answer: the new FISA bill

Answer: fight the legislation in court.

Answer: Surveillance Act.

Answer: have vowed

Summary:
Bill updates Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 .
Senate passes measure by a vote of 69-28; Bush says he will sign the bill .
Bill updates eavesdropping rules to take into account technology changes .
Civil liberties groups vows to fight bill in court .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate approved a controversial nuclear deal with India on Wednesday, clearing the way for the United States to export nuclear know-how to India after a ban lasting decades. President Bush, who supports the deal, meets with India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last week. Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said the deal would not only "set the stage for a stronger U.S.-India relationship," but also would promote stability in India's troubled neighborhood. "This agreement is indicative of a new era in Indian foreign policy, an era in which India will see all the world's powers as potential partners in efforts to address its own needs and the needs of others," Dodd said. "I believe that this new era will bring increased stability and progress in South Asia." India and Pakistan have fought several wars since they became independent in 1947, and both countries have tested nuclear weapons. Wednesday's vote was 86-13. Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, spoke against what he called flawed legislation before the vote. "If we pass this legislation, we will reward India for flouting the most important arms control agreement in history, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and we will gravely undermine our case against hostile nations that seek to do the same," Harkin said. Before he voted against the bill, he said Congress had not debated the legislation properly. "It was hustled through [the House of Representatives] without any hearings and without a vote in the House Foreign Affairs Committee," he said. "Here in the Senate, the Foreign Relations Committee held just one hearing with just one witness who spoke in support of the agreement." Presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain voted for the bill. President Bush urged the Senate to pass the bill in a statement released before the vote. The bill "represents a major milestone in the transformation of our nation's important relationship with India," the statement said. One senator had anonymously been using parliamentary rules to prevent the bill from coming to a vote, but the leaders of the Senate announced Tuesday night the vote would go ahead. The House of Representatives passed the bill without debate on Saturday. The next step is for Bush to sign it into law. The Indian nuclear market is a rich prize, and the agreement could open the way for U.S. companies to earn billions of dollars building nuclear power plants in India. The French government clinched its own nuclear trade deal with India on Wednesday when President Nicolas Sarkozy signed an agreement in Paris. That puts French companies in the running for some of the same contracts U.S. companies want. In exchange for access to U.S. nuclear technology, India would allow international inspections of its civilian -- but not military -- nuclear power plants. It would also promise not to resume testing of nuclear weapons. The United States banned nuclear trade with India after India exploded a nuclear device in 1974 and refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In an informal agreement between the two nations, the United States said it would halt any nuclear cooperation should India resume testing.

Question: In which country could US businesses earn billions if the bill passes?

Question: Who opposes the bill?

Question: Who could earn billions building plants in India?

Question: Who said we're rewarding India for flouting pact?

Question: What plants could be built in India?

Question: When did the US ban nuclear trade with India?

Question: In what year did the US ban nuclear trade with India?

Question: Who backs the deal?

Answer: India.

Answer: Sen. Tom Harkin,

Answer: U.S. companies

Answer: Harkin

Answer: nuclear power

Answer: device in 1974

Answer: 1974

Answer: President Bush,

Summary:
Deal could let U.S. businesses earn billions building plants in India .
President Bush backs the deal; he's expected to sign it into law .
U.S. banned nuclear trade with India in 1974 .
Sen. Harkin, bill opponent: We're rewarding India for flouting nonproliferation pact .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate confirmed by unanimous consent retired Adm. Dennis Blair as director of national intelligence Wednesday. Retired Adm. Dennis Blair answers questions at his confirmation hearing last week. The confirmation followed the resignation of former director Michael McConnell, who left the post Tuesday after nearly two years on the job. Earlier this month, President Barack Obama nominated Blair to be chief of intelligence. McConnell had been expected to remain as DNI until Blair was in place, but a delay in Blair's confirmation prompted him to announce his resignation sooner than that. Blair's confirmation hearing was held last week. The retired admiral will continue to advise Obama, however, having agreed to serve on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. The defense consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton announced Tuesday that McConnell will return to the company as a vice president. He left the firm in February 2007 to become the nation's second director of national intelligence. In a farewell letter obtained by CNN, McConnell thanked his colleagues for their hard work and touted some of the accomplishments during his tenure. At the top of his list: passage of legislation revising the law governing intelligence community eavesdropping and updating the presidential order that outlines the power and authorities of the community. "These documents lay a foundation to provide the IC the structure and the tools needed to continue our work, while expanding privacy and civil liberties protections to all Americans," wrote McConnell. The office was created in late 2004 as part of the effort to improve intelligence gathering after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States and the faulty intelligence on Iraq weapons of mass destruction.

Question: Who was confirmed unanimously?

Question: Who was confirmed?

Question: Who is Michael McConnell?

Question: What did previous director do?

Question: What position did Obama nominate the Admiral for?

Question: Who is Dennis Blair?

Question: What did the confirmation come after?

Question: When did President Obama nominate Blair?

Answer: retired Adm. Dennis Blair as director

Answer: Adm. Dennis Blair

Answer: former director

Answer: answers questions at his confirmation hearing

Answer: chief of intelligence.

Answer: retired admiral

Answer: the resignation of former director Michael McConnell,

Answer: Earlier this month,

Summary:
Retired Adm. Dennis Blair confirmed by unanimous consent .
Confirmation comes after previous director Michael McConnell resigned .
Earlier this month, President Obama nominated Blair as chief of intelligence .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate voted Thursday night to extend the "Cash for Clunkers" program with an infusion of $2 billion. President Obama is expected to sign the OK to spend $2 billion more on the "Cash for Clunkers" program. White House aides said earlier that President Obama will quickly sign the bill into law to prevent any interruption to the popular incentive. The Senate voted 60-37 to approve the measure already passed by the House. "[President Obama's] going to want to make sure the funds are in place by this weekend," one senior White House official noted, because of the particularly brisk weekend business the program has sparked. The program under Obama's economic stimulus package pays people up to $4,500 for trading an older-model vehicle with low fuel efficiency for new vehicles that get better miles per gallon. " 'Cash for Clunkers' has been a proven success. The initial transactions are generating a more than 50 percent increase in fuel economy; they are generating $700 to $1,000 in annual savings for consumers in reduced gas costs alone; and they are getting the oldest, dirtiest and most air polluting trucks and SUVs off the road for good," Obama said in a statement Thursday night. "I want to thank Leader Reid and the members of the Senate who moved quickly to extend a program that benefits our recovery and our auto industry while reducing our economy's dependence on oil," he said. The program was intended to run until autumn, but higher than expected participation caused the government to warn last week the program would run out of money without an infusion from Congress. The extension would keep the program going through Labor Day. The House voted to add $2 billion to the program before it adjourned for the summer on Friday. With the Senate vote, the additional money will become available right away. Several top Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, raised concerns about pouring more money into the program at a time when the government is deep in debt. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other top Democrats had been lining up votes for the expansion by making the case that the program is providing a boost to the economy by increasing weak auto sales, while also helping the environment by getting "clunkers" off the road in favor of more fuel-efficient vehicles. The program calls for the engines of the clunkers to be made inoperable so the cars cannot be returned to the road.  Watch what happens to 'clunkers' » Democratic officials said several hurdles were cleared in order to allow the Senate to pass the bill with new money on Thursday night. On Monday, two key senators who opposed more money for the program announced they had changed their minds and now supported the extension. The announcement by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, boosted Democratic efforts to secure enough votes to pass the measure this week. CNN Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry contributed to this report.

Question:
What does the program allow?
what does program allow drivers to do?
What do lawmakers fear?
What program did sanate vote to expand?
What did the Senate vote 60-37 for?

Answer: pays people up to $4,500 for trading an older-model vehicle with low fuel efficiency for new vehicles that get better miles per gallon.

Answer: $4,500 for trading an older-model vehicle with low fuel efficiency for new vehicles that get better miles per gallon.

Answer: the program would run out of money without an infusion from Congress.

Answer: "Cash for Clunkers"

Answer: Clunkers" program

Summary:
NEW: Obama says program stimulates economy while getting old vehicles off road .
Senate votes 60-37 to expand program with an infusion of $2 billion .
Program allows drivers to turn in gas guzzlers for fuel-efficient models .
Lawmakers fear program will run out of money without extension .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate voted Wednesday to move forward on a bill meant to crack down on oil speculators. Democrats say speculation in oil futures is a significant reason why oil prices have risen this year. But Republicans vowed to block the Senate from taking up any other measure until the Democratic leadership agrees to vote on other energy-related issues. Republicans want to offer up to 28 amendments to the bill on a wide range of energy topics, including increasing domestic oil production. The Democrats want to limit them to two amendments. "This is not some arcane subject; this is the biggest issue in the country," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "It's on the floor now. We say, let's deal with it. We're not afraid to vote on their amendments, they shouldn't be afraid to vote on ours. Let the Senate work its will on the No. 1 issue in the country." The Republicans said they would not prevent the Senate from taking up the housing bill passed earlier in the day by the House, although a final vote on that bill is not expected before the end of the week. Democrats oppose Republican measures to lift bans on offshore drilling and oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. See how gas prices have risen across the country » Republicans say the process would not be fair unless they can offer all of their amendments. Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, accused the Republicans of wanting to score political points rather than pass legislation. "The problem with our Republican colleagues is that they want to debate, not act. ... Even when they are offered what they want, they say no." Menendez suggested there was bipartisan support for measures meant to limit speculation, encourage conservation and provide tax credits for renewable energy. "Why would you not move forward on the items that you have consensus?" he asked. The disagreement between Republicans and Democrats could result in Congress leaving Washington for its monthlong recess in August without passing any measures to lower gas prices, which are averaging above $4 a gallon at the pump. Experts have said lifting bans on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore would not affect the oil market for several years, but Republicans have argued that the psychological effect of opening more areas for oil exploration would bring prices down. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, one of the main sponsors of the bill, pleaded for Republicans to help "wring excessive speculation" from the oil markets. He says speculation is responsible for 71 percent of the increase in a price of a barrel of oil this year. Some analysts say speculation has added between $40 to $60 dollars to a barrel of oil. But other experts have questioned the extent to which speculators -- rather than basic market principles of supply and demand -- have driven up the price of oil. Wednesday morning, a barrel of light, sweet crude was priced around $128 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, down from the $147 a barrel record set July 11 and the lowest price since June 5. Dorgan said ending speculation in the oil market would be a sensible first step toward lowering gas prices that both sides of the aisle could agree to. Republicans "have come up with a hundred excuses why they don't want to do that," he said. But Republicans say they want the opportunity to offer "real" solutions that will lower energy prices, which includes more drilling to expand domestic production.  See what factors are driving up the price of oil » "The Republicans know that American people want us to do something real, something big, something important about the price of gasoline," said Sen. Pete Dominici, R-New Mexico. "And the only thing that we can do that is important is to release large quantities of crude oil and natural gas that are owned by American people and that have been locked up for 27 years in moratoria." Dorgan, however, said the Republicans are trying to

Question: What would allow regulators to crack down on speculation in oil markets?

Question: What do Republicans say Americans want?

Question: Who is involved?

Question: What is the amount of amendments that the Republicans and Democrats want to add to the bill?

Question: What did the bill allow?

Question: What is being added?

Question: What number of amendments does the GOP want to add to bill?

Question: What does the GOB want to add?

Question: What number of amendments do the Democrats want to allow?

Question: What would the bill  allow regulators to crack down on?

Answer: a bill

Answer: something real, something big, something important about the price of gasoline,"

Answer: The Senate

Answer: 28

Answer: speculators.

Answer: $40 to $60 dollars to a barrel of oil.

Answer: 28

Answer: 28 amendments

Answer: two

Answer: oil

Summary:
Bill would allow regulators to crack down on speculation in oil markets .
GOP wants to add 28 amendments to bill; Democrats want to allow two .
Republicans say Americans want "real" answers, which includes more drilling .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to examine whether prosecutors can aggressively prosecute illegal immigrants for identity theft if they didn't know the documents they were given belonged to someone else. The Supreme Court has agreed to grapple with the issues of identity theft and illegal immigration. The justices announced they will hear arguments in the appeal of a Mexican national arrested in a government work site raid in the Midwest. A ruling is expected by June. At issue is whether people who use fake IDs to obtain work in the United States but did not know the documents belonged to someone else can be convicted of "aggravated identity theft." Stealing personal identification such as Social Security numbers  is illegal, but federal courts around the country are divided over how to treat people who buy them on the black market. Federal law states that for aggravated identity theft to occur, it must be proved that a person "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person." Many criminals steal a person's identification to empty his or her bank account or falsely obtain loans or credit. Lawyers for the detained illegal immigrants say their clients simply used numbers picked "out of thin air" that happened to belong to another person. They used the numbers only to obtain work, not steal to money, the lawyers said. The Justice Department argues its prosecutors need not prove "knowledge" that the documents belonged to someone else instead of being fabricated. The difference could mean an additional two years in federal prison under an enhanced sentence. Most workers with false papers serve only a few months behind bars, and many are then deported. At stake is the government's crackdown on undocumented workers, most of whom must rely on fake IDs to obtain employment. Read a report from the front lines of the immigration debate The case before the justices involves Mexican immigrant Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, who worked at a steel plant in East Moline, Illinois. He was arrested with phony Social Security and alien registration cards that had been assigned to someone else. He admitted obtaining the documents but said he did not know they were someone else's. He was convicted and sentenced to 75 months in prison. The court did not act on a similar appeal from a Mexican national who was arrested during a raid on a meat processing plant in Iowa, the largest criminal workplace enforcement operation in U.S. history. Nicasio Mendoza-Gonzalez was among 389 people arrested, most of whom were given five months in prison.

Question: When is a decision expected?

Question: is expected by the end of June

Question: Who need not prove "knowledge" that ID belongs to someone?

Question: Who argues their clients used random numbers?

Answer: by June.

Answer: A ruling

Answer: The Justice Department

Answer: Lawyers for the detained illegal immigrants

Summary:
Attorneys for illegal immigrants argue their clients used random numbers .
U.S. says prosecutors need not prove "knowledge" that ID belongs to someone .
A decision is expected by the end of June .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court dealt federal prosecutors dual setbacks Monday in efforts to prosecute the laundering of drug ring and organized crime profits.

The Supreme Court considered a pair of cases involving hidden money and an illegal gambling ring.

The justices ruled that merely hiding money headed out of the United States is not proof of money laundering.

Justices also concluded that prosecutors had to prove that an illegal gambling ring had laundered profits of its betting, rather than just proceeds.

In a unanimous ruling, the justices overturned the federal conviction of Humberto Regaldo Cuellar, who had run afoul of the "transportation" part of the international money-laundering law when his car was stopped by a deputy sheriff near Eldorado, Texas.

Inside the car, officers found nearly $81,000 in cash wrapped in duct-taped bundles and hidden in a secret compartment covered with animal hair, presumably to trick drug-sniffing dogs. Police suspected the money came from drug trafficking and arrested Cuellar, who had been heading for Mexico when he was stopped. Cuellar was convicted and sentenced to 78 months in prison.

Federal law requires proof the transportation was "designed to conceal or disguise the nature, location, the source, the ownership, or the control" of the money. Writing for the high court, Justice Clarence Thomas said prosecutors failed to prove the reason for moving the money across the border was to hide its source, as part of an alleged international drug ring.

"Although the evidence suggested Cuellar's  transportation would have the effect of concealing funds, the evidence did not demonstrate that such concealment was the purpose of the transportation " Thomas wrote.

Congress passed a law in 1986 designed to prevent the laundering, or "washing," of criminal funds through legitimate enterprises and overseas bank accounts.

In the other case, the high court split 5-4 in concluding that prosecutors failed to show money used to pay couriers in alleged gambling operation were "profits," rather than "gross proceeds."

The case involved Efrain Santos and Benedicto Diaz, convicted of running an illegal lottery in Indiana since the 1970s. Santos allegedly used a network of "runners" and "collectors" to run the enterprise, and Diaz was a collector who gathered money from the runners and delivered it to Santos.

"The money laundering charges brought against Santos were based on his payments to the lottery winners and his employees, and the money laundering charge brought against Diaz was based on his receipt of payments as an employer," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a very narrow opinion.

"Neither type of transaction can fairly be characterized as involving the lottery's profits," Scalia added. "Indeed, the government did not try to prove, and the defendants have not admitted, that they laundered criminal profits."

Scalia noted the high court's ruling would not overly burden prosecutors, saying only one instance of "profitability" would be required to prove money laundering. "What counts is whether the receipts from the charged unlawful act exceeded the costs fairly attributable to it," he said, adding the government "exaggerates" the difficulty it would have to do that.

Although Scalia wrote the main ruling, it was Justice John Paul Stevens who provided the critical fifth vote for a majority, and his concurring views will probably provide the controlling opinion to guide lower courts in similar cases down the road.

Stevens did not go as far as Scalia wanted, saying Congress failed by writing an "ambiguous" law that only confused judges. He said lawmakers seemed to want a broader interpretation of "proceeds" as the term applied to money laundering.

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented.

Question: What do the prosecutors have to prove?

Question: Where was the cash hidden?

Question: What did the justices say the prosecutors have to do?

Question: What did the cases involved?

Answer: illegal gambling ring had laundered profits of its betting,

Answer: secret compartment covered with animal hair,

Answer: prove that an illegal gambling ring had laundered profits of its betting, rather than just proceeds.

Answer: hidden money and an illegal gambling ring.

Summary:
In one case, court rules that hiding money not same as money laundering .
In another, justices say prosecutors have to prove gambling ring laundered "profits"
Cases involved cash hidden in car, illegal Indiana lottery .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has agreed to review a civil liberties dispute over the government's power to criminalize "support" of a terrorist organization. The Supreme Court will review a key provision of the 2001 Patriot Act. The justices on Wednesday accepted review of a key provision of the 2001 Patriot Act, and whether it threatens free speech rights of those who would assist non-violent activities of designated groups. Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, federal prosecutors have pursued "material support" cases against at least 120 individuals or organizations, winning convictions in about half of those cases. Nearly every such domestic terrorism-related prosecution has included that charge as part of the indictment. At issue is whether the congressional law allows prosecution of those with knowledge of "any service, training, expert advice or assistance" to a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the U.S. government. A federal appeals court in San Francisco, California, struck down several parts of the legislation, finding them too vague to satisfy the Constitution. The government then asked the high court to intervene and uphold the law. Among those charged under the "material support" provision: John Walker Lindh, an American Muslim captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan; the "Lackawanna Six," men from Buffalo, New York, who attended an al Qaeda training camp; several men in Portland, Oregon, who allegedly sought to travel to Afghanistan to fight on behalf of the Taliban; a group of young Virginia individuals who allegedly tried to assist a Kashmir terror group; and James Ujaama, an African-American activist in Seattle, Washington. The key plaintiff in the current appeal is the Humanitarian Law Project, a Los Angeles, California-based non-profit that says its mission is to advocate "for the peaceful resolution of armed conflicts and for worldwide compliance with humanitarian law and human rights law." HLP sought to help the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a group active in Turkey. Known as PKK, the party was founded in the mid-1970s and has been labeled a terror organization by the United States and the European Union. Its leaders have previously called for militancy to create a separate Kurdish state in parts of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran, where Kurds comprise a population majority. In its appeal to the high court, the government noted that "since its inception, the organization has waged a violent insurgency that has claimed over 22,000 lives." HLP claimed it wanted to advocate on behalf of the PKK before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and conduct other advisory sessions and public awareness campaigns. Another plaintiff is an American physician who wanted to help ethnic Tamils in his native Sri Lanka. Much of the island nation is controlled by the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which has also fought for decades to carve an independent state. The government claims the Tamil Tigers have "used suicide bombings and political assassinations in its campaign for independence, killing hundreds of civilians in the process." HLP and a group of Tamil doctors say they merely wanted "to provide their expert medical advice on how to address the shortage of medical facilities and trained physicians" in the region but "they are afraid to do so because they fear prosecution for providing material support." The Patriot Act was passed six weeks after the 9/11 terrorism attacks. It included amending a previous anti-terror law to strengthen the "expert advice and assistance" provision, making it a crime punishable by a 10- to 15-year prison sentence. The Justice Department calls the material support provision "a vital part of the nation's effort to fight international terrorism." Officials told the justices the law is constitutional since "the statute in question regulates conduct, not speech, and does not violate the First Amendment in any of its applications." And the government argues lawmakers properly used their authority to address a pressing problem. "Congress has banned a broad range of material support -- regardless of whether the terrorist group claims to engage in otherwise lawful activities, and regardless of whether the support is ostensibly given to assist those supposedly

Question: What is the Supreme Court to review?

Question: Which provision is being reviewed by the Supreme Court?

Question: Who asked the high court to intervene?

Question: What federal appeals court had to struck down?

Question: What aspects of the Patriot Act have been struck down by the Federal appeals court?

Question: What provision is being reviewed?

Answer: a key provision of the 2001 Patriot Act.

Answer: 2001 Patriot Act.

Answer: The government

Answer: several parts of the legislation,

Answer: several parts of the legislation,

Answer: 2001 Patriot Act.

Summary:
Supreme Court to review a key provision of the 2001 Patriot Act .
Federal appeals court had struck down several aspects of Patriot Act .
Government had asked the high court to intervene and uphold the law .
Oral arguments to be held early next year, with decision expected by spring .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has blocked further consideration of a federal law designed to keep sexual material from underage users of the Web.

The justices without comment Wednesday rejected an appeal from the federal government to reinstate the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), passed by Congress in 1998. The high court and subsequent federal courts said the law -- which has never taken effect -- had serious free speech problems.

The Bush administration was a strong supporter of the law and the Justice Department led the fight in court to revive it.

The justices issued their ruling a day after all nine were on hand for the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor also attended the ceremony.

The case tested the free speech rights of adults against the power of Congress to control Internet commerce. The Supreme Court twice ruled against COPA, arguing that it represented government censorship rather than lawful regulation of adult-themed pornography businesses. The law would have prevented private businesses from creating and distributing "harmful" content that minors could access on the Internet.

Free speech advocates said adults would be barred access to otherwise legal material and that parental-control devices and various filtering technology are less intrusive ways to protect children.

The high court in 2004 upheld a preliminary injunction against the law and sent the case back to lower courts for consideration of the arguments. In their opinion at the time, the 5-4 majority concluded COPA "likely violates the First Amendment."

"The government has not shown that the less restrictive alternatives proposed ... should be disregarded," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 2004 decision. "Those alternatives, indeed, may be more effective" than the law passed by Congress. "Filters are less restrictive" he said, and thus pose less risk of muzzling free speech. "They impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source."

He added, "There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech" if the law takes effect."

In reconsidering the law, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, again ruled the law unconstitutional.

Question: What caused them to reject the appeall?

Question: When was the ruling?

Question: Did justices appeal on the COPA?

Question: What justices said about COPA?

Question: Who were the justices?

Question: What would COPA have kept business from?

Question: What type of content is it?

Question: What does COPA violate?

Answer: serious free speech problems.

Answer: Wednesday

Answer: rejected an

Answer: rejected an appeal

Answer: The Supreme Court

Answer: underage users of the Web.

Answer: "harmful"

Answer: the First Amendment."

Summary:
Justices reject appeal to reinstate the Child Online Protection Act .
COPA violates the First Amendment right to free speech, justices say .
COPA would have kept businesses from distributing "harmful" content to minors .
In 2004 ruling, justice said parental filters are less restrictive on free speech .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has blocked the imminent release of dozens of sex offenders who have served their federal sentences after the Obama administration claimed many of them remain "sexually dangerous."

The Supreme Court has blocked the release of sex offenders  after claims they remain dangerous.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday ordered that the men be kept in custody while the case works its way through a federal appeals court, which had ruled as many as 77 North Carolina inmates should be released, some as early as next week.

At issue is whether the government has the power to indefinitely detain prisoners who have served their sentences but could pose a public threat upon release. Such laws are known as "civil commitments."

The Justice Department filed papers with the high court Friday, asking that any release be put on hold until the justices have more time to consider the larger legal issues raised in their appeal.

Such an early release "would pose a significant risk to the public and constitute a significant harm to the interest of the United States," wrote Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who took office this month.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act passed by Congress in 2006 included a provision allowing indefinite confinement of sex offenders. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled lawmakers had overstepped their authority, prompting the emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

The law was named after the son of "America's Most Wanted" host John Walsh. The boy was kidnapped and murdered by a suspected child molester in 1981.

Four inmates brought suit against the law. They were serving sentences of up to eight years for sexual abuse of a minor or possessing child pornography. Their detention was to have ended two years ago, but corrections officials and prosecutors determined they remained a risk for further sexually deviant behavior if freed. The inmates argued such continued imprisonment violates their constitutional right of due process.

The justices' actions means the men remain behind bars for now.

The case is U.S. v. Comstock (08A863).

Question: how many are scheduled for release

Question: what does the Obama administration claim

Question: How many inamtes?

Question: What does the administration claim?

Question: where must the men remain

Question: Where are the inmated being releasled?

Answer: dozens

Answer: many of them remain "sexually dangerous."

Answer: as 77

Answer: they remain dangerous.

Answer: behind bars

Answer: North Carolina

Summary:
As many as 77 North Carolina inmates are scheduled to be released .
Obama administration claims many of them remain "sexually dangerous"
The men must remain in jail for now .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has given a girl's parents the go-ahead to sue a Massachusetts school district over alleged sexual harassment by another student.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows a couple two avenues to pursue claims against their daughter's school district.

The justices, in a unanimous ruling, allowed the plaintiffs two avenues to make their claims -- a 1972 law banning gender bias in education and a separate civil rights law enacted 138 years ago.

Lisa and Robert Fitzgerald said their then-kindergartner daughter was forced by an older male student to lift her skirt or pull down her underwear. The parents alleged school officials ignored their concerns and refused to discipline the boy.

Federal courts had been split over whether the newer law -- known as Title IX -- displaced any claims made under part of the 1871 civil rights law, called "Section 1983." The Fitzgeralds lost their initial Title IX claims and an appeals court blocked them from pursuing the other legal strategy.

The ruling from the justices now gives the Fitzgeralds the right to continue their lawsuit against school officials.

"We hold that Section 1983 suits based on the Equal Protection Clause remain available to plaintiffs alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools," Justice Samuel Alito wrote.

The plaintiffs allege the incidents happened on a school bus in Barnstable, Massachusetts, in the 2000-01 academic year. The child had told her parents that whenever she wore a dress, a third-grader would make her do things she did not want to do.

After the mother complained to school officials, the boy denied the allegations. The principal, after interviewing other students and the bus driver, concluded she could not corroborate the girl's version of events.

The principal suggested the girl be transferred to another bus as a possible solution. The Fitzgeralds said that amounted to punishing their daughter and said the boy was the one who should be transferred.

The local police department also looked into the case but concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the boy.

The parents began driving the girl to school and filed a lawsuit, claiming the schools system's response was inadequate.

School officials denied wrongdoing and tried to limit the case to Title IX, which applies to public or private schools receiving federal aid. The law is credited, among other things, with helping bring equality in sports participation and funding for college women.

"Our concern was that the school district just didn't take things as seriously as they should," said Charles Rothfeld, attorney for the Fitzgeralds. "They were frustrated by what they perceived as indifference by the school."

Rothfeld said the school's behavior was "pretty egregious."

Barnstable school officials did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Cmte. (07-1125).

Question: What school district is this?

Question: Who was sexually harassed on the school bus?

Answer: Massachusetts

Answer: then-kindergartner daughter

Summary:
Parents allege older boy sexually harassed daughter on school bus .
Parents: School district ignored our concerns, refused to discipline the boy .
U.S. Supreme Court: Parents can sue school district .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has granted a condemned Georgia inmate's request that his execution be delayed as he attempts to prove his innocence. Troy Davis has always maintained his innocence in the 1989 killing of Officer Mark MacPhail. The inmate, Troy Davis, has gained international support for his long-standing claim that he did not murder a Savannah police officer nearly two decades ago. Justice John Paul Stevens on Monday ordered a federal judge to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer supported the decision. Sonia Sotomayor, who was sworn in August 8 as the newest member of the high court, did not take part in the petition. Davis' case has had a dramatic series of ups and downs in the past year. He was granted a stay of execution by the Supreme Court two hours before he was to be put to death last fall. A month later, the justices reversed course and allowed the execution to proceed, but a federal appeals court then issued another stay. The high court's latest ruling means Davis will continue to sit on death row. Stevens said the risk of putting a potentially innocent man to death "provides adequate justification" for another evidentiary hearing. His supporters in June delivered petitions bearing about 60,000 signatures to Chatham County, Georgia, District Attorney Larry Chisolm, calling for a new trial. Chisolm is the county's first African-American district attorney. Davis is also African-American. Davis has always maintained his innocence in the 1989 killing of Officer Mark MacPhail. Witnesses said Davis, then 19, and two others were harassing a homeless man in a Burger King restaurant parking lot when the off-duty officer arrived to help the man. Witnesses testified at trial that Davis then shot MacPhail twice and fled. But since his 1991 conviction, seven of the nine witnesses against him have recanted their testimony. No physical evidence was presented linking Davis to the killing of the policeman. The Georgia Pardons and Parole Board last year held closed-door hearings and reinterviewed the witnesses and Davis himself. The panel decided against clemency. MacPhail's mother, Annaliese, told CNN at the time, "This is what we were hoping for, and I hope pretty soon that we will have some peace and start our life, especially my grandchildren -- my grandson and granddaughter. It has overshadowed their lives." After the justices in October refused to grant a stay of execution, Davis' sister, Martina Correia, told CNN she was "disgusted" by the decision. "It doesn't make any sense," she said. "We are praying for a miracle or some kind of intervention. We will regroup and fight. We will never stop fighting. We just can't be discouraged. The fight is not over till it's over." Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas objected to the court's decision Monday, calling it a "fool's errand." "Petitioner's claim is a sure loser," wrote Scalia. "Transferring his petition to the [federal] District Court is a confusing exercise that can serve no purpose except to delay the state's execution of its lawful criminal judgment." Ten days after the high court refused last October to intervene, a federal appeals court in Georgia granted a temporary stay of execution. Since then, further appeals by Davis' legal team have dragged on for nearly a year. Prominent figures ranging from the pope to the musical group Indigo Girls have asked Georgia to grant Davis a new trial. Other supporters include celebrities Susan Sarandon and Harry Belafonte; world leaders such as former President Jimmy Carter and former Archbishop Desmond Tutu; and former and current U.S. lawmakers Bob Barr, Carol Moseley Braun and John Lewis.

Question:
What crime did Davis commit in 1991?
Who will sit on death row
what did he commit
Who will continue to sit on death row?
What was Davis convicted of?
Who objected to the court's decision?

Answer: to the killing of the policeman.

Answer: Troy Davis

Answer: killing of Officer Mark MacPhail.

Answer: Davis

Answer: murder

Answer: Martina Correia,

Summary:
Supreme Court's latest ruling means Troy Davis will continue to sit on death row .
Davis was convicted in 1991 of murdering a Savannah, Georgia, police officer .
Since his conviction, 7 of 9 witnesses against him have recanted their testimony .
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas objected to the court's decision .