Washington (CNN) -- Republican Scott Brown was sworn in Thursday as the new U.S. senator from Massachusetts to fill the seat formerly held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, and immediately signaled opposition to President Obama's spending plans.

Brown's new Senate colleagues applauded after the ceremony on the floor of the Senate chamber conducted by Vice President Joe Biden, in his capacity as president of the Senate. Democratic Sen. John Kerry, also of Massachusetts, and Brown's wife, Gail Huff, accompanied Brown into the chamber.

At a news conference after the ceremony, Brown thanked Massachusetts voters who gave him a surprise victory in the January 19 special election in a state that had not elected a Republican senator since 1972.

"I can't promise I'll be right in every vote I make. I'm sure I'll make mistakes from time to time," Brown said. "But I will try to learn and grow and do the very best job I can on a day-to-day basis."

Brown's election victory stripped Senate Democrats of their 60-seat Senate supermajority, imperiling the ability of Obama and Democrats to push major legislative priorities such as health care reform through Congress.

The Republican upset in Massachusetts also raised fears among many congressional Democrats of a potential GOP landslide in November's midterm elections.

A fiscal conservative who holds some moderate views, Brown was noncommittal on whether he would support a Republican filibuster in coming Senate consideration of some Obama nominees for government posts.

He also said he needed to talk to generals in the field before deciding to support Obama's call, supported by top military leaders, to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding a ban on gays in the military.

Brown made clear he opposes the spending policies of the Obama administration, stating that the $862 billion stimulus bill passed last year "didn't create one new job" in Massachusetts or across the country. He also said Congress should start over on health care with bipartisan talks, instead of continuing work on separate comprehensive bills passed by the House and Senate.

That prompted a response later from Jay Carney, spokesman for Biden, who said, "Anyone can go to recovery.gov (on the Internet) and see that Massachusetts state and local government, businesses and community organizations have already reported directly funding over 9,000 jobs in the state last year -- and that's based on a only a portion of the total $8.4 billion in (stimulus) funds that have already gone to Massachusetts."

He also said Congress should start over on health care with bipartisan talks, instead of continuing work on separate comprehensive bills passed by the House and Senate.

At the same time, Brown said he would consider each piece of legislation on merit, rather than whether it was proposed by one party or another.

"If I see a bill that's good for my state first, I don't care where it comes from," Brown said. "If it's good for Massachusetts, I'll consider it."

Thursday's ceremony occurred a week earlier than originally planned.

Massachusetts officials had said it would take a few weeks after the election to certify the result of Brown's victory. In a letter to Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick and Secretary of State William Galvin on Wednesday, Brown's attorney said the senator-elect had planned on being sworn in on February 11, but had been told that several Senate votes would be held before then.

"For this reason, he wants certification to occur immediately," attorney Daniel Winslow wrote.

The certification occurred Thursday, allowing Brown to officially fill his seat later in the day.

"There's no hidden agenda," Brown said of his push to get certified this week instead of next. "It's because I want to get to work."

Asked why his daughters didn't attend the swearing-in, Brown explained one of them, Ayla, had a college basketball game to play Thursday and the other, Arianna, had a college exam.

"The Bibles I used for today's swearing-in belong to

Question: When was Scott Brown is sworn into office?

Question: Who won a special election to cover for the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's term?

Question: Is Brown committed to filibuster Obama's nominees?

Question: What did Brown win?

Question: Who was sworn into office on Thursday?

Question: Who opposes President Obama's fiscal policies?

Answer: Thursday

Answer: Republican Scott Brown

Answer: was noncommittal

Answer: the January 19 special election

Answer: Republican Scott Brown

Answer: Republican Scott Brown

Summary:
NEW: Newly sworn-in senator stresses opposition to President Obama's fiscal policies .
NEW: Brown noncommittal on prospect of filibustering over some Obama nominees .
Scott Brown is sworn into office Thursday, becoming crucial 41st GOP vote .
Brown won a special election to fill the remainder of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's term .


Washington (CNN) -- Senate Democrats proposed Friday tax incentives for businesses hiring veterans as well as job training for all service members leaving the military.

The measure was unveiled as the next piece in President Obama's jobs bill and as a remedy to unemployment among veterans.

"It would basically make sure that our veterans are not standing at the back of any unemployment line," Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan) told reporters. "It's important that we support our troops not just by lip-service but by action, and we intend to act next week."

Noticeable absent from Friday's Democratic proposal is the job bill's controversial millionaire's surtax, which would increases taxes on those with incomes of more than $1 million.

Republicans have roundly rejected the surtax, saying it would hurt small businesses and stunt economic growth.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington), chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, told reporters they would utilize "existing pay-fors," or revenue streams, that have been used to fund veterans' issues.

"What we did is bring together Republican and Democrat, House and Senate, congressional and administration ideas in putting this package forward. I think it uses the best of everyone's ideas and will make a real difference for veterans," said Murray. "Veterans are not a partisan issue. They are something we can all get behind."

A major component of the bill would offer tax credits to companies hiring jobless veterans -- up to $2,400 in credits for hiring veterans out of work for more than 4 weeks, up to $5,600 for hiring veterans out of work for more than six months, and up to $9,600 credit for employing veterans with service-connected disabilities looking for work for more than six months.

The bill would also make mandatory jobs skills training for every service member moving into civilian life and also offer older veterans additional Montgomery GI benefits for training programs at community colleges and technical schools.

"It is quite frankly shameful that veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have a higher unemployment rate than the rest of America," said Sen. Jon Tester (D-Montana).

A cost estimate for the bill was not immediately available. Murray said Democrats plan to attach the veterans' measure as an amendment to House-passed bill that eliminates the 3% withholding requirement for government contractors -- a bill that House and Senate Republicans say would create jobs.

While Senate Republican aides indicated the veterans' assistance proposal and the absence of the millionaire's surtax were encouraging, they were cautious and said they would need to see the proposal's details, including how it would be funded.

CNN's Michael Martinez contributed to this report.

Question: Which party opposed the surtax?

Question: what would the bill provide

Question: who removed the surtax

Question: What is controversial?

Question: What criteria would be used to give tax incentives?

Question: What incentives are offered to hire veterans?

Question: Who opposes the surtax?

Question: What would be provided for those leaving the military?

Answer: Republicans

Answer: a remedy to unemployment among veterans.

Answer: Republicans

Answer: millionaire's surtax,

Answer: businesses hiring veterans as

Answer: tax

Answer: Republicans

Answer: job training

Summary:
Senate Democrats eliminate controversial millionaire's surtax from jobs bill .
Republicans opposed the surtax .
The jobs measure would offer tax incentives to firms hiring veterans .
The bill would also provide job training to everyone leaving the military .


Washington (CNN) -- Several veterans and conservative bloggers are taking issue with President Barack Obama choosing not to attend the Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery. Vice President Joe Biden is attending in his place.

"Arlington is a place of tremendous symbolism," said Paul Rieckhoff, founder of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

"On Monday, it's where the eyes of our entire nation will be focused," said Rieckhoff, "and unfortunately, the president and his family won't be there to stand with us."

After his Friday trip to the Louisiana coast to check on the oil spill, the president will go to Chicago, Illinois, with his family to spend time with friends. Obama will mark the Monday holiday with remarks at the Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, about an hour outside of Chicago.

"President Obama has a deep respect and appreciation for our service members and veterans, clearly seen in his administration's policies, priorities and actions," said Nick Shapiro, White House assistant press secretary.

A conservative blogger disagrees.

On Redstate.com, Erick Erickson writes, "going to Arlington National Cemetery to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknowns has ... everything to do with a Commander in Chief who seems to not like the military showing some basic respect to the men and women, alive and dead, who have actually kept us free." Erickson is also an analyst for CNN.

But some vets groups say it's all right if the president misses this one, noting that he attended wreath-laying ceremonies at Arlington last year.

Jay Agg, communications director for AMVETS, a veterans service organization, said "this really is a nonissue," calling a lot of the outrage "politically motivated."

"It really does seem odd to me that such a big deal is being made out of this because he is going to a national cemetery to observe the holiday in Illinois. Bush sent Cheney to a Veterans Day event in DC," Agg said.

Obama's absence from Memorial Day services at Arlington will not be unprecedented, but in recent years, it has been a common practice to attend. President Bill Clinton went every year of his presidency, and President George W. Bush went each year except for the year he was in Europe to commemorate the D-Day anniversary. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did not attend regularly.

"AMVETS recognizes and appreciates the fact that the president has done a lot for veterans," Agg said. "He's behind the largest increase to the VA budget in history and has signed a number of critical pieces of legislation that benefit vets, including the post-9/11 GI bill, and more recently, caregiver legislation," he said.

"We're in middle of two wars," argues Rieckhoff, of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "There will be hundreds of children there who have lost parents. Every major veterans group will be there. He should be there with his family."

"We understand that President Obama is a very busy man. He has things like the oil spill and the economy to worry about," American Legion spokesman Marty Callaghan told CNN.

"Obviously, it is always a good thing for our commander in chief to be in the nation's capital for Memorial Day," he said. "But other presidents have not always been here, including the first President Bush and President Reagan."

"We feel like he is going to be here in spirit," Callaghan said. "He is our commander in chief."

Question: Where did obama go?

Question: Who marked a new holiday?

Question: what is the blogger saying?

Question: Who will be attending the Arlington ceremony?

Question: What do verterans groups have to say?

Question: Where will Obama be?

Question: Who says absence shows lack of respect?

Answer: to Chicago, Illinois,

Answer: Obama

Answer: "going to Arlington National Cemetery to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknowns has

Answer: Vice President Joe Biden

Answer: "this really is a nonissue," calling a lot of the outrage "politically motivated."

Answer: Chicago, Illinois,

Answer: Erick Erickson

Summary:
Obama to mark holiday at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery outside Chicago .
Vice president to attend Arlington National ceremony in Obama's place .
Blogger says absence from Arlington shows lack of respect for veterans .
But some veterans groups say absence is OK, citing that of other presidents .


Washington (CNN) -- Six days before the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, German Chancellor Angela Merkel addressed a joint meeting of Congress on Tuesday and challenged U.S. lawmakers to tear down other walls. "Today's generation needs to prove that it can meet the challenges of the 21st century. In a sense, we are able to tear down walls of today," she said. What that means, Merkel said, is "creating freedom and security, creating prosperity and justice. And it means protecting our planet." Merkel, the first German chancellor to address a joint meeting of Congress, emphasized the need for an agreement on global warming. "Icebergs are melting in the Arctic. In Africa, people become refugees because their environment has been destroyed," she said. "We need an agreement on one objective: Global warming must not exceed 2 degrees Celsius." She said she hopes that agreement will be reached at a the climate conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, next month. Merkel also touched on the global financial crisis, saying that the "near collapse of the markets has shown what happens when there is no underpinning order." "A globalized economy needs a global order ... a global framework of rules," she said. "Without global rules and transparency and supervision, we will not gain more freedom, but rather risk the abuse of freedom and thus risk instability." Merkel also recalled her years in East Germany before the wall fell. The United States, "the land of unlimited opportunity was for me, for a long time, impossible to reach," she said. "The wall, barbed wire and the order to shoot at those who tried to leave limited my access to the free world," she said. Merkel said she and her countrymen owed the United States for its friendship and support. "To put it in just one sentence, I know, we Germans know, how much we owe to you, our American friends, and I personally shall never ever forget this," she said. Earlier, President Obama welcomed Merkel and thanked her for her country's "sacrifice" in Afghanistan. He also called her a leader on the issue of climate change. He said her opportunity to speak to the joint meeting of Congress was a "great honor." "It is, I think, a very appropriate honor that's been bestowed on Chancellor Merkel," he said. In 1957, German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer addressed the House and Senate separately, Merkel said.

Question:
where is she from
what did she stress on
what did she say about global warming
what was the meeting about
what was merkel

Answer: East Germany

Answer: to tear down other walls.

Answer: must not exceed 2 degrees Celsius."

Answer: need for an agreement on global warming.

Answer: German Chancellor

Summary:
Angela Merkel is first German chancellor to address a joint meeting of Congress .
She stressed protecting the planet, need for an agreement on global warming .
Merkel: Near collapse of the markets shows what happens when there is no order .


Washington (CNN) -- Some of the most powerful leaders in American politics came together Thursday to remember Dorothy Height, a woman who dedicated her life to civil rights and justice for the least powerful members of society.

President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder led mourners at a memorial service for Height at a packed National Cathedral.

Height, a civil rights pioneer, died last week at the age of 98. She had been chair and president emeritus of the National Council of Negro Women and worked alongside civil rights leaders including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., future U.S. Rep. John Lewis and A. Philip Randolph.

She was on the platform when King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech at the 1963 March on Washington.

Height's life was an "unambiguous record of righteous work," Obama said in the service's eulogy.

She "deserves a place of honor in America's memory." She was a woman of "quiet, dogged, dignified persistence."

Height was born in an era when "Jim Crow ruled the South (and) the Klan was on the rise," Obama said. "Progress came slowly. That progress came from the collective efforts of multiple generations of Americans. ... Men and women like Dr. Height took it upon themselves -- often at great risk -- to change this country for the better."

"May God bless Dorothy Height and the union that she made more perfect," he said.

Mourners at the service participated in renditions of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and the gospel song "We Are Climbing Jacob's Ladder."

Referred to as the "godmother" of the civil rights movement, Height was at the center of countless heated debates over social justice in a changing country beginning in the early days of President Franklin Roosevelt's administration.

Among other awards, Height received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1994 from President Clinton and the Congressional Gold Medal in 2004.

Height led the National Council of Negro Women from 1957 to 1988, when she became the group's chair and president emeritus. She was also a key figure in the YWCA beginning in the 1930s.

Height was born in Richmond, Virginia, and grew up in Rankin, Pennsylvania. Her civil rights work began in 1933 when she became a leader of the United Christian Youth Movement of North America. She fought to stop lynchings and worked to desegregate the armed forces.

Under Height's leadership, the council worked to help women and low-income families by promoting programs to alleviate hunger and build more affordable housing. The organization also spearheaded voter registration drives and started "Wednesdays in Mississippi" in which female interracial groups helped at Freedom Schools, institutions meant to empower African-Americans and address inequalities in how the races were educated.

She experienced personal discrimination, writing in her memoir about being rejected from New York's Barnard College because she was black.

"Although I had been accepted, they could not admit me," she wrote in "Open Wide the Freedom Gates."

"It took me a while to realize that their decision was a racial matter: Barnard had a quota of two Negro students per year, and two others had already taken the spots."

At its 1980 commencement ceremonies, Barnard College awarded Height its highest honor, the Barnard Medal of Distinction.

Question: who died last week at 98?

Question: What age was Dorothy Height?

Question: What did Obama say?

Question: when does dorothy die?

Question: who are mourners at packed National Cathedral?

Question: What made Dorothy Height famous?

Answer: Height,

Answer: 98.

Answer: Height's life was an "unambiguous record of righteous work,"

Answer: last week

Answer: President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Attorney General Eric Holder

Answer: dedicated her life to civil rights

Summary:
Memorial service held for civil rights icon Dorothy Height, who died last week at 98 .
Obama, Biden, Clinton among the mourners at packed National Cathedral .
Obama calls Height's life an "unambiguous record of righteous work"


Washington (CNN) -- State visits to the White House are full of show and symbolism, and Tuesday's visit by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is no exception. But Singh's visit, the first state visit hosted by the Obama administration, reflects India's growing political and economic importance to the United States and the deepening partnership between Washington and New Delhi. The 2005 civil nuclear cooperation deal between the two countries symbolized a new status in U.S.-India relations. But that deal, yet to be ratified by the Indian parliament, was not in a vacuum. The Bush administration followed that up with agreements for increased cooperation on security, science and technology and education. Singh's visit this week will build on that, with announcements expected on a range of areas from the economy and defense to climate change and energy. India is a fellow democracy, and there is a strong Indian-American community in the U.S. So as it rises to power, India is a natural U.S. ally. On every big global issue today -- from the economy to climate change to fighting terrorism and curbing nuclear proliferation -- Washington needs New Delhi's cooperation. India is one of the biggest donors in Afghanistan, with $1.2 billion in aid. Although this has been met with suspicion in Pakistan, it has helped the United States, sharing some of the burden of stabilizing Afghanistan and providing civilian support. India is also considered a critical U.S. partner in dealing with other instability in the region, in places like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Even as the U.S. deepens its cooperation with China on global issues, both Singh's government and the Obama administration want to manage China's meteoric rise. Strong U.S.-India ties help both countries ensure that the "Asian century" is not merely the "Chinese century." India has also become a major trading partner with the U.S., with $61 billion in trade in 2007. The U.S. is India's second-largest trading partner. And India is a major exporter of technology software and services to the U.S., and that's expected to increase as India strengthens its role as a global leader in technology. The relationship is not without its irritants, however, the biggest one being India's nuclear neighbor, Pakistan. India believes the U.S. has failed to curb Islamabad's backing of anti-India extremists based in Pakistan, and tensions between India and Pakistan remain high, especially with Pakistan's slow progress on the investigation into last year's Mumbai attack that killed 166 people. Before coming to Washington, Singh said that Pakistani objectives in Afghanistan aren't necessarily those of the U.S. Pakistan has long seen instability in Afghanistan as critical to its war strategy against India. India is also nervous about a possible integration of some Taliban into power in Afghanistan. Climate change is another point of friction. The U.S. wants India, one of world's the largest emitters of greenhouse gases, to accept limits on its carbon emissions. India maintains it is still a developing country and wants developed nations, like the U.S., to assume the lion's share of burden in dealing with climate change. Another potential difference looms over Iran. India has been careful not to support Iran's government, but if U.S. diplomacy with Iran fails, it remains to be seen if New Delhi will support tougher sanctions if the U.S. decides to go that route. As India's economy grows, so will its capability to be one of the U.S.' great partners. But as its international position strengthens, New Delhi's interests may not always be aligned with Washington's. Obama must work to convince India that the U.S. sees it as an important ally and that its rise to power is in the U.S.' strategic interest. The symbolism of giving Singh the administration's first state visit will be a good start.

Question: Who visited the U.S.?

Question: What will the visit build on?

Question: The U.S. want good relations with which country?

Question: What did the visit by the Indian PM reflect?

Question: U.S. wants good relations with what country?

Question: The Indian PM visit will build on deals for what?

Question: Nation's frictions include what?

Question: Visit by whom reflects India's growing political importance?

Answer: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

Answer: security, science and technology and education.

Answer: India

Answer: India's growing political and economic importance to the United States and the deepening partnership between Washington and New Delhi.

Answer: India's

Answer: security, science and technology and education.

Answer: Climate change

Answer: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh

Summary:
Visit by Indian PM reflects India's growing political, economic importance to the U.S.
Visit will build on deals for unity on security, nuclear, science, technology, education issues .
U.S. wants good relations with India as it seeks stability, influence in Asia .
Nations' frictions include relations with Pakistan, climate change legislation .


Washington (CNN) -- Survivors of the oil rig explosion April 20 that triggered an underwater oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, along with the father of a man who died in the blast, urged members of a House committee Thursday to hold Transocean and BP accountable for the incident.

"Please believe me, no amount of money will ever compensate us for Gordon's loss," said Keith Jones, a Baton Rouge, Louisiana, attorney whose son, 28-year-old engineer Gordon Jones, died in the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon off the coast of Louisiana. "We know that. But payment of damages by wrongdoers is the only means we have in this country to make things right."

Two employees of rig owner Transocean, meanwhile, accused the company of putting profits above lives and cutting back on safety and employees leading up to the explosion.

When workers complained of needing more help, "They just kept telling us they'd see what they could do," said engineer Doug Brown, 50, of Vancouver, Washington. Brown suffered head and leg injuries in the explosion and said he now struggles with short-term memory loss and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Employee Stephen Stone told committee members that the explosion "was hardly the first thing to go wrong" on the rig.

Both men described a horrific scene on board the Deepwater Horizon the night of April 20, with people crying and screaming for help as others scrambled for safety. "I was pretty certain I was going to die," Stone said.

After making it onto a lifeboat, being rescued by the Coast Guard and reaching land, some 28 hours after the explosion, survivors "were lined up and made to take a drug test" before being allowed to leave or call their families, Stone said.

Transocean asked him to a sign a document -- without his attorney present -- saying he was not injured in the blast in exchange for $5,000 for the loss of his personal possessions, he said. He refused to sign the portion saying he was uninjured, he said, because even though he did not require medical treatment at the time, he must see a doctor for effects of smoke inhalation and is also dealing with mental and emotional aftereffects.

Legal representatives for both BP and Transocean said the companies are making payment of claims a priority.

"We are going to pay all legitimate claims," said Darryl Willis, vice president for resources for BP America, who is handling claims against the company. "We realize that we're going to be judged by our response to this spill, and we're going to pay for all damage to people, to governments, to the community."

BP has already paid out some $37 million in claims, he said, and has opened claim centers in Gulf Coast states.

But Jones argued that the federal Death on the High Seas Act unreasonably limits the damages surviving family members can receive. He said the situation makes even less sense considering it was modified after the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 to help the families of air crash victims recover damages.

In one of the last pictures taken of Gordon Jones, he was giving his 2-year-old son, Stafford, his first golf lesson. His second son, Maxwell, was born two weeks ago, with his father represented in the delivery room by a family photo.

"There's nothing in the High Seas Act that can compensate the loss of a golf teacher," his father told CNN after the hearing. "His sons are not going to have someone to teach them to give a man a firm handshake and look them in the eye." He said his son's wife, Michelle, "cannot recover for the loss of the love of her life."

"The loss of Gordon's income is the last thing Michelle grieves for," he told Congress. "When Michelle tells her boys about their dad, she is not going to show them a pay stub." But under the current law, he said, that is all she and the older son are

Question:
What did the people survive from?
When did the blast happen?
What do survivors say?
What date did the blast happen?

Answer: oil rig explosion

Answer: April 20

Answer: "Please believe me, no amount of money will ever compensate us for Gordon's loss,"

Answer: April 20

Summary:
Transocean attorney denies company had employees sign releases .
Survivors of the Deepwater Horizon explosion testify to a House committee on Thursday .
Also testifying was a father of one of the 11 workers killed in the April 20 blast .
Survivors say the company compromised safety with employment cutbacks .


Washington (CNN) -- Tables set in apple green, ruby and gold with arrangements of roses, hydrangeas and sweet peas awaited guests to Tuesday's White House state dinner. The place settings in fine china from three previous administrations -- Eisenhower, Clinton and George W. Bush -- are flanked by crystal glasses and five pieces of silverware. Place cards are handwritten, including two that read "The President" and "Mrs. Obama." The first state dinner of Barack Obama's presidency, in honor of visiting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, will take place in a tent set up on the White House South Lawn, with a view of the Washington Monument. Guests will sit at round tables for 10, with the floral arrangements intended to pay homage to the state bird of India, the Indian peacock, and the dinner featuring a seasonal menu reflecting American and Indian flavors, according to the White House. The first course will be a potato and eggplant salad made with White House-grown arugula and accompanied by an onion-seed vinaigrette. Red lentil soup with fresh cheese follows, and then a choice of entrees: roasted potato dumplings with tomato chutney, chickpeas and okra for vegetarians, or green curry prawns and caramelized salsify with smoked collard greens. Dessert will be pumpkin pie tart or pear tatin with whipped cream and caramel sauce. Each course is paired with its own wine, all of American vintage. Michelle Obama worked with guest chef Marcus Samuelsson and White House Executive Chef Cristeta Comerford to "create a menu that reflects the best of American cuisine, continues this White House's commitment to serving fresh, sustainable and regional food, and honors the culinary excellence and flavors that are present in Indian cuisine," the White House said. The herbs and lettuces were harvested from the White House Kitchen Garden started by the first lady, and honey from the White House beehive is being used to poach the dessert pears.

Question: The dinner was in honor of what?

Question: What did the dinner reflect?

Question: Where will the dinner for Indian premier take place?

Question: Where do the Indian and American herbs come from?

Question: Where will dinner take place?

Question: What does dinner reflect?

Question: What did the flowers pay homage to?

Question: What do the floral arrangements pay homage to?

Answer: Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,

Answer: American and Indian flavors,

Answer: in a tent set up on the White House South Lawn,

Answer: White House Kitchen Garden

Answer: White House South Lawn,

Answer: the best of American cuisine,

Answer: the state bird of India, the Indian peacock,

Answer: the state bird of India, the Indian peacock,

Summary:
Dinner in honor of Indian premier will take place on White House South Lawn .
Floral arrangements intended to pay homage to the Indian peacock .
Dinner reflecting Indian and American flavors uses herbs from White House garden .


Washington (CNN) -- Tens of thousands of people turned out on Washington's National Mall on Sunday to support the Obama administration in its next big battle, a renewed effort to overhaul U.S. immigration laws.

Speaking by video to the crowd, President Obama said he would do "everything in my power" to get a bipartisan deal within the year.

"You know as well as I do that this won't be easy, and it won't happen overnight," Obama said. "But if we work together across ethnic, state and party lines, we can build a future worthy of our history as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws."

Obama's appearance was followed by comments from Gustavo Torres, executive director of the Baltimore-based immigrant advocacy group CASA de Maryland. Torres told the crowd, "Mr. President, we are going to hold you accountable."

Though overshadowed by the historic debate on health care taking place in the nearby halls of Congress, Sunday's rally set the stage for a revival of efforts to reshape U.S. immigration law. The issue has been largely sidelined since a similar push by the Bush administration failed in 2007.

"You are a spectacular sight," Ali Noorani, chairman of the coalition that organized the demonstration, told the crowd. Noorani said the rally had drawn more than 150,000 people "from across the country, and we are demanding comprehensive immigration reform now."

Noorani's figure could not be verified immediately. The crowd packed more than two blocks of the Mall between the Capitol and the Washington Monument.

Then-President George W. Bush supported a bipartisan effort to overhaul U.S. immigration laws four years ago, proposing to set up a path to legal status for the estimated 11 million people in the United States without authorization. But those measures were criticized as establishing amnesty for illegal immigrants, and legislation Bush supported died with a Senate filibuster -- one led by members of his own party but joined by more than a dozen Democrats.

Sunday's event followed last week's publication of a new plan backed by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina. The plan would create a "tough but fair" path to legalization, as well as a temporary worker program and tighter border controls, the sponsors wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece Friday.

Obama called the senators' plans promising and said it should be the basis for moving forward. He called on Congress to act on that plan at the earliest possible opportunity.

Obama's push on immigration also helped secure a key vote for his health care bill. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, announced his support for the bill after receiving a commitment to move forward on immigration "as soon as possible."

"The wait is over. The time is now," Gutierrez told Sunday's rally. "We're ready to turn our hope into victory."

CNN's Sandra Endo contributed to this report.

Question: Who has called on congress to act on plan?

Question: What did the President call the congress to do?

Question: How many senators recently proposed new plan?

Question: What did the demonstrators call for?

Answer: Obama

Answer: act on that plan at the earliest possible opportunity.

Answer: Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina.

Answer: overhaul U.S. immigration laws.

Summary:
Demonstrators call for overhaul of U.S. immigration laws .
Push comes four years after failed effort at reform .
Two senators recently proposed new plan, calling for "tough but fair" path to legalization .
President has called on Congress to act on plan "at earliest possible opportunity"


Washington (CNN) -- The 17-year sentence given to convicted terrorist plotter Jose Padilla was ruled too lenient by a federal appeals court on Monday, a legal victory for the Obama administration.

A divided 2-1 panel of the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said the federal judge presiding over the 2007 conspiracy trial did not properly take into account the former gang member's past criminal history when sentencing him.

Padilla and two others were found guilty of conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens and provide material support to terrorists.

"Padilla's sentence is substantively unreasonable because it ... does not adequately account for his risk of recidivism, was based partly on an impermissible comparison to sentences imposed in other terrorism cases, and was based in part on inappropriate factors," said the majority.

"First, the district court acknowledged that Padilla had a criminal history but then unreasonably discounted this criminal history when it imposed a sentence. The presentence investigation report classified Padilla as a career offender, pursuant to [federal law] because of his extensive criminal history, which included 17 arrests and a murder conviction."

Padilla was originally arrested nearly a decade ago on accusations he planned to set off radioactive "dirty bombs" in the United States.

He had been held for 3 Â½ years as an "enemy combatant" in military confinement, without being charged in that alleged plot. His later convictions were not related to those accusations, and prosecutors did not present the "dirty bomb" plot to the jury.

He and co-defendants Adham Hassoun and Kifan Jayyousi were also found guilty of the three counts charged: conspiracy to murder, kidnap, and maim people in a foreign country; conspiracy to provide material support for terrorists; and providing material support for terrorists.

The appeals panel upheld the convictions and sentences of the other two defendants but said Padilla's prison term was too light, ordering the trial judge to resentence him.

The judges supporting the tougher sentence were Chief Judge Joel Dubina -- a George H.W. Bush appointee -- and William Pryor, a George W. Bush appointee. The order did not include a deadline for resentencing.

A federal court jury in Miami in August 2007 had deliberated for just under two days before handing down the guilty verdicts.

Padilla received a "fair trial and a just verdict," the Bush White House said in a statement at the time, but the administration decided to appeal the sentence. The Obama administration picked up the case in 2009.

There was no immediate reaction to the appeals ruling from either Padilla's legal team or the Justice Department.

During the trial, prosecutors played more than 70 intercepted phone calls among the defendants for jurors, including seven that featured Padilla, now 40. He is a Brooklyn-born convert to Islam who also is referred to in court papers as Abu Abdullah al Mujahir.

FBI agent John Kavanaugh testified that the calls were made in code, which Padilla used to discuss traveling overseas to fight with Islamic militants, along with side trips to Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Padilla's lawyers had argued he never spoke in code. His voice is heard on only seven of 300,000 taped conversations.

In dissent in Monday's ruling, Judge Rosemary Barkett questioned Kavanaugh's testimony, saying his "opinion testimony should have been excluded because he was never qualified as an expert and did not have the requisite firsthand knowledge to offer his lay opinion." She also said the appeals court should not have questioned the trial judge's discretion over the sentence.

The Supreme Court in 2004 had heard Padilla's original appeal over his former enemy- combatant status, claiming he deserved a chance to contest his prior military detention on constitutional grounds.

He was arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport as he returned from overseas, where he had been living. He was detained as a material witness in the September 11, 2001, attacks investigation.

President George W. Bush designated him an "enemy combatant" the following month and turned him over to the military. He was one of the few terror suspects designated by the U.S. as an enemy combatant since 9/11.

Padilla was held in a

Question: What did Padilla plot?

Question: Who was a former gang member?

Question: What was the ruling on the federal judge in 2007?

Question: who is jose padilla

Question: What age is Padilla?

Question: What was Jose Padilla's former job?

Question: What did Jose Padilla plot?

Question: whats the age of jose padilla

Answer: conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens and provide material support to terrorists.

Answer: Jose Padilla

Answer: 17-year sentence

Answer: terrorist plotter

Answer: 40.

Answer: gang member's

Answer: to murder U.S. citizens and provide material support to terrorists.

Answer: 40.

Summary:
17 years too little time for convicted terror plotter, federal appeals court rules .
Ruling: Federal judge in 2007 trial didn't weigh criminal history adequately .
Dissenter: Lower-court judge's sentencing discretion shouldn't be question .
Jose Padilla, 40, a former gang member, plotted to set off "dirty bombs"


Washington (CNN) -- The Air Force admitted Thursday that it sent more sets of military personnel remains to a Virginia landfill than it originally acknowledged.

Backtracking on initial information about how it handled the remains of American service members killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force now says the cremated body parts of hundreds of the fallen were burned and dumped in the landfill.

Earlier, the Air Force said only a small number of body parts had been buried in a commercial landfill and claimed it would be impossible to make a final determination of how many remains were disposed of in that manner.

The Washington Post broke the story Thursday, and the Air Force now confirms that body fragments linked to at least 274 fallen military personnel sent to the Dover Air Force Base Mortuary were cremated, incinerated and buried with medical waste. That procedure was in place between November 2003 and May 1, 2008. The Air Force also said that 1,762 body parts were never identified and also were disposed of, first by cremation, then by further incineration and then buried in a landfill.

Congressman Rush Holt, D-New Jersey, Thursday accused the Pentagon of what he called "willful blindness" in not acting faster to identify and correct the problems and fully report them.

"For years, this has been handled unceremoniously and insensitively and, I would say, dishonorably," Holt said in a telephone interview. He said he had been asking the Pentagon for months about information about Dover, on behalf of a constituent whose husband was killed five years ago.

"They don't get it. They don't understand the degree of dishonor involved in all of this," Holt said.

Last month, the Defense Department told the congressman that exact numbers could not be determined. "Without individual case-by-case review, the exact number of Service-directed disposition of subsequent remains cannot be determined," said a fact sheet sent to Holt in November. "It would require a massive effort and time to recall records and research individually."

When bodies are not intact -- for instance, in the aftermath of a crash or explosion -- a body may be released to the family before some parts have been identified by the Air Force Mortuary at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. Families can elect to be notified when parts are identified or leave it up to the military to dispose of them appropriately. Since the policy was changed in 2008, the unclaimed body parts are buried at sea.

An earlier report found instances of mismanagement and inadequate accounting at Dover, noting that some body parts were missing from the mortuary and in one case an arm was sawed off so a body would fit in a casket. An independent group of experts is now investigating what happened at the mortuary and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has ordered the Air Force to look at how mortuary employees there were disciplined. Two civilians were transferred to other jobs and a military officer received a career-ending letter of reprimand.

Holt pointed to how the United States spends millions each year searching for the remains of service members missing in action from previous wars, for instance in Southeast Asia. "That makes us proud to be an American, that we would do that," Holt said. "It is a level of response that honors our soldiers."

The mistakes at Dover send a different message, Holt said. "It sends shudders to think that we engage in this kind of desecration."

But at the Pentagon, aides to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Panetta is satisfied with how the Air Force responded in regard to the landfill policy and new information about how many of the American fallen were involved.

"I think the secretary is comfortable with the way the Air Force has handled this," said Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby.

And Kirby strongly pushed back against criticism by Rep. Holt.

"I don't think there is another federal agency in this town, I don't think there is another institution in this country," that understands more about how to properly treat the remains of fallen troops, said Kirby, tapping the briefing room

Question: Who handles remains of the returning war dead?

Question: What does  the New Jersey congressman say?

Question: Which mortuary receives the returning war dead?

Question: What did an earlier report find?

Question: What did the earlier report find?

Question: What did the congressman say?

Question: Who feels the Pentagon did not act quickly enough?

Question: Who is handling the remains of the war dead?

Answer: Air Force

Answer: "willful blindness" in not acting faster to identify and correct the problems

Answer: Dover Air Force Base

Answer: instances of mismanagement and inadequate accounting

Answer: instances of mismanagement and inadequate accounting at Dover,

Answer: "For years, this has been handled unceremoniously and insensitively and, I would

Answer: Congressman Rush Holt,

Answer: The Air Force

Summary:
Mortuary at Dover Air Force Base handles remains of returning war dead .
New Jersey congressman says the Pentagon should have acted faster .
An earlier report found mismanagement at the mortuary .
Service members' body parts incinerated, buried with medical waste .


Washington (CNN) -- The Democratic-controlled Senate on Wednesday rejected two proposed versions for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution -- a setback to GOP leaders and conservative activists who say the measure is necessary to end the federal government's spiraling deficit spending.

A Democratic version opposed by Republicans fell on a 21-79 vote. Then a Republican version also failed to get the two-thirds majority required with a 47-53 vote.

Last month, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives failed to pass a GOP-proposed amendment, falling 23 votes shy of the two-thirds majority required for passage.

The congressional votes on the amendment were agreed to by both parties in August as part of the agreement raising Washington's debt ceiling.

Democratic leaders, however, are vehemently opposed to the idea, arguing that it would force the government into an economically destructive cycle of massive spending cuts.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, said Wednesday that a step as historically significant as a constitutional amendment was unnecessary.

Getting government spending under control "takes political will, even political courage," Durbin said, but "it doesn't take a constitutional amendment.''

Conservative Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah disagreed, saying Congress has repeatedly proved it's unable to control itself on spending.

"We are taxing and spending this country into bankruptcy," Hatch said, later adding, "We don't have any restraint around here."

Despite the proposal's defeat, it has been favored by the public. Nearly three in four Americans favored passage of the amendment in a July 18-20 CNN/ORC International Poll, while 24% were opposed.

Sixty percent of Americans say they believe a balanced budget amendment is necessary to get the deficit under control, according to the poll.

The House passed a balanced budget amendment in 1995, but the measure fell one vote short in the Senate in both 1995 and 1997.

Question: When was the agreement reached?

Question: How many versions fail?

Question: which amendment previously failed to pass the House?

Question: Did the Republican version pass?

Question: Two versions fail to get how much majority?

Question: What previously failed to pass the house?

Question: how many votes were required under the debt ceiling agreement?

Question: What is the majority requirement?

Question: What were the votes required under?

Answer: August

Answer: two

Answer: GOP-proposed

Answer: failed to get the two-thirds majority required

Answer: two-thirds

Answer: of Representatives

Answer: two-thirds majority

Answer: two-thirds

Answer: two-thirds majority

Summary:
Two versions fail to get the two-thirds majority required .
The votes were required under the debt ceiling agreement reached in August .
A Republican version of the amendment previously failed to pass the House .


Washington (CNN) -- The Department of Homeland Security on Thursday extended permission for hundreds of pilots to carry firearms -- just hours before their certification to carry the weapons was to expire, according to an organization which represents the pilots. "A few hundred" Federal Flight Deck Officers -- or FFDOs -- were to lose their certification to carry firearms effective midnight on New Year's Eve, said Mike Karn, executive vice president of the Federal Flight Deck Officer Association. The loss would have come at a time of heightened concern about air security because of the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 on Christmas Day. But Karn said the DHS's Federal Air Marshal program notified him Thursday afternoon that the pilots' certification would be extended. A Transportation Security Administration official confirmed that certifications had been extended for six months "in light of recent events." The official said that "due to an internal miscommunication, scheduled notifications to these officers were prematurely issued," but he offered no further explanation. FFDOs are commercial pilots who volunteer to undergo training so they can carry weapons to protect their aircraft. They undergo initial training at federal law enforcement training academies and must re-qualify with firearms every six months, and undergo a two-day recurrent training every three to five years. "I'm grateful [for the extension] because that will keep the most cost-effective last line of defense [of aircraft] in place," Karn said. "But I'm still concerned that such a limited budget has been approved for this program, and volunteers who want to protect the American public will be turned away." Karn said the budget for the program has not increased since 2003, effectively capping the number of armed pilots. The exact number of FFDOs is classified, but government officials have said in the past the number greatly exceeds the number of federal air marshals -- plain-clothed officers who fly in the cabin of the plane to protect aircraft. Several FFDOs contacted by CNN said DHS has made getting recurrent training onerous for pilots, limiting the number and sizes of classes. Pilots also must pay for their own hotels and food during training -- "our own time and our own dime," said one pilot -- placing a further burden on them. Had the loss of certification occurred, it would not have affected the pilots' flight clearance, only their ability to carry weapons.

Question: Who was going to lose certification?

Question: What could be the effect of the limited budget?

Question: What number of months was the extension given?

Answer: Federal Flight Deck Officers

Answer: capping the number of armed pilots.

Answer: six

Summary:
Federal Flight Deck Officers were to lose certification effective midnight tonight .
Certifications have been extended for six months "in light of recent events," official says .
Officials have said there are more FFDOs than federal air marshals, number is classified .
Pilot organization concerned that limited budget will deter pilots from volunteering .


Washington (CNN) -- The FBI attained "actionable intelligence" from bombing suspect Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab in the first hours after his arrest on Christmas Day, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

"AbdulMutallab spent a number of hours with FBI investigators in which we gleaned useable, actionable intelligence," Gibbs told reporters.

According to authorities, Nigerian-born AbdulMutallab tried to detonate explosives hidden in his underwear as a flight from Amsterdam, Netherlands, made its final approach to Detroit, Michigan, December 25. The device failed to fully detonate, instead setting off a fire at the man's seat.

Gibbs declined to elaborate on the nature of the intelligence. AbdulMutallab, 23, has been tied to the Yemen-based group al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

In a statement to reporters after meeting with his national security team, President Obama said U.S. officials had enough information in their possession before the failed bombing attack to have prevented the suspect from getting on the plane, but had been unable to "connect the dots."

Obama said he could accept the imperfect nature of intelligence work, "but it is increasingly clear that intelligence was not fully analyzed or fully leveraged," he said, adding: "That's not acceptable, and I will not tolerate it."

"Time and again we've learned that quickly piecing together information and taking swift action is critical to staying one step ahead of a nimble adversary," Obama said. "So we have to do better, and we will do better, and we have to do it quickly. American lives are on the line."

In one step, senior State Department officials told CNN on Tuesday that new criteria for information collected on possible terrorists would make it easier to ban them from U.S.-bound flights. Speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the material, the officials said the United States has lowered the threshold for information considered important enough to put suspicious individuals on a no-fly list or revoke their visas.

If the new criteria had been in place before Christmas, AbdulMutallab would have been added to the no-fly list, the officials said.

AbdulMutallab is being held at the Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan, where he's still being treated for the burn injuries he received in the failed bombing. He faces charges of attempting to destroy an aircraft, and will face his first court hearings Friday.

The suspect apparently arrived in Amsterdam already carrying the explosives he planned to use, Dutch prosecutors said Tuesday.

"The suspect traveled through Ghana before he arrived via Lagos [Nigeria] at Schiphol," prosecutors said, referring to the airport where AbdulMutallab boarded the flight to Detroit.

"So far, it seems he already had the explosives with him before he landed at Schiphol."

Also Tuesday, British officials announced that London's Heathrow Airport will introduce more body scanners within weeks, and that all British airports must have equipment to detect explosives by the end of the year.

British Home Secretary Alan Johnson said the British government had no evidence AbdulMutallab had been planning an attack.

Johnson added that British authorities were directing airports to carry out more random searches of passengers because metal detectors cannot spot explosives without metal parts.

Last week, Obama blamed human error and security lapses for the failure by officials to act on information that AbdulMutallab was a possible terrorist threat.

He had a valid multiple-entry U.S. visa. His father, a leading banker in Nigeria, had warned U.S. authorities before the attack that his son might be involved with Islamic extremists, but the information failed to prompt a response such as canceling the visa.

Tuesday's White House meetings were held just hours after the United States reopened its embassy in Yemen. It's believed that AbdulMutallab may have received training in Yemen from the group al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

The United States' decision to close the embassy came after intelligence suggested that four al Qaeda operatives could have been planning an attack on the compound, a senior administration official said Monday.

A statement posted on the Embassy's Web site said "

Question: what group is mutallab linked with?

Question: Who was linked to al Qaeda group?

Question: which airport introduced more body scanners?

Answer: al Qaeda

Answer: AbdulMutallab,

Answer: London's Heathrow

Summary:
White House press secretary: Suspect gave FBI "actionable intelligence"
Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab has been linked with al Qaeda group .
Dutch authorities: Suspect apparently arrived already carrying explosives .
British officials: Heathrow to introduce more body scanners within weeks .


Washington (CNN) -- The Federal Aviation Administration Wednesday proposed a $2.9 million fine against American Eagle Airlines for allegedly conducting more than 1,100 flights using planes with landing-gear doors that had not been repaired as prescribed by the FAA.

The proposed fine comes just weeks after the FAA proposed a $2.5 million fine against the airline for allegedly operating flights without adequately ensuring that the weight of baggage was properly calculated.

The Fort Worth, Texas-based American Eagle -- a regional affiliate of American Airlines -- flew four Bombardier regional jets on more than 1,100 flights between February and May 2008, with main landing-gear doors that had not been repaired as ordered by the FAA in August 2006, the FAA said.

"Following Airworthiness Directives [repair orders] is not optional," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said in a statement. "The FAA does not hesitate to levy fines if maintenance standards are violated."

American Eagle responded that it was disappointed in the FAA's actions, saying the airline did not endanger the public and it considered a fine unwarranted.

The repair order required airlines to inspect landing-gear doors and take necessary action, fixing the doors or replacing them with new ones. In this case, American Eagle found damage on four aircraft, but rather than removing the doors as required, the airline repaired them while they remained on the planes.

American Eagle said it self-disclosed to the FAA that repairs were performed while the landing-gear doors remained on the aircraft, a process that the FAA and the aircraft manufacturer subsequently approved, the company said. American Eagle subsequently removed the landing-gear doors on each of the affected aircraft and repaired them in accordance with the Airworthiness Directive.

The airline said it will meet with the FAA to discuss the matter.

The proposed fines are the latest in a string of multimillion dollar fines the FAA has proposed against airlines for failing to follow repair orders. In October, the FAA proposed to fine US Airways $5.4 million and United $3.8 million for other maintenance violations.

In March, Southwest Airlines agreed to pay $7.5 million to settle a complaint that it flew unsafe planes.

Question: How much is the fine FAA proposed?

Question: What was the fine proposed?

Question: How many flights were faulty aircraft used?

Question: What sum is FAA seeking?

Question: How many flights were the aircraft with bad repairs used on?

Question: What does the FAA seek from the affiliate of American Airlines?

Question: What was the fine for?

Question: What would the fine be for improper baggage weight check?

Question: what were used on 1100 flights?

Answer: $2.9 million

Answer: $2.9 million

Answer: 1,100

Answer: $2.9 million

Answer: 1,100

Answer: $2.9 million fine

Answer: allegedly conducting more than 1,100 flights using planes with landing-gear doors that had not been repaired as prescribed by the FAA.

Answer: $2.5 million

Answer: landing-gear doors that had not been repaired as prescribed by the FAA.

Summary:
FAA seeks $2.9 million from Texas-based regional affiliate of American Airlines .
FAA: Aircraft with bad repairs on landing gear doors used on more than 1,100 flights .
FAA also has proposed $2.5 million fine for flights without proper baggage weight check .


Washington (CNN) -- The Federal Aviation Administration is changing a generations-old policy banning pilots from taking antidepressants, saying the new policy will improve safety by bringing to the surface pilots who either ignore signs of depression or lie about their use of medication for fear of losing their licenses to fly.

Beginning Monday, pilots with mild to moderate depression will be allowed to fly while taking antidepressants if they can demonstrate they have been satisfactorily treated for at least 12 months.

The FAA also will begin a six-month amnesty period, during which pilots who use antidepressants can step forward without fear of penalties. The pilots will be grounded until they can demonstrate they have been stable for a year, although those who can prove a history of successful medical treatment should be able to fly "within a few months," the FAA said.

The new policy will "absolutely" improve safety, said Randy Babbitt, head of the FAA and a former airline pilot and union chief.

"The concern that we have today is we have people who are either self-medicating or not seeking a diagnosis. Either of those is unacceptable," Babbitt said. "This change ... will allow those people to get the treatment, allow us to monitor and return them to the cockpit [as] safer, better pilots."

FAA officials said that they do not know the extent of depression among pilots but that pilots are probably representative of the larger population, in which 10 percent are believed to suffer from depression.

Nor does the FAA know how many pilots have removed themselves from flying status because they suffer from depression, a condition that now bars them from flying. Nor do they know how many take antidepressants in violation of FAA policy.

Commercial pilots under the age of 40 are required to undergo a medical exam by an FAA-certified physician every year; those over 40, every six months. But the examination focuses largely on the pilots' physical health, and there is no formal assessment of the pilots' mental health.

The FAA says pilots have a regulatory duty and professional responsibility to not fly if they know they have a physical or mental condition that makes them unsafe to fly.

But the FAA concedes pilots aren't always forthcoming, especially if honesty could cost them their job.

"We know that there are people out there who are not taking antidepressants because they know they would be grounded if they are. We know there are people out there who are taking them and lying to us about that," said Dr. Fred Tilton, the FAA's federal air surgeon.

"We think it's safer to [make sure pilots are treated for depression] than to continue to drive it underground," he said.

Under the new policy, the FAA will, on a case-by-case basis, issue special medical certificates to pilots who take one of four antidepressants: fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline (Zoloft), citalopram (Celexa) and escitalopram (Lexapro).

All four drugs can be used safely without side effects, the FAA said, and other medications will be considered as the agency gains experience and data under its new policy.

FAA officials say that they have been studying the issue for a decade, and that the change comes with improvements in medication and as the stigma of depression has diminished.

One of the concerns is the risk of suicide by airplane.

Between 1993 and 2002, there were 16 "aircraft-assisted suicides," according to a National Transportation Safety Board report, as recounted in a recent FAA medical bulletin. All involved smaller aircraft.

In addition, the NTSB ruled that in 1999, the pilot caused the crash of EgyptAir Flight 990 by forcing the plane into the Atlantic Ocean, although the board could not determine the pilot's motives and did not use the term "suicide."

The pilot's medical certificate had been renewed 10 days before the crash. All 217 on board were killed.

"Depression is a disease, and it's treatable just like any other disease. And there is a stigma out there that we want

Question: length of time pilots to be treated

Question: how long is the treatment

Question: what does faa say

Question: pilots must have been treated for at least 12 months for what reason?

Question: What does de FAA says about the policy?

Answer: at least 12 months.

Answer: 12 months.

Answer: the new policy will improve safety by bringing to the surface pilots who either ignore signs of depression or lie about their use of medication for fear of losing their licenses to fly.

Answer: mild to moderate depression

Answer: "absolutely" improve safety,

Summary:
FAA cites safety concerns, says policy applies to pilots with mild to moderate depression .
To fly while on antidepressants, pilots must have been treated for at least 12 months .
FAA says policy will expose pilots who ignore depression or lie about medication use .
For 6 months, pilots who use antidepressants will be able to step forward without penalties .


Washington (CNN) -- The House of Representatives approved a plan Friday that would pave the way for an eventual repeal of the military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars openly gay and lesbian soldiers from military service.

The measure passed in a largely party-line, 229-186 vote as part of a larger defense authorization bill despite a growing controversy over allegations of wasteful spending in the legislation. Most Democrats backed the bill while most Republicans opposed it.

Attention now shifts to the Senate, where the Armed Services Committee approved a "don't ask, don't tell" repeal earlier in the week. As in the House, the committee was divided sharply along partisan lines.

The plan is a compromise under which the repeal would occur only after a military review of the question and subsequent approval by Obama, the defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Opponents of the repeal language argue the military should first carry out the review ordered by Defense Secretary Robert Gates that is scheduled to be completed in December. Only then would military leaders have the necessary information from force members to develop a plan for carrying out the repeal, they claim.

Under the compromise, the military would be given time to complete its review as sought by Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen. Gates and Mullen both said this week they could accept the compromise language.

A recent CNN poll seemed to suggest that Americans are ready for the change. The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Tuesday indicated that 78 percent of the public supports allowing openly gay people to serve in the military, with one in five opposed.

Threatening to derail the plan, however, is House members' insistence on spending almost $500 million on a fighter engine that neither the White House nor the Pentagon wants. Funding for the engine was included in the House's version of the legislation but not the Senate's.

A White House spokesman warned before the House vote on Friday that President Barack Obama would veto the bill if funding for the engine isn't removed. Gates has blasted the proposed funding for the extra F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine, calling it a "waste of money" that doesn't meet the fighter's performance needs.

The chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee said Friday that he hopes Obama wouldn't veto the plan if Congress failed to remove the controversial funding.

"It's difficult to believe the president would do anything other than look at the entire bill, not just one provision," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan.

Levin wouldn't predict if the engine funding would still be in the bill by the time it reaches Obama's desk. "We are a long way from having a product," he said. "Some of the things which I would think (Obama) may not like may be dropped along the way."

Supporters of repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy have been pressuring congressional Democrats to act now, fearing the party will lose its House or Senate majority in November's midterm election and be unable to pass the measure afterward.

The compromise emerged late Monday from a meeting at the White House involving administration officials, gay rights groups and Pentagon officials, sources told CNN.

There were also talks on Capitol Hill involving White House lawyers, Pentagon officials and staff from the offices of influential House and Senate Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the sources added.

A senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the Pentagon review process told CNN it is well under way, with a survey going out shortly to about 70,000 troops and families to solicit their views.

In addition, the official said, town hall meetings already have been held around the country and more are expected, while a website provides a place for troops to write in their views.

The military needs until the end of 2010 to figure out how to implement the repeal in terms of housing, medical and marriage benefits, as well as issues involving the reinstatement of gay soldiers previously discharged

Question: Who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee?

Question: What is "don't ask, don't tell"?

Question: When did the repeal of the policy emerge?

Question: was there a compromise plan to repeal the policy?

Question: Who has threatened to veto the bill?

Question: What did the house of representatives pass a repeal of?

Question: When was the compromise plan agreed?

Answer: Sen. Carl Levin,

Answer: bars openly gay and lesbian soldiers from military service.

Answer: Friday

Answer: The

Answer: President Barack Obama

Answer: military's controversial "don't ask, don't tell" policy,

Answer: Friday

Summary:
NEW: The House of Representatives passed a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"
Obama has threatened to veto the bill due to a dispute over Pentagon spending .
The Senate Armed Services Committee has also passed a repeal of "don't ask, don't tell"
The compromise plan to repeal the policy emerged on Monday.


Washington (CNN) -- The House of Representatives voted unanimously Thursday to impeach Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, making him the nation's 15th federal judge ever impeached. "Our investigation found that Judge Porteous participated in a pattern of corrupt conduct for years," said U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment. "Litigants have the right to expect a judge hearing their case will be fair and impartial, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Regrettably, no one can have that expectation in Judge Porteous' courtroom." After the impeachment vote, Schiff and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, were named the lead impeachment managers for the Senate trial, which will decide whether to remove Porteous from the bench. "Today's vote marks only the second time in over 20 years that this has occurred," Goodlatte said in a House news release. "However, when evidence emerges that an individual is abusing his judicial office for his own advantage, the integrity of the entire judicial system becomes compromised." In a statement, Porteous' lawyer Richard W. Westling said the Justice Department had decided not to prosecute because it did not have credible evidence. "Unfortunately, the House has decided to disregard the Justice Department's decision and to move forward with impeachment. As a result, we will now turn to the Senate to seek a full and fair hearing of all of the evidence." In a telephone interview, Westling said he did not know when the Senate trial would be held. "There are no clear rules that dictate timing," he said. Last year, the Task Force on Judicial Impeachment held evidentiary hearings that led to unanimous approval of the four articles of impeachment, citing evidence that Porteous "intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury, engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme, solicited and accepted unlawful gifts, and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings," the House release said. Porteous was appointed to the federal bench in 1994. In 2007, after an FBI and federal grand jury investigation, the Justice Department alleged "pervasive misconduct" by Porteous and evidence "that Judge Porteous may have violated federal and state criminal laws, controlling canons of judicial conduct, rules of professional responsibility, and conducted himself in a manner antithetical to the constitutional standard of good behavior required of all federal judges." The complaint said the department opted not to seek criminal charges for reasons that included issues of statute of limitations and other factors. But Westling said the statute of limitations was not applicable. An Impeachment Task Force held four hearings late last year that focused on allegations of misconduct by Porteous, including: -- Involvement in a corrupt kickback scheme -- Failure to recuse himself from a case he was involved in -- Allegations that Porteous made false and misleading statements, including concealing debts and gambling losses -- Allegations that Porteous asked for and accepted "numerous things of value, including meals, trips, home and car repairs, for his personal use and benefit" while taking official actions on behalf of his benefactors -- Allegations that Porteous lied about his past to the U.S. Senate and to the FBI about his nomination to the federal bench "in order to conceal corrupt relationships," Schiff said in his floor statement as prepared for delivery Porteous was invited to testify, but he declined to do so, Schiff said. "His long-standing pattern of corrupt activity, so utterly lacking in honesty and integrity, demonstrates his unfitness to serve as a United States District Court judge," he said. Porteous, 63, has not worked as a judge since he was suspended with pay in the fall of 2008, Westling said. The last federal judge impeachment occurred last year, when Judge Samuel B. Kent of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas resigned after being impeached on charges of sexual assault, obstructing and impeding an official proceeding, and making false and misleading statements, according to the Web site of the Federal Judicial Center.

Question: Who was impeached by U.S. House of Representatives?

Question: What was he said to have done?

Question: Who said Porteous "participated in a pattern of corrupt conduct for years"?

Question: Where is he from?

Question: What happened to the judge?

Question: What is Schiff quoted as saying?

Question: Where is Porteous from?

Answer: Judge G. Thomas

Answer: "intentionally made material false statements and representations under penalty of perjury, engaged in a corrupt kickback scheme, solicited and accepted unlawful gifts, and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings,"

Answer: U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Task Force on Judicial Impeachment.

Answer: Louisiana,

Answer: impeached.

Answer: "Our investigation found that Judge Porteous participated in a pattern of corrupt conduct for years,"

Answer: Louisiana,

Summary:
Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. was impeached by U.S. House of Representatives .
Porteous is from U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana .
Rep. Adam Schiff: Porteous "participated in a pattern of corrupt conduct for years"


Washington (CNN) -- The Justice Department remained tightlipped Friday as criticism mounted over the decision to hold the the September 11 terrorist attack trial in a civilian court in lower Manhattan.

Earlier, senior Obama administration officials confirmed that the White House is considering moving the site of the trial if the Justice Department sees fit.

"Conversations have occurred within the administration to discuss contingency options should the possibility of a trial in lower Manhattan be foreclosed upon by Congress or locally," a senior administration official said.

Justice Department officials refused to acknowledge whether they are being pressed to find an alternative location, despite bipartisan concern that holding the trial in Manhattan would be too costly and disruptive.

"We're reviewing our options," said Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd in a statement Friday.

The administration's turnabout comes after New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other politicians expressed great concern over the costs and disruption of holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four accomplices at a courthouse near Ground Zero in lower Manhattan.

White House officials said President Obama agrees with Attorney General Eric Holder's decision in November to try the suspects in a civilian criminal court in the United States, not a military tribunal.

"Currently our federal jails hold hundreds of convicted terrorists, and the president's opinion has not changed on that," White House spokesman Bill Burton said Thursday.

White House officials say the decision about any possible alternate sites to try Mohammed and the others will come from the Justice Department.

One government official close to the case said other New York locations, including a military site on New York Harbor's Governor's Island, are possibilities. And while Virginia sites also were mentioned as alternatives by former counterterrorism officials, Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat, opposed moving the trial to his state.

"Bringing enemy combatants for detention or trial in Washington, D.C., or Northern Virginia would unnecessarily burden these communities from both a financial and security perspective," Webb said.

New York police estimated the cost to the city would be over $200 million per year in what could be a multi-year trial and that over 2,000 checkpoints would need to be installed around Lower Manhattan. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said additional protection would have to be deployed for the city, not just the core area of Manhattan.

Residents like Pat Moore contemplated what it will be like to live through the trial.

"Those people would virtually be held prisoner in their homes," Moore said of New Yorkers who live near the courthouse. "We've all been traumatized, any of us who were there that day" referring to September 11.

Bloomberg initially supported the move, saying "it is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered."

But this week he used different rhetoric when asked about a community agency's proposal's to relocate the trial, saying he would prefer the trial be held elsewhere, perhaps at a military base where it would be easier and cheaper to provide security.

"It's going to cost an awful lot of money and disturb a lot of people," Bloomberg said.

On Thursday, a group of New York politicians urged the Obama administration to thoroughly re-examine locating the trials in downtown Manhattan.

"We are concerned that the administration has not fully considered the impact that the trials would have on lower Manhattan in choosing the Moynihan Courthouse in Foley Square," U.S. Reps. Jerrold Nadler and Nydia Velazquez, both Democrats, and several state and local officials said in a letter dated Thursday to Holder.

Also, a spokeswoman for Gov. David Paterson cited his "hesitation" with the decision, citing the burdens it would pose on city residents. A spokesman for U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand raised financial concerns, saying her "single biggest concern is making sure that the federal government cover the hundreds of millions of dollars per year cost to New York City for security during the trials."

Julie Menin, chairwoman of a city community advisory agency, proposed four alternative locations for the trial within the Southern District of Manhattan: Governors Island,

Question: Who agrees with move to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court ?

Question: Which trial may be moved?

Question: who makes the decision

Question: what city did this occur

Question: Who will make decision about any alternate sites ?

Question: Who will make the decision?

Question: where is the trial moved to

Answer: President Obama

Answer: September 11 terrorist attack

Answer: the Justice Department.

Answer: lower Manhattan.

Answer: Justice Department.

Answer: Justice Department.

Answer: civilian court in lower Manhattan.

Summary:
Moving site of 9/11 trial from Manhattan under consideration, administration officials say .
New York lawmakers urging White House to re-examine plan to try terror suspects there .
Justice Department will make decision about any alternate sites, officials say .
Officials: Obama agrees with move to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court .


Washington (CNN) -- The North Korean government informed the State Department on Friday that it is holding a second American citizen who the North Koreans say entered the country from China, a State Department spokesman said.

The American, who has not been identified, was detained Monday for trespassing on North Korea's border with China, state-run Korea Central News Agency reported Thursday. The incident is under investigation, according to the agency's report.

Spokesman P.J. Crowley had said Thursday afternoon that the department had been unable to get information on the reported incident.

North Korea announced December 29 that it was holding an American who had entered the country illegally from China on Christmas Eve. The news agency did not identify the man, who it said was "now under investigation by a relevant organ."

At the time, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said Washington was concerned by reports that a Korean-American missionary, Robert Park, had gone into North Korea, but could not confirm them.

Washington and Pyongyang have no diplomatic relations. The United States relies on the Swedish Embassy to look after U.S. interests in North Korea.

Crowley has said the United States continues to seek consular access to Park.

Question: What is the name of the missing missionary?

Question: Which missionary is the U.S. worried about?

Question: When did the American enter?

Question: Where did the US citizen enter from?

Question: On what day did the U.S. citizens enter North Korea?

Question: Through which country did U.S. citizens enter North Korea?

Question: When did two Americans illegally enter?

Answer: Robert Park,

Answer: Robert Park,

Answer: Christmas Eve.

Answer: China,

Answer: Christmas Eve.

Answer: China,

Answer: Christmas Eve.

Summary:
North Koreans say U.S. citizen entered the country from China .
North Koreans also still holding American they say entered illegally on Christmas Eve .
Neither person has been identified; U.S. worried about missionary Robert Park .


Washington (CNN) -- The Obama administration made public all information available throughout the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday in response to a preliminary report that criticized how it handled the disaster.

"This was an unprecedented environmental disaster met with an unprecedented federal response which prevented any of the worst-case scenarios from coming to fruition," Gibbs told reporters when asked about the report made public the previous day. "When we had information, we gave it to the public."

According to the working paper released Wednesday from the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, the administration vastly underestimated the tens of thousands of barrels of oil pouring into the Gulf after the April 20 oil rig explosion that caused the disaster, despite contrary information from scientists using better methodologies.

The explosion claimed 11 lives and led to more than 60,000 barrels of oil being spewed into the Gulf daily for almost three months.

According to the working paper, the White House Office of Management and Budget squelched higher worst-case estimates accepted by government officials, preventing the public from hearing them.

In addition, the commission staff sharply criticized later White House estimates that 75 percent of the oil had been scooped up, burned or naturally dispersed, saying an operational tool -- known as the oil budget -- used by responders failed to accurately account for biodegradation and was not peer-reviewed by scientists.

Gibbs acknowledged that some mistakes were made, in particular citing comments regarding the estimated oil dispersal by former White House environmental adviser Carol Browner in one of "hundreds" of interviews she gave.

However, he insisted that the administration worked with the information available at all times, noting that it was impossible to see or measure the oil spill rate in the initial weeks after the explosion.

"Throughout this process, we got better information," Gibbs said. "When the rig exploded and the blowout preventer failed 5,000 feet below the ocean, nobody could see what happened."

The installation of video cameras and other technology improved the ability to estimate the spill flow in ensuing months, Gibbs said. At the insistence of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the administration required BP to install pressure monitors to provide the "best available data on the flow rate," he added.

The commission working paper said the government's low estimates of oil flow from the spill, as well as the apparent underestimation of how much oil remained in the Gulf, "created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem."

Gibbs echoed federal officials who say the low flow-rate estimates did not negatively affect their operations to stop the oil spill, describing the overall effort as the "most robust federal response that we've ever seen" to such an accident.

However, the 29-page report said: "Even if responders are correct, however, loss of the public's trust during a disaster is not an incidental public relations problem. The absence of trust fuels public fears, and those fears in turn can cause major harm, whether because the public loses confidence in the federal government's assurances that beaches or seafood are safe, or because the government's lack of credibility makes it harder to build relationships ... that are necessary for effective response actions."

The report is considered a working paper. The commission will issue a formal report on January 12, 2011.

The president appointed the commission in June and tasked it with providing recommendations on how to prevent future spills and mitigate the impact of any that do occur. The commission is headed by former Florida governor and former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham, a Democrat, and former Environmental Protection Agency administrator William K. Reilly from the Republican administration of President George H.W Bush.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, said BP was providing too-low figures for the oil flow in effort to escape liability.

"Low-balling the flow rate numbers was BP's attempt to hide both the truth and

Question: What did Gibbs said?

Answer: "This was an unprecedented environmental disaster met with an unprecedented federal response which prevented any of the worst-case scenarios from coming to fruition,"

Summary:
NOAA official calls aspects of critical report incorrect .
Gibbs says the government made public all information it had throughout the crisis .
Preliminary report indicates the White House ordered worst-case figures withheld .
The April 20 explosion claimed 11 lives, resulted in millions of barrels of oil going into Gulf .


Washington (CNN) -- The Obama administration on Monday announced a 20-year ban on new mining claims on more than 1 million acres of public land near the Grand Canyon, a move meant to protect the iconic landmark from new uranium mining.

Previously approved operations will be allowed to continue, as will new projects on valid existing claims.

"People from all over the country and around the world come to visit the Grand Canyon. Numerous American Indian tribes regard this magnificent icon as a sacred place and millions of people in the Colorado River Basin depend on the river for drinking water, irrigation, industrial and environmental use," said Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

"We have been entrusted to care for and protect our precious environmental and cultural resources, and we have chosen a responsible path that makes sense for this and future generations," he added.

The administration said the move will give officials more time to monitor the impact of uranium mining on the vital watershed, and in the mineral-rich area in general.

Conservation groups cheered the decision, which was slammed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and Sen. John McCain.

"This is a great day for Grand Canyon National Park and all those who care about the park and the surrounding public lands and waters," said Sandy Bahr, Grand Canyon chapter director of the Sierra Club, a California-based environmental organization. "Today's decision protects not only the area around the Grand Canyon, but water that helps feed the Colorado River, which provides drinking water for millions of people downstream."

Brewer similarly stressed the significance of the park, but argued the move will needlessly cost Arizona jobs and stall economic growth.

"The 20-year ban comes at the expense of hundreds of high-paying jobs and approximately $10 billion worth of activity for the Arizona economy," she said. "Nobody wants to see it (the Grand Canyon) harmed. But I believe that environmental protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive. We could and should have both."

The Grand Canyon National Park is a major tourist attraction in Arizona; close to 5 million people visit it each year.

McCain, speaking Sunday before the ban's official announcement, said he had expected the decision and was disappointed.

"It's clearly another victory for the radical environmental community," he said.

Question: What number of acres is affected?

Question: Who says the economy will stall?

Question: How many years is the ban for?

Question: what is the area rich in

Question: how long was the ban

Question: What resource is the area rich in?

Question: Who is the Arizona governor?

Question: What number of years is the ban in affect?

Answer: 1 million

Answer: Brewer

Answer: 20-year

Answer: mineral-rich

Answer: 20-year

Answer: uranium

Answer: Jan Brewer

Answer: 20-year

Summary:
The 20-year ban affects more than 1 million acres of public land .
The area is rich in uranium .
Environmentalists cheer the decision as a way to protect the park and water supplies .
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer says it will stall economic growth .


Washington (CNN) -- The Obama administration raised the stakes in the health care debate Monday, releasing a new blueprint that seeks to bridge the gap between measures passed by the Senate and House of Representatives last year.

If enacted, the president's sweeping compromise plan would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago. The White House said it would extend coverage to 31 million Americans.

Among other things, the White House said it would expand Medicare prescription drug coverage, increase federal subsidies to help people buy insurance and give the federal government new authority to block excessive rate hikes by health insurance companies.

It increases the threshold -- relative to the Senate bill -- under which a tax on high-end health insurance plans would kick in.

As with both the House and Senate plans, it includes significant reductions in Medicare spending in part through changes in payments made under the Medicare Advantage program.

President Obama's plan does not include a government-run public health insurance option, an idea strongly backed by liberal Democrats but fiercely opposed by both Republicans and key Democratic moderates.

It also eliminates a deeply unpopular provision in the Senate bill worked in by Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, that would exempt his Midwestern state from paying increased Medicaid expenses.

Administration officials said Obama's measure would cut the deficit by $100 billion over the next 10 years. They estimate the total cost of the bill to be $950 billion in the next decade.

The Senate bill would cost an estimated $871 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, while the more expansive House plan has been estimated to cost more than $1 trillion.

The release of Obama's plan sets the stage for a critical televised health care summit Thursday with top congressional Republicans. The White House is trying to pressure GOP leaders to present a detailed alternative proposal in advance of the meeting.

"We view this as the opening bid for the health meeting" on Thursday, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told reporters.

"We took our best shot at bridging the differences" between the House and Senate bills. "It is our hope the Republicans will come together around [their] plan and post it online" before the meeting.

President's health care blueprint

Pfeiffer said Obama will come to Thursday's meeting "with an open mind." The president's willing to back decent Republican ideas if the two sides can have an "honest, open, substantive discussion" in which "both parties can get off their talking points," he said.

GOP leaders have indicated they will attend the meeting but have urged Democrats to scrap the Senate and House bills completely.

They characterized Obama's proposal Monday as setting the stage for a meeting that will amount to little more than political posturing.

"The president has crippled the credibility of this week's summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"This new Democrats-only backroom deal doubles down on the same failed approach that will drive up premiums, destroy jobs, raise taxes and slash Medicare benefits. This week's summit clearly has all the makings of a Democratic infomercial."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, released a statement calling the plan "disappointing that Democrats in Washington either aren't listening or are completely ignoring what Americans across the country have been saying."

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs dismissed the GOP criticisms, arguing that Republican leaders had asked for this week's meeting for months.

"If they're not the party of no, Thursday's the perfect venue to be the party of yes," Gibbs said.

Highlights of Obama's proposal

Under Obama's plan:

• The health and human services secretary would work with a seven-member board of doctors, economists and consumer and insurance representatives to review premium hikes. This Health Insurance Rate Authority would provide an annual report to recommend to states whether

Question: Where are they bridging the gap?

Question: Who claims "Health care summit has "all the makings of a Democratic infomercial""?

Question: What does the Administration plan to seek?

Question: What does the Administration plan seek?

Question: What does the plan seek to block?

Question: Whose plan does not include public option?

Question: What does Obama's plan not  include?

Answer: between measures passed by the Senate and House of Representatives last year.

Answer: House Minority Leader John Boehner,

Answer: to bridge the gap between measures passed by the Senate and House of Representatives

Answer: bridge the gap between measures passed by the Senate and House of Representatives

Answer: excessive rate hikes by health insurance companies.

Answer: President Obama's

Answer: a government-run public health insurance option,

Summary:
NEW: House GOP leader: Health care summit has "all the makings of a Democratic infomercial"
Administration plan seeks to bridge gap between House, Senate bills .
President Obama's plan doesn't include public option .
Plan would seek to block excessive rate hikes by health insurance companies .