Monthly Archives: July 2010

House votes to remove oil spill liability cap

Washington (CNN) — The House of Representatives passed legislation Friday which would lift the current $75 million liability cap for oil spills while imposing new safety standards for offshore drilling.

The Senate has yet to act, however, so the prospects for final oil spill and energy legislation are unclear.

The House measure passed by a vote of 209 to 193.

Among other things, the bill would also impose stiffer penalties for oil rig safety violations while requiring independent certifications of key drilling equipment and demonstrations of a company’s ability to respond to future rig blowouts or spills. It would also ban the practice of granting environmental waivers for drilling plans.

“We want to ensure that offshore drilling is done efficiently, while protecting both the environment and our number one natural resource — the brave men and women who help power this great nation,” Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee and sponsored the bill, said in a statement.

The measure was pushed by House Democratic leaders as part of the congressional reaction to the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Top Republicans have opposed the measure, arguing that it will further damage an already-reeling Gulf region economy.

The Senate is expected to consider its own version of energy legislation next week, before senators leave for their August recess. But even if that measure is approved, House and Senate negotiators would need to reconcile differences between the two bills.

House votes to remove oil spill liability cap

WikiLeaks suspect in solitary confinement

Washington (CNN) — The Army private charged with leaking an airstrike video and downloading documents remained in solitary confinement Saturday.

Military officials told CNN that Pfc. Bradley Manning is also the prime suspect in the latest leak of documents to the WikiLeaks website.

Manning was routinely processed Thursday at the Quantico detention facility, a military spokesman said Friday.

Manning arrived at 9:30 p.m. Thursday and was given a physical exam and medical screenings, according to Lt. Col. Rob Manning (not related) of the Military District of Washington. The suspect is in solitary confinement and is being observed in accordance with normal operating procedures, the spokesman said.

Manning’s legal future is complex. He has already been charged with leaking a 2007 airstrike video and downloading documents from classified military systems. And he is suspected in the latest leak of thousands of Afghanistan field reports to the Wikileaks.org website.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks founder, has declined to say where his whistle-blower website got about 91,000 U.S. documents about the war. About 76,000 of them were posted on the site Sunday in what has been called the biggest leak since the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War.

The documents are divided into more than 100 categories and touch on everything from the hunt for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to Afghan civilian deaths resulting from U.S. military actions. Thousands of pages of reports document attacks on U.S. troops and their responses, relations between Americans in the field and their Afghan allies, intramural squabbles among Afghan civilians and security forces, and concerns about neighboring Pakistan’s ties to the Taliban.

Video: Wikileaks suspect in solitary confinement

Manning could go before a military judge in August in Washington, but given the complexity of the case it could likely be delayed, the military official said. Investigators are gathering evidence on the initial charges, which they will present to a military judge who will approve a court martial if the case adds up, the military official said.

Manning, the military spokesman, said no hearing dates have been set, as the uniformed code of military justice is a “very deliberate process.” All parties are working to assure that the private’s rights are protected, he added.

Requests for comment from Manning’s attorney, Capt. Paul Bouchard, were not returned.

The investigation has also been expanded, with the help of the FBI, in the wake of the new leak. The FBI is assisting the Defense Department in the Wikileaks investigation of Manning but remain tight-lipped on what or who they’re looking at or interviewing. On background, one FBI official acknowledges the Bureau is involved in the investigation of potential civilian co-conspirators who may have played a role in the leaking of the classified material.

The FBI official says that while Manning would appear in a military court, any civilian, whether a government employee or not and regardless of the charges, would be charged in a U.S. District Court

The official on background did refer to FBI involvement in past “espionage” cases, a signal the FBI is considering whether particular espionage statutes may be applicable in any potential prosecutions of civilians who played a role in the leak.

The official gave no indication whether WikiLeaks or Julian Assange are under investigation.

WikiLeaks suspect in solitary confinement

Cybercrime: Are mobsters planting hackers in big companies?

By

Mark Clayton,

House details 13 violations against Rep. Charles Rangel

By

Gail Russell Chaddock,

Ethics panel charges Rangel

Washington (CNN) — The House ethics committee on Thursday accused veteran Rep. Charles Rangel of 13 violations of House rules involving alleged financial wrongdoing and harming the credibility of Congress.

The charges accused the 20-term Democrat from New York of using his influence to solicit donations for a college policy center in his name from corporate heads and others with business before the powerful House Ways and Means Committee that Rangel chaired until forced to give up the leadership position earlier this year.

Other charges involve alleged income tax and financial disclosure violations, as well as improper use of government mail service and letterhead.

“Credibility is what’s at stake here; the very credibility of the House itself before the American people,” said Rep. Mike McCaul, the ranking Republican on a subcommittee that will hold a trial-like hearing on the charges against Rangel.

McCaul spoke at the subcommittee’s first meeting, described as an organizational session. Rangel was not required to attend and did not show up to hear the first public disclosure of the formal charges against him.

Asked later about his response to the charges, Rangel sounded contrite in saying he may have been “overzealous” in serving the public but took some comfort that the allegations involved no “corruption” or “self-dealing.”

“I can’t make an excuse for serious violations, but I can have an explanation of my intent,” he said. “And to large degree that’s what my life has been all about–intent.”

Video: Rep. Rangel speaks to press

Rangel said it was “a very, very rough period for me and my family, but we all, including my community, will get by this.”

In the days leading up to the hearing, Rangel had said he welcomed the completion of a two-year investigation by the ethics committee so that he could finally respond to specific accusations against him.

According to documents released by the committee, Rangel first learned of the charges being pursued by an investigating subcommittee on June 17. He filed a motion to have the charges dismissed, which the investigating panel denied, the documents showed.

In a document dated Wednesday, Rangel’s lawyers challenged the scope of the charges against him, saying Rangel “did not abuse his official position or enrich himself financially.”

“He did not target for solicitation foundations, corporations or individuals with business before the Ways & Means Committee, nor did he offer or provide preferential treatment or favors to potential contributors,” the document said. “He received no prohibited benefit, direct or indirect, from his work on behalf of this program that violates the ethics rules.”

However, the document said Rangel “recognizes that the public would have been better served if he had consulted the Standards Committee staff in advance” of soliciting funding for the college center.

Rangel said this week that his lawyers were in talks with committee lawyers on a possible deal to settle the case without a hearing. When Thursday’s hearing was delayed for 55 minutes with no explanation, rumors of an imminent agreement quickly spread.

However, the panel gathered and held the hearing, and it remained unclear whether a settlement avoiding the spectacle of a trial hearing was possible.

According to the charges, Rangel allegedly failed to report more than $600,000 on financial disclosure reports and improperly used a rent-subsidized apartment as a campaign office for over a decade and failed to pay taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic.

Rangel “argues that errors on his personal taxes do not implicate discharge of his official responsibilities,” committee investigators concluded in response to Rangel’s request to have the charges dismissed. He “appears to be operating under the erroneous belief that the only conduct subject to discipline is conduct directly related to the discharge of his official responsibilities.”

An investigative subcommittee report on Rangel’s dealings, available on the committee’s website, detailed a lengthy series of meetings the congressman held with business leaders to raise funds for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy at the City College of New York. His repeated attempts to woo potential donors violated the House’s solicitation and gift ban, the report said.

Among other things, the report stated that Rangel met with a lobbyist for insurance giant AIG in April 2008 with the objective to “close” a $10 million “gift for the Rangel Center.”

At the meeting, “AIG raised concerns about a potential donation, including the potential headline risk,” the report stated. But Rangel pushed ahead, asking “AIG, at least twice, what was necessary to get this done.”

During the period of time that Rangel was seeking donations from AIG, according to committee investigators, the company was lobbying the House on several tax and trade issues — matters over which Rangel exercised considerable influence.

It also noted that, in March 2007, he used congressional letterhead to send notes to business leaders such as Donald Trump, in which he requested meetings to discuss the Rangel Center.

The congressman’s “acceptance of favors and benefits from donors to the Rangel Center … might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties,” the report concluded, adding that the “accumulation of (Rangel’s) actions reflected poorly on the institution of the House and, thereby, brought discredit to the House.”

In the July 28 response, Rangel’s lawyers argued that some of the cited infractions were unintended in his effort to help the college.

“If he mistakenly used the wrong letterhead or other modest resources in this worthy cause, the error was made in good faith,” the document said.

“It is undisputed that every single charitable contribution in this case went to CCNY, a public educational institution, and not to the congressman,” it said, later adding that”the uncontroverted evidence is that Congressman Rangel never suggested that any donor to the Rangel Center would receive favorable consideration in legislative matters and never gave preferential treatment to any contributor.”

McCaul said the allegations against Rangel, if proven, would violate “the most fundamental code of conduct” for House members.

Rep. Gene Green of Texas, a Democrat who led a two-year ethics subcommittee investigation of Rangel, said it was a difficult job.

“The task is even more difficult when the subject has befriended and mentored so many new members, and I’m one of them,” Green said.

Another ethics committee member, Republican Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama, said “this is truly a sad day where no one, regardless of their partisan stripes, should rejoice.”

Rangel temporarily stepped down as Ways and Means Committee chairman earlier this year following the announcement of an ethics investigation of several allegations, including failure to pay taxes on the Dominican Republic residence.

The House ethics committee previously admonished Rangel for violating rules on receiving gifts. Specifically, the committee found that Rangel violated House gift rules by accepting reimbursement payments for travel to conferences in the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008.

Rangel, whose autobiography that discusses his Korean War experience is titled “And I Haven’t Had a Bad Day Since,” told reporters earlier Thursday that “I have to reassess that (statement)” in light of the pending hearing.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday — in response to a question about Rangel — that there must be “accountability” and “transparency” in cases of ethical transgressions.

“Holding a high ethical standard is a serious responsibility … and a top priority” for the House Democratic leadership, she said. In terms of political fallout from cases such as Rangel’s, “the chips will fall where they may,” she said.

Congressional Democrats have reportedly expressed concern that an extended public airing of the charges against Rangel could damage the party’s prospects in the November midterm elections.

CNN’s Deirdre Walsh, Brianna Keilar, Evan Glass, Alan Silverleib and Tom Cohen contributed to this report.

Ethics panel charges Rangel

Mullen: WikiLeaks may have blood on hands

Washington (CNN) — The top U.S. military officer said Thursday that Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, was risking lives to make a political point by publishing thousands of military reports from Afghanistan.

“Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family,” Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a news conference at the Pentagon.

In equally stern comments and at the same session, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the massive leak will have significant impact on troops and allies, giving away techniques and procedures.

“The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world,” Gates said. “Intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures will become known to our adversaries.”

Gates said the United States has been contacted by Afghanistan, Pakistan and “other governments” concerned about the leak. One of the lasting impacts, he said, is rebuilding trust that the U.S. military can keep secrets secret.

Assange has refused to say where his whistle-blower website got about 91,000 United States documents about the war. Some 76,000 of them were posted on the site Sunday in what has been called the biggest leak since the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War.

“I spent most of my life in the intelligence business, where the sacrosanct principle is protecting your sources. And that involves your sources trusting you to protect them and to protect their identities,” Gates said. “That is one of the worst aspects of this, as far as I’m concerned. Will people trust us? Will people’s whose lives are on the line trust us to keep their identities secret? Will other governments trust us to keep their documents and their intelligence secret?”

Gates said he called the FBI director to partner with the Pentagon in investigating the leak.

The defense secretary said the Pentagon is also reviewing procedures for handling classified information, which could affect the flow of valuable information to troops.

“In the wake of this incident, it will be a real challenge to strike the right balance between security and providing our frontline troops the information they need,” Gates said. “We want those soldiers in a forward operating base to have all the information they possibly can have that impacts on their own security but also being able to accomplish their mission.”

Perhaps surprisingly, the defense secretary said it was “only very recently” that he was made aware of the magnitude of the number of documents” that had been leaked. One of the main suspects in the current document leak investigation, according to military officials, had been arrested back in the spring and eventually charged with downloading thousands of documents and a video of a 2007 airstrike in Iraq that was published earlier this year by WikiLeaks.

Gates said the defense department did not know how many more documents were out there.

“The reality is, at this point, we don’t know how many more there are out there … it could be a substantial additional number of documents, and we have no idea what their content is, either,” he said.

For those put at risk by the documents, the defense secretary said the U.S. has a “moral obligation” to protect those whose names appear in the documents.

WikiLeaks’ founder has said the organization held back thousands of documents in order to redact information that could put people at risk. But CNN’s own review of documents found instances of names of informants and those who cooperated against the Taliban, as well as names of suspected insurgents who were being watched.

Mullen: WikiLeaks may have blood on hands

Ariz. immigration law partly goes into effect

Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) — Parts of an Arizona immigration law go into effect Thursday as it was passed — after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction that blocked the most controversial aspects of it.

The injunction, issued Wednesday, means that, at least for now, police are prevented from questioning people’s immigration status if there is reason to believe they are in the country illegally.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also blocked provisions of the law making it a crime to fail to apply for or carry alien registration papers or “for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work,” and a provision “authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person” if there is reason to believe that person might be subject to deportation.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the state would file an expedited appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, signaling a legal escalation that some expect will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The parts of the law that go into effect include a ban on so-called sanctuary cities, and the criminalization of hiring day laborers who are in the country illegally. The parts of the law dealing with sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants also withstood the first legal test.

CNN senior analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the ruling reflects the government’s argument that immigration enforcement should be dealt with at the federal level.

“Arizona may have good intentions, they may be trying to make up for where the U.S. government has failed, but what the judge is saying is, this is not the way to do it,” he said.

Video: Immigration law showdown

Video: Arizona’s new police force training

Video: Sheriff Arpaio talks immigration

Video: Immigrant laborer for a day

“I think this [is] a case very much destined for the Supreme Court,” as other states pass similar laws, Toobin said.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, author of the law, said he foresaw a protracted legal fight from the beginning.

“I wrote it to go to the Supreme Court,” he said before the ruling came down. “I’m begging for that fistfight at the Supreme Court. We will win in a 5-4 decision and finally settle this problem.”

He added, “My message to the judge is uphold the Constitution. Uphold state’s rights. This is a battle of epic proportions. This is the states versus the central government.”

The Court of Appeals could take up the case in a matter of days, but the earliest the Supreme Court could look at it would be October, because the high court is in summer recess.

Brewer said that she was disappointed by the ruling.

“This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens,” she said in a statement. “I am deeply grateful for the overwhelming support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government.”

Another supporter of the law, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, said that he and his crusade against illegal immigration will not be deterred.

“I am not really disappointed about the judge’s decision,” Arpaio said. “I know what my policies are, and we are going to continue doing what we have been doing.”

The Justice Department issued a statement saying the court “ruled correctly.”

“While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive,” the statement said. “States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework.”

While officials and their staff issued statements, a small group of activists in Phoenix, Arizona, expressed how they felt about the state’s law in a traffic-stopping way.

Four protesters wearing hard hats and work boots climbed a crane high above the streets of downtown Phoenix on Wednesday night and unfurled a banner that read “Stop Hate.”

The banner also had a black mark through the number 1070. That was the number assigned to the immigration measure when it was introduced in Arizona’s legislature as a bill.

Capt. Scott Walker with the Phoenix Fire Department called the four protesters “experienced climbers” and said they would be arrested when they came down.

CNN’s Catherine Shoichet, Phil Gast, Adam Blank, Holly Yan and Arthur Brice contributed to this report.

Ariz. immigration law partly goes into effect

How Rangel’s ethics hearing could play out

(CNN) — Longtime Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York will be the subject of the House ethics committee’s first corruption trial in almost a decade unless his attorneys reach an agreement to settle his charges.

The House ethics committee on Thursday will make public a report of Rangel’s alleged violations. After a nearly two-year investigation of Rangel, the committee’s report could bring a trial by a panel subcommittee in September.

A formal hearing would be a trial-like session involving formal charges with lawyers for the House acting as prosecutors and Rangel’s attorneys defending him, but some experts don’t foresee Rangel making it to the trial stage.

“I think all sides are going to be motivated to reach some kind of resolution short of the public hearings,” said Robert Walker, former chief counsel and staff director of both the Senate and House ethics committees.

Rangel said he welcomes the trial. He has said that “sunshine will pierce the cloud of serious allegations.”

The outcome of the hearing could range from dropping all charges to reprimand to expulsion from the House of Representatives.

Video: Rep. Rangel addresses ethics charges

Video: Rangel: ‘I look forward to responding’

As a result of his 2002 corruption trial, former Rep. James Traficant, an Ohio Democrat, became the second member of Congress to be kicked out since the Civil War.

Charles Tiefer, a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, said Traficant’s case “hardly even counts as a serious precedent.”

At the time of his ethics hearing, Traficant already had been convicted of taking bribes and other charges in a court of law. He spent seven years in prison and was released last year.

“A trial, particularly of a senior congressman, on charges that have been headline news, would be one of the most striking committee proceedings the House can have,” said Tiefer, who was solicitor and deputy general counsel of the House for 11 years.

Rangel temporarily stepped down as Ways and Means Committee chairman following the announcement of an ethics investigation of several allegations, including failure to pay taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic.

The congressman has also admitted a failure to report several hundred thousand dollars in assets on federal disclosure forms. In addition, he is under scrutiny for the purported misuse of a rent-controlled apartment for political purposes, as well as for allegedly preserving tax benefits for an oil-drilling company in exchange for donations to a project he supported at the City College of New York.

The House ethics committee previously admonished Rangel for violating rules on receiving gifts. Specifically, the committee found that Rangel violated House gift rules by accepting reimbursement payments for travel to conferences in the Caribbean in 2007 and 2008.

Should Rangel face a trial, it would play out in what Walker described as a cross between a courtroom trial and a congressional hearing.

Both sides would deliver opening statements and present their cases. They could also call witnesses, who could be cross-examined by the other side.

In a public hearing, there is more leeway given to the committee in terms of admissibility of evidence, Walker said.

Following the evidentiary part of the process, there would be closing arguments, and the case would go back to the jury.

In a House ethics trial, the “jury” is made up of an eight-member adjudicatory subcommittee whose members are allowed to question witnesses.

The subcommittee that would consider Rangel’s case comprises four Democrats and four Republicans, according to the ethics committee document.

It said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, is the panel’s chair. Other Democratic members are Reps. G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, Kathy Castor of Florida and Peter Welch of Vermont. The four Republicans are Reps. Michael McCaul of Texas, Mike Conaway of Texas, Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania and Gregg Harper of Mississippi.

The jury then would have to determine whether each charge was proven by the standard of “clear and convincing evidence.”

“That is less than ‘proof beyond a reasonable a doubt,’ which would be the standard at a criminal trial, but it’s more than the standard of just ‘preponderance of the evidence, which would be the standard at a civil trial,” Walker said.

Despite the outcome, the trial phase could be detrimental to Rangel, Tiefer said.

“It hurts his public image to parade a sequence of witnesses who testify that he is guilty of receiving favors and so forth, and it also arguably hurts the image of those connected with him in his party delegation,” he said.

If he adequately disputes the facts, he could persuade the committee to moderate or even drop all of the charges, Tiefer added.

The whole matter could be dismissed with no further action if the subcommittee decides that no wrongdoing was proven, but if members decide punishment is warranted, they would then have to decide whether to sanction Rangel.

“If they determine that it was a technical violation, the committee could then issue what’s called a letter of reproval, which is not an actual sanction,” Walker said.

If the committee decides more serious punishment is in order, such as reprimand, censure or expulsion, the full House must vote on the issue.

A simple majority vote is required to reprimand or censure a member of Congress, while a two-thirds majority is required for an expulsion.

The House has expelled only five members of Congress. A number of members, however, have resigned before the House took formal action, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Rangel has served 20 consecutive terms in the House. He’s facing a September 14 Democratic contest with Adam Clayton Powell IV, the son of the late scandal-plagued congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr., who was ousted by Rangel 40 years ago.

Rangel’s other primary challengers include banker Vince Morgan, liberal activist Jonathan Tasini and Joyce Johnson, a field director for President Obama’s 2008 campaign.

Rangel said last week that he hoped the matter could be concluded in time for the September contest.

CNN’s Deirdre Walsh contributed to this report.

How Rangel’s ethics hearing could play out

WikiLeaks: Facing 90,000 documents, US officials take go-slow approach

By

Gail Russell Chaddock,

House passes war funding bill

Washington (CNN) — The House of Representatives on Tuesday gave final approval to a nearly $59 billion emergency spending bill, the bulk of which would go toward the U.S. troop buildup in Afghanistan.

Specifically, the bill includes almost $33 billion for Afghanistan, along with over $5 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, almost $3 billion for Haiti relief programs and $68 million for the oil disaster response in the Gulf of Mexico.

It now goes to the president for his signature.

The Senate passed the measure last week after stripping out more than $20 billion for domestic priorities favored by many Democrats.

Top Democrats struggled to maintain support for the bill among more liberal House members, who have increasingly turned against the Afghan war effort and are upset about the loss of funding for programs designed to prevent teacher layoffs, among other things.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, slammed the Senate for stripping domestic funding from the bill, including funding for teachers and other forms of education funding.

Obey said he opposed the emergency funding bill because of questions over the prospects for success in Afghanistan.

“The Afghan government has not demonstrated the focused determination, reliability and judgment necessary to bring this effort to a rational and successful conclusion,” he said.

The federal government has “appropriated over $1 trillion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to date, more than $700 billion to Iraq and $300 billion for Afghanistan,” Obey noted.

“To those who say we must pay it because we’re going after al Qaeda, I would note that Afghanistan is where al Qaeda used to be,” he said. “Today, there are fewer than 100 al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which was publicly confirmed last month by CIA chief (Leon) Panetta. Al Qaeda has relocated to other countries and regions.”

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Massachusetts, called the Afghanistan war policy “deeply flawed.”

“Occupying Afghanistan in support of a corrupt and incompetent government will continue to claim the lives of our soldiers,” McGovern said. “It will continue to bankrupt us, and it will not enhance our national security. … It is a mistake to give this administration yet another blank check for this war.”

Also Tuesday, the House defeated a non-binding resolution that called for the withdrawal of all U.S. military personnel from Pakistan, which borders Afghanistan. Currently, the United States has more than 200 armed service members in Pakistan.

Fueling liberal discontent with the war effort was Sunday’s release by the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks of roughly 76,000 U.S. military and diplomatic reports about Afghanistan filed from 2004 to January 2010.

President Barack Obama said Tuesday that he is “concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information,” but insisted the documents don’t shed much new light on the war effort. A number of critics, however, insist the documents back their assertion that the war effort is foundering in part due to unreliable allies in the Afghan and Pakistani governments.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Maryland, asserted Tuesday that the document leak would not affect the House vote. He noted that funding of U.S. troops in Afghanistan will run out early next month, and said Congress needed to ensure they have the necessary supplies.

“The fact is those troops are there now, and money to fund those troops … will be depleted as of the seventh of August,” Hoyer said. “So whatever we decide on policy in the longer term does not, in my opinion, affect our obligation today to make sure that the troops, as long as they are there, have the resources they need.”

CNN’s Alan Silverleib, Deirdre Walsh and Craig Broffman contributed to this report

House passes war funding bill