The U.S. House advanced a final $120 billion Iraq war spending bill today that would keep military operations afloat through September.

The bill was a major concession by Democrats who wanted to include a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals, but relented because they didn't have enough votes to override another presidential veto. The House and Senate both planned to approve the measure by the end of the day.

For his part, Bush agreed to accept some $17 billion in added spending so long as there were not restrictions on the military campaign.

"I hate this agreement," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Obey said the deal was the best that Democrats could manage because "the White House is in a cloud somewhere in terms of understanding the realities in Iraq."

The bill includes the nearly $100 billion that President Bush requested for military and diplomatic operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as billions in domestic spending, including $6.4 billion in hurricane relief and $3 billion in agricultural assistance.

Republicans were unhappy about the added domestic spending, but said they were relieved the final measure did not attempt to set a timetable on the war.

"We cannot and will not abandon the Iraqis to be butchered by these terrorists in their midst," said Rep. David Dreier, R-Calif. "And we cannot and will not abandon our mission just as real progress is starting to be made."

The hefty spending bill has become a lightning rod for political attacks on Bush and his handling of the deeply unpopular war, which has killed more than 3,400 U.S. troops and cost more than $300 billion. But it also has exposed a sharp divide among Democrats on how far Congress should go to end the war.

Democratic presidential contenders on Capitol Hill are vying for the anti-war vote, but at the same time do not want to appear as though they are turning their backs on the military.

"I believe as long as we have troops in the front line, we're going to have to protect them," said Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. "We're going to have to fund them."

Biden was alone among the potential Democratic candidates in immediately pledging his support for the bill.

Two front-runners, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, declined to say how they intended to vote on the measure.

Both have voted against binding timetables for troop withdrawals in the past, before public sentiment against the war hardened or they became presidential contenders. Last week, the two voted to advance legislation that would have cut off money for U.S. combat operations by March 31, 2008, cutoff.

Challengers Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio said they would oppose the measure because in their view it issued a blank check to President Bush on the Iraq war.

"Half-measures and equivocations are not going to change our course in Iraq," Dodd said in a statement. "If we are serious about ending the war, Congress must stand up to this president's failed policy now — with clarity and conviction."

While the measure does not include a timetable on the war, it does threaten to withhold U.S. aid dollars for Iraq if Baghdad fails to make progress on political and security reforms. The president, however, could waive that restriction.

Biden said that while he would vote for the measure, he disagreed with the approach because it could hamper the Iraqi government's ability to take on more responsibility.

Democratic leaders planned multiple votes in the House today to ensure the measure would ultimately pass because of disagreements among members on elements of the bill. One vote was to be on war funding, while another would be to approve the extra money for domestic and military-related projects.

While liberal Democrats were expected to vote against the war funds measure, GOP members were expected to make up for the losses. On the added spending, Democrats likely were to be unified in their support for the measure, overcoming GOP objections.

Last May, the House passed a similar bill, the Federal Energy Price Protection Act, that would have required the FTC to define price gouging within six months of the bill's final passage. That bill failed in the Senate.

A jury in Beaumont convicted her of capital murder and sentenced her to death.

The appeals court upheld her conviction but ruled that Jefferson County prosecutors misstated the special issue presented to jurors regarding Berry's likelihood of being a future danger to society.

In a Tarrant County case, the appeals court upheld the conviction and sentence of Sheldon Ward, 27, condemned for killing Nyanuer "Mary" Pal five years ago in Fort Worth. Ward's attorneys had raised 13 points of error from his trial.

"I'm confident that the Commonwealth Court decision does not affect the authority of the city of Philadelphia to enact a smoking ban," City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz Jr. said.

A small record label has filed a class action lawsuit against Apple and other digital music stores as well as the major record labels that carry its catalog of tracks. Dawg Music, which is run by bluegrass musician David Grisman and his partner Craig Miller, claims that entities carrying Grisman's musical tracks are knowingly selling his works with poor or nonexistent compensation without his consent. Represented by Strange and Carpenter from the Law Offices of Jeffry L. Graubart, the suit makes a two-part complaint implicating both labels and their online digital retail partners. The complaint states that Universal and Warner have neglected Daw Music's copyrights and royalties when signing deals with online stores -- including Apple's iTunes service.

The two large record companies agreed to online distribution of Grisman's library without first acquiring permission from Dawg Music, according to AppleInsider, and by doing so both labels made unauthorized hard copies of the music while also usurping control of royalties due for each album. That lack of communication resulted in "gross underpayments," claims Dawg Music, and online retail efforts such as the iTunes Store are guilty by association because they agreed to host and sell the unsanctioned tracks.

The suit claims that AOL Music Now, Buy.com, Apple's iTunes, MSN.com, Napster, RealNetworks' Rhapsody, Wal-Mart.com, and Yahoo Music are guilty of trading songs without genuine consent because they send money to the intermediate labels but not the copyright holders.

Dawg Music also states that this evasion of copyrights has caused "irreparable injury" to the music label, and that the agreements will continue to damage the company as long as the present contracts for online music remain. All defendants named in the suit would be forced to pay Dawg Music for damages if the small label manages to prove its case in a central California court hearing.

Additionally, the court could order each defendant to pay $150,000 for each work whose copyright was violated if the case finds the labels and online music retailers guilty, adding up to millions of dollars in payments to Dawg Music.

Strange and Carpenter on behalf of Dawg Music will need to prove that none of the existing clauses in Dawg Music's contracts with Universal and Warner already cover the online distribution of their content if they are to win the case and recieve damages.

An Exxon spokesman said the Irving-based company, which still sees the award as excessive, would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.
 

As General Counsel, a newly appointed professional position at Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, Mr. Traeger is responsible for addressing potential issues regarding professional responsibility and legal compliance, mentoring, continuing legal education and attorney recruiting practices, as well as internal matters of attorney-client privilege and confidentiality.

Mr. Traeger is a member of Gallop, Johnson & Neuman’s Real Estate Practice Area and chairman of the firm’s Environmental Law Practice Area. He has extensive experience in areas of environmental, administrative and corporate law. He also serves on the firm’s Ethics Committee, Mentoring Committee and Lateral Committee, the latter of which focuses on attorney recruiting. Mr. Traeger will continue to serve clients of Gallop, Johnson & Neuman and to chair the firm’s Environmental Law Practice Area.

Thomas J. Campbell, Managing Partner of Gallop, Johnson & Neuman, said, “The appointment of John Traeger as General Counsel strengthens our firm’s commitment to client service excellence, mentoring and professional responsibility in the legal profession.”

Before joining Gallop, Johnson & Neuman in 2000, Mr. Traeger served as internal corporate counsel at Ralston Purina Co. and Continental Baking Co in St. Louis. His legal experience in environmental areas includes matters of mergers and acquisitions, Superfund litigation, the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, environmental site assessments, wetlands and hazardous waste issues. Mr. Traeger also serves clients regarding business and real estate issues, and electronically stored records management programs to assure compliance with federal and state regulations.

Mr. Traeger is a member of The American Bar Association, The Missouri Bar, The Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, and the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association. He earned a J.D. degree from St. Mary’s University School of Law and a Bachelor of Sciences degree from Colorado College.

Gallop, Johnson & Neuman has served clients in St. Louis and around the world for more than 30 years. The law firm and its attorneys are distinguished by a Commitment to Excellence. The firm serves public and privately held corporations, small companies, start-up enterprises, entrepreneurs and non-profit entities, as well as individuals and families. Gallop, Johnson & Neuman is one of the ten largest law firms in St. Louis. Offices are located at 101 South Hanley Road, Suite 1700, Clayton, Missouri, 63105.