Last week, the Washington State House of Representatives approved a domestic partnership bill (SB 5336) that grants same-sex couples hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights when there is no will, and the power to authorize medical procedures, such as organ donation and autopsies. Earlier this month, the New Hampshire House of Representatives passed a bill to allow civil unions for gay and lesbian couples.

US Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) announced Tuesday that the Senate Appropriations Committee he chairs has agreed to adopt new standards governing so-called earmarks inserted by legislators into bills to fund special spending projects. The proposed ethics and earmark reform legislation will define the term "earmark" and will require that all earmarks be clearly identified in the committee bill and report, both of which will be published on the Internet. In addition, the legislation will mandate that Senators certify that neither they nor their spouses have a financial interest in any earmark. Byrd said the Senate Appropriations Committee will follow the standards until they are enacted into law. The Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 passed by the US Senate in a 96-2 vote in January proposed similar earmark reform rules, but that legislation has yet to receive approval from the US House of Representatives.

In September, the US House adopted a new rule requiring lawmakers to disclose their sponsorship of earmarks. H.Res. 1000 provides that earmarks can no longer be inserted anonymously and requires that bills coming out of committee, bills containing tax measures, and conference reports list all earmarks and the names of the congresspersons who requested them.

In his 25-page statement, Gonzales apologized for embarrassing the eight U.S. attorneys and their families by letting their ousters erupt into a political firestorm that has engulfed the Justice Department since January. He maintained the firings were not improper, but said he remembers having only an indirect role in the plans beyond approving them.

"I have nothing to hide, and I am committed to assuring the Congress and the American public that nothing improper occurred here," Gonzales said in prepared testimony released before he appears Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The panel, which oversees the Justice Department, is investigating whether the firings were politically motivated.

"I am sorry for my missteps that have helped to fuel the controversy," he said.

Gonzales added: "In hindsight, I would have handled this differently. ... Looking back, it is clear to me that I should have done more personally to ensure that the review process was more rigorous, and that each U.S. attorney was informed of this decision in a more personal and respectful way."

President George W. Bush will sign off on a bill providing funding for studies on embryos incapable of further development, but will refuse to endorse legislation that would subsidize stem cell research the White House announced Tuesday. The administration said in a formal policy statement sent to Congress that Bush would veto the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 because the law would "pay for research that relies on the intentional destruction of human embryos." The White House also said, however, that Bush would support the HOPE Act because it would provide funding for research into pluripotent stem cells that does not entail the destruction of embryos.

In July, Bush vetoed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 saying he refused to provide federal funding for stem cell research because many people consider the destruction of embryos murder. Simultaneously, Bush signed the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, intended to prohibit "fetal farming," the method of creating fetuses for the sole purpose of research, after both the House and Senate passed the bill unanimously.

By a 2-1 panel vote in March, the judges deciding Parker v. District of Columbia relied on the Second Amendment to overturn a 31-year old ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. Mayor Adrian Fenty and the city argued that the panel's interpretation of the Second Amendment is "contrary to of nearly every other federal court of appeals, as well as the highest local court in this jurisdiction." The case is widely expected to end up before the US Supreme Court, regardless of who ultimately wins in the DC Circuit Court.