By Shailagh Murray and Charles Babington
Tuesday, June 6, 2006; A13

Republican voters, are you paying attention?

Because this week's Senate agenda is all about you, with debates scheduled on same-sex marriage and a permanent repeal of the estate tax.

At least through tomorrow, the Senate will consider a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Republican leaders, including President Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), a potential 2008 White House candidate, believe Senate action is vital because of recent federal court intervention.

For Democrats, the issue is a tricky one. They recognize the issue's sensitivity, and many -- including Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) -- personally oppose same-sex marriage. Indeed, Democrats have focused their objections on changing the Constitution, which has typically been amended in order to expand rights, not restrict them.

"I am confident that the American people will see this for what it is: a mean-spirited attempt to score political points in an election year," said Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.).

Later in the week, the Senate is expected to consider a permanent repeal of the estate tax, which Bush phased out as part of his first-term tax relief package, but after a one-year hiatus, in 2010, the levy phases back into existence.

Most Democrats object to full repeal as a giveaway to the super-rich, but Republicans believe the estate tax, which they call the "death tax," is unfair because it taxes some income twice. Conservatives are considering a compromise that would shield all but the wealthiest estates, and some moderate Democrats are interested in a similar approach.

But first, business groups want to put senators on the spot with a vote on full repeal. Pro-repeal organizations are targeting possible swing votes such as Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) and Susan Collins (R-Maine).

Another lobbying campaign, this one by repeal opponents, features an ad with blond woman in a slinky dress and asserts, "The last thing a rich heiress needs is a $1 trillion raise in her allowance."

In a letter to senators, a group of former advisers to President Bill Clinton notes that 997 out of 1,000 estates are not subject to the tax under current law.

The House, meanwhile, will consider legislation to expand oil refinery capacity, an overhaul of telecommunications law, and appropriations bills for foreign operations, homeland security and legislative expenses.

House and Senate negotiators also this week will try to complete a final emergency spending bill for the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina recovery costs. Sticking points include $4 billion in agriculture assistance, port security spending and subsidies to the commercial fishing industry. Another hurdle is how to spend about $2 billion in border security improvements, with Bush wanting to add National Guard troops, and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) pressing for equipment replacements, including helicopters and patrol vehicles.

Some retired military officers have served notice that if conservatives keep pressing for a Senate confirmation vote for judicial nominee William J. Haynes II, it won't come without a fight.

Haynes, the Defense Department's general counsel, is President Bush's choice for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Democrats have opposed Haynes since 2003, and now some Republicans are joining them. They object to his role as the Pentagon's top lawyer when controversial policies were adopted regarding harsh treatment of detainees captured in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere.

The conservative group Committee for Justice has launched a telephone and e-mail campaign against one of those Republicans, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.). Last week, some retired military lawyers came to Graham's defense, sending letters to the Judiciary Committee that call Haynes unfit for a lifetime appointment to the appellate court.

Haynes's "unwillingness to listen to others caused him to preside over the DOD legal system during the time of its greatest debacle in memory, the abuse of detainees by military personnel around the world," wrote John D. Hutson, a retired rear admiral who was a senior Navy lawyer. Donald J. Guter, who held the same rank, wrote that he doubted Haynes would have the independence or judgment to oppose unwise policies being pushed by his superiors.

Among those praising Haynes in letters to the committee is Bernard D. Meltzer, a retired law professor and former assistant trial counsel in the trials before the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg. Meltzer wrote that he got to know Haynes while consulting with the Pentagon and that "I was impressed by his informed and sensitive concern for the rights and legitimate interests of those who might be tried before a military commission."