[Archive Home][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"Estimated price tag of security measure causes stir"
- From: "Stephen Irwin" <stepheni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 23:08:46 -0600
Friday, February 2, 2007
Estimated price tag of security measure causes stir
The federal government would need to spend $21 billion through 2012 to pay
for provisions in a House bill aimed at implementing unfulfilled
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, the Congressional Budget Office said
The bill, which was the first to be pushed by House Democrats after they
took control of Congress, would establish several new spending programs that
would need appropriations, such as paying for grants to help state and local
government buy interoperable communications equipment, preventing the spread
of weapons of mass destruction abroad, and improving airport security
According to CBO, the cost to implement the legislation would result in new
discretionary spending of $21 billion from 2007 to 2012.
The price tag set off a tiff between House Homeland Security Committee
Chairman Bennie Thompson and ranking member Peter King, R-N.Y.
"This bill was rushed to the floor without the Democratic leadership giving
us any indication of its massive cost--and now we know why," King said. "I
think this $21 billion estimate makes it clear that the bill actually
contradicts 9/11 Commission recommendations, which called for a risk-based
allocation of homeland security resources. Had we known this before the bill
was brought to the floor, it would have been a different story."
Thompson shot back: "This nation deserves better than bargain basement
security. Perhaps there would not be such sticker shock if the Congress and
the Bush Administration had addressed these security gaps identified by the
bipartisan 9/11 Commission over three years ago."
Post your comments in the CAA Legislative Forum
Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
If you have any queries regarding this issue, please Email us at email@example.com