[Archive Home][Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
"High-priority security bill remains stalled"
- From: "Stephen Irwin" <stepheni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 01:44:06 -0500
Monday, April 23, 2007
High-priority security bill remains stalled
By Chris Strohm
Although it was touted by Democrats as one of their highest priorities when
the new Congress began, legislation to implement unfulfilled recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission remains in limbo with no indication when the House
and Senate will complete the bill and send it to the White House.
Democratic leaders appear to be trying to avoid a public relations mess that
could result by sending both the 9/11 Commission bill and the war
supplemental spending bill at the same time to President Bush, who has vowed
to veto both for different reasons.
"There hasn't been any movement on conference and we don't know that there
will be in the foreseeable future," a Senate aide said late last week about
the 9/11 Commission bill.
A spokeswoman for the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee said the committee is waiting for direction from Senate leaders
about proceeding to conference.
A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the next
move is up to House leaders.
But when asked, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said:
"No timeline just yet. We are different bodies with different rules.
Preliminary discussions [are] already occurring with Senate."
The spokesman cautioned against reading too much into the delay on
conferencing the bills.
But the importance of the legislation for House Democrats was demonstrated
by their giving it the symbolic "H.R. 1" bill number and making it the first
substantive measure to pass the House in January. At the time, Democrats
said the bill was critical to homeland security because it addressed 9/11
Commission recommendations that either were not implemented or were only
House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., acknowledged in
an interview that completing the supplemental spending bill has overshadowed
work on the security bill.
"I'm patient as long as we get it done," he said. "I know that the president
is dangling vetoes over our head right and left."
Bush has threatened to veto a final 9/11 Commission bill that contains a
provision -- now found in both the House and Senate versions -- that would
give collective bargaining rights to federal airport screeners. While
Thompson said he believes there are enough votes in the House to override
the veto, the forecast in the Senate is less certain.
A Senate aide said Republicans will work to strip the provision in
conference. "There will be somebody that will try to pull that out," the
To that, Thompson replied, "Good luck."
Conferees will also need to resolve several glaring differences between the
House and Senate bills, especially with regard to distributing homeland
security grants, scanning cargo containers, whether to declassify the
overall intelligence budget and whether to make changes in a program that
allows foreigners to come to the United States without visas.
"The homeland security grants, of course, will be contentious," one Senate
aide said. "Both bills provide the vast majority of homeland security
funding on the basis of risk, but the bills differ in the minimum amount of
money guaranteed to each state so they can all achieve a basic level of
The House bill, for example, would guarantee that each state receive at
least 0.25 percent of total funding under the state homeland security grant
program, the law enforcement terrorism prevention program and the urban area
security initiative program.
The Senate bill would guarantee each state at least 0.45 percent of state
homeland security grants and has different formulas for the other grant
Asked about these differences, Thompson expressed his willingness to
compromise on the funding formula and several other major issues facing
But he indicated he will stand firm on cargo scanning provisions in the
House bill, which would require the Homeland Security Department to ensure,
within five years, that all containers are scanned at foreign ports.
The Senate bill would require the department to develop a plan for scanning
all cargo abroad, but does not specify a timeline. The shipping industry and
many Republicans argue that meeting a mandated deadline might not be
feasible and could disrupt trade.
"We will press that issue," Thompson said. "I think there is enough
technology, and enough smart people, that we can put that together without
impeding commerce one bit."
The House bill also contains provisions not in the Senate bill, and vice
versa. For example, the House bill has unique titles for preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and for implementing 9/11
Commission recommendations dealing with international relations.
Unlike the House bill, the Senate bill authorizes billions of dollars in
spending for homeland security programs and includes provisions dealing with
rail and mass transit security.
The House passed a separate bill covering rail and mass transit security.
But a House aide said it has not yet been decided whether that bill will be
rolled into the 9/11 Commission bill.
"Technically, we can't go to conference with what we have now until there is
some kind of an agreement on [what] we're going to conference," another aide
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