$3.4 Billion Port Security Bill Pushing Through With 3 Last-Minute (unrelated) Laws

Nonphixion · 09-29-2006, 09:08 PM

Saw this on the LL RSS Wire
--

They are hoping to push this one past and sign it into law before the coming November elections.
Port security bill attracts flurry of add-ons - Yahoo! News

By Susan Cornwell 1 hour, 17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress was pushing on Friday to finish legislation that would boost security at U.S. ports, but the bill was attracting a flurry of last-minute amendments with both parties viewing it as a must-pass measure ahead of November elections.

"We are not going to have a huge spending bill," said Rep. Dan Lungren, a California Republican and one of the chief negotiators.
But he said lawmakers were considering tacking other pieces of legislation onto the port security bill to try to get them through Congress this year. Bills that are expected to pass, like the ports bill, "become like magnets, they attract a lot of stuff," Lungren explained.

One likely add-on would prohibit most forms of Internet gambling and make it illegal for banks and credit card companies to make payments to online gambling sites. A House Republican leadership source said this had a good chance of being added to the ports bill.

House and Senate negotiators agreed late on Thursday on the outlines of the port security provisions. They hoped to get the legislation approved before heading home this weekend to campaign for November congressional elections in which national security has become a key issue.

The port security bill would authorize $3.4 billion over five years for actions such as installing radiation detectors at the largest U.S. ports. Language that would have added billions more for rail and mass transit security has been stripped out, lawmakers and their aides said.

A second proposed add-on to the bill would shield telephone companies from liability for privacy violations if they supply the U.S. government with access to customer records.

This idea came from Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens (news, bio, voting record), Republican sources said, but the House leadership source said it had drawn opposition. Proponents of such legislation have argued that it is necessary for homeland security.

A third proposed add-on would tighten security at courthouses and stiffen penalties for attacks on judges.

The port security issue languished in Congress until earlier this year when lawmakers said they had security concerns about an Arab state-owned company, Dubai Ports World, which had bought operations at six major U.S. ports. To quell the uproar, the company said it would sell the port assets.
But another piece of legislation that was inspired by the Dubai furor -- proposed tightening of the rules governing approval of foreign takeovers -- has stalled in Congress. The two chambers passed competing versions and have not been able to agree on a compromise.

The heart of the port security bill deals with cargo container security. Only a fraction of the millions of containers that enter U.S. ports each year are inspected. That has prompted warnings that sea cargo remains a serious security risk, five years after the September 11 attacks.

The tentative agreement lawmakers reached on Thursday requires the government to finish installing radiation-screening equipment at 22 major U.S. ports, which handle 98 percent of all containers, by the end of 2007.
It also sets up a pilot program at three foreign ports to test the feasibility of scanning cargo headed for the United States while it is still overseas.

WickedLou9 · 09-29-2006, 10:19 PM

They should make a law about these riders-on that have nothing to do with the bill. Honestly, a clause to prohibit internet gambling attached onto a port security bill? That's preposterous.

WickedLou9 · 09-30-2006, 12:23 PM

and it passed. I think it's time that we overthrow our government. they have become a useless self serving bribe taking brothel. They have done nothing of any consequence in a long time. The biggest issues facing this country have gone ignored. The social security problem? nothing what so ever. The health care problem? Nothing what so ever. Immigration? They are building a fence. whoop de doo.

KatKanPlay · 09-30-2006, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

and it passed. I think it's time that we overthrow our government. they have become a useless self serving bribe taking brothel. They have done nothing of any consequence in a long time. The biggest issues facing this country have gone ignored. The social security problem? nothing what so ever. The health care problem? Nothing what so ever. Immigration? They are building a fence. whoop de doo.

Of course it did.

You pat my back, I'll pat yours.

KatKanPlay · 09-30-2006, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

and it passed. I think it's time that we overthrow our government. they have become a useless self serving bribe taking brothel. They have done nothing of any consequence in a long time. The biggest issues facing this country have gone ignored. The social security problem? nothing what so ever. The health care problem? Nothing what so ever. Immigration? They are building a fence. whoop de doo.

What is sad is the majority of America will never know how this little tidbit was passed.

This partisan bullshit has got to stop!!

ethyl · 09-30-2006, 12:34 PM

So this indeed passed with the online gambling addendum? Doesn't this pretty much kill all online poker sites?

ethyl · 09-30-2006, 12:37 PM

409-2 in the House with a voice vote in the Senate. This is bullshit.

KatKanPlay · 09-30-2006, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by ethyl

409-2 in the House with a voice vote in the Senate. This is bullshit.

Indeed

6SpeedTA95 · 09-30-2006, 01:27 PM

409-2? It's safe to say this one can't be blamed on the republicans

ethyl · 09-30-2006, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

409-2? It's safe to say this one can't be blamed on the republicans

Definitely both sides but especially Frist.

Can Bush line item veto this shiat?

JaJae · 09-30-2006, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by ethyl

Definitely both sides but especially Frist. Can Bush line item veto this shiat?

No, the Democrats won't allow line item vetos.

And for good reason. He should start just vetoing the entire bill for this crap and say "I'm vetoing this because this line is bullshit."

Nonphixion · 09-30-2006, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

409-2? It's safe to say this one can't be blamed on the republicans

Dems want port security, they have wanted it since 5 fucking years ago. To tack on bullshit addendums won't stop them from trying to secure this country where it has needed to be.

Republicans can be blamed for this one. They haven't protected anything worthwhile in the country, they haven't done anything to keep us safe within the homeland since we went after Osama in Afghanistan years ago.

The administration is overwhelmingly Republican and they have simply not payed attention to critical terrorist targets within America. So yes they can be blamed, almost entirely. Dems couldn't have voted against this bill, even with all of it's bullshit buried laws, because it would be used against them in the upcoming elections. Use some political sense here.

6SpeedTA95 · 09-30-2006, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

Dems want port security, they have wanted it since 5 fucking years ago. To tack on bullshit addendums won't stop them from trying to secure this country where it has needed to be.

Republicans can be blamed for this one. They haven't protected anything worthwhile in the country, they haven't done anything to keep us safe within the homeland since we went after Osama in Afghanistan years ago.

The administration is overwhelmingly Republican and they have simply not payed attention to critical terrorist targets within America. So yes they can be blamed, almost entirely. Dems couldn't have voted against this bill, even with all of it's bullshit buried laws, because it would be used against them in the upcoming elections. Use some political sense here.

If it was about principles and not power for the democrats they would have NOT voted for it. They would have touted the trampling on invidual rights that could take place because of this bill. They didn't because they knew it would be a tough fight to win so they gave up on their so called "values" in exchange for votes this fall

WickedLou9 · 09-30-2006, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by ethyl

So this indeed passed with the online gambling addendum? Doesn't this pretty much kill all online poker sites?

not really. It just makes it harder to use them. You will have to use some sort of intermediary like Net Teller or something and deposit money there and then transfer from there to the poker site. Most banks already won't deal with online gambling even before this bill passed. Back a couple of years ago some lady bet a crap load of money on a football game.. put it all on her credit card. When she lost, she claimed that someone stole her card and she didn't make the bet.. So credit card companies decided on thier own not to do business with gambling sites. This bill really won't change all that much in reality.

The simple fact that they felt the need to legislate something that doesn't effect anyone and tack it onto a bill that was prety much impossible to vote against.. It's just disgusting.

WickedLou9 · 09-30-2006, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

If it was about principles and not power for the democrats they would have NOT voted for it. They would have touted the trampling on invidual rights that could take place because of this bill. They didn't because they knew it would be a tough fight to win so they gave up on their so called "values" in exchange for votes this fall

Politicians are scum.

ethyl · 09-30-2006, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

not really. It just makes it harder to use them. You will have to use some sort of intermediary like Net Teller or something and deposit money there and then transfer from there to the poker site. Most banks already won't deal with online gambling even before this bill passed. Back a couple of years ago some lady bet a crap load of money on a football game.. put it all on her credit card. When she lost, she claimed that someone stole her card and she didn't make the bet.. So credit card companies decided on thier own not to do business with gambling sites. This bill really won't change all that much in reality. The simple fact that they felt the need to legislate something that doesn't effect anyone and tack it onto a bill that was prety much impossible to vote against.. It's just disgusting.

I transfer money to my PartyPoker site with my Mastercard with no problems. I hate using Neteller... lost a bunch of money in my sportsbetting days to Neteller a while back due to a glitch in their system.