Democrats pass 9/11 Recommendations with veto-proof House majority

Thorgrim · 01-09-2007, 11:15 PM

In one of their earliest yet overwhelming victories

Final Vote Results for Roll Call 15

299 yes
128 no
8 not voting

What is it you ask, house digest gives a nice summary which follows:
U.S. House Digest

H.R. 1 is perhaps the largest of all of the bills to fulfill the “100 Hours” agenda. There are many changes to federal law that you should be concerned about, so we’ll try to summarize and condense the information so that it can be understood as easily as possible.

Title I to H.R. 1 implements a system of “risk-based” counter-terrorism funding. This was one of the 9/11 Commission’s more prominent suggestions. In short, it mandates that the Department for Homeland Security must assign funds to areas based upon the likelihood that it will be struck by a terrorist attack and the financial & logistical damage such a strike could cause. Under this system, no longer will large DHS grants be going to places where powerful members of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on appropriations happen to represent. This language became a priority when, in December 2005, the 9/11 Commission gave the Bush Administration an “F” for their handling of the DHS grant program.

Title II to H.R. 1 relates to the role of first responders. If you don’t know, first responders are the people that, well, respond first to national emergencies. If foreign or domestic terrorists set off a biological weapon in the middle of Times Square, they will be the first to get on the scene and try to clean up the mess. The changes made under H.R. 1 seek to enhance their stand-alone interoperability when chaos and disorder surround them. To give you a sense of how important that is: The 9/11 Commission highlighted this as one of the main reasons why no Air Force personnel or command control officers were able to get a handle on hijacked planes crossing into New York City.

Title III to H.R. 1 mandates that the Department of Homeland Security develop a system of sharing information with local and municipal and appoints a network of “regional administrators” to ensure proper implementation of the plan.

Title IV to H.R. 1 introduces a host of security measures for U.S. air and sea ports. H.R. 1 will mandate that 100% of all cargo incoming on passenger aircraft be scanned by 2009. By 2011, it will mandate that all airports will have improved explosive screening at baggage check-in. Sections 405 and 408 specifically deal with appropriations for the new programs, which amount to nearly $250 million. Also, the legislation will set out a process for passengers to quickly “appeal or redress” getting delayed or prohibited from boarding a flight. Finally, it puts a core plan to implement a passenger pre-screening system so that threats can be identified before they get on flights via the federal no-fly list.

Title V to H.R. 1 mandates that 100% of shipping containers be scanned by both X-ray machines and radiation detectors before they can be cleared to enter the port. It appropriates funds for security upgrades.

Title VI to H.R. 1 looks at a more holistic approach to stopping terrorists from entering the country, in terms of personnel. It enhances the scope of the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center by appropriating more funds and requiring the hire of more field agents to stop human trafficking and international travel of terrorists. It also seeks to establish a system of biometric entry and exit to the United States.

Title VII to H.R. 1 establishes offices and funds grants to local law enforcement and first responders so that they too can react on some of the government’s highest intelligence. Some of the bigger programs are the Border Intelligence Fusion Center Program, which attempts to get Border Control officers working in unison with law enforcement of respective towns and cities along the U.S.-Mexico border. It founds the Office of Infrastructure Protection, whose purpose is self-explanatory.

Title VIII to H.R. 1 is probably the most exciting part of the bill for liberals. It separates the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board from its administrative position and makes the board independent, requires all of its members to be confirmed by the Senate and gives subpoena power to its Chairperson. It also enhances the authority of privacy officers for the Department of Homeland Security, giving them the power to file official discrepancies with the board. Surprisingly, this Title was left out of the Speaker’s press release on the bill.

Titles IX, X and XI to H.R. 1 establish that the bill calls a “National At-Risk Database”, which apparently will help private businesses and the transportation sector assess their financial and logistical risk of being hit by a terrorist attacks. It also coordinates emergency preparedness activities.

Titles XII and XIII to H.R. 1 is the Democrats’ best attempt to stem the proliferation of WMDs. It fields a number of changes. First, it strengthens the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction, perhaps the only federal program which tries to get a handle on the nuclear materials which floated across the globe in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Second, it increases funding to the Proliferation Security Initiative, where the United Nations acts to confiscate WMDs. Third, it creates the office of U.S. Coordinator for the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, which will assist the President and the also-established Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism in developing a strategy to preventing the continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Finally, it forces the President to impose sanctions on nations (read: Syria, Iran and North Korea) that share nuclear materials with states that are less-than-favorable to the civilized world. It would also require the President to revoke existing assistance to countries that are caught aiding the transfer. This is the most ambitious anti-proliferation mandate seen passed by the U.S. Congress in quiet some time.

Title XIV to H.R. 1 seeks to improve the image of the U.S. around the world by a series of cooperative initiatives in the Muslim countries. Some of the programs are vague and are probably unlikely to make it into the conference agreement, but what they do right now is attempt to increase “educational opportunities” for Muslims in the international community. Instead of studying hatred in madrases, this bill hopes to spread Western education. It also establishes a fund for translating Western reading materials into Arabic and other local languages. Finally, it gives a list of not-exactly-binding ways for the U.S. to repair its image with the international community by expanding the U.S. scholarships for Muslim students to come to the other side of the lake to study.

Just as a note, there are alot of programs, mandates and appropriations made under this bill and it would be impossible to note them all here. U.S. House Digest believes these are the most noted and most effective in terms of impact provisions included in the bill. There is not alot left out of this summary. But, we strongly encourage you to investigate more on your own. You can view our More Information links, which will hopefully guide you to helpful analysis of H.R. 1. As a final note, this legislation and the funds it appropriates was not subject to the “pay-as-you-go” restrictions.

RMNIXON · 01-09-2007, 11:26 PM

Sounds good to me until I got to this:

Title VIII to H.R. 1 is probably the most exciting part of the bill for liberals. It separates the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board from its administrative position and makes the board independent, requires all of its members to be confirmed by the Senate and gives subpoena power to its Chairperson. It also enhances the authority of privacy officers for the Department of Homeland Security, giving them the power to file official discrepancies with the board. Surprisingly, this Title was left out of the Speaker’s press release on the bill.

If it was left out and is so important it is probably the primary reason of objection by so many Republicans? If this independence is but a cover for a political "leak" factory for the New York Times, ect....I would have concerns. I want to see what Devils are in the details?

RMNIXON · 01-09-2007, 11:30 PM

Title I to H.R. 1 implements a system of “risk-based” counter-terrorism funding. This was one of the 9/11 Commission’s more prominent suggestions. In short, it mandates that the Department for Homeland Security must assign funds to areas based upon the likelihood that it will be struck by a terrorist attack and the financial & logistical damage such a strike could cause.

I give them full credit for this clause. Should have been done long ago. Many parts of California have been shortchanged so we can protect Wyoming from attack! Lots of money spent in dumb ways in dumb places just for the purpose of spending money.

Thorgrim · 01-09-2007, 11:34 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Sounds good to me until I got to this:

Title VIII to H.R. 1 is probably the most exciting part of the bill for liberals. It separates the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board from its administrative position and makes the board independent, requires all of its members to be confirmed by the Senate and gives subpoena power to its Chairperson. It also enhances the authority of privacy officers for the Department of Homeland Security, giving them the power to file official discrepancies with the board. Surprisingly, this Title was left out of the Speaker’s press release on the bill.

If it was left out and is so important it is probably the primary reason of objection by so many Republicans? If this independence is but a cover for a political "leak" factory for the New York Times, ect....I would have concerns. I want to see what Devils are in the details?

If I had to guess it was left out because Reid told her that at the current time he doesn't think he has the power to get it through on the Senate with that in...

Phantom · 01-10-2007, 09:40 AM

Other provisions of the House bill also carry a big price tag, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has said she expects airlines and shippers to help fund. For example, inspecting all cargo placed aboard passenger aircraft by 2009 could cost $3.6 billion to $6 billion for equipment, installation and screening personnel, the Congressional Research Service and the Transportation Security Administration estimate, House Republican officials said.

she expects them to help fund? So in reality they haven't done the tough work of getting the money for all their promises.

I feel safer now.

Kytro · 01-10-2007, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

she expects them to help fund? So in reality they haven't done the tough work of getting the money for all their promises.

I feel safer now.

I can understand the argument. Not sure if I agree with it, but from what I can gather they are saying:

The businesses operate in an area of increased security risk to the nation and therefore should share the cost of reducing that risk

kinggovernor · 01-10-2007, 09:35 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

she expects them to help fund? So in reality they haven't done the tough work of getting the money for all their promises.

I feel safer now.

yea we want you bankrupt airliners to pay for more overhead, so we can bail you out down the road. But what the hell, we look good for 15 minutes

RMNIXON · 01-10-2007, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

she expects them to help fund? So in reality they haven't done the tough work of getting the money for all their promises.

I feel safer now.

That means we fund it though higher airline tickets and high prices for goods coming through the ports, and that is a lot of shit let me tell ya!

Thorgrim · 01-11-2007, 12:14 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yea we want you bankrupt airliners to pay for more overhead, so we can bail you out down the road. But what the hell, we look good for 15 minutes

Yeah and the next time an airline attack works because there wasn't enough security, let's blame the Democrats for not doing enough

They just implemented the recommendations from probably the best bipartisan report on preventing terrorism, it's the best option out there to protect America

Thorgrim · 01-11-2007, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

That means we fund it though higher airline tickets and high prices for goods coming through the ports, and that is a lot of shit let me tell ya!

Yeah like when those stupid republicans made the airlines waste all that money on taking away gel from people, when will the GOP learn it should have stepped in and cut that stuff out, the airlines need profit more than we need security

kinggovernor · 01-11-2007, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Yeah and the next time an airline attack works because there wasn't enough security, let's blame the Democrats for not doing enough

They just implemented the recommendations from probably the best bipartisan report on preventing terrorism, it's the best option out there to protect America

I have no problem with the plan, but you also need to plan to pay for it. It is a two step process

Thorgrim · 01-11-2007, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I have no problem with the plan, but you also need to plan to pay for it. It is a two step process

One step at a time, remember they are forgoing any serious debate, they got the whole huge thing passed with a veto-proof majority in one day!

kinggovernor · 01-11-2007, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

One step at a time, remember they are forgoing any serious debate, they got the whole huge thing passed with a veto-proof majority in one day!

isn't that how the Patriot Act was passed? I like my democracy slow and gridlocked.

Phantom · 01-11-2007, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

One step at a time, remember they are forgoing any serious debate, they got the whole huge thing passed with a veto-proof majority in one day!

it's easy to pass a dream when the details (especially money) are left out. When the little show is over, they will have to put some real effort into these bills and that's where everything is going to get gummed up.

Thorgrim · 01-11-2007, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

it's easy to pass a dream when the details (especially money) are left out. When the little show is over, they will have to put some real effort into these bills and that's where everything is going to get gummed up.

Yes but you need one before the other, "What are we setting up?" "What are the EXACT budget details?"