News
Feb 14 2007
Top senators agree on Anti-Terror Bill
WASHINGTON - Top senators prepared an anti-terrorism bill Tuesday that could spark future clashes with the House, proposing more homeland security money for smaller and rural states and dropping requirements for tougher cargo inspections.
The Senate version of legislation implementing the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was introduced by the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. Their panel was scheduled to vote on the measure on Thursday.
The Senate measure would drop House-passed provisions requiring that all containers on U.S.-bound vessels be screened in foreign ports for radiation, and that all cargo loaded onto U.S. airliners be screened for explosives.
Both were strongly opposed by the Bush administration on grounds that they are too costly and require the use of technology that does not exist.
However, the Senate Commerce Committee on Tuesday passed an aviation security bill that has a similar provision regarding screening of all air cargo.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and in its final report in 2004 made numerous recommendations on improving the nation's security.
Congressional budget analysts have estimated the House bill's cost at $21 billion over the next five years. The Senate bill does not yet have an overall cost estimate.
A fundamental difference exists between the two houses of Congress on the percentage of grants to states and localities that must be distributed according to risk factors rather than equally divided among states.
The House version places more emphasis on rating the risk factor _ a formula that considers the intelligence threat, the locality's vulnerability and the consequences to its population and critical infrastructure of a terrorist attack. Such a formula tends to favor larger and more urban states.
The Senate version also considers risk but would spread the funds more broadly. For example, a program aimed at the urban areas considered most at risk _ 46 such areas received funds for the current fiscal year _ would allow the 100 largest urban areas in the country to apply for grants.
The minimum guaranteed amount to each state would also be higher in the Senate bill, 0.75 percent of the total to each state. The Senate's grants would cost $3.105 billion for each of the next three years.
The Senate version also contains a provision not in the House bill that would change a program that allows citizens of 27 countries considered close U.S. allies to enter the country without a visa.
The program has been criticized since the 9/11 attacks, however, and the administration has promised to strengthen its security and open it to additional allies, particularly Eastern European countries now aiding the U.S. effort in Iraq.
At a hearing on his department's 2008 budget request, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Tuesday warned committee members that the program's membership must be expanded to help solve "what is shaping up as a fairly ugly dispute" with several nations.
There is also a significant difference between the two houses of Congress concerning a privacy and civil liberties board. The House bill would make the board an independent agency and give it full subpoena power, while the Senate bill would keep the board inside the White House and permit it only to ask the attorney general to issue subpoenas on its behalf.
The White House signaled its strong opposition to the House version, asserting it would be an unconstitutional infringement of the president's powers.
Committee plans for a smooth process could be upended by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has introduced nearly 200 amendments to the measure.
Coburn's spokesman, John Hart, said that in addition to his concern about the process being rushed, the senator believes some of the bill's provisions are unnecessary and duplicative of existing programs.
Coburn wrote to Lieberman on Monday, asking that he delay consideration of the measure until after the Presidents' Day recess, when the Senate is due to return Feb. 26.
The Senate version of legislation implementing the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was introduced by the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. Their panel was scheduled to vote on the measure on Thursday.
The Senate measure would drop House-passed provisions requiring that all containers on U.S.-bound vessels be screened in foreign ports for radiation, and that all cargo loaded onto U.S. airliners be screened for explosives.
Both were strongly opposed by the Bush administration on grounds that they are too costly and require the use of technology that does not exist.
However, the Senate Commerce Committee on Tuesday passed an aviation security bill that has a similar provision regarding screening of all air cargo.
The bipartisan 9/11 Commission investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and in its final report in 2004 made numerous recommendations on improving the nation's security.
Congressional budget analysts have estimated the House bill's cost at $21 billion over the next five years. The Senate bill does not yet have an overall cost estimate.
A fundamental difference exists between the two houses of Congress on the percentage of grants to states and localities that must be distributed according to risk factors rather than equally divided among states.
The House version places more emphasis on rating the risk factor _ a formula that considers the intelligence threat, the locality's vulnerability and the consequences to its population and critical infrastructure of a terrorist attack. Such a formula tends to favor larger and more urban states.
The Senate version also considers risk but would spread the funds more broadly. For example, a program aimed at the urban areas considered most at risk _ 46 such areas received funds for the current fiscal year _ would allow the 100 largest urban areas in the country to apply for grants.
The minimum guaranteed amount to each state would also be higher in the Senate bill, 0.75 percent of the total to each state. The Senate's grants would cost $3.105 billion for each of the next three years.
The Senate version also contains a provision not in the House bill that would change a program that allows citizens of 27 countries considered close U.S. allies to enter the country without a visa.
The program has been criticized since the 9/11 attacks, however, and the administration has promised to strengthen its security and open it to additional allies, particularly Eastern European countries now aiding the U.S. effort in Iraq.
At a hearing on his department's 2008 budget request, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff on Tuesday warned committee members that the program's membership must be expanded to help solve "what is shaping up as a fairly ugly dispute" with several nations.
There is also a significant difference between the two houses of Congress concerning a privacy and civil liberties board. The House bill would make the board an independent agency and give it full subpoena power, while the Senate bill would keep the board inside the White House and permit it only to ask the attorney general to issue subpoenas on its behalf.
The White House signaled its strong opposition to the House version, asserting it would be an unconstitutional infringement of the president's powers.
Committee plans for a smooth process could be upended by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who has introduced nearly 200 amendments to the measure.
Coburn's spokesman, John Hart, said that in addition to his concern about the process being rushed, the senator believes some of the bill's provisions are unnecessary and duplicative of existing programs.
Coburn wrote to Lieberman on Monday, asking that he delay consideration of the measure until after the Presidents' Day recess, when the Senate is due to return Feb. 26.
