House Begins 100 Hours "To Do" List

299-128 Vote OKs Bill Modeled On 9/11 Panel's Recommendations

(AP)  Anti-terror legislation sailed through the House on Tuesday, the first in a string of measures designed to fulfill campaign promises made by Democrats last fall.

Patterned on recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, the far-reaching measure includes commitments for inspection of all cargo carried aboard passenger aircraft and on ships bound for the United States.

The vote was a bipartisan 299-128, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi took the rostrum to announce the passage of the first legislation to clear under the new Democratic majority.

"Our first and highest duty as members of this Congress is to protect the American people, to defend our homeland and to strengthen our national security," said Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

Several Republicans criticized the legislation as little more than political posturing in the early hours of a new Democratic-controlled Congress. Democrats want to "look aggressive on homeland security. This bill will waste billions of dollars and possibly harm homeland security by gumming up progress already under way," said Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.

In a written statement, the Bush administration listed several objections and said it could not support the measure as drafted but stopped short of a veto threat.

Democrats have pledged to make fiscal responsibility a priority in the new Congress, but they advanced the bill — their first of the year — without even a bare-bones accounting of the estimated cost. The funding will require follow-up legislation.

Legislation introduced in the Senate a year ago to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission had a price tag of more than $53 billion over five years.

The terrorism legislation is the first of six measures the House is expected to pass as Democrats work to get off to a quick start.

Next up is an increase in the minimum wage — set for passage on Wednesday — followed by relaxation of the limits on stem cell research conducted with federal funds and a measure directing the administration to negotiate with drug companies for lower prices for Medicare recipients.

Next week, the Democrats intend to clear legislation to cut the interest rate on student loans and to curtail tax breaks for the energy industry.

Each of the six bills would go to the Senate, and it could be months — if then — before they reach the White House.

Already, President Bush has signaled he would veto the stem cell bill, which is opposed by abortion foes. House supporters of the measure conceded at a news conference during the day that they do not have the two-thirds support needed to override a veto.

Depending on the outcome of that struggle, said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., "400,000 embryos will either be wasted or utilized to cure a disease."

The House labored over the terrorism bill as the Senate began work on legislation enacting stricter ethics rules — and Democrats continued to gain from last fall's elections.

[rafterman1]

"To make it part of a 100-hour show shamefully trivializes an issue of life or death," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., top Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.

So does ignoring the recommendations, as the Republican-led Congress did.

[macusweil]

According to CNN the Sept. 11 commission gave the administration a grade of D in following up on its general recommendations for preventing the development and spread of weapons of mass destruction.

How dare the GOP try to claim the high ground on National security claiming they are keeping America safe!! the only thing they have kept safe are special interests their supporter's wallets.

[bluestardad]

Hit the ground running and keep running!

[duhrer]

I think the GOP blather about "rushing" this bill through is so much bovine scatology. They've all had plenty of time, since the 9/11 commission presented their report. Now that the Dems actually want to get something done, they call it "rushing". Maybe they should give all of Congress and the Senate a course in Evelyn Wood speed reading.

Good job Dem's. Get that momentum going.

[rsoxfan1123]

Go get 'em Nancy. This is the sort of thing we voted for in November.

[diverinnl]

I find it interesting that they pushed "Pay-As-You-Go" through before tackling this issue. Will they apply their own rules and raise taxes to pay for these "unfunded" recommendations? What will they do when transportation comes to a screeching halt? What will happen to the import duty and tax rates?

[rsoxfan1123]

diverinnl-maybe raise taxes on those making $500,000 a year or more. Not searching cargo coming into the country, yet invading an entire on false premises because country because we are so worried about WMD, sounds very bushlike. This is just the beginning.

[diverinnl]

Sox, I recently shipped a 20 Foot container from Europe to the US full of my household goods when I returned to the US. I was an expat working for a private company for 5 years in Europe. My container was held up in customs an additional 6 weeks because it was selected for a random X-Ray. The additional cost to me, just for CBP to X-Ray my container was over $800.00. This may seem minor in the grand scheme but multiply my experience and cost across 30000 containers! Who pays that bill? You and me. Either with additional cost at the counter or in taxes. Perhaps even both.

[lochlan-2009]

Why won't CBS let anyone post comments about this smell in New York? I think it is insane that government is saying, we have no idea what it is or where it came from, but don't worry people it's harmless. If you don't know what it is how can you say it's harmless? Am I the only one asking this, or does no one else remember two buildings and everything and everyone inside being pulverized into dust and sprayed across Manhattan five years ago with the EPA saying, don't worry, the air is fine, to all those people cleaning and working in the city? Then, big surprise, people start getting sick a few years later with no repercussions for the EPA who blatantly lied to these people who should have known better.

[rsoxfan1123]

if we can spend $500 bilion to improve Iraq, we ought to be able to find a way to search cargo in our own country.

[frankly6]

diverinnl

Do you think that our enemies have figured out that a very effective and even anonymous way to destroy a U.S. city would be to simply put a bomb on a shipping container?

Also, who's going to pay the bill for invading Iraq? It's projected to be more than a trillion dollars.

[diverinnl]

It's not only economics, it's also logistics. Imagine every time every man, woman, and child in the US walked in and out of a building, we were frisked. How much time would it take to get around town? The recommendation just isn't realistic.

[gunnerv1]

BUSH ROCKS, DemocRATS Suck!

[diverinnl]

frankly6, terrorist can walk across the border through Canada and Mexico right now. Why don't we seal those borders? How about setting up Customs and Border Agents at every ocean side dock where a terrorist could possibly tie off a boat?

[marcpcbs]

I would trust Pelosi to make sure the curtains and the carpet work well together, but to decide what's best for the future of freedom militaristically, NOT !

All she knows how to do is practice avoidance.

[rafterman1]

"Have you seen another attack our country since 9-11? Nope! Have you seen the U.S. and Britain foil a plan to attack us again since 9-11? Yep!"

The most useless argument ever. It's been a little over 5 years since 9-11, no attacks. And between 1993, when the first WTC attack happened, and 9-11, it was 8 years under Clinton with no attacks. 8 years - despite the fact that we had no special laws, no erosion of our freedoms (unlike Bush), yet we managed to not get attacked and we managed to foil some plots.

The fact that we didn't get hit again in 5 years is pointless. The truth is, it's hard for any terrorist to strike us. It takes years of planning for them, even without any special precautions. So, this fantasy that what Bush does is working because we didn't get hit in 5 years is a meaningless argument. If you go there, then you have to say Bush has another 3 years to go to even equal what Clinton had done.

[marcpcbs]

frankly6

I vote that people who complain about the cost of keeping their family's safe have to pay double their share.

[frankly6]

singinrick

You are right, the world trade center was attacked on Clinton's watch and all of the perpetrators are in jail or dead.

Where's Binladen? Is he in Iraq?

Bush says "I don't know where he is.. and I really don't think about him much."

[rafterman1]

"Will they apply their own rules and raise taxes to pay for these "unfunded" recommendations?"

Don't have to. You see, you take money away from things that aren't amking us safer - like Iraq - and you put that towwards things that do make us safer - like inspecting cargo. Esay. Also, raising taxes on rich people would help.

Back in the day, the rich used to fund wars and the middle class fought them. That's the way it was, fair or unfair. Well, the midlle class still fights the wars, but now the Repubs want the middle class to fund them too. You can see the problem with that I'm sure.

[rafterman1]

"-Thank you for proving the point that Clinton had all the warning signs and did not take any action."

And that was the sound of the point going right over your head.

[rafterman1]

"but how has your life personally been affected anyhow?"

My life (and all ours) is affected in that now we know that someone could be listening in on our phone calls, pick us up on the street (and declare us an "enemy combatant") and reading our mail, without a warrant. We used to have at the very least some judge looking over the Executive's shoulder. Now, not anymore. Now, if Bush declares it, it is so. I don't know about you, but I want a president, not a king.

[rafterman1]

"LOL! :)"

Well, at least you have a sense of humor :)

"....oh wait a minute....they did attack us a couple of times....we had the warning signs!"

So did Bush. Did we forget the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" memo? Condi apparently did.

[frankly6]

When Clinton left office and the Bush administration was being briefed on national security, Condi Rice was told that Bin Laden would be "the" biggest concern in the coming months and should be the top priority. They did everything short of telling her that the house was burning down and she ignored them.

Post 9/11 Bush and co. used 9/11 as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with it. Not only did this distract us from the real enemy it has emboldened and strengthened them according to all sixteen of our intelligence agencies. According to the 9/11 commission Bush has gotten failing grades for securing the country from future terrorist attacks.

[rafterman1]

"I just said it isn't affecting my life personally."

But you don't know for sure, do you? If they open your mail, even as a "random check", you are OK with that? I'm not.

The government should not be given even the opportunity to violate civil rights. Even the temptation is too dangerous. It's the end of freedom, far more dangerous than what any terrorist can do to us.

[diverinnl]

"Don't have to. You see, you take money away from things that aren't amking us safer - like Iraq - and you put that towwards things that do make us safer - like inspecting cargo. Esay. Also, raising taxes on rich people would help."


"My life (and all ours) is affected in that now we know that someone could be listening in on our phone calls, pick us up on the street (and declare us an "enemy combatant") and reading our mail, without a warrant. We used to have at the very least some judge looking over the Executive's shoulder. Now, not anymore. Now, if Bush declares it, it is so. I don't know about you, but I want a president, not a king."


So Rafterman, the argument here is that if effects your wallet or civil liberties, it's bad. If it hurts the rich or big business, it's good? You can't have it both ways.

[frankly6]

singinrick

Our freedoms and our privacy are not given to us at the whim or good will of some government or king. They are gauranteed by the Constitution. When a President overides or violates the Constitution and then says "the law doesn't apply to me" and "trust me" it's time to be very concerned.

[rafterman1]

I never said I had a problem paying taxes if the tax money is used wisely. But I do have a problem with tax maney spent stupidly and I have a problem with unfair distribution of tax payments. Under Bush, the distribution of taxation has favored the rich. That needs to stop.

And yes, it was true we could be picked up or spied on long before Bush. And before Bush, it was ILLEGAL. Bush has been trying (and in some cases, succeeding) to make it LEGAL. A huge difference to the threat of our civil liberties.

[ssporleder]

Her facelift has given her a permanent look of surprise and she needs to go less clown and reduce those eyebrows before I can watch her on TV and take her seriously - she is comical to look at!

[frankly6]

singinrick

"People have had the capability LONG before the Bush administration to listen in on phone calls and all that stuff...this is nothing new"

You are right, they have, and they've also abused it. That's why the FISA laws were enacted. To protect people from abuse of power. They provide for national security concerns while protecting privacy and providing a paper trail and oversight.
Bush wants absolutely no oversight, no checks on his power, and above all no paper trail. That's why he's been violating FISA law.

[diverinnl]

Rafterman1, my question is this; Are the horrific logistics and adverse economics behind bottlenecking our ports worth the resolving any currents risks. The annual costs of their proposals will run in the trillions to the businesses importing goods into the US. Who will pay that cost. You and me, Joe Schmuck American. Maybe not in direct taxes but in higher costs for imported goods.

[frankly6]

singinrick

"In God we trust" doesn't protect our freedoms. The Constitution does. Read it sometime. As long as we are a nation of law, where no man is above the law, we will be protected. When your President, be he Republican or Democrat, decides he's above the law then freedom and Democracy are under threat.

[diverinnl]

Sorry singinrick, I have to agree with frankly6 on that one. God does protect your soul but not the Constitution.

[rafterman1]

"Far more dangerous than what terrorists can do to us you say???? Was 9-11-01 not enough for you??"

Did you ever hear of the old Roman saying "I would rather die free than live as a slave"?

It's ironic that Romans kept slaves, but would not be one themselves. Not unlike Bush's America huh? In other words, screaming "freedom" from the rooftops, but not practicing it is a bad way to go in life.

[rafterman1]

"Rafterman1, my question is this; Are the horrific logistics and adverse economics behind bottlenecking our ports worth the resolving any currents risks. The annual costs of their proposals will run in the trillions to the businesses importing goods into the US. Who will pay that cost. You and me, Joe Schmuck American. Maybe not in direct taxes but in higher costs for imported goods."

First of all, I don't buy the "trillions of dollars" argument. We already do inspect cargo, so the logistics are in place. We need manpower. Many need jobs and many others want better jobs. A nation of 300 million should be able to do provide that. And second, even if the cost was trillions, how many trillions are going to be spent in Iraq? In fact, forget Iraq. There is so much noney that could be saved in this country - stuff that is spent on the dumbest things, by both sodes of the aisle. Sorry Alaskans, but a 100 million dollar bridge to serve 50 people is just plain retarded. Stuff like that needs to be cut. We can do this, the system is not irrevically broke like many claim, but fiscal responsibility is needed. The Dems claim they will start doing this, but we'll see. When the silver spoon is in your mouth, it's hard to take it out.

[diverinnl]

Rafterman1, the cost for a VACIS exam on one container is just over $800.00. I know this for a fact after having to pay it in May of this year on my personal property. This cost is billed back to the importer to the Government. Try to imagine the number of containers of imported goods into the US and multiply that times $800.00. Do you really believe the importers are going to absorb that cost? No, they are going to pass it on to you and me in higher costs for the goods. Do you think the Government is going to reduce the cost to protect it's citizens from inflation? Of course not. They'll call it a surplus and claim victory. It's economics 101.

[randalds]

I am hoping that the democrats will do much more to reign in Bush's abuses of our civil rights and right to privacy. I'm sure there are some people who think these invasions into our personal lives are ok because it's just the times we live in or to prevent another 9-11. As for me I'd rather face a 100 9-11's or more, before giving up the rights our nation was founded on. Every right we willingly surrender to the government is one we're not likely to ever get back and is a slap in the face of the sacrifices many have made to fight for our freedom. We dishonor every person who has died in our past who gave us and protected these rights, every time we give one up out of this silly fear of terrorism.

[diverinnl]

This cost is billed back to the importer to the Government.

Should have read:

This cost is billed back to the importer and paid to the Government.

Sorry for the confusion!

[diverinnl]

singinrick, those are very good arguments for protecting our national traditions but really have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Maybe I'm just missing your point?

[randalds]

The lack of basic civics classes in our schools has helped lead to this problem. It's amazing how few people actually understand how our government is supposed to function. Few of them understand what's in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights. Many people actually believe that the president has some extraordinary powers that don't actually exist. Nixon once famously said the if the president does it, it's legal. He found out he was wrong. That no man is above the law, not even the president and in fact no man should ever be under any circumstances. It's far past time this president and his fear-mongering supporters find this out too.

[rafterman1]

"the cost for a VACIS exam on one container is just over $800.00."

But does it have to be that much? Probably not, no more than a plumber "has" to charge $100 just to walk in the door. But we as a country are so used to price gouging that we just accept it. As I said, it won't work unless a lot of things change. Maybe it is undoable, I don't know. But at least someone is looking into it now, debating it.

[rafterman1]

"and if anyone thinks the Q'uran speaks of love and kindness towards others, I suggest you read up."

Yeah, but the Bible isn't exactly a lovefest either. In fact, the Bible is an extraordinarily violent book that occasionally manages to sneak in a good lesson here and there.

[randalds]

This isn't just for "show" this is because our country realizes that only God's laws are above man's laws and that God's word is the Truth. Why else would we be swearing in on the Bible? This is not only used in courts of law either.
Posted by singinrick at 12:47 PM : Jan 09, 2007

A witness is not required to swear to god though. An alternate affirmation that doesn't mention god or use the bible is available for anyone who chooses to use it.

[diverinnl]

Rafterman1, Should it be $800.00, I sure in the heck didn't think so when I paid the bill! LOL!

I agree that it should be looked into and discussed but 100%, across the board examinations are not realistic.

[random_radar]

Some examples of presidents with concerns about religious tolerance:

Franklin Pierce affirmed his oath of office with his hand on a law book.

Theodore Roosevelt took the oath of office with his hand on nothing at all.

Franklin Pierce, John Tyler, and Herbert Hoover all chose to affirm rather than swear the oath of office.

There is nothing special about using a Bible, but the book used does have symbolic significance that may please or offend.

I personally agree with the presidents who recognized that it is better to avoid offence because they represent all Americans, but then I am sure there were people offended that they didn't show allegiance to a particular sect.

[randalds]

Yeah, but the Bible isn't exactly a lovefest either. In fact, the Bible is an extraordinarily violent book that occasionally manages to sneak in a good lesson here and there.

Posted by Rafterman1 at 12:51 PM : Jan 09, 2007

Lot's of hot *** and even incest in there too.

[bluestardad]

Unless someone is cutting a goats head off on the white house lawn this religious thing is a mute point!

[Renegade.Rivers]

Well so much for hope of better government with the election of a bunch of Democrats that get their campaign financing from the same interest that the Republicans do, and believe in the same ideologies. This terrorist scam is the biggest scam that has ever been brought upon the American public. History will prove that half or more of these so-called terrorist organizations exist with favor of, and either are, or have been financed by the CIA, and other covert organizations within our own government. There would be no large terrorist threat, had we not supported groups like the Jihadist in Afghanistan, and other countries around the world, in favor of them over the communist.

As for terrorist strikes in this country, there have been few if any. It is my firm belief that 9/11 was an inside job, and that our own government was heavily involved. Moreover, anyone that is stupid enough to believe that you are gaining safety by giving up your freedoms, is only buying a "pig-in-a-poke." If not for yourselves, then for the sake of your children and your grandchildren you better rethink these things. What if your "Savior" don't come, and there is another 1000 years to go, would you want them to have given up their freedoms for mistakes you are making now?

Enough said.

[randalds]

Sorry you disagree rick, but my rights are infinitely more important to me then my life (or anyone eleses for that matter) itself, which is why I served in the Air Force in the first place. I have no fear of terrorism at all or even of dying defending my nation, but I am terrified that someone might get away with stealing my rights. That I won't allow. Ever.

[frankly6]

singinrick

What are you talking about? How do you go from having a conversation about the President violating the law. To God this and God that...? Bush is not God. You do realise that don't you?

[frankly6]

singinrick

When you can't argue the facts at hand you go straight to Bible thumpin' whether it has anything to do with the conversation or not. You come across as mentaly ill. Have you ever been on anti-psychotic drugs?