House-Senate Disagreement Could Halt Defense Bill

[cal04]

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) -- in a showdown with Senate Republicans -- has vowed he will not bring a major defense policy bill to the chamber floor this week unless Senate negotiators add a federal court security bill and a controversial House anti-illegal-immigration measure, senior House leadership aides say.

The last-minute confrontation is pitting the House's most powerful member against Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), who has said he will not add extraneous measures to the annual defense authorization bill unless they can garner unanimous support from Democrats and Republicans alike. House leadership aides are emphasizing the court measure, which would bolster the protection of judges in the aftermath of the shooting of a judge in Atlanta and the killing of a judge's family in Chicago.

The court measure has bipartisan support and is being pushed by Hastert and Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Senate Democratic leadership's second in command. It authorizes additional funding for U.S. marshals to protect the judiciary, increases penalties for crimes against federal judges, bolsters protections for jurors, and funds security enhancements at state courthouses. Those provisions were included in the Senate's version of the defense policy bill at Democrats' insistence. But support for the measure has begun to fray after House members added a provision that would allow judges to carry concealed weapons.

The real controversy, however, lies with the immigration measure and Hastert's insistence that Warner accept both provisions as a package. The Community Protection Act passed in the House overwhelmingly last week, 328 to 95, but it has garnered opposition from Latino organizations and civil liberties groups.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400861.html

[Straight Shooter]

1. Community Protection Act?

Gawd, enough with the ridiculous labels already. :eyes:

[bemildred]

2. Dems should tell these weasels to bugger off.

Extortion and blackmail are not sound bases for policy decisions.

[ECH1969]

3. House leaders stall defense bill action

House leaders are holding up action on a major defense bill, demanding that unrelated measures on immigration and court security be attached.

The demand leaves uncertain whether Congress will pass the bill - which authorizes military pay raises, weapons spending and research programs considered vital to national security - before the budget year starts on Oct. 1. Lawmakers are in a last-minute crush to pass several top-priority bills before leaving at the end of the week to campaign for the Nov. 7 midterm elections.

The House and Senate last week were nearing a deal on the 2007 defense bill when House Speaker Dennis Hastert decided it should become a vehicle for the immigration and court security legislation.

Hastert, R-Ill., wants to attach the Senate's anti-gang provisions to the defense bill, along with a separate proposal boosting protection of judges after the family of a federal judge was killed in Chicago. According to Hastert's spokesman, Senate Republican leaders had promised to help pass the court-security legislation before Congress leaves town.

http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/politics/15608407.htm

[lyonn]

4. How about Congress stay in session for a few more weeks

They apparently have lots more work to do. Right, campaigning is much more important. Their vacation time is unbelievable and their working hours per day seem nice too. It must be all those cabinet and committee meetings they attend.

[pinto]

5. Damn I hate these tack ons. Sometimes I can see the politics of it all,

but geez. Every legislation seems to have an unrelated set of bills attached for a coattail ride. It just bugs me, regardless which side of the aisle it comes from. To be fair, though, it's the majority party, the Republican party, that is able to use the tactic routinely - they have the votes and they employ them often. But, I don't see any other organization, public or private, that would consider this good operational practice. Either something proposed has merit or it doesn't. Seems pretty straight forward to me.

(aside) The political upshot of the practice is, of course, slamming someone for a vote that had nothing at all to do with the purported measure at hand, but was cast due to one of these riders. Kerry got smeared numerous times in this kind of situation on defense appropriations.

[w4rma]

6. I think Dems ought to just let this bill through. It doesn't do a great

deal of damage from what I can tell. This waste of a few billion dollars on a fence is no big deal. Maybe if they build the fence and notice that the illegals keep crossing more folks will be open to looking at the real reason they are coming over and these folks will be open to an actual honest debate.