Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-terrorism bill stalled by House-Senate disputes
The Hill ^ | Friday October 19, 2001 | By Melanie Fonder and Noelle Straub

Posted on 10/19/2001 1:33:18 PM PDT by Sparticle

Tense negotiations between the House and Senate over money laundering and a time limit for anti-terrorism powers have slowed one of the administration’s top priorities since the terrorist attacks.

President Bush has urged Congress to send him the final bill by the end of the week. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said Tuesday that the Senate was prepared to go to conference with the House, but that a bill without the money laundering provision was “just something we cannot accept.”

The House, meanwhile, will take up a freestanding money laundering bill later this week.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the lone vote against the Senate’s anti-terrorist bill because of concerns over civil liberties infringements, criticized the fact that conferees had yet to be named.

“I am stunned to hear that there is some resistance to naming conferees,” Feingold said. “I thought last week that the argument that was used” against his offering amendments “was that this had to be done urgently. So what’s all this talk about how urgent it was when we can’t even have a conference committee?”

The Senate version contains the money laundering provision, while the House bill does not. Also being debated is the sunset provision — providing a five-year limit on the expanded anti-terrorism powers — which was passed by the Senate but not the House.

But most lawmakers still expect the bill to move rapidly to President Bush’s desk. A meeting was held at the White House Tuesday morning and another in the Capitol at the staff level to try and iron out the variations between the House and Senate version.

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) also said Tuesday that it remained unclear whether there would be a “full-blown” conference committee.

“I don’t think the House has a problem with money laundering being done. I think they had not had as much time working on it, had not had a chance to come up with their version of it, and I think they’re in the process of coming to grips with where they want to be with money laundering,” Lott said.

Several other senators predicted that public knowledge of the bill’s provisions could help sway conferees to limit the time period the rules are in effect.

Sen. Jon Corzine (D-N.J.), who supported Feingold’s three amendments, said that the lack of a sunset provision in the Senate bill was worrisome.

Corzine said the more informed the public became on the bill’s scope, the more likely his colleagues would be to amending the bill in a conference committee. “If they knew all of the elements of the bill and some of the potential for infringement … I think there would be more concern,” Corzine said. “We all want to give law enforcement enough tools to go after terrorists, but I think there are some items here that are too far-reaching and are undermining our civil liberties.

“If there isn’t a legitimate sunset, I’m going to have some real trouble supporting the bill,” Corzine said. “I think we need to give law enforcement the authority to do things they need to do, but this is an imperfect piece of legislation.”

Feingold, who is chairman of the Judiciary Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights Subcommittee, said, regarding a sunset provision, while it would “be better than nothing,” he expected court challenges of several of the final bill’s provisions.

“To me the idea of sunsetting what are possible or likely constitutional violations is not much comfort to those who were violated during the five years,” Feingold said. “I can think of how the Japanese-Americans [in camps in World War II] would feel if they sunsetted that sort of violation.”

But because the House leadership ditched a bipartisan committee bill in favor of a leadership bill similar to the Senate bill, most see the sunset provision as the only viable possibility to protect civil liberties at all in the final bill.

Three other senators who voted for all of Feingold’s amendments — Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.) — echoed the same sentiments.

Wellstone, who said a sunset provision was “critical,” said he expected several House members and Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) to curb some of the “potential abuses” in the bill.

“I’m hoping that it will be a better bill coming out of conference,” Wellstone said, and added that there was a danger of not protecting people’s lives by giving law enforcement expanded powers. “The other danger is that it’s too excessive and there will be an abuse of power by government, but there at least you can go back and change it.”

Cantwell said she recommended a review process be put in place, even for classified information, “so that we could go back and see how these new powers were being used.”

Conservatives have also strongly condemned the measure. Conservative Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, in a commentary, complimented liberal Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), who criticized the leadership’s handling of the bill. Weyrich said: “Veteran U.S. Rep. David Obey … echoed the sentiment of many of us when he sighed and said, ‘After all, it’s only the Constitution.’”

Weyrich went on to criticize the Senate for capitulation to the Bush administration’s requests and the House for replacing a “more reasonable” committee bill with one from the leadership.

“I have the distinct belief that one day in the not-too-distant future we will look back on this piece of hastily drawn and ill-considered 250-plus page piece of legislation (which almost no on has read) and we will exclaim: ‘Good Lord, what have we done? What has happened to the American way of life?’”

And the American Civil Liberties Union, which worked closely with Feingold on his opposition amendments, said they were “bitterly disappointed” with both the Senate and House bills.

The Center for Technology and Democracy is also working with the senators to get “at a minimum” the sunset provision, Cantwell said.

“There would be other things I would change, but I think that’s the key thing that I think people are rallying around right now within the scope of this that would give us some protection,” Cantwell said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 10/19/2001 1:33:19 PM PDT by Sparticle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sparticle
bump
2 posted on 10/19/2001 1:40:02 PM PDT by Free the USA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparticle
This stuff should have been passed a long time ago, when first suggested by the Hart-Rudman report on terrorism. Guess who advised Congress, back in May, to put this stuff on the backburner so Dick Cheney could look into it further? Yep, it was W, in what, in retrospect, was perhaps his worst decision thus far into his presidency.

We told you so...
3 posted on 10/19/2001 2:02:38 PM PDT by FreeYourMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparticle
Once again, please notice that it is LIBERALS (Corzine, Obey, Daschle, Cantwell, Wellstone, etc.) who are standing up for your Constitutional rights, while it is CONSERVATIVES (Bush, Ashcroft, Lott, DeLay, etc.) who want to take them away. The only conservative mentioned in this piece isn't even a Congressman. The reason for that is that very few conservatives dare speak out against a Bush proposal, and also because very, very few conservatives have any real trouble with the idea of an all-powerful government with its own secret police. In fact, that's just fine with them -- it's exactly what they want -- so long as only they get to be in charge.

If you like peace and freedom, you better hang around with people who will stand up to defend them. Which is liberals.

4 posted on 10/19/2001 2:10:46 PM PDT by Hidy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hidy
"If you like peace and freedom, you better hang around with people who will stand up to defend them. Which is liberals."

How is that cop that got run over by Hillary at the airport checkpoint the other day?

5 posted on 10/19/2001 2:44:40 PM PDT by bjs1779
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FreeYourMind
You should read the bill....America as you know will end the day Bush signs this bill.....it has nothing to do with terrorism....because my friend....you will become the terrorist!
6 posted on 10/19/2001 2:51:04 PM PDT by robnoel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sparticle
Is there anybody left in Washington who puts the health, liberty, and welfare of the common man ahead of requests from big business lobbyists, special interest groups, minority rights activists, foreign interests, and religious extremists? This is not a condemnation of one political party or the other, this is just a sentiment I've been feeling a lot lately. I guess maybe I just expected more from Bush, after the long Clinton years, and am feeling a little at odds with the direction he seems to be moving in (which seems to be that big business is the key to America's success, everyone and everything else should just wait until the money and favoritism being thrown their way trickles down).
7 posted on 10/19/2001 3:21:15 PM PDT by FreeYourMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreeYourMind
“To me the idea of sunsetting what are possible or likely constitutional violations is not much comfort to those who were violated during the five years,” Feingold said

The Sunset is to moot the issue for the Supreme court, I think Corzine is afraid of what they may do with it.

8 posted on 10/19/2001 4:00:52 PM PDT by Sparticle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sparticle
I read that additions to the bill included such things as eliminating internet gambling by disallowing financial institutions operating in the US to accept money from gambling establishments. The gambling lobby is very strong.
9 posted on 10/19/2001 4:03:36 PM PDT by DallasDeb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson