House-Senate Disagreement Could Halt Defense Bill

MadJack

Administrator
Staff member
Forum Admin
Super Moderators
Channel Owner
Jul 13, 1999
105,228
1,625
113
70
home
:com: what a muckin fess



By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 25, 2006; Page A06

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.


U.S. Congress

Browse every vote in the U.S. Congress since 1991.

? Congress 109, House vote: Vote 470: S 2832
? Congress 109, House vote: Vote 469: H R 4830
? Congress 109, House vote: Vote 468: H R 6095
? EXPLORE THE DATABASE

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Copeland Institute for Lower Learning
MyDD :: Direct Democracy for People-Powered Politics


Full List of Blogs (2 links) ?


Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web


Save & Share
Tag This Article


Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Byline

2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb

3. Tag This Article

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.

It would allow the indefinite detention of some illegal immigrants who are protected from deportation by political asylum laws. That provision has garnered interest in the Washington area, with its large community from El Salvador and violence among Salvadoran gangs. The bill also would expedite the removal of immigrant criminals, denying them some court access, and would broaden the definitions of gang violence to facilitate detention and deportation.

Senate Democrats and the American Civil Liberties Union have said the measure would expand such definitions so broadly that it could hurt legal immigrants, who would be whisked out of the country with little recourse. Warner has deferred to Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Carl M. Levin (Mich.), the Armed Services Committee's ranking Democrat, in refusing to accept the package on the defense policy bill. With only a week left before Congress recesses for the fall campaigns, a showdown could jeopardize the measure's passage.

"The speaker is not going to let the bill move until these critical security items get in," said Ron Bonjean, Hastert's spokesman.

House GOP aides are urging Durbin to bring Senate Democrats into line on the issue. But Durbin spokesman Joe Shoemaker said the Senate minority whip is feeling no real pressure. The addition of the concealed-weapons provision has soured Durbin on the court security bill, and the immigration bill is garnering strong Democratic opposition, he said.
 

ImFeklhr

Raconteur
Forum Member
Oct 3, 2005
4,585
129
0
San Francisco
And, that doesn't even mention Internet Gaming.

Can they ever just pass a bill that covers one topic?

Ridiculous :nono: :nono:
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
And, that doesn't even mention Internet Gaming.

Can they ever just pass a bill that covers one topic?

Ridiculous :nono: :nono:

Nah that would be to simple. They like putting in these little things that are basically corruption and then if you don't vote on it they go after you during an election about the bills topic. The typical american just thinks its a bill about one thing and falls for this deception every election year.
 

REBEL YELL

Registered User
Forum Member
Oct 22, 2000
198
0
16
Mississippi
from another site.

"We reported it a week ago and are happy to confirm today that it is true. NROG received confirmation TODAY (9/25) that there is NO gambling legislation in the DOD bill and Sen Frist has no intention of acting on this legislation before elections. A source very close to Frist also told NROG today that the Senator may attempt to try something during the lame duck session but "..it doesn't look like this bill is going anywhere this year."

Press release here: http://www.saveonlinegaming.com/news...IST_092506.doc

We urge you all to join our fight today. Thousands of you have done so already but if we need to march into battle this November to stop Congress agian we will need tens of thousands more. NROG pledges to finally take this issue to the American people using mass media. We now have some time...please join us. www.saveonlinegaming.com"


Jay Bailey
National Right for Online Gaming (NROG)
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top