Capitol News

November 2001

 

LEGISLATING IN TERRORISM’S WAKE

            In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, Congress has been consumed with passing laws to address the new reality of living with the threat of imminent terrorist attacks while trying to accomplish the pre-attack legislative agenda.  While the focus has been on Anti-terrorism and Economic Stimulus legislation, in a vote of 420-0, the House passed the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2001, sponsors are working to bring Election Reform legislation to a floor vote in the Senate and in the House,   Congressman John McHugh is circulating a draft of his new Postal Reform bill.

            Understandably, the focus has been on how to effectively find out about and stop other acts of terrorism, which a representative of the FBI cautioned as having a “100 percent chance” of occurring in the near future.  Coupled with the threat to personal safety an economic downturn.  Even before the attacks, economists were predicting that the economy was moving towards a recession.  The terrorists’ attacks have accelerated that downturn.  Economic hardship is especially acute in cities such as New York City and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, which where directly attacked on September 11th.  And nationwide, it is rare to find a corporation having financial difficulties that does not attribute the hardship to the terrorist attack and the threat of more attacks.  Given the need to act quickly to protect citizens against terrorism and avert a recession, Congress, with the urging of the White House, has already passed Anti-terrorism legislation and is moving rapidly toward the passage of economic stimulus legislation.  Despite calls for bipartisan action, the process has broken down along party lines with party ideology predominating.

Anti-terrorism legislation

             Just a month after the attacks, on October 11th, after defeating an amendment by Jean Carnahan (D-MO) to expand unemployment benefits and 12 months of health insurance premiums for airline workers, the Senate unanimously passed legislation federalizing security in the nation’s airports.  The legislation mandates a 28,000-workforce of passenger and baggage screeners under the direction of the Department of Justice, the x-ray of all checked baggage, and the re-enforcing of cockpit doors. 

The very next day, the Senate passed the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (S.1510).  Based on proposals by Attorney General John Ashcroft, the USA legislation encompasses non-controversial provisions such as more stringent criminal penalties for terrorism and more security along the U.S.-Canada border to controversial provisions that raise civil liberty concerns such as allowing “roving wiretaps” of individuals under investigation and permitting law enforcement agencies to share grand jury and wiretap information with intelligence agencies.  The Senate bill was passed after an amendment to examine civil liberty implications introduced by Russ Feingold, (D-WI) was defeated.  The vote was 96-1 with Feingold expressing his displeasure at the process.

            One of the aspects of the USA bill that bothers not only Feingold but also civil libertarians is the lack of a sunset clause.  As the bill contains provisions long sought by prosecutors but before September 11th, generally rejected as unlikely to withstand constitutional muster, civil libertarians sought to put a limit on these provisions that most invaded citizen’s privacy.  For, while citizens may be willing today to give up privacy rights in exchange for a heighten sense of security, will they be willing to do so when the treat is no longer immediate?  And if not?  Without a sunset clause, more legislation will be needed to reassert privacy rights.  The Bush Administration’s argument that the war on terrorism is likely to last years found willing ears in the Senate.  Some Senators voted for the legislation with the expectation that the House would impose a sunset clause and the matter will be settled in conference.

At first, it appeared that the House would take a stricter line about safeguarding civil liberties.  However, after the Senate’s bill passed, and with increased pressure from the White House, House Republican leaders scrapped its bipartisan bill, the Patriot Act, H.R. 2975, which had been unanimously voted out of the Judiciary Committee and adopted the Senate bill.  The bill was presented to House members with little, if any, opportunity for debate.  Despite vociferous objections from Democrats, the House adopted most of the provisions of the Senate bill with two significant differences with a vote of 337-79.  While the Senate did not adopt a sunset clause, the House did.  The House gave the bill a limit of three years, with the possibility of renewal for two more years, in effect, a five-year life span.  Also, the House did not adopt the money laundering provisions of the Senate bill.  Senate Majority leader, Tom Daschle (D-SD) has suggested that Senate Democrats will insist on the money laundering provision be included during the conference: “You can’t deal with counterterrorism if you don’t deal with money-laundering, and so to divorce the two is preposterous.”

            Therefore, even though both houses of Congress have acted with great speed to pass anti-terrorism legislation, more work remains before President Bush can sign the legislation into law as the House and Senate versions must be reconciled.

Economic Stimulus Legislation

            While both Democrats and Republicans agree that economic stimulation is necessary.  They differ greatly on the form it should take.  The different approaches reflect the ideological differences of the parties.  The conflict is essentially one of tax cuts versus spending on programs.  The Republicans want to focus primarily on permanent tax cuts, rejecting significant spending.  The Democrats want a combination of temporary tax cuts and spending on programs to assist those most affected by the terrorist attacks and the downturn.  Then there is the disagreement about the cost of the economic plan.   The Democrats want to cap the plan at $75 billion over the next ten years.  The Republican plan can go as much as $100 billion.

            The Republican Majority in the House has introduced a $99.5 billion package with permanent and individual tax cuts and $12 billion in block grants and payments to the states.  The Democrats plan to introduce amendments. On the Senate side, Daschle is calling for a balance between taxes and spending with tax cuts going to those with low income that did not benefit from the last tax cut.

            Like the anti-terrorism bill, it is likely that a vote in the House will be largely along party lines on the GOP-proposed stimulus plan in that chamber.  So, it will be up to the Democrats in the Senate to push their agenda of aid to displaced workers, extended health benefits and increased infrastructure spending.  Even at a time which calls for unity and bipartisanship, ideological differences predominate the legislative agenda. One can only hope that when the dust settles we have not given away too much in terms of our civil liberties and tax cuts to the wealthy.