I'm somewhat surprised this topic hasn't come up here in AD, it's been dominating the national political debate for the past week. In any case, just a brief background, there was a Intelligence Bill placed before Congress that would implement some of the suggestions of the 9/11 commission for the overhaul of the US Intelligence community. Among other things, it would create a post of "National Intelligence Director" to oversee all the intel operations of the US government. Two versions of this bill were passed, one in the House and one in the Senate and as is the procedure, a conference committee was created to resolve the differences between the two and that bill then sent back to each house of Congress for a final vote and then forwarded to the President for his signature. President Bush supported the conference bill and indicated that he would sign it, then a problem erupted.

A BIG problem and this is where it gets interesting and what I'd really like to debate here. Two very powerful and respected Republican Congressmen, James Sensenbrenner and Duncan Hunter, both committee chairmen objected to the conference version of the bill and refused to support it. There were enough votes between Republicans and Democrats in the House to pass it, but wisely, Dennis Hastert refused to bring it to the floor over Hunter and Sensenbrenner's objections. Wise move on Hastert's part because these two guys are not people you want to mess with in Congress, not if you want to remain Speaker. Hunter's objections concerned some provisions in the bill that he thought might hamper the ability of our armed forces in the battlefield from getting timely intelligence and his concerns were soon voiced by Senator John Warner - Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee as well. Sensenbrenner's objections centered around some immigration policies in the bill. Despite Bush's lobbying efforts, the bill appeared doomed until an agreement was worked out with Hunter.



Sensenbrenner still isn't thrilled and we may see some things from him in the next few months, but it now appears that the bill is going to pass. We can talk about that in another thread though. But what I'd like to debate here is the political process that just played out. We have a Republican President fresh from re-election, an increasing (after the first of the year) majority of Republicans in both the House and Senate and the very first big bill that comes along following the November election, supported by the President is blocked in Congress by Republicans! What's going on here? So much for a "rubber-stamp Congress".

Personally, I agree with Sensenbrenner, Hunter and Warner for voicing what I think are legitimate concerns over this bill, and I'm glad they stood up to the pressure from the White House and forced a re-consideration of some of the provisions in it. It seems to me that that's what they were elected to do.

My questions for debate for the rest of you are....

1. For those who opposed Bush's re-election, does this recent episode ease your fears of a lack of checks and balances in the Federal government given the Republican control of congress and the White House?

2. For those who supported Bush's re-election, does this recent episode disappoint you and cause you to question whether Bush will be an effective second term President?

Edited to add this link to a CNN article detailing Duncan Hunter's objections to the bill.

2. For those who supported Bush's re-election, does this recent episode disappoint you and cause you to question whether Bush will be an effective second term President?

I see Bush doing this for two reasons.

One stems from the fact that President Fox from Mexico is the first democratically elected president of Mexico in over seventy years. He is also the first president not of the PRI Party. This is a positive sign, yet he seems to be a lame duck president only trying to get one thing through, which is an open border with America. The belief that an open border with America will allow the poor of Mexico to earn enough money not to be corruptible. Like that could even happen. Secondly with an open door more Mexicans will be able to come to America offering more opportunity to not be placed in a corrupted system. Yet Fox was unable to stop the election of the new Mayor of Tijuana; a degenerate gambler and owner of race tracks who has two bodyguards sitting in jail for the assassination of a journalist who wrote unfavorable about the new mayor. President Fox has nothing but give birth to a new PRI determined to regain control of Mexico.

Second stems from the wealthy corporations need for a cheap labor force; completely self explanatory.

I believe that Bush will not get the required votes out of the House without the language that excludes driver license for illegals. This should be something most Democrats should support. Kerry advocating taking the 9/11 Commissions and applying it. The 9/11 Commissions report urged against driver's license for illegal immigrants. The job then of the Democratic Party along with border states is to vote against this Senate Intelligents Bill and push for the House Intelligents Bill.

No, it does nothing to change my opinion about the situation. The 9/11 commission's policy suggestions carried heavy political power and bipartisian support, both Kerry and Bush agreed that they would implement them.

But like any large bill there's always the motivation for both sides to try and squeeze in amendments which by themselves would not pass. It was an attempt to link illegal immigration with terrorism. Of course since this was a high profile piece of legislation a spotlight was shown on these riders and the usually secretive conference committee was played out in public.

A real test would be Bush's plan for social security since its a highly polarizing issue. Democrats oppose it and I'm sure there are Republicans who worry about having to fund it by borrowing at least a trillion dollars. If Bush is able to get that policy passed then fears of Congress being a rubber stamp would be realized.

The 9/11 Commission report does discuss changes to America's handling of illegal immigration. This was not some sort of added bonus, but rather following the 9/11 commissions report to the full letter, including following the recommendations of removal of driver's license for illegal immigrants (since the hyjackers had driver's licenses and used them as ID to get onto the planes), and changes to asylum seekers that if their country of origin claims them to be a terrorist (which the hyjackers were) then they cannot seek asylum in the US. This seems pretty cut and dry. We cannot blanket the illiegal immigrations as another issue tacked onto the the bill to improve intelligence based on the 9/11 Commissions Report, becuase these hyjackers had illegal immigrated into the US by overstaying their visas. We should not give multiple chance to remain in the US for people who break the law entering the country.