PSI is a voluntary, multi-national, bilateral program established by the Administration to combat the smuggling of dangerous and banned weapons, technologies, and materials. Incredibly, the bill proposes that PSI be approved by the United Nations. While the 9/11 Commission did propose that the U.S. seek greater international cooperation in the war on terrorism, it did not recommend that the U.S. and other free nations outsource their responsibilities to the U.N. or other international bodies. PSI is perfectly legitimate under existing U.S. laws and treaties and does not require U.N. sanction.I wonder how fully the scope and likely consequences of this feel good piece of legislation was understood by the folks who had a little over six hours to consider and then vote on it.
Hey, if it feels good (and if it makes swing voters think that we're being more diplomatic) do it.
14 comments:
The bill was introduced on the 5th, and voted on Jan 9th. Which means the Reps (or more likely their aides) had more than 6 hours to read the legislation. However, if items fell through the cracks, the Senate is there to catch them. So if Republicans want to offer amendments, they can in the Senate, and then the revised Bill will be sent back to the House.
Well then, it's all worked out!
But seriously, being filed on Friday by 5 pm, along with 200 (I'm guessing) other "H.R.s" (and don't forget the National Title game to watch) hardly allows for careful deliberation. Much less amendments.
This 100-hour gag (from my perception) seems too dependent on friendly Liberal characterizations and sympathetic presumptions that some other "deliberative body" will do the right thing.
Contra, the GOP First 100 Days.
I'm not saying that the Senate will do the "right" thing, because I'm not sure the Bill isn't good as it already is. However, the Senate has historically been the more deliberative body, as the ability to have a good debate in the House is limited by the shear size of it.
I agree that their plans of pushing through a legislative agenda in the first 100 "working" hours was probably a bad idea, after all, they've been out of power for 12 years, it might take a little time to get back into the swing of things.
That being said, the Democrats haven't hid their agenda, they ran on it. They said they were going to implement the 9/11 recommendations, and so they introduced a bill doing so. Of course, the recommendations weren't written in Bill form, so they had to translate it over to legislative form.
The real test for the Democrats will be, what happens in conference, if the House bill is altered in the Senate. Will Democrats follow in the footsteps of Republicans and make hundreds of last minute changes without a vote? Will they backdoor millions of dollars in Pork? That is what I'm waiting to see, not whether they give the Republicans enough camera time on C-span.
Yes, that will be interesting to see. But not really I guess, they'll surely be on their best behavior given the attention to them right now and given the existence of watchdogs like you and me.;)
And, frankly, I hesitate to agree that they "ran on their agenda"; much less that because they may have done so they don't have to hold hearings or debate before passing said "agenda" under some purported mandate.
They ran on passing the 9/11 Recommendations, they ran on raising the minimum wage, they ran on ethics reforms. It was no secret what they would be pushing, so this should not come as a shock to Republicans.
I personally think that Senate hearings and debate is often more fruitful than House debate. Besides, the two sides have been debating the issues surrounding these bills for years, nothing new would have come about if the Democrats had held hearings on the Minimum Wage, and the 9/11 recommendations have been available at your local bookstore for quite some time now.
Once we get past the fixing of years of bad Republican leadership, and move onto new unchartered territory, than the House can bottle up legislation in the committees for months, but Democrats needed to show they were going to do something, and passing legislation is the only way to go about it.
Come on Sean. They ran on "Republicans don't care about the middle class or blue collar guy"; "Republicans haven't made us safer"; "Republicans let Foley IM boys"; "Republicans take money from Lobbyists." As a result, we should allow 100-page bills to be passed without debate and glibly assume that Senate might do its job?
And I thought about saying above, that by "the right thing" I didn't mean "right" as far as legislation, I meant "right" as far as the process. Which, by the way is an ideological value which distinguishes most Conservatives from most Liberals.
History will remember the 100 hour agenda. History will also remember that during a summer of unprecedented violence in Iraq, people homeless in New Orleans a year after Katrina... the GOP spent a week debating flag burning and gay marriage. Hoes that for an agenda?
Anonymous,
Yikes if you think the uninspired, glam-packaged 100Hour-agenda is the stuff of history.
Don't force me to get all tough-lovey on Katrina victims.
But, while I agree that banning flag burning is a questionable issue, certainly Americans disagreed with obstructionist Democrat minorities on the subject of homosexual "marriage" and said minorities didn't have the right not to have their flawed views exposed.
Flawed Views?
That's funny coming from a Bush supporter. Any mass-murderer who says he an "anti-abortion christian" is ok with you.
Same 3 words
Down
Down
Down
Ouch. Great zinger. You forgot to say he is a "liar."
But it's to his credit that he doesn't run a focus group before making every decision, don't you think?
"But, while I agree that banning flag burning is a questionable issue, certainly Americans disagreed with obstructionist Democrat minorities on the subject of homosexual "marriage" and said minorities didn't have the right not to have their flawed views exposed."
I don't recall any poll which showed a great majority of Americans clamoring for a Federal Amendment banning gay marriage. It's unnecessary, and most reasonable people realize this.
Anyone who supports a lying war criminal just because he claims to be a pro-life christian ... that my friends are the type of easily manipulated people that create cults. The Bush cult.
Another excellent article on the type of people that make up the Bush cult. People like Mr. Williams.
Bushating is a lot bigger cult than the one I belong to.
Oh, and disagreeing with a Liberal doesn't constitute a war crime.
Well, I just read your linked article and it's just insanity. It's bushatred. I don't think Bush is appointed by God, but I don't think that he is Satan's spawn or a murderer or a war criminal or a malevolent liar or a warmonger or . . . He's also not the most competent president we've ever had, but he is not an idiot and the fact that he doesn't do what a bunch of Liberal hand-wringers thinks is smart only endears him to the overwhelming majority of Americans who also tire of said Liberals.
He has resolve, he's magnanimous (though too much so for my taste), and he has a businessman's pragmatism which is more constructive than an ideologue is likely to be.
Look around, think about what YOU're saying--I sympathize with your situation, because I was tempted to rant when Bubba was in office, but you're just making an ass of yourself, and only your lttle uberLiberal buddies believe what you're saying or want to hear it.
Ranting/hectoring from people like you is getting on my nerves.
Post a Comment