 | |
| |
TechnologyDaily Mobile
PATRIOT Act Rewrite Unites Groups
by Greta Wodele
When House and Senate lawmakers meet in November to discuss the anti-terrorism law known as the USA PATRIOT Act, they face tough negotiations over controversial provisions that have sparked fierce debates about expanding the FBI's surveillance tools without jeopardizing privacy rights and civil liberties.
There is mounting political pressure from the White House for conferees to accept the House proposal, while civil liberties groups back the Senate version. House-Senate conferees will need to draft a compromise proposal before several provisions of the 2002 law expire in December.
Adding to their workload is another contentious proposal to redo the grant funding formula for the nation's emergency first responders. House conferees want to include the provision in the final PATRIOT Act conference agreement. Senate conferees are split on the issue, according to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Along with other members of the New York delegation, Schumer is pushing for Senate conferees to include the funding formula language.
'First Responder' Feud Makes New Bedfellows
The proposal could become a broker chip for Senate conferees who want their House colleagues to accept their surveillance provisions and drop others.
"On the one hand, we would prefer a narrow bill that left off ... extraneous issues," said Tim Edgar, the American Civil Liberties Union's counsel on national security policy, referring to the first-responder language. "On the other hand, if the Senate needs to yield, we'd prefer they accept [the first responder legislation] rather than other surveillance items."
Edgar added that the ACLU, which has teamed up with numerous privacy and civil rights groups on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill, supports plans like the first responder formula proposal that "would make us safer" by directing funding to the most vulnerable cities and states "without sacrificing our civil liberties."
The USA PATRIOT Act was enacted shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Sixteen provisions of the law are set to expire by the end of this year. The House bill includes some restrictions to the FBI concerning the rights of federal agents to search library and medical records in investigations and to use "roving wiretaps" that focus on suspects rather than particular locations. The Senate version has tighter requirements for seizing records.
Funding Formula Stirs Controversy
The original PATRIOT Act included language to establish first responder grants for fire fighters, police officers and other emergency personnel to prepare, prevent and respond to a terrorist attack. Lawmakers decided to give each state 0.75 percent of the billions of dollars in funding and dole out the remaining funding on the basis of population and population density. The formula resulted in states like Wyoming receiving more money per capita than New York. Critics complained that evidence from the terrorist attacks shows terrorists seek to strike areas that would cause a larger economic and human toll.
Since 2002, urban lawmakers have tried numerous times to direct more money toward their cities and states, but rural lawmakers repeatedly have blocked their efforts. New Yorkers and other urban legislators finally scored a victory this year. In May, the House overwhelmingly approved legislation that would revamp the funding formula. Two months later, lawmakers attached the proposal to the House version of the PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill.
"The House is going to fight vigorously for this provision and expects to be included in the final PATRIOT Act conference report," said a spokesman for House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., recently.
Urban panel members must overcome strong opposition from rural senators. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., are adamantly against attaching the first responder language to the PATRIOT Act. Collins and Lieberman sent a letter to the Senate negotiators of the measure urging them to drop the House proposal from the final agreement and allow her to proceed with her bill by regular order.
Collins' provision, which captured more than 70 votes, would lower the current minimum of 0.75 percent for each state to 0.55 percent with a sliding scale up to 3 percent for larger states. The House proposal would lower the minimum percentage to 0.25 percent and 0.45 percent for certain border states.
Collins' bill was included in the Senate's fiscal 2006 spending measure for the Homeland Security Department in July, but later dropped in negotiations with the House. The appropriators decided instead to tweak the formula structure by giving the Homeland Security secretary the discretion to dole out most of the money on the basis of risk rather than population and population density. The minimum guarantee of 0.75 percent remained intact.
Communities Cry Foul
States are allowed to spend the millions of dollars they get each year on emergency response training, equipment, radios, cameras, sensors and other devices. Since 2001, Congress has given fire fighters, police officers and other first responders an estimated $14 billion. Last year, each state received a minimum of $11 million of the $4.1 billion in funding.
The differences between Collins' proposal and the House language could cost some communities millions in funding in the coming years.
Under the FY06 Homeland Security spending bill, states will get $550 million for the state and local grant program, $765 million for high-threat urban areas and $400 million for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants. Appropriators said Chertoff must apply the 0.75 percent minimum guarantee to state and local grants and law enforcement terrorism prevention grants. The formula would give each state at least $7.1 million next year and the remaining funding would be allocated on risk.
If Collins' formula changes become law, then all three grant programs would be combined into one big pot of money. The sliding scale minimum would apply to $1.7 billion, giving each state at least $9 million next year.
The House proposal would give each state at least $4 million next year. Certain border and coastal states, including Collins' state of Maine, would receive more under the House proposal -- at least $7.6 million -- than they would under next year's appropriations bill.
Another significant difference between the proposals is the distribution structure. Collins' legislation would direct the Homeland Security Department to give each state their minimum guarantee first and then hand out the remaining funding on the basis of risk.
The House version says the department first would determine how much each state should receive based on risk and vulnerability, including threats to the food supply in rural areas. If that amount is below the 0.25 percent minimum, funding would be bumped up to that level. Collins formula would distribute 60 percent of the funding on the basis of risk, according to the Congressional Research Service. The House proposal would allocate nearly 100 percent on those factors.
Negotiations Could Be On Horizon
If House-Senate conferees on the PATRIOT Act drop the first-responder language, House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King, R-N.Y., said he would work with Collins to negotiate a stand-alone compromise on their two proposals. However, King immediately drew a hard line, saying he would not agree to Collins' sliding scale mechanism starting at 0.55 percent. "No, we just can't," he said. "There is limited amount of money, and it has to go towards areas with the most risk."
Collins and other rural lawmakers believe her proposal strikes a balance between providing more funding to larger, densely populated areas that are at greater risk and giving each state an adequate amount of money to respond to a terrorist attack.
NEW FEATURE
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
