Port Security

So........Are Republicans TRULY Concerned about Port Security? They sure wanted you to think so when it was a veiled excuse for racism. But when it comes down to actual security, the answer's a resounding no.

Quote:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/16/...urity-funding/



Moments ago, the House of Representatives narrowly defeated an amendment proposed by Rep. Martin Sabo (D-MN) that would have provided $1.25 billion in desperately needed funding for port security and disaster preparedness. The Sabo amendment included:

– $300 million to enable U.S. customs agents to inspect high-risk containers at all 140 overseas ports that ship directly to the United States. Current funding only allows U.S. customs agents to operate at 43 of these ports.

– $400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. Currently, less than half of U.S. ports have radiation monitors.

– $300 million to provide backup emergency communications equipment for the Gulf Coast.

Meanwhile, the Bush budget – which most of the members who voted against this bill will likely support – contains an increase of $1.7 billion for missile defense, a program that doesn’t even work.

Go ahead. Someone explain this one to me. I'd love to hear it. So which party are we supposed to trust to our security again? The one that votes down funding for port security and body armor for our troops or the one that proposes such ideas?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Quote:

H.AMDT.702 (A002)
Amends: H.R.4939
Sponsor: Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5] (offered 3/15/2006)

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to insert a new section on page 83, after line 16, that states upon receiving written notification, as prescribed by regulations under the section, of any merger, acquisition, or takeover proposed or pending on or after the date of the enactment of this section by or with any foreign control of any person engaed in interstate commerce in the United States, the President, acting through the President's designee and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States shall conduct an investigation to determine the effects, if any, of the proposed or pending merger, acqusition or takeover on the national security of the United States.

STATUS:

3/15/2006 5:22pm:
Amendment (A002) offered by Mr. Sabo. (consideration: CR H1005-1008; text: CR H987-989)
3/15/2006 5:30pm:
Mr. Lewis (CA) raised a point of order against the Sabo amendment (A002). Mr. Lewis (CA) raised a point of order against the amendment stating that it constituted legislation in an appropriations bill and was in violation of clause 2 of Rule XXI. The Chair sustained the point of order.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...109query.html|

That's the only amendment Representative Sabo proposed to HR 4939, and it doesn't seem have contain funding to be voted down at all.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I don't see "trusting" either party for our security. The dems have had their fair share of party line votes that seemingly weakened U.S. security. I'm sure that somewhere down the line a Republican will propose an amendment with provisions similar to Sabo's and it will pass. They're all just a bunch of hacks anyway, more concerned with politics that with the true welfare of the country.

Regarding our "security"..the ports are the new big thing and everyone is paying attention to them while the porous southern border continues pour all sorts of undesirables into this country. Where are the "concerned" Democrats on this??????

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

A link to the Sabo's comments.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...el=TOC_163816&

And, as best as I can tell, the LoC only includes those Amendments which were accepted or are pending a vote. Ones voted down are not included.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

Regarding our "security"..the ports are the new big thing and everyone is paying attention to them while the porous southern border continues pour all sorts of undesirables into this country. Where are the "concerned" Democrats on this??????

Quote for truth... Neither democrats nor republican have my vote till someone does something about that southern border. I'm all for immigration, but i want it stay legal. If i hear "we're going to increase funding for new technologies" one more time... We don't need new technologies (although it helps slightly), we just need some people to get down there and doing something. A wall would be nice too

How ya doing, buddy?

Why would it be set up that way? Amendments voted down are as much a part of the public record as those voted in or are pending. In this case, the amendment was defeated via a Point of Order.

Either way, a record of it should exist.

Also, Representative Sabo's comments don't mesh with what you originally posted. The vote totals he mentions defeated his amendments, 35-30 and 27-34, sound like committee votes, while the image you posted, and the numbers it contains, displays the results of a floor vote.

Also, there's this:

Originally Posted by Original Article

– $400 million to place radiation monitors at all U.S. ports of entry. Currently, less than half of U.S. ports have radiation monitors.

Originally Posted by Rep. Sabo

By installing radiation detectors at the top 42 overseas ports, compared to the 13 planned for by the Department of Energy, and at all of our land borders.

These two do not quite match up.

And finally, Sabo's press release spoke of $1.225 billion for designated purposes including the ones listed above. Sabo himself, talked about an amendment that contained $3.4 billion. Either he's talking about two different amendments containing funding, or there are still $2.2 billion there that haven't been accounted for, plus whatever else was in the amendment that we don't know about (and we apparently can't seem to find).

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Arainach

Someone explain this one to me. I'd love to hear it.

Okay, I'm game.

Where do you propose we get $92 billion dollars? Especially, in light of the fact that in order to maintain the national debt ceiling, the federal pensions program had to be dipped into? Do you know how serious that is?

FELIPE NO

The BILL was $92 billion. And it passed, by the way. The Amendment was $3 billion.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Arainach

The BILL was $92 billion. And it passed, by the way. The Amendment was $3 billion.

I'm talking about the bill.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Then complain to your representative. None of them know what fiscal responsibility is. I fail to see how it has any relevance whatsoever to this thread.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Arainach

Then complain to your representative. None of them know what fiscal responsibility is. I fail to see how it has any relevance whatsoever to this thread.

Cute. You also fail to see how serious things are that the government is forced to siphon off funds from federal pensions to pay for the bare minimum. The relevancy to this thread is; where can the government cough up an extra three billion when security's been fine, except in the election year pandering department? Maybe we should dip into social security to pay for that amendment?

How does it feel to be a tool of the liberal agenda?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Watts

How does it feel to be a tool of the liberal agenda?

Was this attack really necessary?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Was this attack really necessary?

It was not intended to be an attack. More of a clarification on my "election year pandering" statement.

Apologies if you took it otherwise Arainach.

I was speaking idiomatically.