Focus on 9/11 panel shifts attention from Homeland Security authorization

Public demands for action on the recommendations by the 9/11 Commission have overtaken efforts by House Homeland Security Chairman Christopher Cox, R-Calif., and ranking member Jim Turner, D-Texas, to craft a bipartisan homeland security authorization bill.

It not only likely postpones work on the authorization bill until next year, but also raises questions about whether the House Homeland Security Committee will win its battle to become a permanent committee.

Cox and Turner's work already had bogged down over how to proceed with more than 60 Democratic amendments. After canceling, stalling and rescheduling markups this summer, they had to set things aside when Congress broke for its summer recess and the national party conventions.

But the day before Congress left, the 9/11 Commission released its recommendations, setting in motion a political tidal wave that forced Republicans and Democrats to deal with its proposals to close security loopholes that remain three years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and other Republicans announced the House would consider legislation this fall after a handful of committees reviewed the commission's findings during unusual August hearings.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., attempting to cast Republicans as lagging behind on homeland security, convened Democrats in Washington during the break and called on GOP leaders to bring lawmakers back into session.

Now that Congress has returned, the focus is on passing legislation incorporating the commission's recommendations before breaking for the upcoming elections.

GOP leaders have asked committee chairmen to submit proposals by early October, while Pelosi last week officially introduced legislation she proposed in August that includes all 41 of the 9/11 Commission proposals.

So Cox and Turner have now changed their focus from the authorization bill to their respective leaders' strategies. "It's off the table," one Democratic aide said of the authorization bill. A spokesman for Cox said the authorization bill could happen after the election, depending on the outcome of a 9/11 package and if Congress returns for a lame duck session.

Cox last week said he would extract provisions from the authorization measure and offer them up for a GOP bill to address the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. And Turner has become a foot soldier, along with House Intelligence ranking member Jane Harman, D-Calif., for Pelosi on the issue.

It seems unlikely House Republicans and Democrats would agree on any legislation before November, considering the bitter political environment. But if lawmakers were to pass legislation that solely reflects the 9/11 commission's recommendations, the bill would not include well-defined proposals that may have been incorporated into a Cox-Turner authorization measure.

Beyond the most-publicized recommendation suggesting that Congress overhaul the intelligence community, the commission also made more than 20 recommendations to bolster homeland security.

The provisions broadly address information sharing at the department and a layered security system to protect the nation's land, air and sea ports. The panel suggested a national identification system, high-tech travel documents, investments in advanced technology for detecting weapons of mass destruction and a program to allocate money to firefighters and other "first responders" based on risk. The report did not include specifics on completing those initiatives.

The base bill of Cox's authorization measure aimed to improve the department's activities on cybersecurity, science and technology, information sharing and intelligence gathering.

Turner and Democrats on the panel lobbied for a different approach. They drafted amendments to address chemical plant security, biodefense capabilities, aviation, rail and port security, infrastructure protection for key assets like the electricity grid and communication devices to allow firefighters and police officers to "talk" to each other, among other provisions.

Cox opposed the amendments not on policy grounds, but rather for logistical reasons. He argued a "natural restraint" limited the legislation because other committees that share jurisdiction over homeland security issues would not agree to provisions in their areas.

He said including the Democrats' amendments would render the measure "meaningless" because other panels would eat up precious time debating the bill.

Cox and Turner went round after round over the amendments, and ultimately bipartisanship evaporated as they blamed each other for the bill's demise.