9/11 legislation: making things worse: while leaving our borders open to terrorists and illegal aliens, Congress and the White House push for more power--and more attacks on the rights of U.S. citizens.

In the rush to adjourn before the elections, both houses of Congress passed bills aimed at implementing the recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (The 9/11 Commission). The Senate was first to the finish line, passing S. 2845 on October 6 by an overwhelming 96-2 vote. The House followed on October 8, passing H.R. 10 by a vote of 282 to 134. The House and Senate bills differ in significant details, most especially with regard to what is arguably the most pressing security issue facing our nation: control of our borders.

The House bill contains important border enforcement provisions, including an increase of 2,000 border patrol agents per year for fiscal years 2006-2010; an increase of 800 immigration and customs investigators per year for fiscal years 2006 2010; and expedited removal of illegal aliens and suspected terrorists.

The House bill would change the law so that illegal aliens who have been in the United States for less than five years could be removed from the country without a judicial review. Currently, illegal aliens who have been here for longer than two years get an extrajudicial review. With this increased enforcement and removal capability, we could have some hope of stemming the ongoing alien crisis that is making internal security impossible.

The 9/11 Commission's report noted that "more than 9 million people" are in the U.S. illegally. It acknowledged the danger posed by our out-of-control borders, stating: "As we know from the sizable illegal traffic across our land borders, a terrorist could attempt to bypass legal procedures and enter the United States surreptitiously." It further admitted that our security screening for visas had been pathetic prior to 9/11, citing the fact that, "beginning in 1997, the 19 hijackers submitted 24 applications and received 23 visas." Nevertheless, the commission paid only minor lip service to gaining control of our borders and focused its main emphasis on recommendations that proposed vast new powers for the federal government, along with serious new infringements of the rights of U.S. citizens.

After releasing its 567-page report in July, the 9/11 Commission members made many appearances before House and Senate committee hearings, then fanned out across the country on speaking tours and appearances on radio and television talk shows and news programs. Their purpose was to build pressure on Congress to enact the commission's agenda before adjourning prior to the elections. They targeted Republican members of Congress, especially conservatives in the House who would try to shore up our borders.

Obviously, Republican leadership would be needed for this effort. No problem; that's precisely the reason why the commission had been loaded up with liberal Republican internationalists, and why former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean had been appointed to chair the commission. Together with the Bush White House and the internationalist GOP leaders in Congress, Kean and company blitzed the House members.

On October 18, the White House sent a 10-page letter to the congressional leaders urging swift action. The letter outlined the administration's position, which mostly lined up with the Senate version and opposed inclusion of the House's immigration controls and border enforcement.

The Bush-Kean team had another potent weapon. A number of vocal family members of 9/11 victims were taking an active role in lobbying Congress. Some of them mistakenly believe that the 9/11 Commission recommendations will solve the security problems that allowed the 9/11 attacks to succeed. Although many of the family members agree that border enforcement is essential, they were persuaded by the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission that it should not be allowed to stand in the way of other "more important" 9/11 recommendations, such as reorganizing U.S. intelligence. Border concerns will be dealt with later, they have been told. The commission has been only too willing to exploit these earnest family members to further its agenda, knowing it is difficult for elected officials to say no to victims.

That exploitation proved to be very effective for the commission-White House coalition. However, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) and a core group of House Republicans beat back efforts by Reps. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) and Chris Smith (R-N.J.) and the Bush-Kean forces to gut the border enhancement provisions from H.R. 10. But that was just the beginning of the fight, not the end. There would have to be a House-Senate conference to iron out differences between the two bills, and then a final version of the legislation would have to be sent back to both the House and Senate for another vote.

With both houses adjourning, most political observers thought it was very unlikely that Republican leaders would call members back for a special vote on a final bill before the elections. The conventional wisdom was that it would come up for a vote in the "lame-duck" session after the November elections. But a hastily called House-Senate conference committee began hearings on Wednesday, October 20, and leaders began sending signals that members of Congress would be called back to Washington for a vote prior to the elections.

Up until October 28, just five days before the election, it looked as if House and Senate members actually might be called back to vote on a massive government reorganization and security bill that they hadn't even read, let alone studied in detail. But deadlocks over a number of key issues have delayed final action until the lame-duck session or the next Congress. As we go to press, a final conference version of the legislation is still not available, but news reports and congressional sources indicate that it may combine some of the worst elements of both bills. The following are but a few of the dangerous elements of the two bills:

National I.D. system: S. 2845 provides that the U.S. Secretaries of Transportation and Homeland Security shall establish "standards for driver's licenses or personal identification cards." Each state would be required to certify that it is in compliance with these mandates. The House bill, H.R. 10, contains very similar requirements, but went even further, requiring the linking of state DMV databases into a national database. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) opposes the measure, warning: "Nationalizing standards for drivers' licenses and birth certificates, and linking them together via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple. Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains wary of the scheme, so they attempt to claim they're merely creating new standards for existing state IDs. Nonsense! This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill, and it creates a federal ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still stamped with the name of your state. It's just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses will be denied the ability to drive or board an airplane. Domestic travel restrictions are the hallmark of authoritarian states, not free republics."

Big Brother biometrics: Following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, both the Senate and House bills call for what amounts to national identification documents employing biometric technology, such as fingerprints and iris scans. The Senate bill mandates that the federal government will "develop and implement a plan as expeditiously as possible to require biometric passports ... for all travel into the United States by United States citizens." This means that if you were to go on a cruise or travel anywhere outside the U.S. and then want to get back in, you would first have to have a new biometric passport.

If you think you would be able to avoid this intrusion into your privacy by simply avoiding all foreign travel, think again. The House version calls for federal authorities to examine "the feasibility of access control technologies and procedures, including the use of biometrics and other methods of positively identifying individuals prior to entry into secure areas of airports." That refers not only to foreign travel, but also to domestic air travel, since all commercial air travel now requires that all passengers enter "secure areas of airports." If you think you would be able to escape the biometric ID trap by avoiding air travel, that would also be a vain hope. Although the present legislation does not yet mandate biometric identifiers for a driver's license or for travel by other forms of transportation, it certainly heads us rapidly in that direction. The Senate bill requires the federal government to identify transportation assets "that, in the interests of national security, must be protected from attack or disruption by terrorist or other hostile forces, including aviation, bridge and tunnel, commuter rail and ferry, highway, maritime, pipeline, rail, urban mass transit." How many attacks on these types of targets would it take to bring about the imposition nationwide of the same type of security screening we now go through at airports?

United Nations entanglements: Both the Senate and House bills call for more U.S. involvement in UN organizations and activities and greater U.S. funding for UN initiatives worldwide. The Senate bill, for instance, proposes "establishing and generously funding" an International Youth Opportunity Fund. It also calls for creating a Middle East Free Trade Area and a Middle East Partnership Initiative. The House bill instructs the president to "continue to strongly support and seek to expand the work of the democracy caucus at the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Human Rights Commission." It also creates a new office under the Secretary of State for a U.S. Special Representative for Multilateral Negotiations with the rank of Ambassador-At-Large, to be some sort of super U.S. negotiator and adviser at UN gatherings and other international forums.

Intelligence muddle: Both the Senate and House bills would authorize very sweeping and complex redrawing of lines governing national intelligence authority and responsibility. Both the House and Senate bowed to the 9/11 Commission's demand for an "intelligence czar," a National Intelligence Director, with central command over all intelligence and broad, unprecedented powers.

Both the House and Senate bills were passed in politically driven haste without the deliberation due such critical undertakings. The final version of the legislation could still be passed--either in the lame-duck session or in the new Congress--unless enough constituents immediately contact their U.S. representative and senators and register firm opposition.

In its concluding remarks, the 9/11 Commission Report stated: "We look forward to a national debate on the merits of what we have recommended." However, there has been no national debate, only a one sided, pre-stacked harangue and a mad rush by the 9/11 Commission and its cohorts in the media, the White House, and the Congress. It has been a mad rush to enact an agenda called for not by the American people, but by the internationalists at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Commission Chairman Thomas Kean and Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton, as well as commission members Jamie Gorelick and Robert Kerrey, are prominent members of this elite, one-world club. Together with their CFR associates in the administration and Congress, they are attempting to implement the CFR's long-stated goal of striking down our country's constitutional separation of powers and our system of checks and balances.

Instead of closing the wide-open doors that are allowing terrorists into our country, the new legislation would clamp down on the rights of citizens. And by failing to halt our border meltdown, it would virtually guarantee future terrorist attacks, followed by more police-state measures that further erode our freedoms. Instead of holding accountable the officials whom federal whistleblowers have shown to be corrupt or negligent, it would reward the same officials with more authority. Instead of thoughtfully reassessing intelligence structures and requirements, it would dangerously expand national police and intelligence powers while weakening the important check of citizen and legislative oversight.