-Caveat Lector- This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
House, Much Divided, Approves Homeland Security Agency July 27, 2002 By DAVID FIRESTONE WASHINGTON, July 26 - The House tonight approved the largest reorganization of the federal government in more than half a century, voting to create a Department of Homeland Security intended to marshal and fortify the nation's defense against terrorism. "We need to move forward to provide the president with the tools he needs to secure our homeland," said Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the Republican whip, just before passage of the bill, 295 to 132. But tonight's action contained little of the bipartisan enthusiasm that greeted the idea for a single antiterrorism agency when President Bush proposed it last month. Most Democrats voted against the department, angry that Republicans inserted language to limit the civil service protections of Homeland Security Department employees and protect companies that screen air travelers for weapons. "On some issues that are fundamental to us, on both sides, we could not find agreement," Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic whip, said. Of the 208 Democrats present, 120 voted against the department, but Ms. Pelosi said she hoped more Democrats would be able to support the department after further negotiations with the Senate. Among those voting no was Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, the Democratic leader, who opposed the Republican plan to extend the deadline for screening of airport baggage for explosives. The contentious provisions, most of which were demanded by the Bush administration, set up a confrontation with the version of the bill that will debated by the Senate in September. On Thursday, a Senate committee sent to the full chamber a homeland security bill that contains few of the management flexibilities sought by the administration, and this morning Mr. Bush made it forcefully clear that he would not sign a bill similar to the Senate's version. "The new secretary must have the freedom to get the right people in the right job at the right time and to hold them accountable," Mr. Bush said, speaking to an audience of public officials that included Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, architect of the Senate bill. "He needs the ability to move money and resources quickly in response to new threats, without all kinds of bureaucratic rules and obstacles. And when we face unprecedented threats like we're facing, we cannot have business as usual." Democrats were equally insistent today that they would not allow the administration to make it easier to fire or discipline the new department's 170,000 employees, most of whom would come from 22 long-established agencies that would be transferred to the department. Although Senate Republicans may succeed in altering Mr. Lieberman's bill, it will be at a conference between the chambers in September that the most divisive issues will be worked out. The Senate had planned to take up the bill next week, but Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the majority leader, said today that the vote would have to be postponed until after the August recess. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, who is angry about the administration's proposal to shift money within the department without Congressional approval, has threatened a filibuster on the bill, and Mr. Daschle said extra time would be needed to end the filibuster and move to a vote. The delay puts in doubt Congress's stated goal of approving the department by the Sept. 11 anniversary of the terrorist attacks. The department approved by the House tonight would include many familiar federal agencies, including the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, the Secret Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, all of which are now supposed to work together to prevent terrorist attacks or to respond to them after they occur. The enforcement functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service would also be moved, although its immigration services functions would remain at the Justice Department. The House left intact the administration's proposal that an information analysis division receive intelligence reports from the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. on terrorist threats. The current Senate bill, however, creates an intelligence division within the new department that would be much more aggressive in searching out potential threats, able to receive not just reports but raw intelligence from the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. In general, the House gave the White House almost all of what it asked for in a homeland security department, although not without a day's worth of efforts by Democrats and a handful of centrist Republicans to amend the bill. Six amendments were proposed that would have brought the bill more in line with the Senate version, and in each case the motions were voted down on close party-line votes. But the Democrats did achieve one unexpected victory. At the last minute, party leaders brought up a motion that would forbid the department to contract with companies that establish an offshore headquarters to evade American taxes. The proposal usually fails when Democrats bring it up in other contexts, but tonight it picked up enough Republican votes to pass. Once it became clear that it would pass, scores of Republicans changed their votes to join the bandwagon, and the measure was approved 318 to 110. The most intense debates of the day reflected the core ideologies of the two parties regarding unions and labor. On a vote of 229 to 201, the House approved a provision that would allow the president to curtail the collective bargaining rights of homeland security employees if he declared that a union would have an adverse impact on their ability to protect the nation. Representative Connie A. Morella, a Maryland Republican with many federal workers in her district, lost a motion to curtail the president's ability to take such an action. Ms. Morella said the administration was asking to be trusted not to declare the entire agency off-limits to unions, adding that she was not certain such trust was warranted. "On federal employee issues, his record is not as lovable as I would like it to be," Ms. Morella said. Republicans argued that the department's emergency mission might require the president to reduce union protections and rules. They fought off another effort by Democrats to restore the civil service protections that set up roadblocks to dismissing many federal employees or to pay some employees in a job more than others. Such rules were set up to minimize patronage and political favoritism, but Republicans argued that they would hinder the new department's effectiveness. "This is about being able to meet the enemy's agility with our own agility," said Representative Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio. "This president and presidents after him need this flexibility to be sure the department works. We simply cannot work with the 1950's-era bureaucratic personnel practices that would otherwise be available to him." The department needs to be able to reward high performers with incentive pay, Mr. Portman added, which is often prohibited by existing rules. Democrats also failed to change Republican plans to extend by a year the deadline for inspecting airport baggage for explosives and to limit the financial liability for manufacturers of security technology. The most surprising debate occurred on an issue that had not previously come up in the discussions of a homeland security department. Late Thursday night, Representative Dick Armey, Republican of Texas, inserted a provision into an otherwise minor amendment that would cap the liability of airport screening companies who let the Sept. 11 hijackers onto planes with weapons. If survivors of the Sept. 11 attacks or relatives of victims successfully sued the companies for damages, the provision says, the companies would not have to pay punitive damages, only actual losses. The provision would apply to only two companies, Globe Aviation Services and Huntleigh USA, because several others have been barred from federal contracts and would not be covered. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/27/politics/27SECU.html?ex=1028768830&ei=1&en=ce1a572691339f50 HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
