-Caveat Lector- This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Democrats Vow to Pass New Security Agency Despite Filibuster October 2, 2002 By DAVID FIRESTONE WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 - Senate Democratic leaders vowed today to approve a Homeland Security Department, even if that meant staying in session for weeks. But with no sign of a breakthrough in a partisan dispute over Civil Service protections, the prospect for passage by year's end appeared dim. Republicans refused today to end their filibuster against a Democratic plan to protect job security in the proposed antiterrorism department, defeating a motion to end debate. In a series of meetings through the day, moderate senators from both parties failed to broker a compromise with the White House, which wants to limit Civil Service and union rules, to streamline the proposed agency. Barring a last-minute compromise, the standoff could last until the end of the Congressional session, now scheduled for Oct. 11. Tom Daschle, the Senate majority leader, announced that the Senate would return later in October or even after Election Day to continue working on the department. Democratic officials said he hoped that continued debate or a prolonged filibuster would pressure the White House to reach a deal. "We're going to stay on the bill," Mr. Daschle said at a news conference. "We're going to try to figure out how to finish it. They can drag this out as long as they want to, and they can tell us when they've finished dragging it out. But at some point, whenever that is, we'll have a vote on final passage." Republicans said the flexibility demanded by President Bush was too fundamental to bargain away and once again suggested that by disagreeing, Democrats were not concentrating on national security. "It's not that the Democrat leadership loves national security less," Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, said. "It's that they love their political security more. And they are so tied to these public employee labor unions that they're not willing to cross them on issues that have to do with the life and safety of the American people." If the compromise effort fails, that would mean an end for now to the largest reorganization of the federal government in 50 years, a reconfiguration intended to protect the nation from terrorist attacks. The idea for a department grew from widespread dissatisfaction with the failure to prevent the Sept. 11 attacks. It was greeted with bipartisan cheer when Mr. Bush adopted it from the Democrats and proposed it in June. In weeks, the parties had reached agreement on 90 percent of the structure for the proposed department. The shuffling would move familiar agencies like the Coast Guard, the Secret Service and the Immigration and Nationalization Service into a single organization. But any substantive debate over reorganizing intelligence and security functions quickly became overshadowed by a passionate ideological dispute over union rights. Mr. Bush said they would inhibit his ability to create a streamlined department. For more than a month, all progress on the bill in the Senate has been stalled over the personnel issue, preventing any negotiation with the House, which passed its plan in July. The dispute became tangled in the election campaign, with Republicans saying the Democrats valued union support over national security and prominent Democrats accusing the White House today of killing its own proposal to tar the Democrats as unpatriotic. "I'm a trusting person, but I keep asking myself, `Why won't the White House negotiate with us on these issues?' " Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, chief Democratic advocate for the department, asked. "I worry that we are being stopped from achieving an agreement on this department for reasons that have something to do with the election." He accused the White House of "stubborn intransigence" in rejecting compromise proposals made by moderate Democrats and a Republican, Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island. A second Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, joined the call today for a White House compromise. But with the debate over military action in Iraq scheduled to start this week, the Senate began running out of time for further negotiations. Republican supporters of the White House proposal said union rules and Civil Service protections would hobble the president's ability to reorganize fully the response to terrorism, allowing lengthy grievance procedures to interfere with quick action. "The president is entitled to an up-or-down vote on his proposal," Senator Fred C. Thompson, Republican of Tennessee, said in explaining why his party was filibustering a compromise proposal that had won over a majority of the Senate. "If we do not resolve this matter in the next day or so, there will be no Homeland Security Department this year, and that would be a tragedy for this country." The filibuster began last week, after Mr. Chafee had agreed to a proposal that would limit the president's right to reduce Civil Service protections. Although Democrats have the 51 votes needed to pass the compromise, the Republicans will not allow a vote on it, insisting that the president's plan be voted on first. Mr. Chafee suggested today that the White House and leaders of his party were making political calculations on the bill. "In this climate, everything's political," he said. "I'm sure they're making a judgment, `Is this something we can blame on the Democrats, or are they going to be successful saying we're filibustering our own bill?' I'm sure they're making decisions on that." The White House, however, suggested that the Senate was simply not doing its job. "From the president's point of view," the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said, "it would just be unimaginable for the Senate to leave town without having taken action to protect the homeland." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/02/politics/02HOME.html?ex=1034546016&ei=1&en=b6c6f1cf90f02db8 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
