Senate 'tying hands' on homeland security -Bush
Reuters, 09.21.02, 7:59 AM ET
ADVERTISEMENT
|
(Embargoed for release at 10:06 a.m.)
By Patricia Wilson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush
lambasted the U.S. Senate Saturday for considering a bill
that would force a new homeland security department "to fight
against terror threats with one hand tied behind its back."
He cited the capture of five al Qaeda operatives in
Pakistan last week and the arrest in Buffalo, New York, of six
men suspected of having trained at terrorist camps in
Afghanistan as reminders that "the enemy is still at large,
threatening our safety and security."
"One way for the Congress to protect the American people is
to pass legislation creating a new department of homeland
security," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "Yet, after
three weeks, the Senate has still not passed a bill I can
sign."
In the aftermath of last year's Sept. 11 attacks, which
Washington blames on the Saudi-born militant Osama bin Laden
and his al Qaeda organization, Bush proposed creating a new
Cabinet agency to coordinate homeland defense efforts.
The president is demanding broad powers to hire, fire and
transfer workers in the new department in the interest of
national security. Democrats -- traditional union allies --
charge his real motive is to strip civil service and collective
bargaining protections.
The dispute is the chief reason the Democratic-led Senate
has been unable to move to a vote on passage of legislation to
create the 170,000-employee department with a budget of almost
$40 billion.
"The legislation the Senate is debating is deeply flawed,"
Bush said. "The Senate bill would force the new department to
fight against terror threats with one hand tied behind its
back."
'CUMBERSOME PROCESS'
The Senate's approach would keep in place a "cumbersome
process" that can take five months to hire a needed employee
and 18 months to fire someone not doing his job properly, Bush
said. But, he added: "Even worse, the Senate bill would weaken
my existing authority to prohibit collective bargaining when
national security is at stake.
"Let's not make it more difficult by tying this president's
hands and the hands of every president who comes after him."
On Friday, both sides scrambled for votes and tried to cut
deals as a divided Senate -- 50 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and
one independent -- headed toward a showdown next week.
While labor lobbyists worked Capitol Hill on behalf of a
proposed compromise by Democrats, two senators met with Bush on
their competing "bipartisan substitute."
"The next important battle in the war on terrorism is going
to be fought on the floor of the Senate next week," Sen. Phil
Gramm, a Texas Republican declared afterward.
The Senate may be forced to make a decision soon as the
chamber's leadership moves to call up compromise proposals and
find out where everyone stands.
"Right now it is not clear how the vote will be. Therefore
there are very active negotiations going on by all parties,"
said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat.
Gramm and Sen. Zell Miller, a Georgia Democrat, crafted
their proposal with White House input. It would still allow a
president to use his national security power to override
collective bargaining agreements but would require him to give
Congress advance notice explaining why.
Earlier this week, Sen. John Breaux, a Louisiana Democrat,
discussed with Bush a possible compromise he has drafted with
Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat.
It would give workers stripped of collective bargaining
rights an accelerated appeal to the Federal Labor Relations
Authority. But the burden of proof would be on the employee to
show union membership would not undermine national security.
(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro)
Copyright 2002, Reuters News Service
|
