WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 (UPI) -- The Senate debate over the creation of a department of homeland security continued to flounder Tuesday as both parties traded accusations over an obscure labor-rights issue that threatens to derail the entire legislation package.
The Senate is considering the formation of a new Cabinet-level agency that would combine scores of existing operations and reassign more than 170,000 federal workers to a new agency responsible for protecting the nation's borders.
But Republicans -- joined by a single Democrat -- have accused the Democratic leadership of the Senate of stalling the bill over whether all of the employees of the department would receive typical federal labor union protections, or whether the agency would be designed to allow the president to dismiss employees at will.
Georgia Democrat Zell Miller joined Republican Leader Trent Lott, Miss., and Sens. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, and Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., in condemning the refusal of the Democratic leadership to support the administration's request for circumventing certain labor restrictions.
Gramm accused Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., of putting the needs of labor unions -- who strongly oppose the president on the issue -- before the need to maintain a flexible workforce to protect the borders from terrorism.
"We need to protect the homeland, we don't need rules that prevent the Border Patrol from posting an agent somewhere without a drycleaners. There will be no bill if we are not successful in giving the president the power he needs," said Gramm. "He has been clear that he would rather wait for a new Congress to try again."
"He was clear that he would not sign this bill," Lott said of the president.
"This has been described as a labor issue, but it's not," said Thompson. "It's a national security issue: The president shouldn't have to deal with 1950s rules to protect the homeland."
Daschle said that Republicans have refused to allow the bill to move forward in complaining about the bill and that Democrats are pushing to complete the work.
"We want to finish homeland security," he said. "They have opposed cloture and appear intent to drag out this legislation for whatever reason."
When asked why he would go against his own party on the issue, Miller said that perhaps he had different priorities than other Democrats.
"Maybe it's because I am not aching to be president, or even to be in the leadership," he said. "Maybe its because I'm not worried about how much soft money I raise (from unions). Maybe because ... (of) my 70 plus years (worrying) about what happens to this country."
As for the allegation -- made repeatedly by Gramm and Lott -- that Democrats were willing to trade protection of the homeland for votes from labor unions, Sen. Paul Sarbanes, D-Md., said they should be "ashamed of that assertion."
Outside opinions expressed at dueling press conferences, there was a significant development on the Senate floor, as the Senate approved -- in a 90 to 8 vote -- the formation of an independent commission to investigate why intelligence agencies failed to prevent the Sept. 11 terror attacks on new York City and Washington.
Proposed by Connecticut Democratic Sen. Joseph Lieberman and Arizona Republican John McCain, the commission would be appointed by a bipartisan combination of the House and Senate leadership, and will not contain any current U.S. government employees. The commission -- if enacted into law -- would have a broad mandate to investigate various government agencies and would have subpoena powers for witnesses.
The White House has generally opposed such a commission, arguing that it would be redundant and distracting in the face of the ongoing joint House-Senate Intelligence Committee, but a top Republican on the panel came out in favor of the probe.
"Three months ago, I believed very strongly that the intelligence committees of the House and Senate were not only capable of examining our government's failure to detect and prevent the attacks ... but were obligated to do so," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said. "(But) I'm increasingly concerned that the joint effort will not be able to complete such an inquiry. ... Our scope is not broad enough. It's confined to the intelligence aspects and not the F.A.A. (and) not to immigration and other aspects."
