U.S. Response I:  Bush Rejected Final Insurance Offer, Senators Say

By Pamela Barnett

CongressDaily

WASHINGTON — The ideological dispute over tort reform that toppled terrorism insurance legislation in 2001 is again threatening to upend the bill, with Senate Democrats late Thursday saying the White House failed to respond to what they described as their “final” and most conciliatory offer.

“People have asked, ‘What is the best you can do?’  We’re here to tell you, this is the best we can do,” said Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Conn).  “If you take this language, we can have a bill signing ceremony in 24 hours.”

“This is our final plea.  We’ve gone as far as we can go.  The trial lawyers don’t like it, I can tell you that,” Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) added.

President George W. Bush Thursday called for Congress to reach an agreement by today, demanding in appearances that Congress place a bill on his desk on terrorism insurance, homeland security and Defense appropriations.  At a hastily convened news conference, a clearly exasperated Dodd and Schumer indicated they decided to go public on the secretive negotiations as a last ditch effort, after waiting since Wednesday to hear back from the White House on their most recent offer.

At issue is whether businesses should be shielded from liability associated with acts of terror.  The House-passed version of the terrorism bill incorporated tough legal-reform language that effectively prohibits any collection of punitive damages by victims of terrorism and caps attorney’s fees associated with such cases.  The Senate bill is silent on business liability, but shields the federal government.

The senators said the White House had sent “signals” that it would not accept the Democrats’ latest offer on liability.  Sources familiar with the proposal said the White House had sent it back with suggested changes.

That rejection apparently proved galling to the Democratic senators, who said they literally lifted GOP-drafted liability language included in last year’s education reform bill, which was approved by both chambers and subsequently signed into law by Bush.

The civil justice reform language in the education bill dealt with shielding teachers from lawsuits arising out of efforts to maintain classroom discipline.

Specifically, the bill limited the availability of punitive damages against teachers by requiring “clear and convincing evidence of willful or criminal misconduct, or a conscious, flagrant indifference to the rights or safety of the individual harmed.”

Dodd and Schumer said they proposed that the exact same standard, which represents an extremely high legal bar, be applied to terror-related lawsuits brought against private business.

“It has already been accepted as part of earlier legislation,” Dodd said.  “Can you take this legislation, and apply it here?”

Touted by such groups as the American Tort Reform Association as the most significant federal legal reform achieved during Bush’s tenure, the so-called teacher protection language is hardly popular with the trial bar, Schumer emphasized.

Nevertheless, Dodd said it was his understanding that the deal had been approved by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who has been accused by the GOP of coddling the trial bar at the expense of the insurance bill.

Schumer said he was “totally befuddled” by the White House’s failure to embrace their compromise.

“We’ve gone as far as we can go,” he said, but added, “The signals we’re getting from the White House is that they’re not accepting it.”

Schumer said it would be a “tragedy” for the terrorism reinsurance bill to suffer the same fate as bankruptcy reform legislation, and suggested the White House is being held hostage to a handful of “ideologues” and tort reform “extremists” in “both chambers.”

Schumer also took a jab at the White House, saying:  “Leadership is not holding press conferences and saying you want a bill.  Leadership means telling this extreme element, this needs to get done.”

Asked whether he thought a deal was still possible this year if today’s deadline was missed, Schumer shrugged.  “There’s always life while we’re still in session,” he said.

Dodd conceded that other parts of the reinsurance negotiations remain unresolved, including questions about whether to include the House’s “payback” mechanism.

However, Dodd said he felt confident those aspects could be quickly settled if the tort reform issue was settled.

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Senate Democrats Reject Homeland Compromise

U.S. Senate Democrats yesterday rejected a Republican compromise on legislation to establish a homeland security department, which has been mired in debate for five weeks, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, Oct. 2).

The Republican compromise, which would have modified a bipartisan-suggested alternative, would have preserved the authority sought by President George W. Bush to waive union agreements for employees of the new department (see GSN, Sept. 25).  It would also have mandated, however, that for the waiver to apply, an employee’s job must have “materially changed” through transfer to the new department.  The Republican compromise would have allowed the president to use the waiver in the event of such a job change or of a change in the threat of domestic terrorism.

The Republican proposal contained nothing new and would have weakened the labor protections included in the bipartisan alternative, said Ranit Schmelzer, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).

“This is all show and no substance,” Schmelzer said (Curt Anderson, Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 4).

As Long As It Takes

Leaders in the Senate and House of Representatives said yesterday that they plan to stay in session until they pass the homeland security department bill.

“If it isn’t passed, we’re just going to stay until the election, and then we’ll be right back right after the election,” Daschle said.

The House also plans to stay in session in the event the Senate completes work on the bill, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said.

“If we have to come back one day a week to be in session to make sure that we are here, so that we can finish our work if the Senate does their work on homeland security, we will do that,” he said.

The Senate has made little progress on the homeland security bill since debate began in early September, according to the Washington Times.  Senate Republicans, supported by Senator Zell Miller (D-Ga.), have blocked five attempts to end debate, saying such a move would prevent an up-or-down vote on the White House proposal.  With the Senate scheduled next week to debate Iraq, there is no scheduled time to resume work on the bill before Congress is expected to adjourn Oct. 11 to campaign for the November elections, according to the Times.

Bush spoke out in support of the homeland security bill yesterday, saying he will accept no compromise on the hiring flexibility he has sought.

“The Senate must understand that I have a duty not only to protect the American people, but a duty to protect the prerogatives of the president,” Bush said during a Hispanic Heritage Month meeting of Republicans.

Democrats have offered their own version of the homeland security department bill, which is almost identical to the White House’s proposal, Daschle said.

“It’s down really to two things:  Should you have a right to belong to a union?  And if you’re fired, should some independent board have a chance to review why you were fired?  That’s really what we’re talking about here,” he said (Stephen Dinan, Washington Times, Oct. 4).

Back to top

U.S. Response I:  Senate Impasse Continues on Homeland Bill, Iraq Resolution

By Brody Mullins and Charlie Mitchell

CongressDaily

WASHINGTON — The bipartisan congressional leadership headed to the White House this morning to iron out the final language of a resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) continues to consider waging a filibuster against the resolution if it gives U.S. President George W. Bush too much authority to wage war in the region.

According to Byrd’s spokesman, the Senate’s most senior Democrat wants to ensure that the Bush administration’s resolution does not trample on congressional authority over war making.  The spokesman said that Byrd would have “significant concerns ... if there is a resolution before the Senate that Senator Byrd believes would run counter to the separation of powers.”  The spokesman did not say Byrd would filibuster the resolution, although Byrd has previously hinted he might do so.

Anticipating a possible filibuster, Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) filed a cloture petition late Tuesday.  A Daschle spokeswoman said the move was intended to “get the train moving.”  She added that if senators tried to delay debate on Iraq, a cloture vote might be held Thursday.  Daschle and Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) both held out hope Tuesday afternoon that a path would be cleared quickly for a bipartisan resolution to come to the floor.

Congressional leaders hoped to begin debate on the issue today, with deliberations stretching into next week — scheduled to be Congress’ last on Capitol Hill before November’s elections.

Also Tuesday, both parties continued to wrestle over legislation to create a homeland security department.

After Senate Republicans rallied for the fifth time to defeat a Democratic cloture motion on the bill, senators on both sides of the aisle angled to blame one another for the delay in approving the popular legislation.  Governmental Affairs ranking member Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) said the bill is on “life support” because of Democratic intransigence on the personnel rules in the legislation.  Democrats countered that Republicans are responsible for the delay by blocking cloture.

Governmental Affairs Chairman Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) said the defeat of the fifth cloture petition was “truly an irresponsible act.”

Daschle told reporters the Senate would remain focused on the homeland security bill until it is completed, pledging to break off for other legislation such as an Iraq resolution only when agreement allows.

“I don’t want to displace homeland security,” Daschle said.  “If we can find an arrangement to interrupt [the homeland security debate], we’ll do it.”

Lott and top Senate Republicans warned Tuesday that the homeland security bill was on the verge of dying, but Daschle threatened to keep the Senate in session through next month’s elections to get the measure enacted.

Daschle said the Senate’s shift to the Justice Department reauthorization bill Tuesday afternoon was only a “temporary interruption” and warned, “We’re going to stay on the [homeland] bill.  We’re going to finish it.”  Daschle’s spokeswoman said later that no decision had been made about keeping the Senate in session through November, saying of the target date for adjournment, “We’re hoping next week and we’re thinking it might be the week after.”

Republicans said a breakthrough must take place today on homeland security or, in Lott’s words, “it’s going to be hopeless.”

Daschle also said renewing budget enforcement mechanisms was one of “two or three high priorities” he would try to deal with in the coming weeks.

Leading House supporters of providing Bush with authorization to use military force against Iraq emerged from a White House meeting Tuesday confident that a deal was at hand that would attract the support of most GOP leaders and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.).

Some among the bipartisan group of lawmakers, who were led by House Chief Deputy Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Representative Howard Berman (D-Calif.), said the agreed-to language could be announced as early as today.  Blunt predicted committee action and a floor vote next week.

One GOP official suggested Tuesday that Daschle remains a dissenting voice, while Lott, House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Gephardt are in basic agreement over the text of the resolution.

“There’s an increasing possibility that three of the four leaders are on the same page,” the GOP official said.

Back to top

U.S. Response II:  Exercise to Simulate Threat to Energy Plant

A terrorism exercise designed to respond to a simulated threat on a U.S. energy plant is set to take place Oct. 17-18 with a slate of current and former public officials acting as decision makers (see GSN, Sept. 30).

Dubbed Silent Vector, the exercise is to feature former Senator Sam Nunn playing the role of the president, current New Jersey Governor James McGreevy in his present role and former Defense Secretary William Cohen, former CIA Director James Woolsey, former FBI Director William Sessions and former Virginia Governor James Gilmore acting as other government leaders.

The exercise, which is being organized by two nongovernmental security research organizations — the ANSER Institute for Homeland Security and the Center for Strategic and International Studies — follows on the heels of Dark Winter, a biological terrorism exercise that revealed gaps last year in the country’s preparedness for a biological attack (see GSN, Nov. 30, 2001; Chuck McCutcheon, Newhouse News Service, Oct. 1).

[EDITOR’S NOTE:  Sam Nunn is co-chairman and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Military Takes on Homeland Defense as Its Civilian Lead Languishes

By Bryan Bender
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — While a new U.S. military command responsible for North America began operating today — codifying the Pentagon’s new role in supporting homeland defense — the Bush administration and Congress remain deadlocked over the establishment of a new civilian homeland security department to spearhead the domestic war on terrorism and the prevention of future attacks.  Administration officials had intended both the U.S. Northern Command and homeland security department to become operational today.

Both sides have all but given up on reaching a deal this year on the proposed homeland security department, and the disagreement threatens the U.S. ability to mount an adequate defense, government officials and experts said.

Northern Command Begins Operations

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz today joined Northern Command leader Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart to dedicate the new command, which will begin operations with an annual budget of $70 million and 582 employees in Colorado Springs, Colo., and other locations around the country (see GSN, May 9).

For the first time in the country’s history, a single military command will be assigned the mission of defending the continental United States and Alaska.  In addition, the new command will oversee U.S. military activities in Canada, Mexico, the Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, Puerto Rico and the oceans surrounding the United States out to 500 miles.  Hawaii will remain the responsibility of the U.S. Pacific Command.

“This is very, very much new territory, especially for the U.S. military,” Peter Verga, special assistant to the defense secretary for homeland security, said at a Heritage Foundation discussion last month.  “We haven’t operated inside the United States since the Civil War, and we like it that way.  But this is a different world, and we have prepared to do that.”

Today’s opening ceremony will also mark the merging of the U.S. Space Command in Colorado Springs with the U.S. Strategic Command at Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska.  Navy Adm. James Ellis plans to head the modified Strategic Command (see GSN, June 25).

The Northern Command will not have a significant number of combat forces permanently assigned to it but will nevertheless be able to call on air, naval and ground forces to respond to a threat emanating from outside U.S. borders as well as specialized units to support recovery efforts after a domestic terrorist attack, including chemical, biological, nuclear or radiological attack.

“If it’s an external threat coming in, we will have the lead,” Eberhart said recently.  “If it’s internal, we will assist.”

Verga said the Northern Command’s most valuable contribution to domestic security, however, would be its ability to plan for worst-case scenarios.  “With regard to what we are calling the ‘high-end’ problems — the extraordinary circumstances under which we might have to operate — having a single command responsible for both the planning and execution of those activities is important,” Verga said.  A hypothetical “high-end” event, he said, would be a simultaneous detonation of nuclear weapons in multiple U.S. cities.

To meet its new responsibilities, the Northern Command will rely heavily on the National Guard.  “We can’t have a Northern Command, we can’t provide for the homeland defense … without the National Guard,” Eberhart told guard leaders in California in early September.

Still No Homeland Security Department

The Northern Command is just a small piece, however, of the homeland security puzzle.  It is beginning operations as the proposed civilian agency designed to take the lead in homeland security has fallen victim to Washington politics.

While there is little disagreement about the structure of the proposed colossal homeland security department — to include 170,000 personnel from 22 different federal agencies — the White House and congressional Democrats are locked in a struggle over workers’ rights (see GSN, Sept. 18). 

Bush wants to reserve the right to hire or transfer department employees or to deny them union rights in the name of national security, while critical lawmakers are arguing that the new department’s employees should have the same labor rights as all other federal workers.  The debate has degenerated into an election-year fight, in which the White House has accused Democrats of caring more about their union supporters than defending the United States.

As lawmakers begin debate this week on an Iraq war resolution, observers expect the homeland security department to be placed on the back burner until after Nov. 5 elections and possibly until a new Congress meets next year.

Government officials and experts have contended that the delay in coordinating the various homeland security missions into a single domestic agency will stall efforts to improve overall security.

For example, the new department would serve as a critical link between national intelligence agencies that are gauging the terrorist threat and the local and state authorities that will probably be the first responders to a terrorist attack and be in a unique position to act on new intelligence to shore up vulnerabilities.

According to Winston Wiley, the CIA’s associate director for homeland security, it will be increasingly important for nontraditional customers such as state and local officials to be provided with classified and unclassified threat information.  He said at an August homeland security conference in Philadelphia sponsored by the Government Emerging Technology Alliance that a presidential directive is being crafted to improve information sharing with state and local officials.

Meanwhile, the new department should be important in helping intelligence agencies provide better vulnerability assessments of U.S. infrastructure, officials said.

“Generalized threat assessments do not do anyone any good,” said James Simon, assistant director of central intelligence for administration.  Local and state authorities need specific information to match general threat information, he said.  For example, a general assessment from intelligence agencies might say that a fertilizer plant next to a railroad in Iowa is a target.  What is needed, officials said, is a specialist at the homeland security department who knows there are only one or two possibilities that match that specific profile.

Perhaps the most worrisome scenario is the need to coordinate recovery efforts following a domestic terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction.  The proposed homeland security agency would call on the military and other agencies for assistance in this regard, but would be ultimately responsible for the government’s response.

Officials said that the least work has been done in this area.  “This is serious stuff and it’s critical we get it right,” said Steve Cooper, special assistant to the president and chief information officer of the White House Office of Homeland Security, intended as the precursor to the new department.  “We do not have a good handle around bioterrorism and weapons of mass destruction.”

Moreover, he said, the government has not done a good job of communicating with the U.S. public, which he believes knows little about what the proposed department is designed to do.

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Republican Senator Defies Bush With New Compromise

U.S. Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) has joined two Democratic senators in proposing a bipartisan compromise to the impasse over worker’s collective bargaining rights in homeland security legislation, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, Sept. 24).

Democrats now have a one-vote edge in the Senate after Senator Zell Miller (D-Ga.) chose to side with Republicans.  Chafee’s move directly opposes President George W. Bush, who said he would veto any bill that does not grant him the power to waive collective-bargaining rights and civil-service protections when organizing a new homeland security department.  Chafee said he was concerned about 48,000 union members of a total 200,000 federal employees whose jobs would be shifted to the new department.

“I know the White House is not going to be especially happy,” said Chafee.  “I made my pitch that if we have 48,000 unhappy employees after this, we’re not going to have a success in creating this department.”

Chafee joined Senators Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and John Breaux (D-La.) in proposing a compromise that would force Bush to prove an agency or unit is directly involved in the fight against terrorism before waiving their bargaining rights in a national emergency.  A Democratic proposal currently on the table would require the president to make the same case for each individual federal worker (see GSN, Sept. 18; Jackie Calmes, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 25).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP