Politics taint Homeland Security

In scoring a resounding victory in Election 2002, one of the major issues the Republicans trumpeted was the creation of a Department of Homeland Security. In just about every close Senate race, Republican candidates labeled Senate Democrats as "obstructionists" for failing to pass a bill creating the new department.\nThis political tactic played well in states such as Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina (fairly conservative states where Republicans won Senate races). But this message that played well to "patriots" across the country was little more than smoke and mirrors. The issue of Homeland Security is a confusing and tangled web of political posturing, and it begins with claims that Senate Democrats were "obstructionist." This claim is curious for many reasons.\nFirst and foremost, when Homeland Security was last debated at the end of September, it was the Republicans who were blocking the bill for moving forward. On four separate votes (that I can be sure of; there may have been more), it is the Republicans who failed to end a filibuster of the bill. \nWhy did they do this? They blocked it because they didn't like certain provisions in the bill. For most (but not all) Senate Republicans, it came down to an issue of "my way or the highway." It is disappointing that the same people who labeled the Democrats as "obstructionists" were the ones blocking the bill from even getting a vote, just because they disagreed with a few of its provisions.\nBut the voters chose on Nov. 5 to give Republicans control of the Senate. And, to the victors, go the spoils. The spoils, in this case, are special interest provisions inserted into the bill by the House of Representatives.\nAmong these special interest provisions are, as the Washington Post reported: Liability protections for drug companies manufacturing vaccines, provisions allowing for business to be done with companies that move off-shore to avoid paying taxes and a provision helping Texas A&M's chances of getting a homeland security research center. While some of these and other provisions are not extremely egregious on face (some, though, are), the method by which they were inserted into the bill is what has many lawmakers concerned.\nSenator John McCain, a Republican of Arizona, points out that this process is unfair. "I don't support a process where the House of Representatives throws a major piece of legislation over to the Senate and says good-bye," McCain was reported by CNN as saying on Monday. McCain voted to amend the bill and strip the special interest provisions from the legislation; unfortunately, the amendment failed.\nJust a few weeks ago, the Homeland Security bill was considerably shorter. It was around 40 pages, but thanks to a late night alteration by the House of Representatives, the bill is now more than 400 pages. Senators were then given little time to study and vote on a 400-page bill. While Senate Republicans wanted to delay voting on a bill they disagreed with, they allowed for little delay in voting on a bill that satisfies their needs. Basic fairness, it seems, lost out.\nBut, more importantly, it is the American people that lost out. Homeland Security is an important issue. Specifically, it is important that a Department of Homeland Security be created. But when an otherwise important bill is changed overnight and numerous special interest provisions are inserted, the bill becomes tainted. One might have hoped that, on an issue so important as Homeland Security, public interest would have trumped special interest.