Democrats Hold Homeland Security Bill Hostage over Partisan Politics

FOX News ^ | 11/18/2002 | Staff

[ex-Texan]

WASHINGTON

[Boxsford]

Give me a break--the very last and I mean last people that need protection are the pharmaceutical companies.

[DallasMike]

No one is an ex-Texan -- you're just temporarily displaced.

[Republican Wildcat]

They are putting Landrieu in a rather difficult position, aren't they?

http://www.suzieterrell.com

[jrlc]

Pooh-LOUSEY, Pooh-LOSER, Pooh-LEFTY -- but is she taller than DasHOLE?

[My2Cents]

I live in California. Would Texas be willing to adopt me as one of their own?

[NoControllingLegalAuthority]

Yes and most in congress have not read the nearly 500-page bill. That is an outrage.

You legislative sons of b***** should read the laws you want to impose on the rest of us! Is that such a tall order? You same grandstanding pols passed the so-called "USA Patriot Act (anything but) without reading that one either!

What is so important to members of congress they cannot read the laws they wish to impose?

I am a conservative. I voted for, and supported, Bush. I am against a Department of Homeland Security. There is nothing helpful about creating a monstrous federal bureaucracy and taking away our freedom in the process. If we want to improve security, we need to have the existing agencies (there are plenty agencies and plenty employees) just do their job. We don't need a bigger agency, more employees, more laws, more regulations and more confusion among the incompetents already employed.

A country wanting more security might want to start at the kindergarten level of SECURING THE DAMN BORDERS!!!!

[DallasMike]

You bet!

[Howlin]

I agree 100 percent. Clean it up!

[concerned about politics]

The Democrats first held up the bill to protect their union votes.

Now they're holding up national security to protect the trial lawyers DNC donations.

Democrats have no shame.

[tuna_battle]

"In all honesty, perhaps the Republican Senators should support a clean bill. I've always thought the way Congress can "Christmas-tree" a bill with non-germane provisions, completely unrelated to the main subject matter of a bill, was absurd".

Agreed - This is like taking a few minor office supplies from your employer (pens, pencils, etc.), and then remembering that you forgot to take the phone, filing cabinets, printer, fax machine, Palm Pilot and computer as well.

[xm177e2]

The GOP House added these provisions, all of which are likely good for the economy and for homeland security.

Why not split it into two bills--one with the homeland security, and the other with all of the pork that is so important to the Representatives?

[AAABEST]

The Dems are a big POS and so is Homeland "Security".

This whole thing is just a big gagglef**k. Nobody wins when the American spirit loses.

[concerned about politics]

$250,000 cap on damages into the bill, for when a faulty smallpox vaccine ruins a child's life by giving it autism (for example). A person's brain is only worth a quarter of a million despite inflation?

Bush wants to be able to give small pox vacines in a national emergency. If he doesn't, these kids will die of smallpox anyway, right?

[nonliberal]

Good. The Homeland Security bill is blatantly unconstitutional. No conservative should support it.

[concerned about politics]

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I guess I'd like to know what's really in the Bill rather than what the AP says. And why something is in the bill. The AP doesn't always tell the whole story.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The Homeland Security bill is blatantly unconstitutional.

Care to expound?

[WarHawk42]

I guess I'd like to know what's really in the Bill rather than what the AP says.

If you find out what is in the bill please do inform those who voted for it.  It would be nice if they new what they were voting on too.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"There is nothing helpful about creating a monstrous federal bureaucracy and taking away our freedom in the process."

Combining and making existing agencies communicate with one another amounts to "creating a monstrous federal bureaucracy"?

[WarHawk42]

Combining and making existing agencies communicate with one another amounts to "creating a monstrous federal
bureaucracy"?

No, but this does.

Though a vote was expected late Monday, a standoff could affect whether the bill, which includes provisions for establishing a
new 170,000-employee homeland security agency, will be passed by the end of the 107th Congress this year.