Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush to Sign Homeland Security Bill
Fox News ^ | Monday, November 25, 2002 | AP

Posted on 11/25/2002 9:12:06 AM PST by Sparta

WASHINGTON — On his first working day after a four-nation tour of eastern Europe, President Bush planned to sign the new Department of Homeland Security into law Monday, marking the biggest overhaul in the federal government in more than 50 years.

The president was expected to "thank Congress for its bold and historic action in creating a new department largely along the lines of his proposal," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, who was to be named the new secretary of the department and newest member of the Cabinet.

Navy Secretary Gordon England was also expected to be named Ridge's deputy.

The department will have "one primary mission — protecting the American people, and it will allow 170,000 people to work more efficiently and effectively than ever before," Johndroe said.

Not since the creation of the Defense Department in 1947 has the government had so large an overhaul. The new department will employ 170,000 workers and encompass all or parts of 22 federal agencies. It has a $38 billion budget, estimated from the allocations of the existing units being incorporated.

Though the president originally wanted homeland security directed by the White House, Bush relented last June and proposed a new agency that could coordinate all the disparate bureaus and provide a cohesive front against terrorist threats.

Bush's proposal came after reviews of intelligence agencies revealed that a lack of coordination hampered efforts to foresee and prevent the Sept. 11 attacks.

After the bill was introduced by Senate Democrats, partisan wrangling slowed down progress as Democrats demanded worker protections that Bush said were too strict for an agency that would need the highest quality of workers and flexible staffing to confront fast-changing threats.

The sides finally agreed to limited collective-bargaining arrangements after Democrats lost the majority in the Senate on Election Day.

The agency has 90 days to get its leadership structure in place, but was expected to take more than a year before it would be operating at full speed.

Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has already said that he wants some changes to be applied to the agency next year, and has gotten a pledge from House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., to revise certain provisions in the next Congress.

One provision permits federal business with American companies that have moved their operations abroad to sidestep U.S. taxes.

Another measure legally shields drug companies already sued over ingredients used in vaccines. Democrats said this includes existing claims that mercury-based preservatives have caused autism in children.

Also re-examined will be a section that helps Texas A&M University win homeland-security research money, a priority of incoming House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: civilliberties; homelandsecurity; ridge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-137 next last
To: sheltonmac
"....Okay, so if we want to dedicate ourselves to the "war" on terror, let's allow the government to conduct random, warrantless searches in our homes. After all, if we're not terrorists, and keep our noses clean, basically law-abiding citizens, why should we be afraid of such infringements?...."

I still think that Bush's greater goal is to dismantle the Socialist/Unionist protection racket that we currently call the Federal Government. And he's going to do it incrementally, and this is the first step. Mark my words.

Remember my words when you see him attempt to privatize many government functions and allow staffing with non-union people.

Why do you think the Dems howled so much over this?

He's going to further break the back of the Socialists' stranglehold on America.

101 posted on 11/25/2002 12:01:36 PM PST by Victor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
I support President Bush 100%, yet reading some of the comments here I was reminded of something Benjamin Franklin said:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin
"An Account of Negotiations in London for Effecting a Reconciliation Between Great Britain and the American Colonies" (22 Mar. 1775)

I hope, pray and trust President Bush isn't leading down the wrong path.
102 posted on 11/25/2002 12:19:56 PM PST by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
I hope, pray and trust President Bush isn't leading down the wrong path.

I do too, but I don't all this power in Dasshole's, Hitlery's, or the Goron's hands.
103 posted on 11/25/2002 12:21:21 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Gal.5:1
someone, please post the exact Franklin quote on freedom/security...

Just saw your post. My post #102 may be what you're looking for.

104 posted on 11/25/2002 12:24:10 PM PST by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
I do too, but I don't all this power in Dasshole's, Hitlery's, or the Goron's hands.

A good perspective indeed.

105 posted on 11/25/2002 12:27:03 PM PST by scripter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
Bush is no conservative and this proves it. To think that he actually asked for this bill.....
106 posted on 11/25/2002 12:35:20 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
In defence of Dubya, he was trying to co-op the Democrats who were calling for a more Stalinist version of this bill.
107 posted on 11/25/2002 12:37:24 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
he was trying to co-op the Democrats who were calling for a more Stalinist version of this bill.

He's done that alot. Generally it means he takes democrat positions and runs with them...what a genius....

108 posted on 11/25/2002 12:40:04 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
Bump!!
109 posted on 11/25/2002 12:42:29 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
I hope you realize that I wasn't complimenting Bush. He's a democrat with an (R) next to his name.
110 posted on 11/25/2002 12:49:04 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Demidog
I know, I'm agreeing with you that Bush has compromised too much with the Democrats. But, what other choice do we have?
111 posted on 11/25/2002 12:51:51 PM PST by Sparta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: MeeknMing
Well, I see the Bush-Bshers have something to whine about today!
112 posted on 11/25/2002 1:00:24 PM PST by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
>>>But, what other choice do we have?

I suggest you, Demidogface and the other malcontents, move to another country, or better yet, start your own nation state. Both alternatives would appear to be, right up your alley!

113 posted on 11/25/2002 1:04:22 PM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
There are no innocent citizens. Only citizens whom we have not caught breaking the laws yet.
114 posted on 11/25/2002 1:06:54 PM PST by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sparta; First_Salute
A sad day for freedom in America.

Indeed. Our individual responsibility for our own security has just been stolen by a collective in Washinton, DC.

After today, taking individual steps to protect ourselves, our families, and our neighbors will be "suspect".

As I predicted on Sept. 12th right here on FR, "Only Nixon could go to China. Only Bush could turn America into Amerika." For those of you in Rio Linda, I meant that if clinton had tried this, we FReepers would have been up in arms. But since one of "our guys" did it, it's OK, right?

For some reason, that Buffalo Springfield song has been going through my head lately. You gotta' stop - hey - look around...

115 posted on 11/25/2002 1:09:49 PM PST by snopercod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sparta
But, what other choice do we have?

How about keeping the promises made to shrink government?

116 posted on 11/25/2002 1:16:28 PM PST by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

Comment #117 Removed by Moderator

Comment #118 Removed by Moderator

To: Victor
"I still think that Bush's greater goal is to dismantle the Socialist/Unionist protection racket that we currently call the Federal Government. And he's going to do it incrementally, and this is the first step. Mark my words."

That's very optimistic of you, but what evidence have you seen to lead you to that conclusion? Bush's tax cut wasn't much of a cut, and it isn't even permanent. While running for office he promised us--and eventually delivered--one of the largest increases in education spending in recent history. He signed the Patriot Act into law. He signed Campaign Finance Reform. He increased federal farm subsidies. When he first took office his projected budget increased government spending faster than the rate of inflation. Bush's desire to cut back on government jobs and hire people from the private sector may cut down on some of the red tape, but it there is no guarantee that it will save the taxpayers any money. His plan for the so-called "privatization" of Social Security still calls for rigid federal restrictions on how our money can be spent or saved.

Simply noting how loud the Democrats complain about Bush's proposals is no indication of the merit of those proposals. You know as well as I that Democrats are always complaining about EVERYTHING. I would love to believe that Bush is going to do something about the size and cost of government, but everything he has said and done so far seems to indicate that he likes things just as they are. Besides, with the next presidential election less than two years away, you can be sure that he won't do anything to rock the boat between now and then.

119 posted on 11/25/2002 1:59:40 PM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
I agree, With our current administrations goals on fighting terrorism we can only forsee larger government, higher taxes, and larger military spending.
120 posted on 11/25/2002 2:11:59 PM PST by JHrules
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-137 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson