Dems use new clout to pass homeland security bills

Democrats are using their newfound political muscle to advance a handful of homeland security policies that they were unable to push through while in the minority, even if it means risking partisan warfare with the White House and their GOP counterparts.

Democrats have placed several controversial policies back onto the table, such as collective bargaining rights for federal screeners at airports, comprehensive cargo-screening requirements, and provisions to better regulate security at chemical facilities. While in the minority, Democrats either saw these policies shot down or watered down by Republicans.

With the tables turned, Republicans accuse Democrats of pushing bad policy and creating partisan tensions.

"Homeland security must not evolve into the notion of a 'fortress America' by enacting legislation that depletes the federal budget and shackles the U.S. economy," said House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Harold Rogers, R-Ky. Democrats counter that they are advancing long-overdue legislation that will make the country safer.

House and Senate Democrats attached a provision to legislation aimed at fulfilling recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that would give Transportation Security Administration screeners collective bargaining rights, prompting a White House veto threat.

"I think it's unfortunate that the bipartisan approach that we've always taken to homeland security in the last four years appears to be unraveling," said Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs ranking member Susan Collins, R-Maine.

"That's not the case in our committee," Collins added. "Our committee's still producing bipartisan bills and working in a cooperative way, but there's no doubt that there seems to be an attempt to try to provoke a presidential veto on some very important bills ... by attaching controversial issues to them."

The House 9/11 bill would require all U.S.-bound cargo to be scanned at foreign seaports within five years, a provision opposed by most Republicans.

In another example, House Democrats attached a provision to an emergency spending bill that would allow the federal government to require chemical facilities to use safer chemicals or processes. It would prevent the government from classifying certain security information and give citizens the ability to sue the Homeland Security Department or chemical plants, measures that Republicans contend will weaken security.

"Provisions like TSA unionization and the loosening of chemical security regulations have the real chance of derailing what otherwise could be strong, bipartisan legislation," a House GOP leadership aide said.

Democrats, however, say Republicans should not obstruct needed homeland security policies.

"It would be truly disturbing if there was an attempt to derail the entire 9/11 bill or other pressing homeland security legislation because of policy disagreements in a few areas," said House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman David Price, D-N.C. "We have a legislative process for working out disagreements like these that should be allowed to move forward."