Global Policy Forum

By David Firestone

As Congress prepared to gather on Tuesday in a post-election session to create a Homeland Security Department, Democrats and Republicans began shaping a compromise proposal that would cut back on workers' rights in the department but could end the deadlock that has stalled its creation for months.

The proposal, as outlined today by Congressional officials, recognizes that Republicans now have the votes to design the department according to President Bush's original plan. It allows the administration an essentially free hand to bypass civil service rules in promoting and firing workers in the new antiterrorism agency, and permits the president to exempt unionized workers from collective-bargaining agreements in the name of national security.

But the plan gives unions a greater voice than the administration had earlier planned in mapping out new personnel rules, and it would require the president to renew the collective bargaining exemption every four years.

Republican officials said the White House's willingness to negotiate with Democrats at all, given the new political climate on Capitol Hill, reflected its hope of creating the department with a bipartisan vote rather than a narrow Republican majority.

The plan may attract the votes of several swing Democrats, including Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and John B. Breaux and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, particularly because Ms. Landrieu faces a runoff re-election next month. But it drew scorn today from the federal employee unions that have most strongly opposed the administration's plans for "flexible" personnel management procedures.

"This compromise is completely unacceptable to us," said Bobby L. Harnage Sr., national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents more than 30,000 workers who would be moved to the new department. "The right to belong to a union doesn't change just because the Republicans picked up a couple of seats in the Senate, and I'll be very disappointed if they continue to be a bully and shove it down everyone's throat to show they can. They have the right to do it but that don't make it right, that just makes it mean."

Mr. Harnage said there were many things the union could do to "be a pain" if the administration strips thousands of Homeland Security Department workers of their union rights, including using the courts for every grievance once union grievance procedures are eliminated.

The plan was worked out by staff members of several Democratic and Republican senators over the weekend, and it could still be changed once the senators themselves get involved in negotiations this week. White House staff members also took part in the meetings, and an official there said today that the proposal was likely to form the basis for an agreement that could end the deadlock.

Under the proposal, the secretary of Homeland Security would send a notice of planned personnel changes to union officials, who would have 30 days to respond and make recommendations. The department would have to consider the union's objections, but if no agreement could be reached, the secretary would declare an impasse and send the matter to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. After 30 days of mediation, the secretary could put into effect the original proposal, or accept any part of the mediator's suggestions. The unions could go to court if they disagreed.

The president could eliminate the collective bargaining rules for national security purposes under the proposal, as he is allowed to do now, but the four-year renewal provision is new. It is intended to allow a subsequent president to re-evaluate the matter, but for all practical purposes, any Democratic president would already be able to reinstate the union rights immediately after taking office.

If the proposal proves acceptable to enough senators, the Senate could vote on it shortly after the lame-duck session begins on Tuesday. But other obstacles remain to a quick approval of the department, which would combine 22 existing agencies into a vast new department to strengthen the nation's antiterrorism efforts. The Senate may have to cut off a possible filibuster over the department's creation by Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, who opposes the department's creation. Unresolved disagreements also remain over the shape of the agency's intelligence and immigration functions.

Any new proposals made in the Senate would also have to be taken up in House, which approved the Bush administration's version of the department in July.

Senator Trent Lott, the Republican leader, first hoped to take up the security department next year, after his party's majority is solidified in the 108th Congress. But in a White House meeting last week, President Bush insisted that the department be created before the end of the year, and Mr. Lott agreed to try.

Until now, Democrats have held a majority of votes in favor of their plan to preserve worker rights in the department, and Republicans have filibustered their efforts to approve the plan. But Republicans used the Democratic position against two incumbent senators in the election campaign, and the issue played a significant role in their defeat.

Democrats hope to prevent the matter from being used against Ms. Landrieu in her runoff, and the new proposal provides an opportunity for some senators to approve the department and move on to other issues.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.