[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 107 (Wednesday, July 31, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7728-S7731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PLAYING CHESS WITH HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if I may, while the ranking Republican
member of the Appropriations Committee is completing an appointment
outside the Chamber, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for
not to exceed 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks appear at someplace
in the Record other than in association with the Defense appropriations
bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in response to the terrorist acts of
September 11, the Bush administration--like so many other
administrations before it--has chosen to demonstrate its tough stand
against something. In the case of the Bush administration, it is a
tough stand against terrorism and its concern for the safety and well-
being of the American people by boldly maneuvering the Federal chess
pieces to create a new Department called Homeland Security.
It is an impressive move, Mr. President--this reorganization of the
Government. Many say that it is the greatest reorganization during the
past half century. I think it could very well be said that it is the
greatest reorganization since the Founding Fathers reorganized the
Government in 1787.
At that particular time, the 13 colonies--by then 13 States--had been
under the operation of the Articles of Confederation. And many of those
who served in the Senate in 1789 had been Members of the Congress under
the Articles of Confederation and had been Members of the Continental
Congress, which first met on September 5, 1774. The Framers of the U.S.
Constitution reorganized our Government so that when their work product
had been ratified by the States--the required number of nine for
ratification--we then became the United States of America. We were no
longer under the Articles of Confederation. That constituted a
reorganization of our Government.
But I am talking about a reorganization that is being proposed today.
I say that it is the most massive reorganization that has occurred
since the Framers reorganized the Government
[[Page S7729]]
through the ratifying conventions and the ratifications by the
requisite necessary number of States--reorganized the Government so
that it was no longer a government under the Articles of Confederation.
Rather, it was the United States Government under the United States
Constitution.
As to the current proposal, it is no wimpy reorganization. To check
terrorism within our borders, the administration has proposed to
establish a massive new Department of Homeland Security. It will be a
Department so large that it will affect an estimated 170,000 Federal
employees and will constitute the largest Department--the third
largest--after the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.
From what I have read, the thousands of workers of this proposed
Department will be doing essentially the same job they are already
doing, but they will be doing it under a different newly consolidated
roof with different lines of authority. Why the administration seems to
think that these workers will perform their duties better just because
they are transferred to a new agency has both bothered and baffled me
until late last week.
Last week, President Bush let it be known that if any version of the
Department of Homeland Security passes the Congress which ensures Civil
Service protections, collective bargaining rights, and other provisions
to safeguard Federal workers' rights and protections, he will veto it.
At first, I thought this was simply another of the usual pokes at
Federal workers. There is the unfortunate implication in the
President's veto threat that the current Federal workforce is so full
of slackers--there are some there, no doubt--but it is so full of
slackers and ineptitude that he may need to get rid of them all and
hire a new Federal force.
But then as I thought about the President's claims that the Secretary
of the Department of Homeland Security will need the ability--get
this--to act ``without all kinds of bureaucratic rules and obstacles,''
I began to have other concerns about the Bush administration's
intentions.
It may be that this White House crowd, comprised of CEOs, corporate
managers, and other wealthy business elites, may be seeking to use the
Department of Homeland Security to further their efforts to run the
Federal Government more like a corporation, seeking freedom to hire and
fire dedicated public servants, many of them experts in their fields,
at will.
By the way, the actions of CEOs are not exactly models--and I am not
talking about all CEOs, of course. But the actions of CEOs we have been
reading about recently are not exactly models on which to run much of
anything these days, and I hope that I am not detecting the same
cavalier attitude about Federal pensions that we have seen in press
accounts detailing the horrific pension ripoffs by some of our large
corporations.
No one wants to deny the administration the ability to take
reasonable steps to foster flexibility within the proposed new agency,
but I question the real motivation behind the administration's
objections to worker protections. Let's face it, the players in this
administration do not have much of a reputation as champions of basic
protections for workers.
President Bush is currently pushing the Congress to subject 425,000
Federal jobs to contractor competition by the end of his term. This
administration has made it a goal to take Federal jobs and dole them
out like candy to private firms, apparently.
In drafting its proposed reorganization, the administration started
with a panel of four--four white collar political players; four white
collar political players in the bowels of the White House, in the
subterranean caverns of the White House.
Who were the geniuses behind this idea? Mr. Andrew Card, a fine
gentleman--I like him, a very able man; former Gov. Tom Ridge, a fine
gentleman, a very able official, who has had great experience in
running the Governor's office in one of our larger States in the Union,
one of the States that was among the first 13, by the way. Then there
is the White House counsel, I believe his name is Gonzales. I am not
sure I know him very well. And then the fourth in this quartet of
master planners is none other than Mr. Mitch Daniels, the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget.
So there is the quartet. Not quite the caliber, I would say--although
one may wish to debate it--it may be worthy of argumentation--not quite
the caliber of the committee of five that wrote the Declaration of
Independence: Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, William
Livingston, and Roger Sherman. Roger Sherman is the only one of the
five who signed all of the founding documents of this great Nation. Now
there was a committee of five.
So while there may be some argument as to how one would stack up
against the other, I would put my bets on the committee of five that
wrote the Declaration of Independence. I will stay with them. No
disrespect intended, of course, to the White House committee of four,
but they operated in secret in the bowels of the White House. I
understand that when the President unveiled this massive monstrosity,
some of the Department heads in the Government had not been in on the
deal until the day that it was sprung.
It sprang like Aphrodite from the ocean foam. She sprang from the
ocean foam and was carried on a leaf to the Island of Crete. She later
appeared before the gods on Mount Olympus and, of course, they were
dazzled by her beauty. This Homeland Security plan came into being
about like that, or one might compare its sudden emergence with the
goddess Minerva who sprang from the forehead of Jove, the forehead of
Jupiter. Minerva sprang fully armed and clothed from the forehead of
Jove.
That is about the way this thing came into being. That was the
genesis of it, down there in the White House. It was conceived in
secret and was born in secret, and there we are.
So the administration has given these white-collar political
players--there were four of them in the beginning--free rein to move
Federal workers around from one agency to the other in the name of
homeland defense. That same administration now appears poised to
sabotage the pay, the health benefits, and the retirement benefits of
the very Federal workers it wants to involve with safeguarding our
homeland security.
There is nothing like threatening jobs and health benefits to give a
boost, of course, to the morale of the employees of a new and very
important Department. This is just what we need to energize our new
Homeland Security Department, is it not? They will like that--
jeopardize their benefits and their pay and their jobs. Imagine the
concentration level of nail-biting employees concerned about where
their next paycheck is coming from. Think about that. And what will
happen to their families if the Bush administration prevails in freeing
itself from the normal restrictions which safeguard Federal workers'
rights?
For those who doubt my concerns, I ask them to examine the Bush
administration's attitude toward Federal workers. It has been clearly
expressed by recent comments. Administration spokesman Ari Fleischer,
for example, has said that Federal workers need to be stripped of their
rights and protections because managers in the Department of Homeland
Security will need the ability to fire a worker who was drunk on the
job and as a result allowed terrorists into the country. Great stuff!
Great motivation, for a Federal workforce on whom we will rely for our
safety, and those of our families and friends and associates, and
people all over the country.
I do not see anyone defending drunken workers. Not me. I would not
defend a drunken worker. We do not have to strip all Federal workers of
their basic rights and threaten their pay and retirement benefits in
order to deal with one worker who has been drinking on the job. I
certainly do not defend that kind of behavior.
This comment was a needless and irresponsible cheap shot at hundreds
of thousands of dedicated, hard-working Federal employees who are
laboring day and night in many instances for far less money than they
could be earning in the private sector. I think Mr. Fleischer owes them
all an apology. Federal workers are not the problem. They are the
unsung heroes who are protecting our homeland.
Pause for a moment and think about that. They are the Border Patrol
agents. Federal workers are the Border
[[Page S7730]]
Patrol agents guarding our 6,000-mile-long borders when we think of
both borders with Mexico and Canada. All day, and all night while the
rest of us are sleeping, they are guarding those borders, guarding us.
Those are Federal workers. They are the Customs Service inspectors who
have been working around the clock since September 11 to prevent
weapons of mass destruction from being carried in containers through
our ports of entry. Those are Federal workers. They are the postal
workers who have to think about delivering packages of anthrax. They
are the Federal workers who have had to deal with the anthrax threat.
What about the Center for Disease Control workers who must confront the
hard reality of a possible bioterrorist attack every day?
Federal employees are the rank-and-file workers who do the bulk of
the work in securing the homeland, and they will continue to do the
bulk of the work in securing this country from sea to shining sea. They
are the workers who will do the bulk of the work in securing the
homeland but who will receive little of the credit and the glory that
go to the administration's political appointees.
The President has asked these Federal employees to be the frontline
soldiers in the war on terrorism. They are out there at every hour of
the day and the night, somewhere, guarding the ports of this country,
guarding the borders of this country, guarding the airports of this
country, standing on guard. And the President would reward them by
trying to take away their basic labor, civil service rights, and job
protections?
I was especially alarmed by OMB Director Mitch Daniels' explanation
for stripping Federal workers of their rights. Mr. Mitch Daniels said:
Our adversaries are not encumbered by a lot of rules. Al-
Qaida does not have a three foot thick code. This department
is going to need to be nimble.
This is a startling, as well as frightening, remark. Since when did
al-Qaida become our role model for labor-management relations? I
thought we were out to destroy al-Qaida, not emulate them. Ha, ha, ha,
ha, ha. No, they do not have a 3-foot code of rules. Al-Qaida also does
not have this code which I hold in my hand, the Constitution of the
United States, but we do. We have this code, this Constitution.
Is this administration using the 19th-century industrial robber
barons as its role model for labor-management relations? What is going
on in the heads of these so-called administration spokesmen? The
President had better rein in some of these spokesmen. Destroying the
basic rights of Federal workers is not how we should be combating
terrorism. The fight against terrorism does not have to be fought by
workers stripped of basic labor rights. Denying basic rights and
protections to workers always makes recruitment of skilled and
experienced employees difficult.
But just as important as the necessity that our Federal workforce be
a secure workforce, a workforce composed of employees who know they
will be protected from politics, cronyism, and favoritism, it must be a
workforce armed with protections that can allow them to speak out about
mismanagement without fear of losing jobs.
It is rank-and-file Government workers, who are on the job every day
and night, keeping Government operating, protecting you, Mr. President,
protecting me, protecting our friends in the fourth estate there in the
gallery. These are the Government workers who make the Government
function, and they are the Government workers upon whom we now depend
to protect us.
I can't help but think of those incredible workers at FEMA who have
done such a tremendous job, time and time again, in response to floods
in West Virginia and in crisis situations in every other State in the
Union. It was a Federal employee of the Customs Service who apprehended
a terrorist, Ahmed Ressam, with 134 pounds of explosives in December of
1999 at the border in the State of Washington. Later, the terrorist
confirmed that it was his intent to bomb Los Angeles Airport during the
2000 New Year's celebration. These are the players that this
administration threatens to strip of their rights and benefits.
The assertion that Federal workers cannot be disciplined under
existing Federal guidelines is somewhat of a myth. There are strict
performance requirements for Federal workers already in place. There
are performance reviews annually and initial hires on probation for 1
year. No new rules are necessary. No new blanket exceptions for basic
labor rights are needed by this administration. This administration has
not even got legislation in place which clearly identifies the mission
of this new Department, and this administration is already trying to
blame the Federal workforce for any potential failures that might occur
in the future.
Again, I say, slow down. Let's slow down. Let's slow down. Let's slow
this proposed legislation down. I am not saying today that I am against
a Department of Homeland Security. But what is the rush? What is the
rush? Consider carefully a veto threat of any bill setting up a
Department of Homeland Security which does not give this White House
sweeping new powers, sweeping new powers to abolish workers rights and
workers protections.
Imagine that; imagine a veto that would do that. I think the agenda
of this White House is becoming very, very clear. And we had better
pause, we had better stop, we had better look, and we had better
listen. Talk about passing this massive new law, creating a massive,
monstrous behemoth by September 11, by an artificial deadline! This
legislation would emasculate certain portions of this Constitution
which I hold in my hand--emasculate it! Trample it into the dirt!
Mr. President, I have been here 50 years. I am not in the Senate
today because I need a Senate salary. I could have retired 2 years ago
when my 7th term was completed. I could be drawing a check today, a
retirement check. I have been in the Senate and the House 50 years. I
don't have to work here to put bread and butter on the table for my
wife, to whom I have been wed 65 years and 2 months, the day before
yesterday. I don't have to have it. Why am I here? I should be at home
with her. I should be living with my grandchildren, my great-
grandchildren, enjoying a little leisure at the end of a long, long
worklife that began in the mining camps of southern West Virginia a
long time ago.
No, I am here to protect this Constitution and this Institution of
which you, Senator, from Minnesota, and you, Senator, from Hawaii, and
97 other Senators are a part. That is it. Some give their lives on the
battlefield in wars. There are others of us who give our lives in
public service. I am one of them.
Let's slow down. We don't know what the unintended consequences will
be of the passage of this legislation. Study the House bill. Study the
House-passed bill. The House passed a bill after 2 days of debate. I
believe there were 132 Members of the House who voted against that
bill. Were they against homeland security? No! Those Members of the
House who voted against that bill were as much for homeland security as
I am, as much as the President of the United States is. They were for
homeland security. I am for homeland security. I defy anyone to say
that the Senator in the chair, that the Senator who sits just behind
me, or any other Senator, is against homeland security.
Many times I have stood before that desk up there and put my hand on
the Holy Bible, and I have sworn to support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is
why I am here. We are in too big a hurry to pass this bill. For what
reason? Because there is an election coming on.
And then there were some well intentioned souls, but so gullible, as
to suggest that we ought to do this big ``thing'' before September 11
or by September 11, the anniversary of the most horrendous attack
against this country that has ever occurred. Why September 11?
We have a duty to discuss this bill at length. I say to all Senators,
Republicans and Democrats, hear me, the people out there across this
country are not clamoring for this legislation. The politicians are
clamoring for it. The same people who will work under this new Homeland
Security Department are already working today for homeland security in
the various agencies that will be transferred to this department. They
are already on the job. The Appropriations Committees of
[[Page S7731]]
both Houses have already acted to release funds for homeland security
time and time again, last year and this year.
Then, the people of this country are being urged to pressure their
representatives to act on this Department. This Department was
conceived in the bowels of the White House by four Federal workers--
four members of the White House staff!
Take time to study what we are about to do! Read title 8 of the
House-passed bill. It scares me! Read title 8.
I think the agenda of this White House is becoming very clear. It is
not homeland security that this White House is lusting after. Bin Laden
is not the only target at which this administration is pointing its
six-gun. Clearly in the bull's eye is also the job security of
thousands of Federal employees and the core values of rights for the
workers. And there it is. I will have more to say on this subject.
I am talking about the Constitution and about this Institution, Mr.
President. Think of it! Think of the blood that has been shed by men
and women over these past 216 years to uphold this Constitution, to
protect the security of this country.
There is a man in the chair (Mr. Cleland) who has given everything
but his life for his country. I would be ashamed to run against him. I
would be ashamed to be a candidate, put myself up against that man--or
this man here behind me (Mr. Inouye).
We had better go slow. We can easily tear down in a few weeks what it
has taken centuries to build.
I saw them tearing a building down,
A group of men in a busy town;
With a ``Ho, heave, ho'' and a lusty yell,
They swung a beam and the sidewall fell.
I said to the foreman, ``Are these men skilled
The type you'd hire if you had to build?''
He laughed, and then he said, ``No, indeed,
Just common labor is all I need;
I can easily wreck in a day or two,
That which takes builders years to do.''
I said to myself as I walked away,
``Which of these roles am I trying to play?
Am I a builder who works with care,
Building my life by the rule and square?
Am I shaping my deeds by a well-laid plan,
Patiently building the best I can?
Or am I a wrecker who walks the town,
Content with the labor of tearing down?''
____________________