[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 18, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8708-S8710]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HOMELAND SECURITY

  Mr. MILLER. Madam President, very shortly we will be back on the 
subject of homeland security. As this debate on homeland security goes 
on, I hope no one will forget that it is being held in the shadows of 
the fallen towers of the World Trade Center.
  The smoldering fires may have gone out, the acrid smell may no longer 
burn our nostrils, the strains of ``Amazing Grace'' from the bagpipes 
may no longer fill the air, but, make no mistake about it, the need to 
protect this country and prevent this from ever happening again is just 
as urgent.
  How does the Senate meet this, one of the greatest challenges of our 
time? I will tell you.
  We talk and talk and talk. Then we pause to go out on the steps of 
the Capitol to sing ``God Bless America'' with our best profile to the 
camera. Then we come back inside and show our worst profile to the 
country.
  I have not seen many cloture resolutions I did not like. I can't 
remember the last time I voted against one because I am almost always 
in favor of speeding things up around here.
  Too often, the Senate reminds me of Will Shakespeare's words:

       Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow
       Creeps in this petty pace from day to day.

  But the cloture vote that is before us now is one that I cannot 
support. We have wasted so many precious days, days that we could ill 
afford to waste, days that gave our enemies more time to plot their 
next attack. And now, all of a sudden, we want to invoke cloture to 
stop the debate in its tracks.
  Well, I will vote ``no.'' Because, make no mistake about it, invoking 
cloture will prevent this Senate from having a choice, a choice between 
a bill the President will sign and one that he will veto.
  We must give the President the flexibility to respond to terrorism on 
a moment's notice. He has to be able to shift resources, including 
personnel, at the blink of an eye.
  So why do we hold so dear a personnel system that was created in 1883 
and is as outdated as an ox-cart on an expressway?
  I will tell you why. Because by keeping the status quo, there are 
votes to be had and soft money to be pocketed. That is the dirty little 
secret.
  When the civil service was established well over a century ago, it 
had a worthy goal--to create a professional work force that was free of 
political cronyism.
  Back then, it was valid. But too often in government we pass laws to 
fix the problems of the moment and then we keep those laws on the books 
for years and years without ever following up to see if they are still 
needed.
  The truth of the matter is that a solution from the 19th century is 
posing a problem in the 21st, especially when this country is 
threatened in such a different and sinister way.
  Presently, we are operating under a system of governmental gout and 
personnel paralysis.
  Despite its name, our civil service system has nothing to do with 
civility. It offers little reward for good workers. It provides lots of 
cover for bad workers.
  Hiring a new federal employee can take 5 months--5 months. Firing a 
bad worker takes more than a year--if it is even allowable--because of 
the mountains of paper work, hearings, and appeals.
  A Federal worker caught drunk on the job can't be fired for 30 days, 
and then he has the right to insist on endless appeals.
  Productivity should be the name of the game. And we lose productivity 
when bad folks hold onto jobs forever or when jobs go unfilled for 
months.
  It is no wonder there is resentment among out many good employees. I 
would be resentful, too, if I watched bad workers kept on the payroll 
and given the same pay raises by managers who are intimidated by the 
complicated process of firing or even disciplining them.
  A few years ago, there was a best selling book entitled, ``The Death 
of Common Sense,'' written by a man named Phillip Howard.
  I liked it so well and thought it was so on target that I gave all my 
agency heads a copy and had them read it. Then, I had Mr. Howard come 
to Georgia and speak to all of them.
  Its thesis was that ``universal requirements that leave no room for 
judgment are almost never fair, even when the sole point is to assure 
fairness,'' to use his very words. It is still very timely and even 
more pertinent to the Federal Government than to State government.
  President Bush has called his efforts to bring security to our Nation 
and justice to our enemies a ``relentless march.''
  This Senator is ready to fall into formation with our President's 
``relentless march.''
  Because when it comes to protecting the jobs of Federal workers or 
protecting the lives of American citizens, I know where I stand.
  This is a country with 8,500 miles of border; a country that 500 
million people enter each year; a country where 16 million containers a 
year enter our ports from foreign countries, and where more than 1.2 
million international flights occur.
  The daunting task of securing this country is almost 
incomprehensible. Let's not make it more difficult by tying this 
President's hands and the hands of every President who comes after him.
  Why are some automatically assuming that the folks who will run this 
Department will abuse their positions and mistreat Federal employees?
  Instead of assuming the worst, why aren't we seeking to create the 
strongest, most efficient Department we can create?
  And don't forget this: Many previous Presidents--beginning with 
President John F. Kennedy--have found it necessary to exempt agencies 
from unionization and collective bargaining systems when it was in the 
interest of national security.
  Dozens of Federal agencies are currently not covered by the Federal 
Labor Management Relations Act: the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, 
the air marshals within the FAA, and the list goes on. And yet the tens 
of thousands of employees in these agencies have been treated fairly 
and well.
  Today, there are some 800 pages in the Federal Code that already 
generously guarantee rights, benefits and protections for employees--
800 pages worth.
  Now, I respect and thank the many good, hard-working Federal 
employees. And I have tried to imagine myself in these workers' places 
at this particular time in history.
  I am an old believer in that line by that wonderful Georgia 
songwriter, Joe South, ``Before you abuse, criticize or accuse, walk a 
mile in my shoes.''
  But perhaps it is because I have worked for $3 a day and was glad to 
have a job that I find their union bosses' refusal to budge for the 
greater good of this country so surprising.
  Union politics may be important, but it should never take the place 
of national security. We are at a most serious time in the history of 
this land. Our country, our people are in mortal danger.
  And as I look at what is transpiring around me, this old history 
teacher cannot help but think about what the timid and indecisive 
Neville Chamberlain was told by a Member of Parliament as he was being 
dismissed as

[[Page S8709]]

the Prime Minister of Great Britain. ``You have sat too long for the 
good that you have done,'' the Member told him. ``You have sat too long 
for the good that you have done.''
  I am sorry to say it, but on this question of homeland security, I 
believe that most Americans think that this Senate has sat too long for 
the good that we have done.
  And as Chamberlain slunk away that historic day, the crowd shouted 
after him, ``Go, go, go.''
  Then, you remember, Winston Churchill, who had been a voice in the 
wilderness warning for years about the threat of Hitler, became Prime 
Minister.
  And in that famous speech to Parliament in May of 1940, he uttered 
those famous words, ``I have nothing to offer but blood, tears, toil, 
and sweat.''
  Madam President, what does this Senate have to offer? What do we have 
to offer in this time of crisis? How about a little bipartisanship, 
perhaps? That is not too much to ask, is it, compared to blood, tears, 
toil, and sweat?
  Because, as Churchill continued in that speech, ``We have before us 
an ordeal of the most grievous kind.'' We certainly have that today, an 
ordeal of the most grievous kind.
  Churchill went on:

       We have before us many long months of struggle and of 
     suffering. You ask what is our policy?
       I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air with 
     all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; 
     to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in 
     the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our 
     policy.
       You ask what is our aim? I can answer in one word--
     victory--victory at all costs, victory in spite of all 
     terror, however long and hard the road may be; for without 
     victory there is no survival. Without victory, there is no 
     survival.

  And then Churchill said this:

       At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I 
     say ``Come, then let us go forward together with our united 
     strength.''

  Then, Clement Attlee, the leader of the opposing Labor Party, joined 
with Churchill as his Deputy Prime Minister and they worked together 
during the course of the war.
  Why can't we have something like that around here now? Is that too 
much to ask when we are in a death struggle for the soul of mankind?
  So, Madam President, I have made my choice. When it comes to choosing 
between an aged, arthritic civil service system filled with stumbling 
blocks and booby traps, or an agile agency that is nimble and 
responsive on the other, this American stands with his President.
  I have made my choice. When it comes to choosing between real 
homeland security that protects somebody's life or homebound insecurity 
that protects somebody's job, this American stands with his President.
  Deep down, I know that I am not the only one on my side of the aisle 
who feels this way. And I hope that I will not be the only one on my 
side of the aisle who votes with the President.
  Seldom has there been--on any issue--a greater need for united, 
bipartisan support to make that ``relentless march'' to bring security 
to our Nation and justice to our enemies.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Madam President, I have been in Congress for 24 years, and 
I have never heard a better speech. I have never heard a clearer 
statement of principle. I congratulate the Senator from Georgia.
  Tomorrow, the Senator from Georgia and I will announce the completion 
of an effort we have had underway for several weeks. We will try to 
look at concerns about the President's bill that have been raised in 
the House, we will try to look at concerns that have been raised in the 
Senate, we will try to look at changes that were made in the House bill 
and the Senate bill, and even try to come up with a bill that addresses 
those concerns, but does it in such a way as to protect the President's 
ability to fight and to win this war on terrorism.
  Also, Madam President, let me make it clear: When 9/11 happened and 
the President decided he wanted to create a new independent agency by 
taking parts of the Government that were not working together, that 
were not communicating effectively, and putting them into a coherent 
whole, I would have thought 100 Members of the Senate would have 
supported that effort.
  I was wrong. If anybody had told me that in light of 9/11, the death 
of thousands of our people and the imminent danger we face every day 
that we would have an effort in the Senate to actually take power away 
from the President. This is power that President Carter had, power that 
President Reagan had, power that President Bush had, power that 
President Clinton had, and power that President Bush has today, I 
wouldn't have believed it.
  Who would believe that a bill that could not have been passed before 
9/11, a bill that literally strips away the power of the President to 
designate a national emergency and in the process waive work rules that 
impede efficiency and jeopardize lives? Who would have believed, after 
thousands of our citizens were dead, after millions of our citizens are 
in danger, that the Senate would come forward with a bill that says: 
What is our response to 9/11? Our response is the President has too 
many national security powers.
  That is exactly what the Lieberman bill does.
  Incredibly, the President today has the power, in the name of 
national security, to set aside union work rules.
  The majority leader said yesterday:

       Show me one time in history when the circumstances 
     threatening our country demanded we forgo the protections 
     built into laws for Federal workers.

  Well, let me give you, very quickly, some concrete examples of 
exactly why, after 9/11, we need to preserve the powers the President 
has today. Let me remind my colleagues, today, prior to 9/11, the 
President had used these powers, as President Clinton did, to set aside 
union contracts in the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the 
Air Marshals Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, the Office 
of Criminal Enforcement, and the Office of Enforcement and Intelligence 
at the Drug Enforcement Agency.
  Workers in those offices today are working under the procedures the 
President has asked that he be allowed to continue to exercise.
  What kinds of problems do you run into with these silly union work 
rules? Let me say to my colleagues, I don't see how anybody with a 
straight face can stand on the floor of the Senate and defend the civil 
service system as it exists today, when you are talking about threats 
to the lives of our children and our families. It is not as if we have 
not been warned. The Grace Commission warned us. The Volcker Commission 
stated:

       The current system is slow. It is legally trampled and 
     intellectually confused. It is impossible to explain to 
     potential candidates. It is almost certainly not fulfilling 
     the spirit of our mandate to hire the most meritorious 
     candidates.

  That is Paul Volcker, and that is in 1989.
  Our colleague, Senator Rudman headed the U.S. Commission on National 
Security. We all know Warren Rudman. We all know he is no union basher. 
We all know he has good judgment and good sense. This is what he said:

       Today's Civil Service system has become a drag on our 
     national security. The morass of rules, regulation and 
     bureaucracy prevent the government from hiring and retaining 
     the workforce that is required to combat the threats of the 
     future.

  I could go on. For example, the Brookings Institution has shown study 
after study that the system is broken.
  Now, after giving President Carter, President Reagan, President Bush, 
President Clinton, and the current President Bush the power to set 
aside these union work rules for national security reasons, and after 
the events of 9/11, the majority brings forth a bill that says: Well, 
we gave this power to President Clinton and we gave the power to 
President Carter, but after 9/11, we are going to take away security 
powers of the President.

  That is offensive and ludicrous on its face, and when the American 
people discover it, they are going to go absolutely crazy. When they 
discover that we currently have eight agencies operating under these 
rules today, and the Congress, in its response to 9/11, wants to say: 
Well, we are going to take away powers from this President that 
President Clinton needed and President Carter needed--I don't think so. 
I don't think people are going to buy it.

[[Page S8710]]

  What kinds of impediments are we talking about? Well, let me touch a 
few. These are actual cases. I am not talking about theoretical cases. 
The majority leader says, show him examples of where these work rules 
interfere with national security. Let me quickly give you a handful of 
them.
  We had an effort in Customs, in 1987, to change the makeup of our 
inspection center in the Customs office at Logan Airport. The idea was, 
change the makeup of the office in order to make it more efficient in 
fulfilling the functions of Customs. Guess what? Customs tried to 
change the configuration of the room. The public employee labor union, 
representing Customs officials, appealed to the Federal Labor Relations 
Authority, and the power of the Administration to change the 
configuration of the inspection room was rejected.
  Do we really want some work rule negotiated prior to 9/11 to prevent 
us from finding somebody who is carrying a bomb on a plane with your 
momma? Have people gone completely crazy? What is going on here?
  Let me touch on a couple of these. Union work rules prohibited an 
agency from working together to protect the border. Literally, as our 
former drug czar Barry McCaffrey pointed out, the union work rules 
prohibited one of the agencies from opening trunks. The drug smugglers 
were aware of it, had people at the border watching, and decided to 
move drugs based on those work rules.
  What if that is poisonous gas or biological weapons or a nuclear 
weapon coming into New York Harbor? We are going to go to the National 
Labor Relations Authority to renegotiate a union contract when millions 
of lives are at stake? I don't think so. And the idea that our 
colleagues would believe such a thing is possible just shows you how 
out of touch some people are with their commitment to the status quo as 
compared to their commitment to the job at hand.
  Very quickly, because I am running out of time, there was a 
prohibition of agencies for increasing the number of immigration 
inspectors. We had an effort to increase the number of inspections of 
immigration inspectors in 1990. And under union work rules, it was 
rejected because of a union contract.
  Do people really think, in light of 9/11, we should allow a union 
contract to stand in our way and spend months and months and months 
before the National Labor Relations Authority trying to change that 
contract, rather than saying there is a clear and present danger to 
America and we want to change it today?
  Now, the President has that power. But under the Lieberman bill, that 
power would be taken away. I could go on and give you dozens of real-
life examples of how ridiculous these union work rules are. Look, if we 
were not talking about people's lives, we could all play this game of 
just saying how sacred these union work rules are that make our Federal 
Government the laughingstock of the country and the world. But when we 
are talking about lives and talking about the powers that four 
Presidents have had, the idea that we are going to take that power away 
from this President, at this time, is totally unacceptable.
  To add insult to injury, the President has asked for flexibility. He 
has asked for the right to promote good people and put them in the 
right place, and not wait 5 months to hire somebody, and to fire 
incompetents. The President cannot promote the lady from the FBI who 
sent a memo to the home office saying: Hey, we have people with 
terrorist links who are learning to fly planes and not land them, and 
maybe we ought to do something about it.

                          ____________________