[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and is as outdated as an ox-cart on an expressway?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.
____________________