[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 126 (Tuesday, October 1, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9685-S9688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           HOMELAND SECURITY

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the homeland security bill is being 
held up because some labor unions want to put their special interests 
ahead of the collective interests of the Nation's security. Remember, 
these unions are not fighting against any increase in the President's 
authority to override collective bargaining agreements in the interest 
of national security. No, they actually want to roll back this 
authority that every President has had and has used since President 
Jimmy Carter.
  How do union special interests affect national security? Here are 
just a few examples:
  In 1987, a union objected to renovating border protection areas at 
Logan Airport--the same airport used by the 9-11 hijackers.
  In 1990, a union prevented the INS from adding extra immigration 
inspectors in the Hawaii airport because it might affect the overtime 
pay of existing workers.
  In 2000, a union objected to a Customs Service drug interdiction 
along the Florida coast because it would interfere with vacation days.
  Let me say that again. In 2000, a union objected to a Customs Service 
drug interdiction along the Florida coast simply because it would 
interfere with vacation days.
  So why are our colleagues on the other side advancing the labor 
union's agenda? Well, let's take a look at this chart. Four of the five 
major public sector unions who are publicly pushing for the Lieberman 
bill have showered over 93 percent of their campaign contributions to 
Democrats. The fifth contributed 87 percent.
  Here are the top contributors supporting the Lieberman bill: American 
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees contributed 99 
percent of their funds to Democrats; American Federation of Teachers, 
99 percent; International Association of Fire Fighters, 87 percent; 
American Federation of Government Employees, 93 percent; and National 
Treasury Employees Union, 94 percent.
  When it comes to the accusations of linking campaign contributions to 
political payoffs, my Democratic colleagues and their friends in the 
media continue to believe influence pedals down a one-way street. 
Remember the energy bill? You could hardly sit down to breakfast in the 
morning without reading about how Republicans were shamelessly catering 
to big oil and big energy interests at the expense of the environment. 
These accusations have blared forth from every corner of the media 
establishment. The New York Times--surprise, surprise--on several 
occasions editorialized about big money driving the energy bill, 
essentially viewing it as a payoff to oil companies and their friends 
in the administration, which include ``the biggest and dirtiest 
utilities.''
  The Boston Globe judged a House-passed energy bill as ``little better 
than the one cobbled together by Enron, other utilities, and big oil 
for the Bush administration.''
  The Fort Worth Star ominously warned of the ``propriety of allowing 
big contributors to shape public policy to their personal benefit.''
  The Greensboro, North Carolina News and Register declared ``clearly 
something is wrong when big business shapes the nation's energy 
policy.''
  This rhetoric also blared forth from my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle who charged this bill was ``crafted behind closed doors,'' 
and that it ``looked like the Exxon-Mobil report,'' and that Exxon-
Mobil, Enron, and Chevron enjoyed an excess bonanza at the expense of 
consumers.
  Finally, the rhetoric blares out of our television sets every 
Wednesday night at 9 o'clock on the ``West Wing,'' a 60-minute 
political commercial masquerading as a television drama. On the 
premiere last week, the pretend president proclaimed, ``The Republicans 
are busy. They are trying to convince us that they care about new 
energy and that they are not in the vest pockets of big oil, and that 
is a tough sell.''
  He then charged, ``This isn't the time for people whose doomsday 
scenario is a little less at the pump for Texaco and Shell. This isn't 
a time for people who say there aren't any energy alternatives just 
because they can't think of any. This is the time for American heroes, 
and we reach for the stars.''

  Mr. President, this is a gift from NBC and GE to the Democratic 
Party, financed by millions of--you guessed it--corporate dollars. That 
is what the ``West Wing'' has been. I hope Senators don't dispute these 
corporations have a right to express political opinions. I do not 
believe political donations dictate public policy. In fact, I have been 
vigorously involved throughout my career defending the right of all 
these entities to contribute to the candidates of their choice and say, 
through issue advocacy, whatever they choose to say during the course 
of a year.
  But as long as people are going to make that charge, they ought to do 
it evenly. For those who do believe contributions impact policy, then 
let's, in the name of basic fairness, apply the same scrutiny to unions 
on the homeland security bill that the New York Times, NBC, and my 
Democratic colleagues applied to energy companies on the energy bill. 
If they did, here is what they would find. The biggest public sector 
unions--American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; 
the American Federation of Teachers; International Association of Fire 
Fighters; the American Federation of Government Employees; and the 
National Treasury Employees Union--give almost 9 out of every 10 cents 
to Democratic candidates. Their agenda to weaken the President's 
national security powers is being advanced by the beneficiaries of 
those contributions. But we are hard-pressed to find anybody or any 
hotly accusatory stories in the New York Times or on CNN.
  Remember, Madam President, when corporate corruption called for a 
corporate accountability bill, unions--many of which were knee-deep in 
financial corruption themselves--rallied to block a very modest 
amendment to require better disclosure, simple disclosure on union 
financial reports.
  So where are the editorials in the New York Times? Where are they 
connecting the dots and condemning the specter of influence peddling? 
Where are the rants from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
against the influence-peddling of big union bosses? Where is that 
episode of the ``West Wing''--you know, the one where the pretend 
president tells Josh and Sam, above the obligatory orchestral 
crescendo, how much he yearns for ``American heroes'' to sever the 
menacing hold unions have on the homeland security bill?
  I could settle down in my favorite chair every Wednesday night at 9 
p.m. waiting for that episode, but I am not a fool. My mother didn't 
raise any children as fools. I know that would be a wait in vain, for 
there are too many other Republican bogeymen to expose, too many 
conservative policies to mock with the elitist derision only Hollywood 
can muster, too many ways to stage easy political victories that real-
life Democrats are simply unable to win in Congress because too many 
hard-working Americans do not believe in them.
  I call on my colleagues to put aside the pet grievances of the labor 
unions and return to the task at hand because I just don't see how any 
of us can go home and explain to the families in our States we may be 
giving the President less power to protect them than he had before 
September 11.
  So it continues to be my hope we will be able to get an up-or-down 
vote on the President's homeland security bill. It seems to me that is 
not asking too much. I know the Senator from Texas, and others, have 
spent an enormous amount of time to see to it the President's proposal 
at least gets an up-or-down vote in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today in opposition to 
the Lieberman Homeland Department proposal and in support of the Gramm/
Miller, administration-supported, bipartisan substitute. As Senator 
Gramm and others have so ably demonstrated, the Lieberman proposal 
takes away the President's existing authority to exempt personnel in 
the new department from collective bargaining requirements when 
national security requires it. The substitute reinstates the 
President's authority in this area.

[[Page S9686]]

  While I understand that those on the other side might have a 
different political agenda than the President of the United States on 
this, time has almost run out. If we don't soon get together and 
acknowledge the importance of passing a bill to allow Government to 
better deal with the threat of terrorism, Congress might adjourn 
without passing anything. After 6 weeks of Senate floor consideration, 
that would be a shame.
  Under the Lieberman approach to providing labor flexibility to the 
President when it comes to issues of national security, the President 
would be better off with the agencies as they exist, coupled with his 
authority, from an administrative or executive point of view, to move 
people around within those agencies; he would be better able to achieve 
his goals without any legislation than by adopting the legislation that 
is before us or under the amendment being proposed by the Senators from 
Nebraska, Rhode Island, and Louisiana.
  The labor issues that we must settle in this bill are extremely 
important, but I believe they are moving the debate far from some of 
the other important differences between the Lieberman homeland bill and 
the Republican homeland, Gramm-Miller, substitute. As the Senate 
continues to consider the homeland security proposal pending in 
Congress, I want to reemphasize the relatively few, but very important 
changes, that the Republican substitute makes to address border and 
immigration security concerns raised by the Lieberman substitute.
  ``Division B'' of the Lieberman bill creates the ``Immigration 
Affairs Directorate,'' with an undersecretary to oversee all 
immigration functions of the U.S. government. ``Division A'' of the 
Lieberman bill, among other things, creates the ``Border and 
Transportation Protection Directorate,'' with an undersecretary to 
manage all activities and policies related to border and transportation 
security.
  Under Division B, all immigration functions, including all 
immigration enforcement functions--intelligence, investigations, 
detention, border patrol, and border inspections--are under the 
``Immigration Affairs Directorate,'' informally referred to as the 
``Immigration Affairs box.'' The problem with this approach is that it 
leaves a gaping hole in the ``Border and Transportation box.'' One of 
the biggest priorities of the Bush administration, and of the Congress, 
has been to create a more streamlined border, both along the U.S.-
Mexico and U.S.-Canada border. The Lieberman bill, by refusing to move 
the Border Patrol and border inspections functions out of the 
Immigration Affairs box and into the Border and Transportation box, 
will only exacerbate the coordination problems that currently exist at 
our nation's southern and northern border. Most importantly, 
coordination of personnel and the sharing of security information will 
be compromised.
  Mr. President, all of our Nation's immigration enforcement functions, 
including intelligence, detention, and investigations, have border 
components and could arguably be better placed with the undersecretary 
for Border Protection. At the very least, I repeat, the Border Patrol 
and Border Inspections functions should be included in the Border and 
Transportation box.
  Instead, in the Lieberman proposal, a bare-bones, almost meaningless 
``Border and Transportation'' box is created. It includes Customs, but 
maintains that Customs is its ``own distinct entity'' so that Customs 
can continue to operate almost independently of the Under Secretary of 
the Border and Transportation Directorate, Coast Guard--again as a 
distinct entity, divisions of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, FLETC. 
Without including Border Patrol and border inspections as a function of 
the Border Protection Directorate, this ``box'' will not effectively 
streamline much border activity at all. Another ironic point is that 
FLETC is included in the Border Protection box. FLETC trains Border 
Patrol agents and yet the Border Patrol is not included in the Border 
Protection box.
  Mr. President, the Republican substitute, or Gramm-Miller substitute 
as it is known, in this area is a much wiser approach--it includes the 
Border Patrol and Border Inspections functions in the Border and 
Transportation Directorate. This will allow for better coordination of 
resources and elimination of duplicative functions at the border. 
Protecting our borders is one of our first lines of defense against 
terrorism, and we must get it right.
  Another major problem with Division B, ``Immigration Affairs,'' of 
the Lieberman bill is its inclusion of language that would abolish the 
Executive Office for Immigration Review and create within the 
Department of Justice what amounts to an independent agency for 
immigration judges.
  Immigration law is complicated. There is a process by which you have 
a decision made, a review of that decision, and eventually the final 
review all the way up the chain into the Department of Justice by the 
Attorney General of the United States. There is a body of case law 
built around this. There are procedures that are built around it. As 
far as I know, those procedures are working. I do not know of any 
reason, for homeland security, why we would want to change that.
  It seems at the very least that the Lieberman language, which 
designates when and how this new Executive Office for Immigration 
Review operates, needs to be changed so that the checks and balances 
that exist today with respect to EOIR will continue to exist--the 
Gramm-Miller substitute maintains this check by keeping the currently-
existing authority for review of EOIR decisions with the Attorney 
General.
  Mr. President, one of the most critical functions of the 
reorganization of agencies that deal with our homeland security is the 
border function, and we must get it right. Let's work to pass the 
Gramm/Miller substitute, which, among the numerous other important 
improvements, incorporates two important border/immigration changes to 
the pending Lieberman homeland bill.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
speak in support of an amendment that Senator Baucus and I introduced 
which modifies the Customs provisions of the homeland security bill.
  The creation of a Department to oversee homeland security is a 
tremendous undertaking for Congress and the White House which will face 
multiple challenges. This is certainly true in the context of 
incorporating the U.S. Customs Service into the new Department.
  The U.S. Customs Service is one of the oldest agencies in the U.S. 
Government. Created in 1789 to enforce U.S. tariff policy, the agency's 
mission has continually adapted to meet the changing needs of our 
Nation.
  Today, it is one of the most modernized agencies in the U.S. 
Government, responsible for managing over 23 million entries and 472 
million passengers a year. It collects over $23 billion dollars in 
duties and fees and is responsible for seizing millions of pounds of 
contraband narcotics every year. The Customs Service is a vital 
component of our Government.
  Given the importance of the agency in facilitating international 
trade and law enforcement, I think we have an obligation to do 
everything we can to enhance the effectiveness of the new Department as 
it moves from Treasury too Homeland Security.
  That is why I, working closely with Senator Baucus, developed a 
series of recommendations regarding the Customs Service which we 
presented to the Committee on Governmental Affairs early in the process 
of developing this bill.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senators Lieberman and 
Thompson for incorporating the vast majority of our recommendations 
into the homeland security bill. I especially appreciate the collegial 
and bipartisan spirit in which the recommendations were developed and 
adopted by the committee. I think we will have a much better product 
because of our joint efforts.
  The additional changes we are offering to the bill will further 
enhance the effectiveness of the Customs Service as it moves into the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  The ability of the Customs Service to effectively facilitate 
international trade while at the same time perform its law enforcement 
functions is in large part due to the cooperative relationship which 
the Customs Service has with much of the international trade community. 
This cooperative relationship benefits both parties and has

[[Page S9687]]

been developed over a long period of time. By understanding the 
business community and how international trade actually works, the 
Customs Service is much more adept at identifying anomalies in trade 
patterns that often point to illicit activity. I want to make sure 
these relationships are not lost with the transfer of the Customs 
Service to Homeland Security.
  Part of the key in maintaining this traditional cooperative 
relationship is to maintain the advisory elements on which they are 
built. This means carrying forth such committees as the Treasury 
Advisory Committee on the Commercial Operations of the Customs Service, 
or COAC, to the new Department of Homeland Security. This is precisely 
what our amendment does.
  I also want to make sure the international trade functions of the 
Customs Service continue to receive adequate resources to continue 
their work. A good example of this is the continued construction of the 
automated commercial environment, or ACE. Currently, the automated 
commercial system is the only comprehensive mechanism to monitor trade 
flows. Yet it is antiquated and subject to periodic slowdowns. We must 
do better.
  That is why I strongly support rapid and efficient deployment of ACE, 
the automated commercial environment. The ACE system will be key to 
facilitating economic trade in the future. We must make sure than, even 
in these times of tight budget constraints and intense focus on 
homeland security, we continue to provide Customs with the funds needed 
to get the ACE system up and running. A well-functioning automated 
mechanism for monitoring trade flows will help facilitate international 
trade and help Customs more effectively perform its law enforcement 
functions.
  Our amendment establishes a new account within the Customs Service 
called the Customs Commercial and Homeland Security Automation Account. 
For fiscal years 2003 through 2005, $350 million in Customs user fees 
would be allocated specifically to this account. Creation of this 
account will ensure that sufficient funding is available to complete 
construction of the automated commercial environment ACE after Customs 
moves from the Department of the Treasury to Homeland Security.
  As we move forward in enhancing our border security efforts, it is 
important to keep in mind that a large part of homeland security is 
economic security. And, international trade is a critical component of 
our economic security. Exports alone accounted for 25 percent of U.S. 
economic growth from 1990-2000. Exports alone support an estimated 12 
million jobs. Trade also promotes more competitive businesses--as well 
as more choices of goods and inputs, with lower prices. If we impede 
trade, we impede our own economic growth and our own well-being.
  The tragedy of September 11 make it clear that the United States must 
be at the forefront in developing the border technologies and 
enforcement methodologies which will enable our economy to prosper and 
grow in the new global environment. We cannot afford to do any less. A 
nation which master the competing goals of international trade 
facilitation and border security will be a nation which can confidently 
embrace new world trading system. It will be a nation which prospers 
well into this new millennium. I stand ready to work with my colleagues 
and President Bush to make sure our Nation rises to meet this 
challenge.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson, and 
others to protect the rights of the thousands of Federal employees who 
will be transferred to the proposed Department of Homeland Security, 
and to express my opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator 
from Texas, Mr. Gramm and the Administration's efforts to lessen those 
rights.
  The employees of the 22 agencies that are slated to be reorganized 
into the Department of Homeland Security are on the front lines of the 
effort to respond to and investigate the September 11 attacks and to 
prevent further acts of terrorism. These dedicated men and women, who 
have served the American people during this uncertain time, are about 
to undergo a professional upheaval while at the same time being 
expected to maintain their high level of performance. This massive 
reorganization should not be used as an excuse to take from these 
employees the one constant that they expect would follow them to their 
new department: the Federal civil service protections which they all 
have in common, regardless of their current home agency.
  The civil service system was put into place in order to end the 
corrupt patronage system that had permeated government hiring and 
advancement. The creation of a new department should not be used as an 
excuse to roll back these protections and plunge these workers into 
uncertainty regarding their professional futures.
  I am concerned that the administration appears ready to use the 
creation of this new cabinet-level department as an opportunity to 
eliminate or weaken the civil service protections currently in place 
for the Federal employees who would be transferred to the that 
department. Unless it is amended by the Nelson amendment, the pending 
Gramm amendment would have this effect of weakening these civil service 
protections.
  Some in the administration and some on this Senate floor have argued 
that the civil service system is rigid and could prevent the new 
Secretary from acting quickly in the face of an imminent threat. This 
is not the case. The existing civil service system already provides the 
administration with broad flexibility, while at the same time ensuring 
that Federal workers have a consistent framework of basic protections, 
including appeal rights. This flexibility is important in an issue as 
critical as our Nation's security, but the underlying Lieberman 
substitute and the Nelson amendment would provide the flexibility 
needed.
  Supporters of stripping these protections also have argued that the 
new Department should be allowed to scrap the existing system because 
that system has some problems. The ongoing debate over civil service 
reforms should not be used as an excuse to allow the Department of 
Homeland Security to be the only Federal department with employees who 
are not covered by this system.
  I regret that the administration has issued a veto threat against the 
Senate Homeland Security bill as reported by the Governmental Affairs 
Committee because it ensures that the approximately 170,000 federal 
workers slated to be transferred to the new department would retain 
basic civil service protections. Civil service protections level the 
playing field for Federal workers, ensuring that they are treated 
equitably. To propose to treat workers in one department, many of whom 
have had these protections for years, differently from their 
counterparts in other departments would undermine seriously the entire 
civil service system.
  No one, including the President, has demonstrated how maintaining 
these basic protections could jeopardize our national security. We can 
protect both our country and the rights of our workers. In fact, we can 
better protect our country if our workers' rights are well-protected, 
too. The United States affords its workers some of the best labor and 
employment protections in the world. But a wholesale elimination of 
those rights under the guise of homeland security would send exactly 
the wrong message.
  The amendment offered by the Senator from Nebraska would grant the 
new Secretary of Homeland Security expanded authority to create a new 
personnel system while still ensuring that the rights of workers are 
protected. This compromise will help to ensure that workers have input 
into the structure of any new system that is created. As a number of 
our colleagues have said, it would be harmful to worker morale and to 
worker-management relations to simply foist a new system upon these 
workers without their input and then expect them to accept it.
  In addition to basic civil service protections, the Nelson amendment 
addresses the issue of collective bargaining. I support the right of 
workers to join a union and I am troubled that the administration 
appears poised to strip existing union representation and collective 
bargaining rights from many of these workers. I also am troubled by the 
implication that union membership is somehow a threat to our national 
security.
  The Nelson amendment would allow workers who are covered by existing

[[Page S9688]]

collective bargaining agreements to keep those rights. It does not 
hamper the ability of the new Secretary or the President to remove 
collective bargaining rights from individual workers or newly-created 
agencies within the department if there is a valid national security 
concern. Simply being an employee of a department with the word 
``security'' in its name is not sufficient cause to be stripped of 
collective bargaining rights.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Nelson amendment and to oppose 
the Gramm amendment.

                          ____________________