[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Page 27274]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL SYSTEM REGULATIONS

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am very disappointed with the U.S. 
Department of Defense and Office of Personnel Management's final 
regulations for the National Security Personnel System, NSPS, that will 
affect more than 350,000 defense civil service employees throughout our 
Nation. What makes the new system dangerous is that upon a cursory 
glance, it would almost appear ``acceptable'' in the name of national 
security. Scratch the surface, however, and it becomes very alarming.
  The rhetoric does not match reality. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald 
Rumsfeld in public testimony stated that these new regulations ``would 
not end collective bargaining,'' but, rather, would ``bring collective 
bargaining to the national level'' to avoid duplication and 
inefficiency. This has not occurred, nor do I believe there is a 
sincere interest in the Pentagon to pursue national collective 
bargaining. In fact, I would suspect that the Pentagon's plan is just 
the opposite--to substantially remove from the table the number of 
subjects for good faith collective bargaining.
  For this reason, I am pleased that the employee unions have gone to 
Federal court to challenge the regulations, in the same fashion that 
they challenged the Department of Homeland Security regulations. I hope 
they will prevail in their call for injunctive relief, as they did in 
the Homeland Security case, as well as to prevail in the final 
disposition of both cases.
  While I would be the first to say that the Federal civil service 
system is not perfect, it is a system that has withstood the test of 
time as fair and impartial. To overhaul it in favor of vesting the 
subjective power to hire, fire, discipline and promote in the hands of 
a few political appointees is very dangerous. At this point, the 
``seemingly acceptable'' national security rationale for the wholesale 
stripping of employees' rights fast begins to lose its luster. It is no 
longer reasonable. There seems to me to be an inherent conflict. In the 
name of national security, this administration is willing to deny its 
own workers a small modicum of security--employment and family 
security--especially when I do not believe it is necessary to achieve 
our goal of national security. I call into question the motivations 
behind their actions.
  My position on the Pentagon's issuance of the NSPS regulations is 
what I believe any decent fellow would say: Now is the time for our 
Nation to come together in support of our armed services abroad. To do 
so, we must stand behind our civilian defense workforce from whom we 
are demanding great productivity in support of our troops.
  Now is not the time to be divisive and punitive of our Federal 
workforce. It creates low morale, mistrust, and a decreasing level of 
respect between worker and management. The consequences stemming from 
such instability, could be dire. For me, the stakes in terms of human 
lives are too high to be taking such a gamble. United we stand--
civilian and military together. Divided we could fail.

                          ____________________