Mr. President. Today I rise once again to point out problems with the amendment offered by Senators Gramm and Miller which would take away the rights of federal workers. Last week I spoke of the need to provide full whistleblower protection to employees in the new Department of Homeland Security, and how the Gramm-Miller amendment fails to provide such protection despite claims to the contrary. While the substantive rights are maintained for whistleblowers, the methods to enforce such rights are not part of the amendment.
And despite claims made by the Senator from Tennessee yesterday that veterans' preference would be protected, the Gramm-Miller amendment fails to fully protect veterans in the new Department.
It appears that my colleagues believe that by maintaining the merit system principles, the new Department will protect our federal employees from retaliation for blowing the whistle and from violations of veterans' preference requirements. However, simply following the merit principles will not fully protect the federal workers who protect our nation from terrorist attacks. We must provide a neutral third-party method to enforce such rights.
The Gramm-Miller amendment fails to do this.
Currently, federal employees - who believe that they have been denied a position or have been subject to a designer Reduction-In-Force (RIF) action in violation of veterans' preference requirements - can challenge such wrongful actions through the Merit Systems Protection Board or through a union grievance procedure. Whistleblowers who allege that they have been subject to a prohibited personnel practice may go through the Office of Special Counsel and to the MSPB for corrective action. In addition, whistleblowers can bring allegations of retaliation through the union grievance procedure. The Gramm-Miller substitute amendment would block both routes for redress.
Under Gramm-Miller, the Department of Homeland Security could waive any and all due process appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board. Instead, the due process procedures in current law would be replaced with an internal department appeals process. By allowing the agency, rather than an independent third party, to determine whether the agency violated veterans' preference or other employee protection laws, we will have removed the impartiality of the process.
However, under the Lieberman substitute, as well as the Nelson-Chafee-Breaux amendment, veterans' rights are not compromised. The appeals to the MSPB under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 77 may not be waived.
In addition, Chapter 71 of Title 5 which relates to Labor-Management Relations, may not be waived. This allows veterans and whistleblowers who are in collective bargaining units to exercise their right to use a negotiated grievance process to challenge violations of veterans' preference requirements or the Whistleblower Protection Act. Under the Gramm-Miller substitute, the new Department could waive the labor-management statutory requirements in Title 5. As such, grievance rights and union representation could quickly disappear.
Quite simply, under the Gramm-Miller substitute, veterans may still have veterans' preference rights, but they will have no way to seek redress for any violation of those rights. We have a proud history of protecting the rights of veterans and federal workers who protect this country. Whether they are whistleblowers or veterans, these federal employees serve their nation well. We need to support those who are willing to serve their government.
