Lieberman Makes
Affirmative Case for Homeland Security Legislation
Friday, July 26, 2002
WASHINGTON - Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman
Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., held a press conference Friday to
respond to criticism of the Homeland Security bill that was
raised at a White House event held earlier in the day.
Following is text of Lieberman’s statement as
delivered:
Welcome. I’m
proud of the work of the Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee—which yesterday sent to the floor a sensible and
bi-partisan bill that would consolidate many disparate
agencies and offices to create a strong, unified, and
accountable Department of Homeland Security.
Ever since the President’s June
6 announcement of his support for a focused new department to
improve our domestic defenses, my staff has been working
closely with the White House to refine and improve our
legislation. I’ve
personally had a number of constructive discussions with the
President. And
I’ve been negotiating extensively with fellow Senators
across party lines to transform the bill the Governmental
Affairs Committee reported out in May into the comprehensive
legislation we agreed to yesterday.
The end product of this careful process—which we’ve
now sent to the floor, in a bi-partisan committee vote—is
very similar to the President’s proposal, and to the House
legislation that echoes that proposal.
The overall mission and powers of the new agency are
identical. The
federal agencies and offices we’re consolidating into the
new department are almost identical.
The divisions we would create focused on emergency
preparedness and response, border and transportation security,
and critical infrastructure protection are nearly identical.
Both our approaches would have FEMA and the Coast Guard
play central roles. And
both proposed models would develop new science and technology
capabilities within the new department.
By any measure, this is vast
common ground.
Of course, this being the
legislative process, there are some meaningful differences
between our approach and the President’s.
I strongly believe that the robust intelligence
coordinating directorate our bill would create is necessary to
overcome the disastrous disconnects which contributed to our
failure to prevent the attacks on September 11.
Our proactive directorate on science and technology
would give the department the capabilities to marshal
government, business, and academia to develop and deploy the
next wave of medicines, vaccines, and security devices.
And, by reforming the INS substantially as we move it
into the new department, our bill works to dramatically
enhance both immigration enforcement and immigration services.
Those differences and others will
have to be aired, debated, and resolved.
But none of them ought to delay or derail this
legislation—not even close.
And that’s why I’m disappointed with the emerging
partisan tone of the talk in this town today, all of which
seems to center around whether or not the President and
Secretary should have the right to alter existing civil
service and worker protections now held by the employees that
will make up the new department.
Some might suggest that we just
hit an iceberg. To
me, it feels more like an ice cube.
So this is no time for anybody to jump from the
homeland security ship.
The fact is, existing law—which
is reaffirmed in our bill—gives the President and Secretary
substantial flexibility to manage the new department.
They can reward excellence, fire poorly performing
employees, offer recruitment bonuses, and more.
On top of that, our bill included
a number of important new provisions that were specifically
added during the markup to give the Secretary additional
authority and flexibility to manage his employees.
The bi-partisan Voinovich/Akaka amendment will:
allow the agency to hire whomever it wants, without
going through a competitive hiring process, if the Office of
Personnel Management determines that there’s a critical
hiring need; reform outdated competitive-hiring procedures to
speed up staffing of new employees; revise old rules
restricting performance bonuses; and make other valuable
changes.
The bottom line is the new
department as we’ve designed it has the tools it desperately
needs to attract and reward top-flight talent in security,
intelligence, and science and technology.
But we’re open to the possibility that some changes
to the law might be warranted as the reorganization gets
underway. That’s
why the legislation requires the Secretary to report back to
Congress every six months during the reorganization process,
and explicitly invites the Secretary to propose changes to the
law at these review sessions that would help create a more
efficient and effective department.
So let’s all tone down the
rhetoric and stop sounding alarms.
This is nothing but a tempest in a teapot—one that
should not and must not distract us from taking on the real
tempest of terrorism that continues to threaten us all.
Cynics think politics is the art of making the possible
impossible. Let’s
not prove them right.
So the message we send today is
simple: the
Governmental Affairs Committee has sent a good, bi-partisan
bill to the Senate floor.
Our bill can, will, and should be the basis for the
Senate’s final product, and when passed and reconciled with
the House bill, it will be the blueprint for an effective,
efficient, and empowered Department of Homeland Security, one
that I am confident President Bush will sign into law.
Thank you.
|