Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Fair DHS law is needed

Friday, Sept. 27, 2002 | 9:15 a.m.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH and his advisers have pursued terrorists around the world. Most Americans have applauded these actions and have given their full support to him and our troops in Afghanistan. I don't know of any American who disagrees with his assessment of Iraq's Saddam Hussein. He's a bad guy and eventually should be removed or exterminated with the only questions remaining being how, when and if we have the cooperation of our friends in the United Nations. These discussions are now being debated by legislative decision makers.

Meanwhile, news reports coming out of Washington tell us that the bill creating a new Department of Homeland Security is facing the threat of a presidential veto. This bill does exactly what the president asked for last year. That's true, except his demand to have power to ignore many of the civil service protections federal employees have earned over the years. He wants the power to promote, fire and transfer at will the workers in the new department. There is good reason to question why he wants the removal of all protection for employees. Thousands of them now belong to a union and this shouldn't result in questioning their ability or loyalty. We can't forget that all of the New York firefighters and police officers who gave their lives Sept. 11, 2001, were union members.

The new department will be made up of several existing departments, including FEMA, INS, Coast Guard and Customs Service. Today 43,000 of these employees have civil service protection and are union members. Because they are now operating in a new department are they no longer trustworthy or loyal? This kind of thinking is just nonsense.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman has worked hard to get the president this new department. In a letter to his colleagues, about three weeks ago, Lieberman wrote, "I have heard some opponents of our approach contend that under our legislation, an incompetent, irresponsible, or even intoxicated employee could not be removed from duty. That's nonsense. Under current law, such an employee can be removed from duty immediately. Without hesitation or red tape. And the employee can be taken immediately off the payroll if the Secretary determines that he or she might endanger national security.

"What we have not done in our bill is accept what I consider to be a divisive distraction and detour contained in the President's proposal: providing the Administration the unprecedented and unchecked power to waive any and all civil service protections, essentially rewriting the law wherever and whenever it sees fit. The Committee-endorsed bill undertakes the hard task of defining the details of major civil service reforms in a bipartisan manner, building on advice from a wide range of experts; the Administration bill by contrast avoids these details and simply gives itself the authority to wipe out the application of the civil service system to the new Department. ..."

Because of past experiences I can't buy into some of the fears pointed to by The New Republic magazine. It expresses fears of dangers these presidential powers could foment. One fear is that FEMA "could steer its public assistance grants to local governments and nonprofits the administration deems politically sympathetic and away from those it does not." This, as I said about the president's fears, is also nonsense. The mission of FEMA is spelled out by law and it's staffed by loyal employees who deserve the civil service protection and union protection they have now. They aren't going to play politics with our well-being in the time of emergencies. We don't believe this president or any other president would either.

What the president has brought into play are editorials over the nation that question his quest for too much power over civil servants. Some concluded that he is advocating the old GOP philosophy of union-busting.

The President should sign the bill, which is now moving through the Senate. Beating up on loyal workers and removing their rights isn't what most Americans want or expect in a Department of Homeland Security.