politics31.htm

PLEASE BE PATIENT, THIS PAGE MAY TAKE A WHILE TO LOAD

WEB PAGE INDEX
Includes recent updates

November 6, 2002

Mr. Milton E. Jenkins
612 Court Street, #1
Sioux City, Iowa 51101

Dear Mr. Jenkins:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. As your Senator, it is important for me to hear from you.

I appreciate knowing of your thoughts regarding President Bush's proposal to create a Department of Homeland Security, and specifically your support for a provision in the Senate bill concerning civil service and collective bargaining rights for Federal employees. As you know, in October of 2001, the President established the Office of Homeland Security, with the agency's mission being to "lead, oversee, and coordinate a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism and respond to any attacks that may come."

The new Department of Homeland Security will take a hodgepodge of government duties and attempt to bring them under the jurisdiction of one department. Since September 11th, we've seen the problems with information sharing, and coordination and cooperation between agencies. Creating a Department of Homeland Security is a concerted effort by the administration to better coordinate these agencies with a central cabinet position.

I believe Senator Lieberman's homeland security legislation seeks to significantly restrict the President's flexibility with regard to labor-management relations and national security. In fact, it would restrict authority that the President currently has under existing law.

The civil Service Reform Act, enacted in 1978, gave statutory bargaining rights to Federal employees. The law states that Federal employees can form, join, or assist any labor organization and can engage in collective bargaining with respect to conditions of employment. However, the law also allows the President to exclude offices and agencies in the interests of national security. Specifically, Chapter 71 of Title 5 states:

"The President may issue an order excluding any agency or subdivision thereof from coverage
under this chapter if the President determines that - (A) the agency or subdivision has as
a primary function intelligence, counterintelligence, investigative, or national security work,
and (B) the provisions of this chapter cannot be applied to that agency or subdivision in a
manner consistent with national security requirements and considerations.: U.S.C. §7103 (b) (c)

Every President who has had this national security authority has used it, including President's Carter and Clinton.

Senator Lieberman's version would prohibit any entity that comes into the Department of Homeland Security without having formerly been excluded under this Section from ever being excluded. Therefore, a President will have less discretion over the Department of Homeland Security than over any other department of the Federal Government. And, in addition to voiding the current law for all transferred offices of functions, it modifies and constricts current law for any newly created offices or agencies.

You should also know that the version passed by the House of Representatives includes provisions similar to Senator Lieberman's, while protecting the President's authority. Under the House bill, the changes in the law "shall not apply in circumstances where the President determines in writing that such application would have a substantial adverse impact on the Department's ability to protect homeland security."

In fact, the House bill makes the President take one additional step. To exclude an agency or subdivision from the provision of Chapter 71 of Title 5, a President must make the two determinations required by current law, and then he must determine in writing that such application would have a substantial adverse impact on the Department's ability to protect homeland security. The House passed their version on July 26, 2002, by a bipartisan vote of 295-132.

I believe maintaining the President's authority with regard to labor-management relations is consistent with our efforts to enhance the security of our homeland. Why, when creating the Department of Homeland Security, would we leave the President with less authority to act in the interest of national security than he currently has under existing law? Why should we strip the President of the power afforded to every President since Jimmy Carter to preserve the safety of our citizens and defend the security of our country?

Rest assured, I firmly believe that we must take action to put the government in a better position to prevent and respond to terrorism. And, although we may disagree on this particular issue, I nonetheless appreciate and encourage your communication with me.

Once again, thank you for communicating your views to me. Knowing your concerns helps me to do the best job I can as your U.S. Senator.

Sincerely,

Charles Grassley
United States Senator