Rob Portman

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). (Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Transportation.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we face an unpredictable and unprecedented agile and deadly threat. It is not the Cold War any more, it is not about which side has the most muscle mass, it is not about what the biggest department might be. It is about agility. It is about being able to meet the enemy's agility with our own agility. As any athlete will tell you, including the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun) who just spoke, you cannot be agile without being flexible first. The President, and Presidents after him, need this flexibility to be sure that this Department works. We simply cannot work with the 1950s era bureaucratic personnel practices that would otherwise be available to him, and, again, to future Presidents and future Secretaries. The Waxman-Frost amendment protects the antiquated civil service system in a way that blunts this Department's ability to modernize, to consolidate, to streamline, to bring together 22 different personnel systems into one team. For instance, the amendment prohibits the Secretary from using innovative compensation plans like incentive pay. There is nothing more important than having a work force with high morale that is focused on a team effort to combat terrorism. This is all about human capital and the workforce. If you cannot provide the kind of incentive pay that the President and the Secretary want to provide to people who are performing, you are not going to have that kind of morale. It keeps the new agency stuck in the mud of over 100 pay grades, arcane job classifications that make no sense whatsoever, and performance appraisals that are indifferent to the mission of this agency. You want to align the performance with the mission. On hiring, let me raise a specific example, because it was mentioned earlier that it took 5 seconds for a terrorist to commit an act, or 5 minutes, and 5 months to respond. Here is a specific example of that. It takes 5 months, conceivably, to hire a bioterrorism expert under current civil service rules, whereas it only takes 5 minutes or 5 seconds to commit that bioterrorist act. Why? Developing the written job description, personnel office, classification, conducting job analysis, developing recruiting strategy, announcing the position, rate application, rank-qualified applications, refer the top three qualified to the interviews, conduct interviews, and so on. Five months. That is a specific example of where this Department otherwise would not have the agility to respond. Also the Secretary could have a bureaucratic nightmare trying to decide who is a security risk and who is not. If you want to fire somebody under the current rules, it can take, yes, weeks and months. Red tape comes first; homeland security comes second. The Quinn amendment guaranteed that in the appeals process, that due process will be protected and the Merit System Protection Board would be used. The Quinn amendment made sure people would have that appeal. But matters of national security concern, where there needs to be a severance, must be disposed of immediately when national security is at risk. It also does not allow the Secretary to rationalize all these different departments coming. Again, 22 different personnel systems. There needs to be one unified, flexible system. Not only does the Waxman-Frost language not provide any needed flexibility, it actually does not provide the ability of the Secretary to develop a human resources system at all. All it says is, unbelievably, that the new Department has to propose to Congress a new personnel system and then Congress has to work its will on it. How long would that take? I do not know. It would go through the committees, it would go through the House, it would go through the Senate. Other agencies and departments do not even have to go through that process. All it does, this amendment, is allow the Department to propose a system, not even to develop a system. We want this Department set up and ready to go immediately, and not when we finally get around to it here in Congress. Finally, while the Waxman-Frost amendment does not offer the flexibility that is absolutely needed, it also does not provide the same civil service protections that the underlying bill provides. Yes, it mentions whistleblowers and veterans, but others it does not mention, including racial discrimination, thrift savings, and so on. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to give the President the flexibility he needs to protect the workers' rights at the same time. Support the underlying bill and vote no on the Waxman-Frost amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, we have one more speaker to close. Who has the right to close?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), who has been at the forefront of these issues.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts), a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security who has been a leader on protecting the homeland actually long before September 11 and has added considerable value to the work of the select committee and to the debate today.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) called this the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and I think it is only appropriate that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) can explain his position on this amendment and the underlying bill. Just to make one point, though, what we are talking about here is an underlying draft that does protect title V. It does provide all of the protections that the gentleman referenced, including patronage protections, whistleblower protections, and the other collective bargaining rights that are guarantee in the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Waxman amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) the right to close. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again, we have had a good debate here today in the context of the Shays amendment and now the Morella amendment. The bottom line is we have a good compromise. It is the Shays amendment. It gives workers in this new department more protection than any workers in any department in government, and yet it retains in the president this extremely important national security authority. It would be ironic if during this time of addressing this new threat of terrorism we were to take away that authority altogether. I think the compromise makes sense. I strongly urge a no vote on the Morella amendment, which would, according to the President, be the basis for a veto of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding we have the right to close, is that correct?

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my friend, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella). We have more time than she does, and she would like some additional time.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), another distinguished colleague who has been at the forefront of this issue over the last several years, not just weeks or months.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly agree with the endorsement of the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) by my friend from California and appreciate it. She is a fine Member, and, as I said earlier, no one cares more about national security than her. I would just make the point very clearly that notwithstanding the fact she would not be able to offer the same amendment to the same section of the bill, this rule was drafted in a way to permit that. I think it is appropriate, and she does have the right to offer her amendment today, and I am glad she does. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), a member of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, we have already had a good debate on this issue in the context of the Shays amendment, and I appreciate the fact that the gentlewoman from Maryland comes at this in good faith. As I said earlier, nobody in this Chamber cares more about national security. We do differ on this issue. The gentlewoman from Maryland talked a lot about the Committee on Government Reform and what the Committee on Government Reform thinks about this. I think it is only appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair of the Select Committee on Homeland Security for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am very eager to talk on this proposal this morning. First of all, I would like to say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) that I know he is well-intended, I know that his proposal is sincere, and I know we share the same goal, but I strongly believe that the structure he has laid out will fail. I also strongly believe that he does not understand the design and the purpose of this new department. I want to start by talking a bit about that. The chart we had up here earlier looked a little like the health care plan we saw a few years ago, and it does look very complicated. It is very bureaucratic, when we look at all the different agencies and departments now involved in combatting terrorism. That is the point. We do have over 100 different agencies. We have everyone in charge and no one in charge. We need to bring accountability to this. We need to align authority with responsibility, with very aggressive congressional oversight. The gentleman has been very good at that over the years, and I would hope that, through Democrat and Republican administrations alike, this Congress and this gentleman, as long as he is here, will provide that oversight so we have real accountability. That is what this is about. It is not about creating a 1950s-size organization. It is about streamlining and consolidation. The chart the gentleman held up showed a lot of different boxes and agencies and departments. This is the new Department of Homeland Security. This is the proposal the President sent us. This is the proposal that got through the various select committees. This is the proposal of the standing committees and now the select committee. It has only four areas. One, the vast majority, almost all of the employees, will be in border and transportation security. The whole notion here is to streamline and consolidate; and to get the synergies out of that consolidation and streamlining in one new department, where we have real accountability, where somebody is in charge, that is the only way we are going to protect the homeland. He has talked a lot about the CBO study, as has my friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). I hope they read it. I hope all my colleagues will read this CBO study. At least look at the summary of it. They say this will cost $4.5 billion, and $2.2 billion is in existing departments in the Department of Defense. I don't know where they come up with that $2.2 billion. The remaining part of this for administrative costs for start-up is less than 1 percent of the budget of this department. Finally, they take absolutely no account of any savings. They have no offsets at all for the consolidation and streamlining. Again, with all due respect, the Congressional Budget Office is a 20th century budget-scoring organization trying to score a 21st century idea. This merger will create synergies and will create, over time, I am convinced, cost savings if we do it right and if the Congress provides the needed oversight. I think there will be some start-up costs, but they will be minor. The more important thing is in the mid-term and long term there will be substantial efficiencies, and we will now have accountability and be able to protect our kids and grandkids from the threat of terrorism that faces us in this new century, the most important thing. One of the ironies in this debate to me is that the very people who are saying, gee, this is going to be a big, new, 20th-century bureaucracy, 1950s bureaucracy, are the same people who say we cannot give the President and this new department the kind of flexibilities they need to manage this new agency. Managerial, budget, and personnel flexibilities are absolutely critical to make this work. I agree that we need to provide those. Today we will have an opportunity to discuss that further as a number of amendments will be offered to try to take the select committee product, which is a streamlined, consolidated, 21st century agency, and try to take it back to the 1950s. We need to reject that. Finally, the President's proposal does include a coordinating council. He has already done that. He has set up a Homeland Security Council by executive order. In the select committee, on a bipartisan basis, in fact, all four Democrats and three of us Republicans decided to support the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and her proposal she has worked on, not just for weeks or months but for years, to establish a coordinating council in the White House by statute. Why is that important? Because this administration has shown that it is going to prioritize fighting terrorism by executive order. We want to ensure in Congress that future administrations will do the same. We do need to have this coordinating council. Mr. Chairman, this is the right way to go for 3 quick reasons. One, this allows the President to have an actual advisor. Otherwise, if you have Mr. Waxman's proposal, this advisor has to come up and testify before Congress, has to be confirmed by the Senate, the President will not rely on that person for candid advice, period. Number two, it has no teeth. Look at the Council on Environmental Quality, if you are interested in the environment as the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) is, and tell me whether the CEQ has been effective in telling agencies how to prioritize budgets. Tell me if the drug czar has been effective. That is the other model. These are not the right models. Third, the right model is there. It is the National Security Council. That is the one the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) proposes. It has teeth. Let us reject the toothless alternative. Let us go with the real thing.

Mr. PORTMAN. Exactly, Mr. Chairman. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut, my friend, for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) cares as deeply about national security as any Member of this Chamber, and it has been a pleasure to work with her on this. We were not able to come together, but we tried. The Shays amendment is identical to the Morella amendment. And by the way, the gentlewoman from Maryland will have an opportunity to offer her amendment. It is specified under the rule. It is a special rule offered in the rule and I am glad she has that right. But the Shays amendment has one additional feature, an extremely important and limited safety valve which would allow the President to use the provisions of existing law to exempt an agency or subdivision from collective bargaining when he determines in writing that it has an adverse and significant impact on homeland security. Mr. Chairman, it is a tougher standard on top of the already existing standard than any other agency of government. The employees of this Department will have more protections than the employees of any other department of the Federal government. Here at a time when we are trying to address this threat of terrorism, would it not be ironic if we took away existing national security protection that the President can employ through his waiver for the new Department of Homeland Security? In this amendment, I believe that we have struck a sensible compromise between doing nothing and adopting the amendment of the gentlewoman from Maryland. It makes it harder for the President to exempt anything that existing law would permit. But it has an important safety valve. To make sure that it can deal with homeland security emergencies and critical situations if necessary and that protection of bargaining rights for workers will not imperil the protection of the physical safety and security of all of us as Americans. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Shays amendment. I think it is a responsible and a correct compromise. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Morella amendment.

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my friend from Maryland, and he is my friend, that this is a good amendment because it does actually enhance the worker protections in the underlying bill. I understand his concerns with the underlying bill, but this amendment expands them. It does it in a few very specific ways. I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn) because he listened. He listened to the 25 percent of the employees who are coming into this new Department who are currently represented by unions, and he listened to the 75 percent of employees coming into this new Department who are not members of the union. What he did is very simple. He got the unions a place at the table so that when we go through these new flexibilities we are going to talk about in the next amendment, the unions have a voice, and they wanted that. He makes sure that the Secretary of this new Department could not use a waiver authority to pull union members out of collective bargaining for national security purposes, which is in the underlying bill. He removes that authority, again listening to the concerns of union members and their representatives. He also preserves the appeal rights for all workers in this new Department to make sure that due process is followed to clarify the underlying language and be sure that the Merit Systems Protection Board is used in the case of appeal, should there be a firing. He also puts very important language in the amendment to clarify the intent of this entire bill which is exactly what I have heard on the other side of the aisle today by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) and others, to be sure that we prioritize human capital. It is the key. Good morale, working as a team, is the only way this is going to work, and the Federal workers are going be the heroes in this case. They are going to be the ones responding as the first responders. They are going to be the ones protecting our kids and grandkids over time. We need to be sure that this morale and this team effort is taken. I have heard a lot of comments here today about the underlying draft in the McHugh amendment and that somehow it does not protect worker protections under title V. That is wrong. It does. We have heard, for instance, that the merit system principles are optional. They are not. They are guaranteed in this bill and in the amendment. The whistleblower protections are guaranteed. Political cronyism is not allowed. In fact, all the language prohibiting political coercion is absolutely in this legislation, explicitly. Veterans' preferences are not eliminated. They are guaranteed. Annual leave, sick leave is totally guaranteed and protected. Diversity hiring is guaranteed. Nepotism prohibition, I have heard that is not in the bill. It is. It is in the bill. It is guaranteed. Arbitrary dismissals are not permitted. It is guaranteed that there is protection against arbitrary dismissals, and finally, health insurance and other retirement benefits are absolutely guaranteed in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, the Quinn amendment improves, perfects an underlying piece of legislation which gives the President the flexibility he will need to adequately protect our homeland. I strongly support the underlying bill. I support the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Quinn) amendment, and I hope my colleagues will support it as well on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me. I want to commend him for coming to a resolution on a very difficult and complex issue, and that is the trade promotion authority and trade adjustment assistance. This has been a long road, Mr. Speaker. Not since 1994 has this country had the ability to navigate world commerce and to be able to open up barriers to U.S. trade. It is time for America to get back in the game. Without this authority, countries are not going to deal with us, and others have disputed that tonight, but the proof is in the pudding. There are now 120 trade agreements out there; the United States is party to three. Since 1990, the European Union has negotiated 20 new trade agreements. These are our competitors. These are people who are competing for jobs with our workers. They are currently in negotiations for 15 additional trade agreements. It is time to get back in the game. It has been long past time. By doing so, we not only open up foreign trade for our goods and our services, we also are able to export our free market economy, which has brought us unprecedented prosperity and has the ability and potential to do that for the rest of the globe, to truly lift all boats. I am amazed to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who are free traders, but tonight say that although they supported President Clinton's trade promotion authority, they cannot support this one. They cannot support trade promotion authority, even though, as compared to the Clinton trade promotion authority, we now have more consultation with Congress. In fact, it is unprecedented consultation with Congress. It has real teeth. It has a real congressional oversight group. It has never had that before. It has much stronger labor and environment provisions, including on child labor, stronger provisions than in the Clinton trade promotion authority. The ability to effectively enforce other countries to enforce their own standards is new. We have not had that before. Members may not think that is perfect, but that is a lot more than we have had before. Stronger protection of U.S. trade remedies, including the ability for Members of Congress to help protect our antidumping laws, our countervailing duty laws, our trade remedies here at home by being able to offer a motion on the floor of this House. Any Member would be able to do that. That is more than we ever had in terms of protecting our own trade remedies. Finally, of course, a dramatic expansion of trade adjustment assistance. I appreciate the fact that there are some on the other side of the aisle who tonight are going to vote for this trade promotion authority primarily because there are unprecedented benefits to workers who have been displaced by trade, both in terms of health care and other benefits. I want to commend the chairman, because he has gotten the United States, through this new agreement, back in the game. We need to get back in the game for our workers; we need to get back in the game for our jobs here at home. Vote ``yes'' on this good bill.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. PORTMAN

Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), a member of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations.