Date: 2004-06-22
Speaker: VAN HOLLEN (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Chairman. I thority in this way in terms of taking rise in support of the amendment. away certain good faith bargaining Mr. Chairman. I am proud to join the rights. gentleman from Washington (Mr. INS- So that is what this amendment is LEE) in offering this amendment. As we about. As my colleague from Washhave heard. last year. tucked into the ington said. this does not throw out all 2004 defense authorization bill was a the authorities. What we are saying is provision thatgave the Bush adminis- let us take a year. let us take a time tration. and any other future adminis- out. and let us adopt the adage that tration. Republican or Democrat. a vir- many have shown is good advice. tually blank check to rewrite the rules "trust. but verify." Why should we proand protections that govern 700.000 vide a blank check? civil servants in the Department of De- Let us give the administration an opfense. What that provision did was portunity now to come before the Constrip Pentagon civilians of the statu- gress to show us exactly what rules tory protections we have had on a bi- they want. and we can have an opporpartisan basis for decades. tunity to take a look at them. rather We in this Congress. we in this than giving them a blank check in adHouse. have an obligation to ensure vance and then being totally at their that those civilian employees of the mercy as to what they put in effect. Defense Department are treated fairly So this is a common sense provision. and treated with respect. and we I believe it is a bipartisan decision. Let should not surrender that authority. us let the administration tell us what and those obligations to any adminis- they plan- to do. and. if we think it tratiofi. Republican or Democrat. Yet makes sense. we can move forward on that is what we did last year in the au- it at that time.. thorization bill. Trust. but verify. While the Committee on Armed Serv- Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman. I move to ices may have considered this issue. strike the last word. the fact of the matter is the full House Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong suphas never had an opportunity to con- port of the InsleeVan Hollen amendsider this issue. because the Committee ment. Last year. Congress gave the Deon Rules did not make in order an- partment of Defense the authority to amendment on exactly this question. design a new civilian personnel system for its employees as part of the defense authorization bill. I opposed that part of the bill because it included a blanket waiver for the new system from all of the worker protections which Congress has wisely enacted through the years. Unfortunately. the House was denied a chance to vote directly on these changes in 2004. I must assume because of fear about how the vote would turn out. Now the Department of Defense is designing the new system. and the initial proposal published by the Department this spring. as mentioned .by others. has confirmed every fear voiced by members of the House. such as myself and the gentleman from Washington . and the gentleman from Maryland about the new system The initial proposal produced by the Department would have trampled worker rights in a. wanton and deliberate fashion. More recently. Navy Secretary Gordon England has been assigned to work this issue for DOD. and he has pledged to work with DOD unions and employee organizations to design a fairer system. I am strongly encouraged by his involvement. but I also believe that DOD must design a new system which is consistent with strong worker protections. This guarantee is all that the InsleeVan Hollen amendment would add to the bill before us today. Furthermore. there is an important monetary reason for supporting this amendment which is appropriate on the bill which deals with the defense budget. DOD has proposed creating within the Department of Defense two massive new bureaucracies which would duplicate the work of the existing Federal labor relations authority and the Merit System Protection Board. I believe that it would be irresponsible in the extreme for this committee to divert funding from bhdly needed warfighting priorities just so that the Department of Defense can dupliate the functions -of independent government agencies under the control of the Secretary of Defense. This harms national security at the same time that it undermines worker rights. For all these reasons. Mr. Chairman. I ask that my colleagues support the InsleeVan Hollen amendment and put the new personnel system at DOD back on the right track.