For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
September 26, 2002
Director Ridge Addresses U.S. Conference of Mayors
Remarks by Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge on the Department of Homeland Security
Indian Treaty Room
Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building
7:50 A.M. EDT
GOVERNOR RIDGE: Thank you. You're up bright and early. Early
mayor gets the funding, is that the -- rather, the work.
(Laughter.) Good job, all right. It's a good sign, it's a good sign.
Well, thank you very much for coming back to Washington. Thank you
very much for taking the time with us today, I know you've got a busy
schedule. You've got some speakers here, you're going up to Capitol
Hill. And there are a couple issues I'd like to raise with you that
are relevant to your visit to Washington and your visit to the
legislative branch of the government.
So what I'd like to do is to share a couple thoughts with you this
morning, and then we'll break into a little question and answer period,
if it's all right with you.
Actually, you know, we have spoken with one another and shared
ideas many times over the course of the past year. I must tell, your
arrival in town today is critical. You've arrived at precisely the
moment that the Office of Homeland Security needs your support and
needs your advocacy.
The United States Senate is debating the largest the government
reorganization since President Harry S. Truman reorganized our national
security apparatus to meet the Soviet threat. The threat now of course
is terrorism.
President Truman had a sign on his desk that said "the buck stops
here." I think the mayors have the same sign on their desk --
sometimes you probably feel like you've got a target on your back,
too. That whole notion that the buck stops here, the notion that
people are held accountable, that's a message that resonates with your
constituents. It resonates with the American people.
Most Americans, I believe, want their President to act in the best
interests of the nation, certainly in the interests of national
security -- particularly when our nation is at war. And I think we
all agree we are at war; the newest threat of the 21st century is the
threat of international terrorism. They want a government that is
aggressive, but accountable, starting at the top.
So I think Americans would be curious to know why the Senate is on
the verge of passing a bill that actually rolls back -- this bill
actually rolls back and limits -- the President's ability to act on
behalf of national security. Instead of "the buck stops here," the
Breaux-Nelson-Chafee amendment divides the buck and passes the buck.
Now, I do not question the motives of members of the United States
Senate. They are capable, dedicated, and patriotic public servants.
But somehow, legislation to defend all Americans from terrorism has
turned into a vehicle that some of the members want to use to roll back
authorities that have been vested in Presidents for over 40 years --
national security discretions, national security authorities, that have
existed since President Kennedy.
In 1962, President Kennedy allowed federal employees to unionize
for the first time. President Kennedy realized -- and I think it's
important to note, the unions realized -- that sometimes legitimate
national security needs would override collective bargaining
agreements. President Carter was the first to use this authority. And
every President since President Carter, including President Clinton,
has followed his lead.
So why, in the middle of the war against terrorism -- we're
smack-dab in the middle of the war against terrorism, in the middle of
the consideration of the largest reorganization and restructuring of
the executive branch since President Truman -- are we on the verge of
weakening and limiting a President's authority? And it's not just for
this President, but for future Presidents.
Why are we about to give a couple of special interests -- and
again, look, as someone who used to carry a union card, someone who
believes in the rights of organized labor and collective bargaining,
why is it this time, in this bill, that a few folks in this town think
it's more important to either reach out or embrace that notion of
supporting collective bargaining agreements in the face of 40 years'
worth of history that has always given the President the discretion to
waive the Federal Labor Relations Act in the interests of national
security? Why this time? Why this bill? Particularly in the middle
of our war on terror.
Now, I commend the Senators. There are a couple Senators up there
who are working very, very hard, working diligently to find a
solution. You know, everybody's trying to find a compromise. But
Breaux-Nelson is not the compromise, ladies and gentlemen. A time of
war is no time to limit the President's ability to protect national
security.
Americans expect the new Department of Homeland Security to be able
to respond quickly to the new threat. The bipartisan legislation
passed by the House, and the bipartisan Miller-Gramm bill in the
Senate, will do just that. We're trying to keep it bipartisan; we need
to keep it bipartisan. I think senators on both sides of the aisle
want it to be bipartisan. The President wants it to be bipartisan.
But the Breaux-Nelson amendment doesn't -- doesn't get us to
where we need to be. Americans expect the new department to have the
same national security authority as other federal agencies, not less.
Actually, the President would have less authority to move people around
in a new Department of Homeland Security than he would over at the
Department of Agriculture, over at the Veterans Affairs. Over at the
Department of Commerce. Less authority.
One could argue that if you look at the language of Breaux-Nelson
-- really, there's no authority left. The House passed legislation in
the Miller-Gramm compromise, give that authority to the department; the
Breaux-Nelson amendment takes the authority away. Americans expect the
new department to cut through red tape so the very best people can be
hired and placed in the right jobs, with the right pay. The House
passed legislation and the Miller-Gramm compromise gives the department
those tools. The Breaux-Nelson amendment, on the other hand, does
not.
President Truman told Congress that the key to better government is
a general clarification of the lines of authority and responsibility
within the executive branch. Mayors understand that. You've got a
direct line of responsibility, you have a direct line of
accountability. The Breaux-Nelson amendment does not clarify lines of
authority -- frankly, it adds very complicating language and
conditions to the exercise of that authority. Frankly, I think it
shrouds the new department in a fog of words.
Time is of the essence in this debate. Both the time it takes to
respond to terrorism and the time it takes to create a new department.
It has been over three months since the President sent his initiative
to the Congress. The House had in place their procedure. They had the
committees involved, sent a measure to the floor of the House of
Representatives. it was debated and passed rather quickly, and with
strong bipartisan support. We're still awaiting the Senate to do the
same thing. The President is anxious to get to his desk a bill, a
measure, that he can sign, retaining the presidential discretion that
his predecessors since Kennedy, President Kennedy, retained. Not
asking to do anything different. Just don't take the authority away in
the middle of a discussion of the creation of the new Department of
Homeland Security, in the middle of the war against international
terrorism. This is not the time to reduce the President's authority to
act in the best interests of this country.
While the President awaits a bill, mayors and first responders
await funding for equipment, training for weapons of mass destruction
drill and exercises, and other homeland security priorities. We've had
quite a few discussions about the $3.5 billion that the President sent
to the Hill in the form of his recommendation in the budget. It goes
without saying that the House passed their budget, but we're still
waiting for the Senate to pass theirs. This debate may be occurring in
Washington, but it affects every city and state and county in this
country.
I'm going to give you an example about the challenges the President
has, and the country has, and why we feel so strongly about the need to
preserve the President's discretion. In the days following September
11th, the United States Customs Service asked its inspectors at our
nation's port of entry to wear radiation-detection badges.
We're at war against terrorists. We have 5.7 million containers
that come across, because of commercial international shipping, into
our ports. It is legitimately perceived as a potential vulnerability.
We are concerned about weapons of mass destruction.
And so Customs acquired these individual radiation-detection
devices and wants to use them. The union governing those workers
initially refused, saying they wanted the use of these individual
radiation detection devices to be voluntary. You know, I happen to
think there's probably a huge disconnect between the folks who
represent their interest in Washington, D.C. and these patriotic men
and women who serve us in our borders and our ports.
I've been with them, I've seen them -- patriots, all. And
there's no doubt in my mind if you asked the member of that union, if
you asked them whether or not they'd be willing to wear it, they'd
say: yes, sir, yes, ma'am; I'm a patriot, it's part of my job; we know
there's a vulnerability here, give me the device. They're patriots,
all. I think there's a disconnect, frankly, between the men and women
we have out there in the front lines and some of the thinking that goes
on in this town by the people who represent -- the union governing
these workers refused, saying it should be voluntary.
Had the union not backed down, it could have taken at least a year
to resolve. By then, of course, a terrorist threat would have passed
or, worse, been even carried out.
But here's an interesting observation I'd like to share with you.
The President didn't need to exercise the authority that some members
of the Senate want to take away from the President -- the mere fact
that it existed, and they knew it existed, probably over a period of
time changed their point of view, so that now they're wearing the
pagers.
Homeland security does not happen in a vacuum. These are your
cities and towns and communities we're talking about. Some of you
represent port cities. I think you'd want the federal employees with
access to these devices to arm themselves and, therefore, better
protect themselves, the ports, your communities and your citizens. And
I doubt very seriously whether you'd want to give them the option to
wear them, or whether you thought it should be voluntary.
You've heard me say this many times before, but I think if the
hometown is secure, then the homeland is secure. And these rules will
affect your ability to secure your hometowns.
Now, the nation's mayors need these tools and you need those
funds. And the sooner we resolve this debate, the sooner Congress can
pass the President's budget, which we know doubles spending for
homeland security. The sooner the budget is passed, the faster your
cities can gear up to meet the threat.
As government executives yourselves, I urge you to help shape this
debate. I'm going to put it, if I might -- because you serve your
communities in an executive capacity, I'd like to put it in your
context, what you do on a day to day basis -- and understand, this is
basically what the President has to do in a larger context. Ask
yourselves if you want less authority to act on behalf of public
safety, or more. Do you want less authority to act on behalf of public
safety, or would you like to have more? You'd certainly like to
preserve what you have now and not have the city council take it away
from you. And ask yourself, would you like more limits and conditions
on city hall, or fewer? Everybody that wants more limits on your
discretion, more limits on your power, authority, please raise your
hand.
I think if you answered that question, when you go to the Hill I
hope you ask -- let your senators know how you feel. There are a lot
of other contentious issues in this bill, we're trying to work them
out. It's just inconceivable, almost incomprehensible to me that this
time, in this bill they want to roll back the President's authority and
discretion in this matter.
I tell you what, I think together, working with you and other units
of government that we have made great progress since September 11,
2001. We've increased security -- I know you've worked hard every
day to harden your targets, to assess vulnerabilities. I know you've
committed manpower and resources to doing what you needed to do to
upgrade security in your communities. And we're grateful for that.
Working with Congress, we've helped cities and counties and states
improve their defenses against terrorism, particularly bioterrorism.
Again, we've got great bipartisan support on some of the money issues
that have been raised with the Congress of the United States, in both
chambers. And I think we have built new and lasting partnerships at
every level of government and the private sector.
And I know we've had some differences of opinion with regard to
maybe how the money should flow. But I'll tell you what: the one thing
that we respect and admire, in terms of the relationship of the Office
of Homeland Security with your organization, is we always know where
you stand. And some of my most intense disagreements are with my best
friends, because if you can't have candor, if you can't have honest
debate and honest differences of opinion, you'll never advance the
ball.
And we've had some differences of opinion, and we will,
undoubtedly. But the fact is, is that you've responded to our call.
Many of you have adopted the National Threat Advisory System;
two-thirds of the cities, when we went from an elevated level to a high
level, adjusted accordingly.
We view you as invaluable, priceless partners as we effect a
national strategy and a national plan and build on national
infrastructure together in our war against international terrorism.
The next step that I'd like to see us move together on --
notwithstanding any other differences of opinion we might have --
starts with the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, and
getting a bill to the President that he can sign. I think with your
help, we can get it done.
I want to thank you very much again for convening so early this
morning, and wish you well today in your discussions, both within your
organization and with the Congress of the United States. And again,
thank you for your service to your community, and thank you for your
service to this country. I'm grateful to be part of it with you.
Thank you. (Applause.)
END 8:08 A.M. EDT
|