(Washington, D.C.) - With the anniversary of September 11 approaching, Americans want to know if they and their money are safer and more secure than they were one year ago.  While progress has been made in the war on terrorism, there are questions as to how it can be won without smart management and personnel flexibility in the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 

If Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) has his way, the new DHS will be more focused on how to prevent the reassignment of federal workers than on how to fight terrorism.  For his obstructionism, protection of personnel before the American people, playing politics with the new DHS, and increasing costs to taxpayers by creating a new and unwieldy bureaucracy, Sen. Joe Lieberman is named CAGW’s Porker of the Month for August.

It’s been a long way down for Sen. Lieberman (D-Conn.).  After nearly winning the 2000 election on a “moderate” platform, he is now leading the way as a supporter of the bureaucratic status quo, and contravening his own statements.  Just this past April, he said that a new DHS would “need the power to knock heads to overcome bureaucratic resistance, to eliminate wasteful duplication of effort and target precious resources.”  He added, “We must still ask, six months into Governor Ridge’s appointment, whether we are any better positioned to defend ourselves against another terrorist attack within our borders.”

Unfortunately, Lieberman himself is making the answer to that question a resounding “no.”   Since he introduced one of the first bills to establish a Department of Homeland Security, his intransigence is all the more baffling.

Every president since Jimmy Carter (who used it extensively) has had the authority to declare that certain personnel or programs within a federal agency are essential to national security.  Under such a designation, collective bargaining rights are removed, making it easier to move personnel from one job or location to another.

The Lieberman bill would remove this authority from President Bush, as well as future presidents, and give it to the DHS secretary.  Lieberman’s excuse is that no president has ever used the national security designation on the departments and agencies that will be incorporated into the DHS.  But never having had a DHS or an attack on the United States as devastating as September 11, it would be absurd to think the rules should remain static.

As Sen. Lieberman dallies, America remains vulnerable.  In fact, Sen. Lieberman’s leadership of the Governmental Affairs Committee reveals what he thinks of management reform and the war on terrorism itself.  While there was a flurry of hearings on terrorism and bioterrorism following Sept. 11 and the anthrax attacks, that subject matter has virtually disappeared from the committee’s radar screen.

Since the beginning of 2002, the committee has held more than 40 hearings.  There have been seven hearings on Enron; nine on general issue related to terrorism and four on the new DHS.  Here’s a sampling of the rest: “The Binge Drinking Epidemic on College Campuses;” “The Impact of Tobacco Marketing on Women and Girls;” “Kids and Cafeterias: How Safe Are Federal School Lunches?;” “Improving the Reliability of State-Issued Drivers' Licenses;” “Federal Food Safety Oversight: Does the Fragmented Structure Really Make Sense?;” and most recently, “Consumer Safety and Weight Loss Supplements.”

Contrast this with the House Government Reform Committee, where subcommittees concerned with terrorism issues have held nearly half of their hearings on that subject matter.