Washington, D.C. - Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me.
As we have heard, tucked into this bill, Mr. Chairman, which is so important to our national defense, is a provision that I believe could have long-term negative consequences for our military readiness and effectiveness. It is a provision that will rewrite the rules for 700,000 civil service employees in the Department of Defense.
Mr. Chairman, in our committee, the Committee on Government Reform, when the representatives from the Department of Defense came to testify, they made it clear that our military success in Iraq was the result of a team effort, a team effort between the military and between the civil servants within the Department of Defense that provided them the support. It was a true partnership.
Yet, just a few weeks after our military success in Iraq, the Pentagon launched what can only be described as a sneak, surprise attack on the rights of those civil servants within the Department of Defense. It is very ironic that just a few weeks after this body passed legislation endorsing the good work of public employees, that we would take this action that treats them so unfairly.
Mr. Chairman, there has been an amendment proposed that would strip these provisions or change these provisions in the bill. It should be a bipartisan amendment, it should be a nonpartisan amendment, because otherwise what this bill does is gives the Secretary of Defense, not just this Secretary but any Secretary of Defense, Republican or Democrat down the road, the unchecked authority to rewrite the rules for civil servants within the Department of Defense, the rules with respect to hiring, firing, pay, bonuses.
It will greatly damage our security if we open the Department of Defense to party politics. We want a personnel system that rewards people based on merit, not based on political favoritism. We want, for example, our procurement officers to be looking out for the public interest, to be looking out for our national interests, not the interests of the most politically connected contractors.
I strongly support pay for performance; but it should be merit-based performance, not a political loyalty test. Last December we saw the big bonuses going to those who were political appointees within the administration.
I think this bill, which is so important to our national security, should not contain this one provision that I think will damage our national security interests in the long run.