Joe Lieberman: “responding to my friend from Pennsylvania, I think the question in the report of what the White House has really…”

“responding to my friend from Pennsylvania, I think the question in the report of what the White House has really demonstrates how close we are to an agreement. I prefer the word ``majority;'' that is, to set some standard. Basically, this provision of Nelson-Chafee-Breaux gives some minimal due process protection for Federal workers in the future from a President who would arbitrarily apply this national security waiver to remove collective bargaining rights of Federal employees. One of the elements of due process is to say for the determination to be made, a ``majority'' of the employees of the agency or office department would have to be involved and, speaking generally, national security. A ``significant'' number seems a little lower. I think we can probably find a word. It is a little too low, it seems to me, between those two words to grant both some comfort level for Federal employees without diminishing the authority of the President. I say again these statements are some of the reasons the President will have to make his determination. But the President's determination, for all intents and purposes, is final. As we discussed last week, there is one reported case where an appeal was made of a determination by President Reagan. He just gave an order. He didn't make a determination. The circuit court even upheld that because the presumption in favor of the President when he invokes national security is so high.”