Susan Collins

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, although it appears nothing has been happening today, in fact, there have been extensive negotiations going on behind the scenes with a list of amendments from our side and from the Senator's side. I know for a fact the Senator's amendment is on that list and is part of the discussions that are underway. But the system of trying to clear these amendments is a very time- consuming one. There are Senators on the Democratic side who have objected to clearing the list and there are Senators on my side of the aisle who have objected to clearing the list. But I can tell the Senator I personally did ask for the Senator's amendment, as did the manager of the bill, to be added to the list for those where we would try to either clear them through unanimous consent or we would try to get a rollcall vote. I personally have no objection to having a rollcall vote on the Senator's amendment or accepting the Senator's amendment, but we have not yet completed the clearance process. The reason I have remained on the floor is in the hope that clearance will occur. But I will tell the Senator there are problems clearing the joint list on both sides of the aisle.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, what is the pending business?

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. COLLINS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I am very sympathetic to the concerns of the Republican leader about trying to move forward with some votes. I do wish he had discussed his approach with the managers of this bill since he has taken us completely by surprise on the Senate floor, but I think he has raised an important issue, that our Members deserve to have votes on the important issues that are before us. If we are going to complete action on this bill by the end of the week, we need to start voting. We need to start disposing of these amendments, whether they are adopted or rejected or withdrawn. So I am sympathetic to the frustration of the Republican leader over this matter. We do need to move forward and have votes. I do wish he had discussed his intentions with the managers of the bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I have no objection to the modification.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am just going to make a brief statement before the Senator from Connecticut propounds the unanimous consent request. Now that I have seen the unanimous consent request, I am not going to object to it, but I do want to comment briefly on the two votes that we have just taken on the issue of the TSA employees. I think those votes were extremely unfortunate because everyone in this Chamber knows that the President is going to veto this important bill if the provisions remain in the bill as the Senate just voted. If that happens, it means the TSA employees will not receive the additional protections and rights that I advocated for in the amendment that I presented to the Senate. They will be back to a situation where they cannot appeal adverse employment actions to an independent agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board. They will be back in the situation where they cannot be protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. It is unfortunate that the votes we have just taken will actually set back the cause of providing employee protections that the TSA screeners should have. I want to make sure that my colleagues are aware of what the practical implications and what the results will be of the votes just taken because there are clearly sufficient votes in this Chamber to sustain the President's veto, and I think it is very unfortunate that we are not going to be able to proceed to give these employees rights they deserve, rights they should have, and rights that would not impair our security. I thank the Chair.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I object.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is very clear to me that we can take significant steps today to give TSA employees more protections, and that is what the amendment I and several others have proposed would do. It would bring TSA employees under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, and it would allow them to appeal any adverse employment action such as a firing or demotion to an independent agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board. These are rights I believe TSA employees should have. They are rights that are similar to those enjoyed by other Federal employees. But what we are trying to do is strike a balance between giving the employees all of the standard collective bargaining rights and the security needs of the TSA. The TSA security needs are not hypothetical. TSA has shared with us, in a highly classified briefing, details of when they have had to change the employee work conditions or assignments or duties. This isn't just a hypothetical need. It is one we saw last summer be put in place in the wake of a bombing plot that, fortunately, was thwarted. These are needs that came into play in the response to Hurricane Katrina. What I have suggested in my amendment is that we take major steps to afford more employee rights and protections to the TSA personnel, but we do so in a way that maintains the flexibility TSA has told us, both in classified session and in public hearings, they need to help safeguard our country. The amendment I have proposed also includes other protections for the employees. It makes very clear that they can join a union. There are several TSOs who have joined a union in order for representation, if there is an adverse employment action. Another provision of the bill recognizes this is not the final word on the issue but asks for TSA and the GAO to take a look at the personnel system for TSA and report back to us in a year's time about whether there should be other changes made to improve the system. The amendment also provides for a pay-for-performance system which has been successfully implemented at TSA. We want to codify that. I don't think this is an all-or-nothing debate. We can take some significant steps today. Secretary Chertoff has sent a letter on behalf of the administration that comments on the alternative proposal put forth by my friend from Missouri, Senator McCaskill. I do have a lot of admiration for my friend and colleague, but I think my other colleagues should be aware that the Department says that ``this amendment regrettably does not provide a workable solution. Indeed, in some respects it would make it even more difficult for the . . . (TSA) to manage its workforce than would section 803 [in the underlying bill.]'' I want to make sure my colleagues are aware that the Department of Homeland Security believes the underlying bill, the language authored by the Senator from Connecticut, is preferable to the language offered by the Senator from Missouri. I ask unanimous consent that the entire letter from Secretary Chertoff be printed in the Record.

Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this is an attempt to find middle ground on a very difficult issue. The amendment that I and my colleagues offer the Senate would provide TSA employees with the right to appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board any adverse action taken against them. Those rights would be identical to the rights that other Federal employees have. It would give them the protections of the Whistleblowers Protection Act. It recognizes that TSA employees have the right to join a union, and it calls for us to revisit this issue in a year by having a report from TSA and the GAO. I think this helps give more rights and employment protections to TSA employees without impeding the necessary flexibility that TSA needs to have for our security. I urge support of the amendment.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I do object at this time because we have not seen this agreement. It has not been discussed with the manager or the staff on this side. I do object, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I just want to be clear that the Senator from Pennsylvania will not be changing the agreement the Senator from Connecticut just announced that will allow the 15 minutes of debate prior to the 1:45 votes.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on the amendment I have offered with a number of my colleagues--Senator Stevens, Senator Warner, Senator Coleman, Senator Sununu, and Senator Voinovich--that would provide certain employment rights for the Transportation Security Administration's employees. Throughout our committee's work on homeland security, it has become clear the ability to respond quickly and effectively to changing conditions, to emerging threats, to new intelligence, to impending crises is essential. From the intelligence community to our first responders, the key to an effective response is flexibility--putting assets and, more importantly, personnel where they are needed when they are needed with a minimum of bureaucracy. My questions about giving TSA employees the right to collectively bargain center around whether this right would hamper flexibility at a critical time. I have long been a supporter of Federal employees throughout my time in the Senate. I have worked in the public sector virtually my entire life, and I know how hard individuals at all levels of Government work to provide services to protect us and to serve us. It is my hope we can forge a compromise that preserves the flexibility--we have learned in classified briefings from Kip Hawley, the head of TSA--that is needed while at the same time recognizing that TSA employees deserve more employment rights. These employees are working hard every day to protect us. We should protect them. The TSA is charged with a great responsibility. In order to accomplish its critical national security mission, the Aviation Transportation Security Act provided the TSA Administrator with workforce flexibilities. These flexibilities allow the TSA Administrator to shift resources and to implement new procedures daily, in some cases hourly, in response to emergencies, canceled flights, and changing circumstances. This authority enables TSA to make the best and fullest use of its highly trained and dedicated workforce. This is not just theoretical. We have already seen the benefits of this authority and this flexibility. In both the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the thwarted airline bombing plot in Great Britain last year, TSA moved quickly to change the nature of its employees' work-- and even the location of that work--in response. Last December, when blizzards hit the Denver area and many local TSOs were unable to get to the airport, TSA acted quickly, flying in volunteer TSOs from Las Vegas to cover the shifts, and covering the Las Vegas shifts with officers who were transferred temporarily from Salt Lake City. Without this ability to deploy needed personnel where they were needed, on a moment's notice, the Denver airport would have been critically understaffed while hundreds, perhaps thousands, of travelers were stranded. This flexibility is essential. An even better example was the work that was done in the aftermath of the thwarted airline bombing plot last summer, where TSA, overnight, had to retrain its employees, had to deploy them differently, and was able to do so because of the flexibility that is in the current law. The legislation before the Senate is designed to implement the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Many of the recommendations were enacted in 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act Senator Lieberman and I authored and worked so hard on. But the language concerning TSA employees' bargaining rights is an issue that was not addressed in this report. You can read this report, as I have, from cover to cover--I think it is 567 pages--and you will not find a discussion of collective bargaining rights for TSA employees. So this is not a recommendation that was included in the 9/11 Commission's report. Before we so drastically change the TSA personnel system, we must ensure we do not interfere with TSA's ability to carry out its mission. I want to make clear that we should, however, make some changes in the system now. We have had enough experience with TSA over the past few years that there are a number of things that are obvious. First, we should bring TSA employees under the Whistleblower Protections Act which safeguards the rights of whistleblowers throughout the Federal Government. There is no reason to deny TSA employees that protection. My amendment would provide for that coverage. Second, we should make very clear that TSA members do have the right to join a union. That is a different issue from collective bargaining. Indeed, many TSA employees have chosen to join the union because then they have the right to representation by the union if there is a disciplinary action. So we should make that clear. Third, we should give TSA employees the right to an independent appeal of disciplinary actions, of adverse employment actions such as demotions or firings, and have that appeal heard by an independent agency, the Merit Systems Protection Board. It is this board that sits in judgment of appeals filed by other Federal employees, and I see no reason why the TSA employees should not have those same rights. Fourth, the amendment includes a provision codifying the pay-for- performance system that TSA has used very successfully to retain and recruit good employees. Finally, the amendment we are offering provides for TSA, in a year's time, to come back to us with a report on whether other changes are needed in the personnel system. We have also tasked GAO with performing that duty. Now, that is important because we are still learning about TSA. As I said, I think we can make these significant changes now, but we need more time and study and consideration before going further, and that is why I have recommended that we have this report back. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee's subcommittee which has jurisdiction over civil service issues just this week held its first hearing to look at this issue. So there is a lot of work that still needs to be done, but I think we can proceed now to provide these important protections. As we strive to protect our Nation and our people without diminishing civil liberties, we must do all we can to build a strong homeland security structure that upholds the rights of homeland security personnel. I believe we can provide TSA employees with important protections enjoyed by other Federal employees, such as the right to appeal adverse employment actions to the Merit Systems Protection Board and the statutory right to whistleblower protections, without disrupting TSA's established and proven personnel system. That personnel system was described in great detail to us in a classified briefing session as well as an open hearing as being necessary to accomplish the goals of the agency. So my amendment would give these rights to TSA employees. I have been working to try to achieve a middle ground between those who believe there should be no employment rights for TSA employees and those who believe we should allow them to engage in full collective bargaining. That is what my amendment attempts to do, is to chart that middle ground, to provide significant additional protections and rights to TSA employees without burdening a system that is working effectively. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment when we vote on it later today. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. COLLINS

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, was the time running under the quorum call being charged equally or just to one side?

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, earlier today, the Senate tabled an amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, that would have struck all of the provisions in the bill related to the employment rights of the employees of the Transportation Security Administration, TSA. Last night, I filed an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Voinovich, Senator Warner, Senator Sununu, Senator Coleman, and Senator Stevens that seeks to strike a middle ground in this area. Through our committee's work on homeland security, it has become clear that the ability to respond quickly and effectively to changing conditions, to emerging threats, and to crisis situations is essential. From the intelligence community to our first responders, the key to this response is flexibility, putting assets and, more importantly, personnel where they are needed, when they are needed. My question about giving TSA employees the right to collectively bargain is whether this additional right would hamper flexibility at this critical time. I have been a strong supporter of Federal employees throughout my time in the Senate. I very much appreciate the work they do not only in the Department of Homeland Security but throughout the Federal Government. It is my hope that we will be able to work cooperatively to forge a compromise that preserves the needed flexibility that has been described to us in both classified sessions and open hearings while protecting the rights of TSA employees. These are employees who are working hard every day to protect us. The TSA is charged with great responsibility. In order to accomplish its critical national security mission, the Aviation Transportation Security Act provided TSA with the authority to shift resources and to implement new procedures daily--in some instances hourly--in response to emergencies and changing conditions. This authority enables TSA to make the best and fullest use of its highly trained and dedicated workforce. We have already seen the benefit of this flexibility. In both the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the thwarted airline bombing plot in Great Britain last year, TSA was able to change the nature of its employees' work and even the location of their work in response to these emergencies. Last December, when blizzards hit the Denver area and many local TSA officers were unable to get to the airport, the agency acted quickly, flying in voluntary TSOs from Las Vegas to cover the shifts and covering the Las Vegas shifts with officers transferred temporarily from Salt Lake City. Without the ability to rapidly ask for volunteers and deploy them to Denver, the Denver airport would have been critically understaffed while hundreds, perhaps thousands, of travelers were stranded. This flexibility is essential. The legislation before the Senate is designed to implement the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Most of those recommendations were enacted in 2004, but when we look at this report we don't see recommendations about changing the employees' conditions at TSA. Before we so dramatically change the TSA personnel system, we must ensure that we do not interfere with TSA's ability to carry out its mission. That doesn't mean the status quo is adequate. I believe we know enough now that we should proceed with providing TSA employees important protections enjoyed by other Federal employees. Let me mention two such important protections with which we should proceed. The first is to bring them under the Whistleblower Protections Act. There is simply no reason TSA employees should not enjoy the formal protections and procedures set forth in that act. Second, these TSA employees should have the same kinds of rights as other Federal employees to appeal adverse employment actions-- disciplinary actions, for example, demotions, even firings--to the Merit System Protection Board. That would give them an independent agency to review their complaints, and that is an important protection as well. In addition to these two very important provisions, the amendment makes clear that TSOs have the right to join labor unions. My amendment also requires TSA to establish a pay-for-performance system. That already exists in the agency, but we want to codify that. Finally, the amendment would require TSA and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to report to Congress in 1 year to assess employment matters at TSA, indicating what further changes, if any, should be made in the TSA personnel system. I believe this takes the right approach. This is not an all-or- nothing debate, and yet that is what we seem to have boiled it down to. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the amendment. I am very pleased to have the cosponsorship of several Senators, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to vote on it, if not today, tomorrow. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be charged equally between both parties.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois to reduce the minimum guarantee to States under the State Homeland Security Grant Program. My colleague and friend from Connecticut has done an excellent job explaining the problems with this amendment. Let me reinforce a few of the points he has made. As my colleagues can see from the chart behind me, under Senator Obama's amendment, 32 States and the District of Columbia would have a decrease in the guaranteed funding. Under the Obama amendment, two previous targets of attack, both the District of Columbia and Oklahoma, would receive less guaranteed funding than 18 other States. Indeed, Senator Obama's own projections show that the District of Columbia, presumably one of the highest risk areas in the country, would lose almost 45 percent of its total funding under his proposal I think we need to keep in mind that assessing risk is not an exact science. Who would have guessed that Portland, ME, would have been the departure point for two of the hijackers on 9/11? Who would have guessed that four of the hijackers would train and live in Norman, OK? Who would have guessed that two of the hijackers would have spent considerable time in Stone Mountain, GA? My point is the evidence is clear that terrorists train, hide, and transit through more rural areas, which is one reason that the chairman and I have put such emphasis on preventing terrorist attacks and have allocated a percentage of funds to be used specifically for that purpose. Now I wish to specifically address the chart that is being circulated by the distinguished Senator from Illinois. The breakdown of the winners and losers under his amendment on his chart relies upon the Department of Homeland Security allocating future risk-based funding in the same manner as it did in 2006. We know that is not going to happen. The process by which the Department allocated funding based on its risk analysis was denounced all around. I could quote the Senators from New York and California, as well as the Senator from Connecticut, Minnesota, and myself. All of us believed that whether we represented big States, small States or medium-sized States, the methodology was flawed. Indeed, the Department has moved away from that methodology. So it is a false assumption to assume the exact same risk analysis is going to be used in future years, when, in fact, we know it would not be. I wish to point out, in fiscal year 2006, 60 percent of the Homeland Security Grant funds were allocated based on risk. We are requiring that an estimated 95 percent be allocated based on risk, but we want that risk formula reported to Congress. We want to take a look at it. We are working with the Department on it. If we are going to become better prepared as a nation, all States must have a predictable, steady stream of homeland security funding. We need to bring all States up to reach minimum levels of preparedness, because otherwise the terrorists will exploit the weak links. We also know many of the parts of our critical infrastructure are located in more rural areas. Nuclear powerplants are a prime example. Military bases are yet another example. So the problem is one cannot assume the only targets are in large urban areas. That is not true. There was another point the Senator from Connecticut made that is a very important point, and that is this is an all-hazards approach to funding. As the Presiding Officer well knows, because he participated so actively in the investigation held by the Homeland Security Committee into the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, there is virtually no area of our country that is immune from natural disasters. The same kinds of communications equipment that come into play when there is a terrorist attack are also needed when a hurricane or an ice storm or an earthquake strikes. So I think we have struck the right balance in our proposal. Now, I would note the Senator's proposal does not hit my home State. It does not hurt Maine, because he has additional funding for border States, so I am not arguing out of a parochial interest. I am arguing for the formula in our bill because it takes an all-hazards approach. It understands all States have vulnerabilities. It recognizes we need to improve every link in the chain, that we need to bring all States up to minimal levels of preparedness, and they are simply not there now. It recognizes we need predictable funding streams so that States, regions, and communities can enter into multiyear projects, because a lot of these projects, such as with interoperable communications, require more than 1 year to get to the goal. The potential of terrorist attacks against rural or at least nonurban targets is increasingly recognized as a national security threat. Our committee held hearings on the threat of agri-terrorism--an attack on our food supply. That would be devastating for our Nation. A study conducted by the Harvard School for Public Health shows rural areas face profound homeland security challenges. A great many power and water supplies, as well as virtually our entire food supply, are located outside of urban areas. The RAND Corporation has repeatedly warned: Homeland security experts and first responders have cautioned against an overemphasis on improving the preparedness of large cities to the exclusion of smaller communities or rural areas. Again, that report recognized much of the Nation's infrastructure and potential high-value targets are located in rural areas. I hope our colleagues will join us in voting against the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois. I truly believe it would not advance the goal we all share of strengthening our homeland security. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.