Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act of 2020
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1140.
After the terror attacks of 9/11, Congress recognized that, in order for TSA to successfully carry out its critical mission, it had to accommodate the agency's unique operational needs. That is why, when Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, we gave TSA one-of-a-kind authorities to respond to evolving threats.
TSA has used these authorities over time to remain flexible and accountable to the needs of a diverse transportation system where each airport faces a unique threat landscape. These flexibilities are key to keeping the public safe. That is why I am very concerned about the impact this bill will have on the security of our aviation system.
By moving the screener workforce under title V, this bill would eliminate many of those critical flexibilities. For example, current law allows for the immediate termination of employees who intentionally allow guns, knives, or explosives through a checkpoint. Under this bill, that employee could remain on the TSA payroll for months, or even longer.
Current law allows TSA to set new security requirements, such as enhanced passenger screening, when intelligence indicates credible threats. How new security requirements are implemented could be subject to negotiation if the union bill were to become law.
Right now, TSA has the flexibility to move screener checkpoints to alleviate long lines and ensure security. The legislation before us restricts that flexibility.
In addition to the impact on security, I am concerned with how the bill proposes to transition the screener workforce. I don't think it is fair for Congress to dictate which union gets to represent 45,000 screeners, but that is just what this bill does. The bill sets into law the exclusive bargaining agent for the screeners and requires TSA to immediately negotiate with them.
Under this bill, there is no intervening union election. Screeners never get a chance to exercise their constitutional right to choose their representation. I think that is wrong.
Beyond the consequences for aviation security and the fundamental questions of fairness, this bill does little to improve the pay and working conditions for screeners. In fact, TSA screeners will lose benefits under this proposal.
If this bill becomes law, screeners will lose the ability to trade shifts with one another or donate accrued leave to their fellow workers. Certain pay overtime would be prohibited. Career milestone bonuses would no longer be offered. Many veterans would no longer qualify for hiring preferences.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cost $1.8 billion over 5 years. That is a 20 percent increase over TSA's current budget. That is a tremendous cost for so little return.
In May 2019, a blue-ribbon panel led by Clinton and Obama administration human capital experts strongly argued against moving screeners under title V as this bill would do. That panel rightly pointed out that, under current law, TSA can pay screeners more than they would make under title V.
That is the real irony with this bill. It purports to improve pay and benefits for screeners, but, under current law, screeners could be paid more and receive better benefits than this bill would allow.
I have long advocated for increased pay for the screener workforce, and I agree with the blue-ribbon panel that TSA should build a pay system superior to that of the GS schedule. The problem has always been funding.
Past administrations have requested funding for increased screener pay, and past Congresses have not provided it. Fortunately, the President's fiscal year 2021 budget requests an increase in funding to provide raises and bonuses for screeners.
If the majority truly wants to fix the problem, they should work with us on a bill to fund these pay raises and implement the recommendations of the bipartisan blue-ribbon panel. That is the bill we should have on the floor today. Instead, they have, yet again, decided to move a partisan messaging bill that rewards their political supporters. This time it comes at the expense of taxpayers and security.
Like the rest of them, this partisan messaging bill will never become law. The Senate won't take it up. The President said he would veto it. It is a waste of time.
At some point, I hope the majority rejects this partisan approach to legislating and works with us on our Nation's priorities.
Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I would point out to my colleague from Oregon that the $1.8 billion was over 5 years, not 10 years. The screening fee that the gentleman was referring to was diverted under the Obama administration to general deficit relief.
But the fact is I agree fully with Chairman Thompson that we should be paying our screeners more. It is our fault. Congress has not funded the ability of TSA to raise their pay.
The irony of this bill is it would make it harder to pay them more; it would pay them less. If we would fund the TSA for what they are requesting, current law would allow them to have better incomes and better benefits than this bill would allow. That is the real irony here.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend and colleague from California's observation, but, again, I emphasize about the union representation.
The gentleman just made the statement and reiterated what the chairman had said in his opening statement, and that is there has been enormous turnover in the TSA over the last decade because of the poor pay, benefits, and working circumstances.
The fact is that very few people who work at TSA today voted for AFGE to be the union. It won by plurality--not a majority--10 years ago, and very few people who were there then are here now.
So, if, in fact, this bill were ever to become law--which it is not-- at a minimum, we should allow the workers to decide who they want their representation to be. AFGE may win it, but it is wrong for Congress to dictate to 45,000 employees who they should have for representation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, in response to my friend and colleague from Mississippi, who, in his last statements, emphasized that the employees at TSA would have the right to elect their union representation, I would refer him to page 9, line 24 of his bill, ``Exclusive Representative--The labor organization certified by the Federal Labor Relations Authority on June 29, 2011, or successor labor organization shall be treated as the exclusive representative of full- and part-time nonsupervisory TSA personnel carrying out screening functions under section 44901`` et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
This bill does pick winners and losers and, in this case, AFGE is the winner. I am just saying, I don't think that is right.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to my friend from Nevada that the irony with this bill is they are moving TSA under a 70-year-old personnel management system widely panned by good government organizations as unable to meet the needs of the 21st century workforce.
So which system really is outdated?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the fact is, if we do treat the TSA officers the same as other employees by putting them in title 5, they will actually lose benefits. I talked about that in my opening statement.
Right now, they already get the same benefits like paid family leave, but they are going to lose the ability to have bonuses, get certain overtime pay, and trade shifts. Those are things that are valuable.
But the biggest problem I have is that we, as a Congress, have not funded the pay system they have now which would allow greater pay than title 5. I just think we need to stop shirking our duty and recognize it is our responsibility to pay these employees fairly. We have not been doing that, and this bill will accommodate that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague from New Jersey is a great member of the Homeland Security Committee, and his heart is obviously in the right place. Everything he said I agree with about our TSA workforce. I travel through airports every week just like all the Members of this House.
The fact is, it pains me to know we are not treating them better. These are the people who came to work in the last government shutdown without pay throughout that shutdown to make sure that we remained safe as we flew back and forth.
We ought to be treating them better, and this bill doesn't do it. If we want to treat these people the way they should be treated, we should use current law and properly fund it and give them pay and benefits better than anything this bill would ever accommodate.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to make Mr. Thompson aware that I have no further speakers and I am prepared to close.
Mr. Chairman, I want to close by thanking the men and women of TSA. The debate we are having today does not impact the sincere appreciation we have for the tremendous job they do each and every day. While we may disagree on the best way forward, I think we all share the same goal of improving screener pay and morale. We understand how important it is to the workforce and to our security.
Unfortunately, this bill would do little more than undermine the goal that we seek to achieve.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source