Improving America's Security Act of 2007--Continued
IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - March 06, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Illinois so that I may respond to his questions.
The only thing we can count on is what the minimum is going to produce. CRS, the same as the Senator from Illinois, used last year's DHS risk assessment--a risk assessment we already know DHS has abandoned; a risk assessment that resulted in significant cuts in funding to New York City; a risk assessment that was roundly criticized by virtually every member of our Homeland Security Committee. What we are trying to do is to share with our colleagues what we know for sure, and what we know for sure is what the impact of the minimum funding percentage is under our proposal versus under the proposal of the Senator from Illinois.
What we did is we looked at what the guaranteed funding--that is why it says guaranteed funding--would be under Senator Obama's amendment, and as you see 32 States and the District of Columbia would lose under the amendment. I say to my friend from Illinois that I am surprised he would want to cut funding for the District of Columbia when that is a high-risk area that did not do well under the Department's formulation of applying risk and thus does not do well under the formula of the Senator from Illinois.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/