Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007--Continued

Floor Speech

PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - May 13, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Public Safety Employer-
Employee Cooperation Act. I have been a cosponsor of this legislation in previous Congresses, and I am pleased that the bill, which I first joined several years ago in cosponsoring, is finally coming to the Senate floor.

This bill would ensure that the people we most count on to protect and serve the public--our firefighters, our police officers, our emergency medical personnel, and other first responders--can exercise their rights to organize and bargain collectively with their employers.

Currently, 20 American States do not effectively provide for this right despite the fact that it applies across nearly every other area of the American economy. All first responders should have an effective process to address job issues and practices with the State and local governments they serve.

Now, some have argued that this bill interferes with the proper authority of States and municipalities, but, in fact, the bill simply requires States to allow public safety officers to bargain over wages, hours, and working conditions. My State of Maine has a very similar law in place already. This bill does not in any way dictate outcomes of this process. It gives State--not Federal--courts the authority to enforce contract rights that arise from collective bargaining.

I also wish to emphasize that the bill does not authorize actions that might threaten public safety. In fact, it prohibits both strikes and walkouts. Further, it does not interfere with any existing collective bargaining agreements, nor does it impinge on any area traditionally reserved to management decisionmaking.

Mr. President, I have heard some of my colleagues say this bill will somehow harm the volunteer firefighters who are so important in rural States, such as mine and the State of the Presiding Officer. I think it is important we spell out why that is not the case. In fact, there is no collective bargaining established by this bill for volunteers, volunteer fire departments. This is a bill about collective bargaining rights of employees who are paid for their work. Volunteers, by definition, are not employees. Any suggestion that cities and towns are going to be required to bargain with and possibly pay their volunteer firefighters is simply wrong.

Volunteers are expressly not covered by this bill and will have no right to collective bargaining. All volunteer departments would have no bargaining complications. Furthermore, professional firefighters would still be encouraged to volunteer. I am touched by the fact that some of the professional firefighters in my town act as volunteer firefighters for their hometowns. They may be employed by a larger city in Maine, such as Bangor, Lewiston or Portland, but they may live in a very small town outside the city, where they volunteer on the all-volunteer firefighting force. There is nothing in this bill that discourages anyone from serving as a volunteer firefighter.

In many towns, as I mentioned, volunteer firefighters are actually professional firefighters who volunteer during their off-duty hours. Our legislation preserves that kind of relationship by actually prohibiting States from putting limits on professional firefighters who want to volunteer during their off-duty hours.

This bill addresses concerns that were raised by some of the volunteer firefighters because the protections in the House-passed bill weren't clear enough. The Senate version of this bill will dispel any ambiguity in the House-passed version and make clear that a professional firefighter can, in fact, volunteer to be part of a volunteer force.

The Senate drafters of this bill worked with groups representing volunteer firefighters. I note that the National Volunteer Fire Council supports the language in the Senate substitute that protects the volunteer firefighters.

I believe this bill is a balanced, constructive measure that will help first responders and improve public safety, without improperly or unduly burdening States. It has won the endorsement of the International Association of Firefighters, and it is particularly appropriate that we are turning to this bill during National Police Week, when so many police officers are also in town.

I believe all Americans gained a new appreciation for the service and the sacrifices of our first responders on that terrible day, September 11, 2001. On that day, 343 New York City firefighters and paramedics, 28 New York Police Department officers, and 37 Port Authority officers died doing what they loved. They died trying to rescue others. Such heroism occurs, usually, with far less tragic results in towns and cities across our country every day.

The least we can do to repay the sacrifice and service, the selflessness of our first responders is to ensure that all public safety officers have the right to bargain on their pay and safety standards and working conditions.

This legislation makes sense. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill to put America's public safety workers on an equal footing with their counterparts in other jobs.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her statement. I have one request for her though. Look at the paragraph that deals with volunteer firefighters--the language regarding allowing professional firefighters who want to help out in the community to volunteer as well. There has been language suggested that would make it clear that what you described would happen. But the language from the House definitely doesn't say that. The language, as revised in the substitute amendment, still doesn't say that. I would appreciate it if the Senator would take another look at that and see if that can be made a lot clearer. The language I was referring to is ``to prohibit an employee from engaging in volunteer or part-time employment, any agreement that contains such language shall be unenforceable.'' That is pretty clear. I am concerned that will not only be misconstrued, but it will be bargained away without any consequence. I would appreciate if the Senator would take another look at that.

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, if I may respond to my good friend--and he is a good friend who knows this issue very well and considers bills very carefully, which I have always admired about the Senator from Wyoming. First, let me say it is clear the House bill does not do a good job in this area. I think the House bill is very ambiguous and doesn't make clear what I described. So I think we are in agreement about the House bill. I will take a second look at the substitute language, as the Senator has suggested. But I know the drafters of the bill, Senators GREGG and KENNEDY, worked very closely with the National Council of Volunteer Firefighters, and I doubt they would have signed off on the language--which it is my understanding that they have--if, in fact, it did not protect the volunteer firefighters.

Thirdly, my intent is not to impose any sort of obligation on volunteer firefighters. They are, by definition, not employees, so I don't think they come under this bill. In addition, I do wish to make sure anyone who is a professional firefighter, and employed in that profession, is not precluded from also acting as a volunteer firefighter, as so many professional firefighters in Maine and across this country do. I will take another look at the language, but I do know Senator Gregg and Senator Kennedy have worked very closely with the Volunteer Firefighters Council, and they believe the substitute language does cure what I think all of us would agree was a problem in the House bill.

Again, I thank the Senator from Wyoming. I will take another look at the language.

Source