A resolution to increase transparency by requiring Senate amendments to be made available to the public in a timely manner.

Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the nomination of John S. Pistole to be Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration and talk about collective bargaining for TSA employees.

The TSA has been without a Senate-confirmed leader for a year and a half. During the last 5 months, we have experienced two major transportation security incidents: the unsuccessful December 25 bombing of Northwest flight 253 and the near escape of the failed Times Square bomber. I welcome the President's nomination of a career FBI official with extensive counterterrorism experience, FBI Deputy Director John S. Pistole, to head the TSA. I look forward to the Senate's swift confirmation of Mr. Pistole for this critical position.

During the confirmation hearings for Mr. Pistole, the issue of collective bargaining for TSA employees was raised. Mr. Pistole stated that he is going to study the issue, gather all the information he can from stakeholders, and make a recommendation to Secretary Napolitano.

Some Members of Congress, however, are strongly opposed to collective bargaining for TSA employees. Their opposition is grounded in the concern that we need to adapt quickly and effectively to specific aviation threats. The underlying premise of this argument is that we must choose between protecting the Nation from threats to aviation and collective bargaining. This choice, however, is a false choice because national security and what I call smart collective bargaining are not mutually exclusive. Under smart collective bargaining agreements, if circumstances and true emergencies were to exist, TSA would be fully capable to deploy assets without there being any negative impact from the collective bargaining agreement.

At his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pistole stated that ``we have to be able to surge resources at any time . . . not only nationwide but worldwide.'' I certainly agree. A smart collective bargaining agreement would enable us to do exactly that.

Moreover, a smart collective bargaining agreement would enhance national security because it would enable TSA to recruit and retain veteran employees. Our Nation's history with labor unions teaches us that collective bargaining boosts morale and allows employees to have a voice in their workplace and increases stability and professionalism. On the other hand, poor workforce management can lead directly to high attrition, job dissatisfaction, and increased costs, which lead to gaps in aviation security. There have been reports that TSA has low worker morale, which can undermine the Agency's mission and our national security.

The fact is, DHS, Customs and Border Patrol officers, some of whom work at the same airports as TSA employees, as well as employees of DHS's Federal Protection Services, and the Capitol Police all operate under collective bargaining agreements. Are members of the flying public less safe because the CPB officers, who work side-by-side with TSA employees, work under a collective bargaining agreement? I don't believe so, nor do I think my colleagues believe that. Are Members of Congress less safe because the Capitol Police work under a collective bargaining agreement? I have heard all my colleagues compliment the efficiency of our Capitol Police.

As the late Senator Kennedy noted in August 2009 when he cosponsored a collective bargaining rights bill for public safety officers, tomorrow morning, thousands of State and local public safety officers, police officers, and firefighters will wake up and go to work to protect us. We should be there to help them. They will put their lives on the line responding to emergencies, policing neighborhoods, and protecting us in Maryland and communities all across the Nation. These dedicated public servants will patrol our streets and run into burning buildings to keep us safe. No one believes for a moment that we are less safe because they have secured collective bargaining rights.

If opponents of collective bargaining for TSA employees want to invoke 9/11 to support their views, they will soon discover that the legacy of 9/11 shows clearly that national security will not be compromised by collective bargaining. It shows just the reverse. Those who helped us save lives during 9/11 were covered under collective bargaining rights. Before 9/11, the New York Port Authority police worked 8-hour days, 4 days on and 2 days off. By the end of the day on 9/11, however, vacations and personal time were canceled and workers were switched to 12-hour tours, 7 days a week. Indeed, schedules did not return to normal for 3 years. The union did not file a grievance, and everyone recognized it was a real crisis.

If there is any doubt about whether collective bargaining will enhance our ability to recruit and retain the best TSA employees to protect us, all we need to do is think about Donnie McIntyre, a Port Authority police officer, one of the many selfless heroes killed on 9/ 11, and these memorable words written in the third stanza of ``America the Beautiful'' by Katherine Lee Bates:

O beautiful for heroes proved, in liberating strife. Who

more than self, their country loved, and mercy more than

life.

We learned about the story of Donnie McIntyre from his partner, Paul Nunziato, vice president of the New York Port Authority Police Benevolent Association. He testified before Congress in June of 2007 regarding the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007, a bill almost identical to the amendment offered by Senator Reid.

Donnie was one of the 37 port authority police officers who lost their lives on 9/11 at the World Trade Center evacuation effort. He was married with two children, and his wife Jeannie was pregnant with their third child when he died on September 11. While nothing will make up for the loss of Donnie to his family, Jeannie does not have to

worry about paying bills or providing health care for her children, largely because of the benefits the union negotiated for its members.

Collective bargaining for TSA employees will not endanger national security. It will make us more safe. I urge colleagues to support collective bargaining for TSA employees. It will improve our ability to recruit and retain the best employees, like Donnie McIntyre and the countless other American heroes who work every day to protect us and keep us safe under collective bargaining agreements. Moreover, smart collective bargaining for TSA employees will increase stability and professionalism in the workplace and will dramatically reduce attrition rates, job dissatisfaction, and increased costs, which will enhance transportation security.

I urge my colleagues to swiftly confirm John S. Pistole to be the TSA Director and to understand the importance of protecting all of our workers, particularly those who put their lives on the line for us, by giving them basic collective bargaining rights.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I address my colleagues for the purpose of submitting a resolution that will bring about greater transparency in government. I think my colleagues know I have a long history in promoting this sort of transparency. I believe the more people are aware of what we are doing in the Senate and the Congress, or in Washington generally, the more accountable we are. The more accountable we are, the better job we will do. I hope everybody agrees that is a pretty simple concept.

Today, the purpose I come to the Senate floor is to submit a resolution that will improve transparency in this body and hold us all more accountable to the people we serve; in other words, reminding the people that we work for them; they do not work for us.

This resolution requires the Secretary of the Senate to make filed amendments publicly available as soon as they are made available to Members and staff. I will show, in just a minute, that they are almost immediately made available to Members and staff. So why not the public?

In this day and age you would think this was already happening. We live in a world of 24-hour news. We live in a world of instant coverage over the Internet of just about everything. Yet we have not been allowing the general public to get this information real time. My proposal would add more transparency to how the Senate works and what we are debating on the Senate floor.

Some might question whether this is necessary. Under the current system, the public is usually able to see an amendment the next day in the Congressional Record. So I want to say why that is not good enough. In many cases, that may simply be too late.

Under the current system, the public may not be able to see the amendment until after debate has begun or even

after the Senate has already voted. This would be even more common during some of the controversial debates that stretch late into the evening. You might remember the late evening votes we had on health care reform last December and again in March where hundreds of amendments were filed and votes were cast well past midnight.

In fact, today we make the vote count public on the Internet within an hour of when a vote takes place. But we might not be able to make the substance of what we voted on available until the next day. So we let the public see how we voted, but we do not always let them see what we voted on. Of course, that does not make sense.

Just last night, Members tried to call up and pass various amendments. But only the most experienced Washington insider would have been able to actually find copies of those amendments. Shouldn't we have some kind of searchable system for amendments to allow our constituents the same access to information that some seasoned lobbyist or some seasoned congressional staffer has?

Don't we want to give our constituents a chance to see the amendments before we vote on them, if they are interested in reading them? Don't we want to know what our constituents think about amendments before we vote on them?

In order for that to happen, they have to know what those amendments are that have been filed. Of course, I am not talking about an amendment that might change a word here or a word there--although those should be publicly available as well. Some amendments I am talking about are hundreds of pages long and even constitute a complete rewrite of an underlying bill.

Today, we will likely see our fifth version of the extenders bill that is now the pending business on the floor of the Senate, and that fifth version would be in the form of an amendment. But our constituents may not be able to see that until tomorrow.

Shouldn't the public be able to see that amendment as soon as we Members or our staffs can read that amendment? This is a representative system of government, and it is impossible to represent the American people if they do not have access to the same information we have.

In addition to those who will question whether this is necessary, others might wonder whether it is even possible, like technically possible.

In fact, we are already doing it. That is right. The amendments are already available electronically to Senate offices almost immediately after they are filed, but they are not available to the public--not necessarily intentionally hidden from the public, but the public cannot get them like everybody in the Senate and in our offices can get them.

I have a chart in the Chamber that shows there is already an Amendment Tracking System Web site that is only available to Members of Congress and staff. It provides a copy of the amendment, the purpose of the amendment, the sponsor of the amendment, and the status of that amendment.

My resolution is this simple: It would simply make this or a similar Web site available to the public, much like already is done with the Legislative Information System site or the Thomas site at the Library of Congress.

That way, the public gets to see exactly what we Members and our staffs are seeing almost immediately after filing. They get the same information and can provide their input prior to a vote.

There is a lot of distrust of government these days. People believe Congress is ignoring what the public thinks and what the public wants. Some of this is the result of the policies that are being considered around here. But it also has to do with the lack of transparency and accountability in government.

I am not saying this resolution is going to fix all that is wrong with that distrust that is expressed--because it will not--but this resolution is one more step toward letting a little more sunshine into this Chamber. This straightforward resolution will increase transparency, it will promote accountability, and it will make us all better representatives of the people we serve.

I hope the Senate will consider this resolution at some point in the near future, and I also urge my colleagues to support it. The public deserves access to this information on the same basis as those of us who are closely connected to this institution--meaning the Members and our staffs.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Since I do not see any other Members present to speak, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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