To improve the security of cargo containers destined for the United States.

IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of S. 4, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 4) to make the United States more secure by
implementing unfinished recommendations of the 9/11
Commission to fight the war on terror more effectively, to
improve homeland security, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Reid amendment No. 275, in the nature of a substitute.
Sununu amendment No. 291 (to amendment No. 275), to ensure
that the emergency communications and interoperability
communications grant program does not exclude Internet
Protocol-based interoperable solutions.
Salazar/Lieberman modified amendment No. 290 (to amendment
No. 275), to require a quadrennial homeland security review.
DeMint amendment No. 314 (to amendment No. 275), to strike
the provision that revises the personnel management practices
of the Transportation Security Administration.
Lieberman amendment No. 315 (to amendment No. 275), to
provide appeal rights and employee engagement mechanisms for
passenger and property screeners.
McCaskill amendment No. 316 (to amendment No. 315), to
provide appeal rights and employee engagement mechanisms for
passenger and property screeners.
Dorgan/Conrad amendment No. 313 (to amendment No. 275), to
require a report to Congress on the hunt for Osama Bin Laden,
Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the leadership of al-Qaida.
Landrieu amendment No. 321 (to amendment No. 275), to
require the Secretary of Homeland Security to include levees
in the list of critical infrastructure sectors.
Landrieu amendment No. 296 (to amendment No. 275), to
permit the cancellation of certain loans under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
Landrieu amendment No. 295 (to amendment No. 275), to
provide adequate funding for local governments harmed by
Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005.
Allard amendment No. 272 (to amendment No. 275), to prevent
the fraudulent use of social security account numbers by
allowing the sharing of social security data among agencies
of the United States for identity theft prevention and
immigration enforcement purposes.
McConnell (for Sessions) amendment No. 305 (to amendment
No. 275), to clarify the voluntary inherent authority of
States to assist in the enforcement of the immigration laws
of the United States and to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security to provide information related to aliens found to
have violated certain immigration laws to the National Crime
Information Center.
McConnell (for Cornyn) amendment No. 310 (to amendment No.
275), to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to
detain dangerous criminal aliens, including murderers,
rapists, and child molesters, until they can be removed from
the United States.
McConnell (for Cornyn) amendment No. 311 (to amendment No.
275), to provide for immigration injunction reform.
McConnell (for Cornyn) amendment No. 312 (to amendment No.
275), to prohibit the recruitment of persons to participate
in terrorism.
McConnell (for Kyl) amendment No. 317 (to amendment No.
275), to prohibit the rewarding of suicide bombings and allow
adequate punishments for terrorist murders, kidnappings, and
sexual assaults.
McConnell (for Kyl) amendment No. 318 (to amendment No.
275), to protect classified information.
McConnell (for Kyl) amendment No. 319 (to amendment No.
275), to provide for relief from (a)(3)(B) immigration bars
from the Hmong and other groups who do not pose a threat to
the United States, to designate the Taliban as a terrorist
organization for immigration purposes.
McConnell (for Kyl) amendment No. 320 (to amendment No.
275), to improve the Classified Information Procedures Act.
McConnell (for Grassley) amendment No. 300 (to amendment
No. 275), to clarify the revocation of an alien's visa or
other documentation is not subject to judicial review.
McConnell (for Grassley) amendment No. 309 (to amendment
No. 275), to improve the prohibitions on money laundering.
Thune amendment No. 308 (to amendment No. 275), to expand
and improve the Proliferation Security Initiative while
protecting the national security interests of the United
States.
Cardin amendment No. 326 (to amendment No. 275), to provide
for a study of modification of area of jurisdiction of Office
of National Capital Region Coordination.
Cardin amendment No. 327 (to amendment No. 275), to reform
mutual aid agreements for the National Capital Region.
Cardin modified amendment No. 328 (to amendment No. 275),
to require Amtrak contracts and leases involving the State of
Maryland to be governed by the laws of the District of
Columbia.
Feinstein amendment No. 335 (to amendment No. 275), to
improve the allocation of grants through the Department of
Homeland Security.
Schumer/Clinton amendment No. 336 (to amendment No. 275),
to prohibit the use of the peer review process in determining
the allocation of funds among metropolitan areas applying for
grants under the Urban Area Security Initiative.
Schumer/Clinton amendment No. 337 (to amendment No. 275),
to provide for the use of funds in any grant under the
Homeland Security Grant Program for personnel costs.
Collins amendment No. 342 (to amendment No. 275), to
provide certain employment rights and an employee engagement
mechanism for passenger and property screeners.
Coburn amendment No. 325 (to amendment No. 275), to ensure
the fiscal integrity of grants awarded by the Department of
Homeland Security.
Sessions amendment No. 347 (to amendment No. 275), to
express the sense of the Congress regarding the funding of
Senate approved construction of fencing and vehicle barriers
along the southwest border of the United States.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, is there a pending amendment?
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending amendment is amendment
No. 347.

Amendment No. 333 to Amendment No. 275

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask to set that aside and call up
amendment No. 333.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], for himself, Mr.
Thomas, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Sanders, and
Mr. Enzi, proposes an amendment numbered 333 to Amendment No.
275.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase the minimum allocation for States under the State
Homeland Security Grant Program)

On page 69, lines 19 and 20, strike ``0.45 percent'' and
insert ``0.75 percent''.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I can explain this easily. It is a
bipartisan amendment. I offer it on behalf of myself and Senators
Thomas, Stevens, Roberts, Pryor, Sanders, Enzi, Hatch, and Whitehouse
to restore the minimum allocation for States under the State Homeland
Security Grant Program. Right now, in the underlying bill, it is
proposed at .45 percent. Our amendment would restore it to current law
which is .75. That means that every State would have, of the homeland
security money, at least .75 percent of it.
I should point out, incidentally, as with current law, our State
minimum, under our amendment, would apply only to 40 percent of the
overall funding of this program. This may sound somewhat tricky, but
what it means is

[[Page S2654]]

we have special funding for certain unique areas--ports areas, large
cities and all--but this applies to only 40 percent of the overall
funding. The majority of the funds would continue to be allocated based
on risk assessment criteria--again, the idea of a major port, or
something like that, as are the funds under the several separate
discretionary programs which Congress has established for solely urban
and high-risk areas. These are also governed by risk assessment
calculations. That is not something that is going to be affected by the
so-called small State minimum.
The underlying bill before the Senate would reduce the all-State
minimum for SHSGP in the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program
to .45 percent. In the other body it is reduced even further, to .25
percent. So we know this is going to be a matter in conference under
any circumstances. In fact, due to the formula differences--it is
somewhat complicated, but as a result, there is no guarantee that the
minimum would not even be further reduced during conference
negotiations.
Small- and medium-sized States face a loss of millions of dollars for
our first responders if the minimum is lowered. If you reduce the all-
State minimum to .45 percent, the underlying bill would reduce the
guaranteed dollar amount for each State by 40 percent. With the
appropriations for the formula grants having been cut by 60 percent
since 2003--it was $2.3 billion in 2003; it is $900 million in fiscal
year 2007--if you have a further reduction in first responder funding,
it is going to hinder, actually, every State's effort to deal with
potential terrorist attacks. That applies to fiscal year 2007 homeland
security and law enforcement terrorism grants which were funded at $525
million and $375 million, respectively, for a total of $900 million.
Under the current all-State minimum, the base amounts States receive
is $6.75 million. Under the 2007 levels, each State would face a loss
of an estimated $2.7 million or 40 percent under this new formula, and
this is assuming we do not go even lower when we go to conference with
the other body. For small States--one that comes to mind is Montana.
Why that particular one came to mind I don't know. Maybe looking at the
distinguished Presiding Officer made me think of it. But the cuts would
be even deeper should the President's budget requests for next year be
approved. He requested only $250 million for these two important first
responder grant programs.
Under the .45 percent minimum proposed by the underlying bill and the
.25 percent minimum proposed by the Feinstein-Obama amendment, the
guaranteed amount for each State would drop to $1.125 million and
$625,000 respectively.
Again, these are all numbers and percentages you talk about. But what
it means is it would be a loss of millions of dollars in homeland
security funding for fire, police, and rescue departments in small and
medium-sized States. At the same time we are being told, you have got
to prepare to be able to do this and do that; we have to be able to
have a unified response around our Nation, we are going to have to call
on you first and foremost; you have got to have your radios, your
equipment, your training. Oh, by the way, find the money somewhere. You
are part of a national effort, but find the money somewhere in your
small communities or States to do it.
It deals a crippling blow to launch federally mandated multiyear
plans for terrorism preparedness. Basically we can say from Washington
what you should do in these multiyear plans. We tell you how to
coordinate, how you train and plan, and it may be a small town on the
border, the Federal border, you could be on a major waterway, but find
the money somewhere. We want you to do this because the Nation needs
you, we just cannot help you.
Now, I understand there is a budget crunch. We need a lot of money to
send over to Iraq so the Iraqis can prepare for national defense. We
need a lot of money to send over to Iraq so they can spend it on their
police departments. We need a lot of money to send over to Iraq so they
can spend it on their fire departments. I don't know, maybe I am old-
fashioned in this regard, but I think maybe we kind of ought to look at
our police departments first, our fire departments first. If I have a
burglar in the middle of the night, I am not going to call the Iraqi
police department, I am going to call my local police department. If we
have a fire, I am not going to call the Iraqi fire department, I am
going to call my own fire department. If we have a terrorist attack, if
we have a terrorist attack coming across our border or on one of our
major waterways, I am not going to call the Iraqi fire department or
police department, I am going to call our own. We are going to be the
first responders. It is not going to do much good to say, sorry, we do
not have the money for you because we needed it for your counterparts
in Iraq.
Even if the current .75 percent minimum is applied to the President's
budget request, as my amendment does, States would still see a major
drop. They would be guaranteed a minimum amount of $1.875 million. That
is a drop of $4.875 million from the fiscal year 2007 guaranteed
minimum amount.
Now, I have voted for, I have supported, antiterrorist efforts for
our large States. We have seen what terrorism can do in larger States.
In Oklahoma, it was, of course, homegrown. In Oklahoma City it was an
American, former member of our armed services who attacked. But the
damage to our people was as great as somebody coming from outside.
In New York City, it was from outside our Nation, the Twin Towers,
and every one of us who goes to work in this building that was targeted
for destruction by the terrorists. I have no problem in giving special
funding to places that might be seen as being possible high-profile
targets. But I wrote the current all-State minimum formulas as part of
the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 to guarantee each State receives at least a
fraction of 1 percent, three-quarters of 1 percent of the national
allotment to help meet their national domestic security needs. Some
States may have many times that, of course. But each State receives
some kind of a minimum amount because every State--rural, urban, small
or large--has basic security needs. They are going to have basic
security requests from the Federal Government, and they deserve to
receive Federal funds under this partnership to meet both those needs
and the new homeland security responsibilities the Federal Government
demands.
As I said before, high-density urban areas have even greater needs,
and that is why this year alone we provided $1.3 billion for homeland
security programs which Montana cannot apply for, Vermont cannot apply
for. I don't have any problems with that. There is only a small number
of urban areas that can, and we have a special pot of money for that.
Those needs deserve and need to be met. We are talking about the
amount of money for homeland security which is a fraction of what we
currently are spending in Iraq anyway. At some point we have to talk
about what our needs are here inside the homeland.
I worked very hard over the years to help address the needs of larger
States and high-density areas. I have done it on the Appropriations
Committee, I have done it in the Judiciary Committee, and I have
opposed the administration's efforts to pit our States against each
other as they have tried to mask their efforts, the administration's
efforts, to cut overall funding for first responders.
Smaller States especially would never be able to fulfill the
essential duties they are asked to do by the Federal Government on top
of their daily responsibilities without some Federal support, such as
DHS currently suggesting that States will have to pay for REAL ID
implementation, this idea they have come up with, which is basically
having a national identification card. No matter what you call it, it
is the first time in our history that we have a national identification
card. But you know that is going to cost the States, this idea that was
cooked up out of an office here in Washington. It is going to cost our
individual States $16 billion. If you cut down the minimum even more at
the same time you are making substantial drops in overall first
responder funding, then small and medium-sized States are not going to
be able to meet these Federal mandates for terrorism prevention,
preparedness, and response.
Some from urban States argue that Federal money, the Federal money to

[[Page S2655]]

fight terrorism, is being spent in areas that do not need it; it is
wasted in small towns. They claim the formula is highly politicized and
insist on the redirection of funds to urban areas that they believe
face these heightened threats of terrorist attacks.
Well, what the critics of the all-State minimums seem to forget is
that since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Federal Government
has asked every State, every State and every local first responder,
every local first responder, to defend us as never before on the front
lines in the war against terrorism.
Emergency responders in one State have been given the same
obligations as those in any other State to provide enhanced protection,
preparedness, and response against terrorists. The attacks of 9/11
added to the responsibilities and risks of first responders across the
country.
In recent years, due to the .75 all-State minimum allocation for
formula grants, first responders have received resources to help them
meet their new responsibilities. They have made their neighborhoods
safer. They made our communities better prepared. A lot has been done.
I hope my colleagues will support my amendment to restore the .75
percent minimum base and give us the kind of support and resources for
our police, fire, and EMS services in every State if we want them to
carry out the responsibilities.
I see the distinguished senior Senator from Utah, one of our
cosponsors on the floor.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately
following my remarks, Senator Coburn be given an opportunity to make
his comments, and then immediately following him Senator DeMint be
given his opportunity to speak here on the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. I thank the distinguished President of the Senate.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, last week I shared some of my thoughts and
concerns regarding section 803 of S. 4. I am referring to the section
that was inserted into this important piece of legislation during the
committee consideration; this section would permit TSA's Transportation
security officers, our Nation's airport security screeners, to engage
in collective bargaining--a change that was not recommended by the 9/11
Commission.
During those remarks, as a former union member, I argued that
collective bargaining would adversely affect one of the greatest
weapons that our Transportation security officers employ: the
flexibility to change tactics quickly.
Why? Because we all know that one of the central aspects of any
collective bargaining agreement is a determination of the conditions by
which an employee works; when a person works, where he or she works,
and how he or she works are all matters which are open to negotiation.
Obviously, efficiency and productivity can be dramatically affected--
for better or worse--by a collective bargaining agreement.
In my last address on this issue, I also pointed out that flexibility
has been one of the central tenets of our Nation's successful
antiterrorism response, as was shown so well last August when the
security services of the United Kingdom discovered a well-organized
conspiracy that reportedly sought to blow up commercial aircraft in
flight using liquid explosives disguised as items commonly found in
carry-on luggage.
As that case showed only too well, quick and decisive action was
required to protect our citizens and commerce from a very real threat.
That action was taken by our Transportation security officers, who,
within 6 hours of learning of the plot, made quick use of this highly
classified information and trained and executed new security protocols
designed to mitigate this threat.
What would have been the result if collective bargaining had been in
effect? Very real questions and uncertainties can be raised about the
impact that a TSA subject to collective bargaining could have had on
the discovery of that plot. Should the Government have to bargain in
advance over what actions it can or cannot take when dealing with an
emergency situation? If so, how would we know what to bargain for?
Would there be time to conduct this negotiation? I think not.
One of the TSA's great strengths in responding to the U.K. plot was
the fact that a fundamental change in our tactics was accommodated in a
short period of time. Would not the vital capability of a uniform
response to emerging threats be drastically curtailed if Transportation
security officers were permitted to join different unions at various
airports? Think about that. There would be separate collective
bargaining agreements at various locations which would force TSA to
implement dissimilar procedures in order to meet the legal requirements
of each agreement. That obviously will not work.
I can see the posters now: ``Defend America, but only during the
hours and under the conditions that my union negotiated.''
What about the relationship that will be created between supervisors
and Transportation security officers? Might not collective bargaining
create an atmosphere of us-versus-them? During a war, is this the
attitude that we wish to foster? Rather, should we not attempt every
day to enhance all of our agency's capabilities by building a team
mentality?
What about training?
What about training? One of TSA's great successes took place in 2005
when the agency, in fewer than 6 weeks, was able to train 18,000
transportation security officers in new methods to discover explosives.
What would have occurred if a collective bargaining agreement had
been in place? Rules governing training are often found in collective
bargaining agreements--rules that require further negotiation as to the
need, method, and time of training. It is common to hear in other
situations that these negotiations require 60 to 180 days before
training is implemented. Would that be a change for the better? I think
not.
As I mentioned before, during the U.K. plot transportation security
officers were retrained in 6 hours, and in fewer than 6 weeks they
received new explosive training. Are we to sacrifice this impressive
capability for an ad hoc system that might work after 60 or 180 days of
negotiation? I would think not. Now, that would be a true gift to al-
Qaida.
Additionally, many collective bargaining agreements require that an
employer only judge if a worker has learned a new technical skill on a
``pass or fail'' basis. Imagine that. Would you feel safe traveling in
an aircraft knowing that all a security screener had to do was get 1
point above failing to be certified in a technical skill or would you
feel safer under the current system that rewards technical skill,
readiness for duty, and operational performance? I know which system
gets my vote.
Then there is the question of the law. Can the Federal Government
prevent employees, especially those with national security functions,
from engaging in collective bargaining? The law and decisions reached
by our Federal courts are clear. Under section 111(d) of the Aviation
and Transportation Security Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation
for Security--which is the position now held by the Assistant Secretary
of Homeland Security for the Transportation Security Administration--
has the discretion:

To employ, appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the
compensation, terms and conditions of employment of the
Federal service for such a number of individuals as the Under
Secretary determines to be necessary to carry out screening
functions.

In 2003, the then-Under Secretary signed an order that stated:

In light of their critical national security
responsibilities, Transportation Security Officers shall not,
as a term or condition of their employment, be entitled to
engage in collective bargaining.

Unions, of course, challenged this law before the Federal Labor
Relations Authority and the Federal courts, charging that it violated
the transportation security officers' constitutional rights and Federal
law that allow workers to join unions.
The Federal Labor Relations Authority upheld the opinion that:

There is no basis under law to reach any result other than
to dismiss the union's petitions. Congress intended to treat
security screeners differently than other employees of the
agency.

[[Page S2656]]

On appeal to the Federal courts, the D.C. Circuit Court affirmed the
decision of the district court that the Federal Labor Relations
Authority was the correct venue for the union's complaint and that the
union's constitutional claims should be dismissed.
As I have said on many occasions, I support collective bargaining,
but I will not support collective bargaining under these conditions.
We are at war. The decisions we make will mean the difference between
life and death. I will not risk the lives of Americans so that an
important constituency of the other party--or both parties, for that
matter--can receive a political reward.
I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this section and
supporting the DeMint amendment that will remove it from that bill.
Mr. President, I understand the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma
wishes to speak next, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who seeks recognition?
The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for
the section of S. 4, our committee's legislation, which will extend to
transportation security officers--so-called TSOs who screen passengers
and baggage at airports throughout our country--the same employee
rights most everybody else in TSA and most everybody else in the
Department of Homeland Security already has.
I am going to stop for a moment. I note the presence on the floor of
the Senator from Oklahoma. I believe there was an order for him to be
called on next. I want to ask him if he intends to address the motion
to table that will be made at noon.
Mr. COBURN. I do.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am going to yield the floor to him, and I hope I can
take some time back after he is finished.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, the unanimous consent request was for
myself, followed by Senator DeMint, and I will be happy to yield if I
have remaining time.
I need to do a little housekeeping first. I ask unanimous consent
that the pending amendment be set aside to call up amendment No. 345.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I object, Mr. President. I don't know which amendment
the Senator wants pending. I need to have a conversation with the
Senator from Oklahoma about which amendment this is.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut objects.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have had a conversation with the
Senator from Oklahoma, and I remove my objection to his request.

Amendment No. 345

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
345 be called up and the pending amendment be set aside.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, it
is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 345.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize funding for the Emergency Communications and
Interoperability Grants program, to require the Secretary to examine
the possibility of allowing commercial entities to develop public
safety communications networks, and for other purposes)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __. TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM DTV TRANSITION AND PUBLIC
SAFETY FUND.

(a) In General.--Section 3006 of the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005 (Public Law 109-171; 120 Stat. 24) is repealed.
(b) Authority of Secretary to Make Payments From Fund.--The
Secretary may make payments of not to exceed $1,000,000,000,
in the aggregate, through fiscal year 2009 from the Digital
Television Transition and Public Safety Fund established
under section 309(j)(8)(E) of the Communications Act of 1934
(47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(E)) to carry out the emergency
communications operability and interoperable communications
grant program established in section 1809 of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, as added by section 301(a)(1).
(c) Limitations.--Grants awarded under section 1809 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, and funded by sums made
available under this section may not exceed--
(1) $300,000,000 in fiscal year 2007;
(2) $350,000,000 in fiscal year 2008; and
(3) $350,000,000 in fiscal year 2009.

SEC. __. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary, in cooperation with the
Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, shall
study the possibility of allowing commercial entities to
develop national public safety communications networks that
involve commercially based solutions.
(b) Content of Study.--The study required under subsection
(a) shall examine the following:
(1) Methods by which the commercial sector can participate
in the development of a national public safety communications
network.
(2) The feasibility of developing interoperable shared-
spectrum networks to be used by both public safety officials
and private customers.
(3) The feasibility of licensing public safety spectrum
directly to the commercial sector for the creation of an
interoperable public safety communications network.
(4) The amount of spectrum required for an interoperable
public safety communications network.
(5) The feasibility of having 2 or more competing but
interoperable commercial public safety communications
networks.
(c) Submission to Congress.--Not later than 12 months after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall report
to Congress--
(1) the findings of the study required under subsection
(a); and
(2) any recommendations for legislative, administrative, or
regulatory change that would assist the Federal Government to
implement a national public safety communications network
that involves commercially based solutions.

SEC. __. REPEAL.

Section 4 of the Call Home Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-459;
120 Stat. 3400) is repealed.

SEC. __. RULE OF APPLICATION.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, section
1381 of this Act shall have no force or effect.

Amendment No. 301

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside and amendment No. 301 be called up.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, it
is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 301.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, it
is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

AMENDMENT NO. 301

(Purpose: To prohibit grant recipients under grant programs
administered by the Department from expending funds until the Secretary
has reported to Congress that risk assessments of all programs and
activities have been performed and completed, improper payments have
been estimated, and corrective action plans have been developed and
reported as required under the Improper Payments Act of 2002 (31 U.S.C.
3321 note))

On page 106, between the matter preceding line 7 and line
7, insert the following:

SEC. 204. COMPLIANCE WITH THE IMPROPER PAYMENTS INFORMATION
ACT OF 2002.

(a) Definitions.--In this section, the term--
(1) ``appropriate committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the
House of Representatives; and
(2) ``improper payment'' has the meaning given that term
under section 2(d)(2) of the Improper Payments Information
Act of 2002 (31 U.S.C. 3321 note).
(b) Requirement for Compliance Certification and Report.--A
grant recipient of funds received under any grant program
administered by the Department may not expend such funds,
until the Secretary submits a report to the appropriate
committees that--
(1) contains a certification that the Department has for
each program and activity of the Department--
(A) performed and completed a risk assessment to determine
programs and activities that are at significant risk of
making improper payments; and

[[Page S2657]]

(B) estimated the total number of improper payments for
each program and activity determined to be at significant
risk of making improper payments; and
(2) describes the actions to be taken to reduce improper
payments for the programs and activities determined to be at
significant risk of making improper payments.

Amendment No. 314

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
301 be set aside and we return to the pending amendment that we had
prior to my asking that those two amendments be called up.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? Without objection, it
is so ordered.
Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I wish to spend a little bit of time
talking about the process.
Yesterday, curiously, we had a hearing on the opportunity for labor
representation for TSO officers. It is curious in that we had the
hearing after the bill was on the floor because we didn't have the
hearing before to know what we were talking about before we formulated
the bill. That is because we wanted to rush this bill, and rather than
do it right, we did the process backward.
But I think it is very instructive for us to hear what the testimony
was yesterday. Kip Hawley is the Administrator of TSA. Some very
important things were brought out in that hearing that most Americans
probably don't think of often. Let me quote some of the things he said:

The job of the Transportation Security Officer is one in
which you don't know whether you have an emergency until it
is over, and in the aviation business, that is too late.
There are a bedeviling array of dots out there and we have
the responsibility to make sure that not one of them is
allowed to progress and become an attack on the United
States. So we constantly try to move and adjust and change
and you cannot be sure until it is too late that you have had
an emergency. You do not get an advanced warning.

In response to Senator Akaka regarding TSA's collaboration with
employees on the decision to double the amount of bonus money that
would be made available under their bonus performance plan, the
question by Senator Akaka was:

Did you invite any union representatives to the initial
development efforts?

In response to his question, he said:

No, sir. Our employees didn't have to pay union dues to get
that service.

One of the other key points Secretary Hawley made is his concerns
about his ability to move and sustain their strategy and flexibility.
Also coming out of that was the note that the union which would
represent security officers won't be negotiating for pay. Well, what
will they be negotiating for? They will be negotiating over everything
else other than pay. Why is it important? Everything else is what
matters.
What matters is--and specifically the reason this was not allowed
when the 9/11 Commission Report was written and when the bill
establishing TSA was set up--there is a moving target, and that
flexibility in work rules, in relationships, in movement of people, in
tier job training, and in multifaceted interface of those officers with
any situation on the ground has to be able to be done and done on the
move, all the time--not in an emergency because every day has to be
thought of as an emergency. What we do know is all that is what they
want to negotiate. That is the last thing we should be negotiating.
It comes down to this point, and the point is this: Do people who
work for the Federal Government have rights? Absolutely. Should they be
treated fairly and have the opportunity to have a good wage, a good
appeal process, whistleblower protection? Yes. But is that right
greater than the right of the American people to have secure and safe
air travel? I would put forth for this body that it is not, that the
betterment of the whole and the protection of the whole far outweighs
any individual right within TSA to collectively bargain on the very
things that are going to keep the flying American people safe.
What we do know is there are only 1,300 members out of 42,000
screeners now. They can all join a union, and they can have that
representation in terms of their interface with management. What we
also know is that the people who really want this opportunity are not
the transportation security officers. Who wants this opportunity is the
union and the politics of payback.
So this isn't really about responding. As a matter of fact, all of
the claims that have been made, we fleshed all those out yesterday in
the hearing. As to severance rates, as to work injury, as to movement,
as to wage rates, as to bonus, as to productivity--all that was fleshed
out. It should have been fleshed out before this bill ever came to the
floor but, unfortunately, it wasn't. All that was fleshed out
yesterday, and what came down is we have a very responsive agency that
in the vast majority of the cases is doing a great job with their
employees. We have great transportation security officers who are being
remunerated properly and don't want to pay $360 a year for something
that wants to negotiate the very thing that will take away the safety
of our air transport system.
With that, I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina is
recognized.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from South Carolina to
yield briefly so I can offer an amendment and then return to the
regular order.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, if he is offering the amendment without an
attached speech, I am fine with that. The majority leader limited our
time and he will take the floor at 12. I will yield for the offering of
an amendment.

Amendment No. 352

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the present
amendment be set aside and I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] proposes an
amendment numbered 352.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To improve the security of cargo containers destined for the
United States)

On page 219, between lines 7 and 8, insert the following:

SEC. 804. PLAN FOR 100 PERCENT SCANNING OF CARGO CONTAINERS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop an
initial plan to scan 100 percent of the cargo containers
destined for the United States before such containers arrive
in the United States.
(b) Plan Contents.--The plan developed under this section
shall include--
(1) specific annual benchmarks for--
(A) the percentage of cargo containers destined for the
United States that are scanned at a foreign port; and
(B) the percentage of cargo containers originating in the
United States and destined for a foreign port that are
scanned in a port in the United States before leaving the
United States;
(2) annual increases in the benchmarks described in
paragraph (1) until 100 percent of the cargo containers
destined for the United States are scanned before arriving in
the United States;
(3) the use of existing programs, including the Container
Security Initiative established by section 205 of the
Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006 (6
U.S.C. 945) and the Customs-Trade Partnership Against
Terrorism established by subtitle B of title II of such Act
(6 U.S.C. 961 et seq.), to reach the benchmarks described in
paragraph (1); and
(4) the use of scanning equipment, personnel, and
technology to reach the goal of 100 percent scanning of cargo
containers.

Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 314

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
Senators be added as cosponsors of the DeMint amendment: Senators
Vitter, Craig, Roberts, Bunning, Enzi, Hatch, and Graham.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I want to speak about the DeMint amendment
and make sure all of my colleagues are clear on what is about to
happen.
The majority leader has said at 12 o'clock today he will make a
motion to table or to kill the DeMint amendment to the 9/11 bill. It
would be a large mistake for this body to kill this amendment, because
it enables our airport security personnel to keep Americans safer.

[[Page S2658]]

One of the biggest threats we have now as a nation is we are
beginning to forget 9/11 and what happened and what could happen. We
are forgetting we are under a constant threat, that we live under
alerts every day. It is not a matter of saying one day is an emergency
and one day is not. It is not a matter of saying one passenger is an
imminent threat but the other one might not be.
Our transportation security agency is charged with making sure we
screen every passenger, every bag, and that we have an alert system
based on intelligence and other information that allows them to move
toward possible threats.
Unfortunately, we have heard Members of this Senate saying the war on
terror is not an emergency, that al-Qaida is not a new imminent threat,
when we know that every day al-Qaida may have a new plan to attack
Americans at different points.
When the Homeland Security agency was formed, we had a debate about
whether the transportation security agencies, the officers working for
them, the screeners, should have collective bargaining. It was agreed
at the time, because of the need for flexibility and constant change,
that screeners would have the freedom to join a union, and a number of
workers' rights and protections were put into place, but that they
would not have collective bargaining arrangements as some of our other
agencies do.
I point out we have heard some in this Chamber use border security as
an example of collective bargaining working. What I hold in my hands is
only one example of a collective bargaining agreement for our Customs
Service.
We cannot make a case that our border security has worked well. We
have over 12 million illegals in this country that testify it is not.
Our customs system is becoming well known as being one of the slowest
in the world. Collective bargaining will not work for our airports. I
am afraid, again, we are beginning to forget we are in an emergency
situation. The 9/11 Commission didn't recommend we change current
airport security.
My amendment is designed to keep current law the same. The majority
leader will ask this Chamber to kill that bill, which would mean we
would lose the 9/11 security bill we have all worked on.
I ask unanimous consent that several items be printed in the Record.
First is a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security,
Kip Hawley, who tells us if collective bargaining is implemented with
the transportation security agency, it will significantly reduce their
ability to keep our country safe. Next is a letter with over 36
Senators signing it, saying they will sustain the President's veto of
the 9/11 bill if it hampers our security by injecting collective
bargaining into the process. Next is a letter from the House of
Representatives, with 155 signatures, saying they will sustain the
veto.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the
Assistant Secretary,
Arlington, VA.
Hon. Jim DeMint,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator DeMint: In the aftermath of 9/11 when the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created,
Congress gave the TSA extraordinarily flexible human resource
tools. Congress recognized--and the 9/11 Commission
reinforced--that the terrorist threat is adaptive and that in
the post-9/11 era, our security systems must be fast and
flexible.
The Senate is now considering legislation to replace these
effective human resources tools with collective bargaining.
Its effect would have serious security consequences for the
traveling public.
In the post-9/11 environment, TSA's mission requires that
its Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) be proactive and
constantly adaptive, able to quickly change what they do and
where they do it. After the liquid explosives incident in the
United Kingdom, TSOs reported for work on August 10 and,
without prior notice, trained for and implemented the most
extensive security changes rolled out since 9/11--and they
did it in real time, literally live and on television.
Implementing an outdated system that brings bargaining,
barriers, and bureaucracy to an agency on whom travelers
depend for their security does not improve security. A system
that establishes outside arbitrators to review TSA's constant
changes after the fact--without the benefit of classified
information that might explain the rationale--would be
ineffective, unwieldy, and detract from the required focus on
security. Today, TSA is able to make necessary personnel
changes to ensure topnotch performance; under collective
bargaining, ineffective TSOs could be screening passengers
for months while the process runs its course.
The TSO position itself has been improved recently.
Training has been more professional so TSOs can exercise
independent judgment in their work. TSOs are accountable for
their performance--with significant pay raises and bonuses
available ($52 million just awarded for 2006), and a clearly
defined path to promotions and career development.
TSA depends on the capabilities granted by Congress to
mitigate the real and ongoing terrorist threat. Dismantling
those tools and replacing them with a cumbersome, ineffective
system would have a troubling, negative effect on security. I
urge you oppose provisions that remove from TSA's arsenal the
resources and tools that so significantly contribute to our
ability to fulfill the security mission.
Sincerely yours,
Kip Hawley.
____

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.
Hon. George W. Bush,
President of the United States,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: We are concerned that one of the
provisions in S. 4, the 9/11 Commission Rccommendations bill,
will undermine efforts to keep our country secure. Like you,
we believe we need an airport security workforce that is
productive, flexible, motivated, and can be held accountable.
S. 4 would introduce collective bargaining for Transportation
Security Administration (TSA) workers, which would reverse
the flexibility given to TSA to perfonn its critical aviation
security mission. Removing this flexibility from TSA was not
recommended by the 9/11 Commission and it would weaken our
homeland security. If the final bill contains such a
provision, forcing you to veto it, we pledge to sustain your
veto.
Sincerely,
(Signed by 36 Senators).
____

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, March 5, 2006.
President George W. Bush,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Bush: One of the provisions in S. 4 will
severely complicate efforts to keep the traveling public safe
and secure.
We believe that providing a select group of federal airport
security employees with mandated collective bargaining rights
could needlessly put the security of our Nation at risk.
Moreover, nowhere in the 9/11 Commission Report did the
Commission recommend that Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) employees be allowed to collectively
bargain. We need an airport security workforce that is
productive, flexible, and accountable.
TSA employees at our Nation's airports currently enjoy the
ability to unionize and are afforded a fair and balanced
working environment.
If a bill is sent to you with such a provision, forcing you
to veto the bill, we pledge to sustain your veto.
Sincerely,
(Signed by 155 Members of Congress).

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, a vote to kill the DeMint amendment is a
vote to kill the 9/11 bill we have all worked on. Let there be no
question about it, the vote should be no. There is no reason to change
the operation of the transportation security agency and to inject third
party negotiations, particularly when it involves sensitive
information.
So let us be clear that the motion to table my amendment is a motion
to make our airports less secure. I urge my colleagues to vote no on
the motion to table.
Mr. President, I see our minority leader is here. I will yield to him
for comments at this time.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. COBURN. Will the leader yield for a parliamentary procedure?
Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. The Senator from Oklahoma wants to modify an
amendment, I believe.

Amendment No. 294

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, earlier we called up an amendment that was
pending. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set
aside for the moment while we call up amendment No. 294.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an
amendment numbered 294.

Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with, and I ask that we return to the
pending amendment.

[[Page S2659]]

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that the provisions of the Act shall cease to have
any force or effect on and after Dcember 31, 2012, to ensure
congressional review and oversight of the Act)

After title XV, add the following:

TITLE XVI--TERMINATION OF FORCE AND EFFECT OF THE ACT

SEC. 1601. TERMINATION OF FORCE AND EFFECT OF THE ACT.

The provisions of this Act (including the amendments made
by this Act) shall cease to have any force or effect on and
after December 31, 2012.

Amendment No. 314

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, one thing I have learned in my years in
public service is that if you want answers to the big problems in our
society, you have to ask the people who work with those problems every
day. When there is a meth crisis in my State, the first people I want
to talk to about it are the police chiefs and sheriffs because they are
the ones that have to think every day about how a meth distributor
might think, where they hide, and how they operate. When I want to know
how education policy is affecting children in the classrooms, I talk to
teachers and parents.
So it only stands to reason that if we want to know where the holes
in our TSA screening processes are, then we ought to be talking to the
transportation security officers, or TSOs. These are the people who are
responsible for screening airline passengers. A good way for the
screeners to band together and share their collective thoughts on how
to improve safety in our airports is by allowing them to collectively
bargain. I realize that some members of this body have antiunion
sentiments. They think that if folks come together and try to negotiate
for better pay and working conditions that we won't be able to expect
consistently high results.
Let me remind my colleagues that before we created a Department of
Homeland Security, we routinely heard horror stories about the non-
Federal airport screeners making near minimum wage pay and working in
terrible conditions resulting in high turnover and a lack of experience
and dedication to our shared goal of keeping our airways safe.
So we created a Federal workforce. We knew that the pay and benefits
that the Federal Government provides can attract top notch workers. I
strongly feel that Federal TSOs are the first people to care about
safety in our airports.
I would remind my colleagues that many Federal workers who are
critical to our Nation's security, such as Capitol Police, Border
Patrol agents, Customs agents, and immigration enforcement officers are
all allowed to collectively bargain while ably serving our Nation's
security interests. We are simply saying that TSOs should have the same
rights and responsibilities as other Federal workers performing similar
functions who also are allowed to collectively bargain but not to
strike or disclose information that would somehow jeopardize national
security.
I would also like to point out that last fall, the United Nations
International Labor Organization opined that TSOs should have the right
to organize. This is a disgrace, that we are allowing fear to override
rationality in supporting our need for a well-trained, well-compensated
workforce that can more ably make suggestions about how to improve
security in our Nation's airports.
One of the most critical protections that the DeMint amendment would
strip is protection from retaliation against whistleblowers.
Whistleblowers are some of our most valuable assets in identifying and
eliminating systemic fraud. I, for one, want to see a vigilant Federal
workforce ready to shed as much sunlight as possible on any practices
at any agency that are in contradiction to our goal of promoting the
national defense. I don't see a need to explicitly limit TSO
whistleblower authority when the Administrator already has the ability
to expressly prevent TSOs from divulging information that jeopardizes
national security. Most notably, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley's
invaluable information about failures in our intelligence system led to
a reworking of the agency in a way that can hopefully help the flow of
information that could prevent another September 11-type attack. One
whistleblower can change the world. Stifling that activity can and will
do more harm than good.
Here is the irony--administration officials threatening out of one
side of their mouths to halt legislation containing important homeland
security improvements over an irrational disposition against unions,
while out of the other side of their mouths calling supporters of the
right to organize enemies of security. I ask this: Is it so important
to strip away TSO collective bargaining rights that we must sacrifice
all of the other important components of this legislation? The truth is
that we all want more security. This is precisely why we want TSOs to
have fair pay and benefits and a channel for their concerns for
everyone's safety. We need seasoned personnel with reasonable work
hours and benefits. A good way to keep good people on the job is by
giving them a voice at work. What we are fighting for is a security
enhancement, not a detraction.
The truth is that there is nothing in the collective bargaining
process that would make TSOs less capable of serving the public. We
have nothing to lose and everything to gain by giving them collective
bargaining rights and the clear ability to communicate their concerns
about screening protocols with the TSA.
I ask my colleagues to defeat the DeMint amendment--to support our
constitutionally granted freedom of association, and to protect the
millions of Americans who rely on TSOs to protect their safety every
day.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the men and women who serve as
transportation security officers, TSOs, are on the front lines of our
effort to keep America safe. They do backbreaking, difficult work, day
and night, to preserve our national security. Yet for years they have
been treated as second-class citizens.
These officers do not have the same rights and protections enjoyed by
most Federal employees, including other employees at the Department of
Homeland Security. They don't have a voice at work. They don't have
protections if they speak out about safety conditions or security
issues. And they have no right to appeal if they are subject to
discrimination or unfair treatment.
Because they lack these basic protections, TSOs often labor in
disgracefully poor working conditions. In 2006, they had the highest
rate of injury among all DHS agencies--more than twice that of any
other security agency. Inadequate staffing means TSOs are often forced
to work mandatory, unscheduled overtime, leaving them exhausted and
creating unsafe conditions. They can be fired for speaking out about
unfair treatment, unsafe working conditions, or national security
issues, and they have no effective way to appeal such unfair treatment.
As a result, TSOs have the lowest morale and highest rate of turnover
among Federal agencies. In 2006, the attrition rate for TSOs was 16
percent--more than 3 times that of any other security agency, and more
than 6 times the national average for the Federal government. They have
a higher attrition rate than even high turnover private sector
employers. The chances are good that the person preparing your coffee
at the airport has more experience than the screener who checked your
bags for bombs.
These sky-high attrition rates are alarming. The lack of experienced
security screeners threatens our national security. Constant turnover
reduces institutional knowledge and undermines the agency's ability to
implement effective security procedures. It also has a high financial
price--the cost of training new employees has risen so high that TSA
has had to request an additional $10 million in funds from Congress for
this year to address these turnover concerns.
Low morale and high turnover at a front-line security agency is a
recipe for disaster. We have to solve the problem. Our Nation, and
these hard-working federal employees, deserve better.
TSOs have earned the right to be treated with respect. They deserve
the same fundamental workplace rights as other Federal security
employees, including whistleblower protections, appeal rights, and
collective bargaining rights. The issue is one of basic respect for
this valuable workforce.

[[Page S2660]]

I have heard some deeply disturbing rhetoric from my Republican
colleagues about the effect of restoring these collective bargaining
rights. It has been suggested that if these rights are restored,
workers will try to hide behind their contracts and not respond in an
emergency. It has been suggested that collective bargaining rights keep
security workers from performing their jobs effectively.
These suggestions are an insult to every man and woman in uniform who
works under a collective bargaining agreement across this country. To
suggest that union workers will not do what is best for our country in
the event of an emergency is scandalous, particularly in light of
recent history.
Every New York City firefighter, EMT and police officer who responded
to the disaster at the World Trade Center on 9/11 was a union member
under a collective bargaining agreement. No one questions these
employees' loyalty or devotion to duty because they are union members.
On 9/11, Department of Defense employees were required to report to
wherever they were told, regardless of their usual work assignments. No
Federal union tried to hold up this process in any way to bargain or
seek arbitration. Not a single grievance was filed to challenge the
assignments after the fact.
Other Federal security employees already have the protections that
the bill would provide, including Border Patrol agents, Capitol police
officers, Customs and Border inspection officers, and Federal
Protective Service officers. Many of these officers--particularly
customs and border inspection officers who work at airports, seaports,
and border crossings--perform fundamentally similar tasks to TSOs and
have been performing them effectively with collective bargaining rights
for years. It is an insult to each of these men and women to suggest
that they will not be capable of fully performing their important
duties if they are given a voice at work.
Collective bargaining is the best way to bring dignity, consistency,
and fairness to the workplace. It will make our TSO workforce safer and
more stable, and enhance our security. Restoring these essential rights
is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the DeMint
amendment that would remove these valuable protections from the bill.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the
amendment offered by Senator DeMint that would continue to deny basic
employee rights and protections to transportation security officers,
TSOs, at the Transportation Security Administration, TSA.
Yesterday, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Oversight of Government
Management Subcommittee to review TSA's personnel system. Very quickly,
the discussion turned to collective bargaining. Despite claims that
collective bargaining would be a threat to national security, TSA
Administrator Kip Hawley said that the San Francisco International
Airport, which uses private sector screeners who engage in collective
bargaining, is safe. In addition, Mr. Hawley cited the London bombing
plot and how TSA needed the flexibility to move TSOs to respond to that
situation. When asked, he also admitted that the airports in the United
Kingdom, which have screeners who engage in collective bargaining, are
also safe.
I, along with every other American, want TSA to have the flexibility
to move staff and resources as necessary to keep air travel safe.
However, I do not believe that this flexibility precludes workers from
having basic rights and protections. In 2002, when Congress created the
Department of Homeland Security, we debated this very issue. The
President argued that he needed flexibility in the areas of pay,
classification, labor relations, and appeals in order to prevent and
respond to terrorist attacks. While the Homeland Security Act gave the
President that flexibility, it also explicitly provided for full
whistleblower protections, collective bargaining, and a fair appeals
process. I fail to see why TSA employees should be denied these same
protections.
Since 2001, TSA has faced high attrition rates, high numbers of
workers compensation claims, and low employee morale which, in my
opinion, are a direct result of a lack of employee rights and
protections. Without collective bargaining, employees have no voice in
their working conditions, which could drastically reduce attrition
rates. Moreover, without a fair process to bring whistleblower
complaints, employees are constrained in coming forward to disclose
vulnerabilities to national security. At our hearing yesterday, Mr.
Hawley said that he knew of only one TSO whistleblower case that was
investigated by the Office of Special Counsel, OSC, in the past 2
years. For non-TSOs, the number of whistleblower cases is 12. However,
OSC informs me that it has received 124 whistleblower complaints since
OSC began investigating TSO whistleblower cases. This demonstrates to
me that even without full rights and protections, employees are trying
to come forward and disclose wrongdoing and threats to public health
and safety. However, a lack of protections may keep others from coming
forward when only one TSO has seen a positive resolution to their case.
Granted, TSA has made improvements in managing the screening
workforce, but we must build upon these efforts and give employees a
real place at the table. Protecting employees from retaliatory action
complements efforts to secure our nation. Strong employee rights and
protections ensures that we have a screener workforce focused on their
mission and not preoccupied by fear of retaliatory treatment by
management. As such, I urge my colleagues to ensure that TSOs, who work
to provide safe air transportation for all Americans, receive basic
worker rights and protections.
I have a letter from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
which opposes the premise that collective bargaining could adversely
affect national security. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Federal Law Enforcement

Officers Association,

Lewisberry, PA, March 2, 2007.
Hon. Daniel Akaka, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Akaka: As the President of the Federal Law
Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), representing over
25,000 Federal law enforcement officers, I am writing to you
regarding a potential threat of a veto of vital law
enforcement legislation (H.R. 1 and S. 4) that Congress is
about to pass, because of the provision giving TSA employees
collective bargaining rights.
We have sat back in silence and watched the on-going debate
over collective bargaining rights for TSA employees, since
this does not directly impact our members. However, now that
this issue has the potential to stop implementation of the
final 9/11 Commission Recommendation Bill, we deem it
appropriate to weigh in.
The absurd premise put out by both DHS and TSA that being a
union member precludes someone from serving our country in a
national security capacity is unacceptable. There are
currently hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers
on a Federal, State and local level who are all members of a
union and have collective bargaining rights. This has never
impacted their ability to react to terrorist threats, respond
to terrorist incidents or impaired their ability to fulfill
their critical mission of homeland security. This was quite
evident on September 11, 2001.
FLEOA supports and agrees with the recent statement of AFGE
President John Gage, when he stated, ``The notion that
granting bargaining rights to TSOs would result in a less
flexible workforce is just plain nonsense, and is also an
insult to the hundreds of thousands of dedicated public
safety officers with collective bargaining rights from Border
Patrol Agents to firefighters to Capitol Hill Police.''
Senator Akaka, thank you for your support in this matter
and your continued support for the entire Federal workforce.
You truly are a friend to all of us in Federal law
enforcement and we appreciate all of your efforts on our
behalf.
Sincerely,
Art Gordon,
National President.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the vote we are about to have should
give all Members of the Senate a sense of deja vu; we have been here
before. We are about to vote on an amendment that is reminiscent of a
rather significant debate we had in the fall of 2002 in connection with
the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The

[[Page S2661]]

issue at that time, as is the issue this morning, is the question of
whether we are going to have collective bargaining for the
transportation security agency.
The public spoke rather loudly in the fall of 2002 in the form of
Senate elections that year. They thought collective bargaining for
transportation security workers was not a good idea. The public was
correct then, and I think that is the public view today. In the ongoing
debate over Iraq, it is easy to forget the success we have had in
fighting terrorism, and chief among that is the fact that America has
not seen a terrorist attack at home in 5\1/2\ years since 9/11. There
is one reason, and that is the heroic work of our soldiers in
Afghanistan and Iraq and the tireless efforts of our homeland defenders
in detecting, preventing, discouraging, and disrupting those attacks in
our country. Yet, today, these two pillars of our post-9/11 security
are being put at risk by those who have the audacity to put union work
rules above the national security.
It is no secret that big labor expects something in return for last
November's elections. But America's security should not be on the
table. It is ironic that Democrats who campaigned on the pledge that
they would implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
are now forcing us to consider something that wasn't in the report at
all. This measure was not in the report and they are blocking us from
considering something that was in the report. I am talking about the
proposal to give all 43,000 airport screeners the ability to
collectively bargain. Not only was this proposal not in the 9/11
report, it would end up undermining the commission's recommendation.
A key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission said:

The United States should combine terrorist travel
intelligence, operations, and law enforcement in a strategy
to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators,
and constrain terrorist mobility.

That is in the 9/11 report. We saw this during the U.K. bombing
threat in August. TSA workers who showed up for work at 4 a.m. that
morning in the United States were briefed on the plot and trained
immediately in the new protocol. Within 12 hours, we had taken
classified intelligence and adapted to it. There was no noticeable
impact on U.S. flights.
It was a different situation over in Great Britain, where
unionization is the norm. Dozens of flights had to be canceled as they
worked out an understanding on how they would respond to the new
threat, travelers were delayed, and backups ensued literally for days.
We saw the importance of mobility earlier that year when TSA acquired
new technologies for bomb detection. It trained nearly 40,000 airport
screeners in the new methods in less than 3 weeks. The TSA says that
under collective bargaining the same training would take 2 to 6 months.
We are not going to let big labor compromise national security. The
President has said he will veto a 9/11 bill if it includes collective
bargaining. We have the votes to sustain that veto. The House has just
announced it has the votes to sustain a Presidential veto.
This bill will not become law with this dangerous provision in it.
The only question now is why we are being kept from passing a 9/11 bill
that focuses on security alone. The President made it clear he will
veto the bill if it includes a provision that compromises security. The
American people have already made clear where they stand on collective
bargaining.
Remember, as I stated, we have been down this road before. We had a
huge debate in Congress over collective bargaining when we created the
Department of Homeland Security. Americans didn't like the idea of
labor slowdowns among security personnel in 2002. They said so at the
polls in November of 2002. The answer, I am afraid, is clear: This new
attempt to insert this into the 9/11 bill is a show that was meant to
appease a voting bloc. We know how this charade is going to end.
Republicans won't let security be used as a bargaining chip. We are not
going to let it happen.
It is too bad Americans will have to wait even longer for this bill
to be signed into law because of the efforts to satisfy organized
labor.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 314, and I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr.
Enzi).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs.
Dole) would have voted ``nay.''
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 46, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

NAYS--46

Alexander
Allard
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Domenici
Ensign
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Sununu
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner

NOT VOTING--3

Dole
Enzi
Johnson
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from New Jersey.

Amendment No. 352

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, just a little while earlier, I offered
an amendment that deals with trying to move us forward in a middle
ground on the question of cargo screening.
Last week, this body voted down an amendment that I offered with
Senator Schumer that would have set some strong, clear deadlines to
achieve 100 percent scanning of cargo coming into our Nation's ports.
While I wish we could have persuaded more of our colleagues to support
this framework for expanding scanning of our cargo containers, I
understand a number of our colleagues have serious concerns about the
consequences of setting a strict timeline to achieve 100 percent
scanning. I hope this body will take a step forward toward achieving
that goal rather than take no action at all.
With that in mind, the amendment I have offered I hope will find a
middle ground. This amendment would ensure that we are indeed on the
road to 100 percent scanning of cargo, but it would not do so within
the confines of any strict deadline. Instead, it builds upon the
framework of the SAFE Port Act to call for a plan to meet the goal of
100 percent scanning. The SAFE Port Act already requires the Department
of Homeland Security to report on the lessons learned from the pilot
program currently underway at six ports. This amendment would simply
expand that reporting requirement by calling on the Department to
submit a plan for achieving 100 percent scanning of cargo before it
reaches U.S. ports.
I think all of us agree that we want to obtain the goal of 100
percent scanning of cargo containers. We may disagree on how to
implement that goal or what timeline we should set, but at the end of
the day I think we all know that 100 percent scanning is the ideal that
we should strive for. That is essentially what this amendment is

[[Page S2662]]

about. It simply prods the Department to come up with a plan to take
the lessons learned from the pilot project and submit a proposal for
reaching 100 percent scanning.
We have to look at a few contradictions in our national security. Not
everyone who walks into the White House is a high threat. Yet we screen
100 percent of people. We need to apply the same understanding to other
aspects of our security. We must recognize that the terrorists will
come to understand what we consider as high-risk cargo. As we say we
are looking at high-risk cargo and we do 100 percent of that, that
still leaves 95 percent of all the cargo unscanned. Eventually, the
terrorists will adapt and they will determine that they should go and
try to place their device in that which is not considered high-risk
cargo. Without 100 percent scanning, we will not be able to adapt to
terrorists as they change their tactics.
We have seen in aviation security how they have changed their
strategy from box cutters, to shoes, to liquids. The methods they use
to infiltrate our security continue to evolve. So must we. We are naive
to think only high-risk cargo should be scanned. We need to be able to
be as adaptable as they are so we can stay one step ahead.
My colleagues, in noting their opposition to the Schumer-Menendez
amendment last week, did not object to the goal of reaching 100 percent
scanning. In fact, the distinguished Senator from Maine stressed the
importance of moving forward with vigorous implementation of the SAFE
Port Act, including the requirement that 100 percent of all high-risk
cargo be scanned. I would argue this amendment helps achieve that goal
and will ensure that we continue to move forward toward 100 percent
scanning.
Last year, I offered an amendment that would have required the
Department to develop a similar plan to achieve 100 percent scanning,
and there were a few provisions my colleague from Maine took issue
with, and so we have amended this version. In the scheme of things,
this is a very small additional requirement for the Department, but in
my opinion it takes us a significant step forward toward a very crucial
goal.
Finally, this amendment does not ignore the progress we are making
because of the SAFE Port Act. In fact, it would build upon the SAFE
Port Act's goal of expanding scanning at foreign ports on a reasonable
timeline.
I also hope my colleagues will not look at the 9/11 Commission Report
as a way to argue that improving security of our cargo is not in line
with the 9/11 Commission recommendations. There is no doubt our ports
remain one of the most vulnerable transportation assets. The 9/11
Commission recognized this. Let's take a step back and look at what the
Commission actually said.
First, I think it is important to keep the Commission's report in
context. It runs nearly 600 pages and covers an incredible amount of
material, from a factual accounting of the events leading up to
September 11, an assessment of the weaknesses of our national security,
and, finally, what the Commission itself calls a limited number of
recommendations. The recommendations are wide ranging in scope, and
there is no way we can expect each recommendation to carry out each
detail of what that recommendation should entail and the action that
should be carried out.

In discussing cargo security, the Commission lumped it together with
aviation and transportation security. Given the nature of the attacks,
we understand the obvious focus on aviation security. However, the
Commission also noted the vulnerabilities in cargo security and
lamented the lack of a strategic plan for maritime security.
In making its recommendations on transportation security, the
Commission called on Congress to do two very specific things: Set a
specific date for the completion of these plans, and hold the
Department of Homeland Security accountable for achieving them.
I could not agree more. We come to the floor calling for the
opportunity to work our way, building upon the present port security
initiative--to work our way to see the Department of Homeland Security
give us a plan to achieve that final goal, recognizing all of the
challenges. In doing so, we move closer and closer to that day in
which, in fact, we will be adaptable to the reality that at some point
the terrorists will come to understand that only going after high-risk
cargo leaves them a huge opening, 95 percent of all the other cargo, to
get in their weapon of mass destruction.
That is not a risk that we can afford. We need to be right all the
time. They only need to be right once. Therefore, I believe this is an
amendment that creates a middle ground and moves us forward to that 100
percent scanning opportunity and therefore improves our national
security. I hope when the time comes to vote on it we will have the
support of our colleagues in this body.
I yield the floor.

____________________