To amend title 49, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out a program to ensure fair treatment in the security screening of individuals with metal implants traveling in air transportation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act. This legislation is a product of months of negotiations, and includes significant contribution from Republicans, industry stakeholders, labor, the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General.

I want to recognize the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues on the committee, most especially, Ms. Jackson-Lee, the chair, and Mr. Dent, the ranking member. They worked hard to produce a thorough, comprehensive, well-considered bill.

H.R. 2200 is the first measure to come to the House floor that fully authorizes the Transportation Security Administration since its establishment in 2001. Since that time, TSA has made significant strides and rolled out several important programs to address security challenges. As a result, today our transportation systems are more secure than they were on September 11, 2001. However, they are not as secure as they need to be.

With the change in administrations, TSA is at a critical crossroads in its 8-year history. H.R. 2200 steers TSA on a course to becoming an effective agency that works to enhance security in all our transportation sectors, partners with key stakeholders, and does a better job of utilizing technology to address gaps in security.

Mr. Chairman, this bill fulfills our constitutional responsibility to provide a thorough road map to TSA on where it should go the next 2 years. H.R. 2200 authorizes $15.6 billion for TSA for fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011. With these resources, the bill directs TSA, for the first time, to work to achieve greater parity between security efforts to protect aviation and surface transportation systems.

In the past few years, attacks on rail stations worldwide have underscored the vulnerabilities to these systems. In response, H.R. 2200 triples funding for surface transportation over what was provided in fiscal year 2009, and authorizes 300 more surface transportation inspectors.

Among its key provisions is the creation of a Transit Security Advisory Committee to provide greater stakeholder input and a Surface Transportation Security Inspection Office to train and manage inspectors.

The bill also strengthens security training for transportation security officers, flight attendants, all cargo pilots, surface transportation workers, and Federal flight deck officers.

I'm particularly pleased that we were able to include provisions to enhance flight attendants' training and reimbursement for pilots participating in Federal flight deck officers recurrent training.

To bolster airport security and screening, H.R. 2200 authorizes a demonstration project and plan for the implementation of a secure verification system for law enforcement officers flying while armed.

Further, it directs TSA to develop a strategic risk-based plan to enhance security of airport perimeter access controls and a demonstration program for biometric-based access control systems.

For too long we've been told that the wide-scale deployment of biometrics is too difficult and impractical. But just last week, Mr. Chairman, I saw biometrics, including readers, in use in Argentina at a port and a federal building. This bill embraces the promise of this and other 21st-century technologies to address our security challenges.

Additionally, there are a number of other noteworthy provisions that grew out of extensive committee oversight that covers such programs as Registered Traveler, Secure Flight, and the TWIC program.

For example, the bill directs DHS to work with port operators to help workers who are waiting for TWIC cards to be escorted so they can continue to work. The TWIC provision also puts in place strict timelines and flexibility on how cards are transmitted.

A key theme that runs throughout the bill is greater stakeholder participation.

The Aviation Security Advisory Committee is codified in this bill. So, too, is the Air Cargo and General Aviation Working Groups.

General aviation, in particular, gets a great deal of attention in this bill. Members from both sides of the aisle have expressed serious concern about TSA's approach when it comes to general aviation. Until recently, TSA displayed a lack of understanding of the uniqueness of the general aviation environment. H.R. 2200 takes some major steps forward, with the authorization of a strong General Aviation Working Group and the establishment of a new grant program for security improvements to general aviation airports.

Finally, H.R. 2200 makes key improvements to air cargo and checked baggage security. Specifically, H.R. 2200 eliminates the use of bag match as an alternative means of checked baggage screening.

It also directs TSA to develop a process to consider reimbursement claims by airports who invested in in-line explosive detection equipment on a promise that TSA would defray the costs.

With respect to air cargo, it requires TSA to report on the status of the Certified Cargo Screening Program.

TSA, Mr. Chairman, has testified that the 100 percent screening requirement for passenger planes will not be

achieved by 2010 because TSA has had to expend extensive resources on trying to negotiate international agreements with foreign authorities on inbound international cargo. TSA, as a domestic security agency, lacks jurisdiction or expertise to negotiate such agreements. Achievement of this requirement is, therefore, dependent upon assistance from CBP, the State Department and others, and, most specifically, foreign governments.

To ensure that TSA meets the statutory 100 percent screening requirement, section 201 of the bill gives TSA up to 2 more years to negotiate agreements on inbound international cargo. Enactment of H.R. 2200, therefore, will help TSA put needed focus on working to meet mandates for screening all cargo transported between U.S. airports on passenger planes, whether originating in the U.S. or abroad.

This provision in no way eliminates the 100 percent screening requirement. Instead, it sets TSA up for success and is responsive to the real-world challenges of implementing the mandate in jurisdictions where TSA has no jurisdiction.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our work today, and I encourage my colleagues to pass H.R. 2200 in a swift, bipartisan fashion in order to better ensure the security of all Americans.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record exchanges of letters on this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I rise to address concerns put forth in the Minority Views section of the Committee Report for H.R. 2200. Specifically, I want to address the Minority's assertion that the Majority rejected consideration of proposed amendments during committee consideration of the bill.

As is its custom, the Committee used a roster for amendments during both full and subcommittee consideration of the TSA Authorization bill. Each amendment submitted to be placed on the roster was considered by the Committee unless the sponsor decided to withdraw it from consideration.

Each of the twenty amendments filed prior to the Full Committee markup were placed on the roster for Committee consideration. Of the twenty amendments filed, thirteen were sponsored by Minority Members. All but two of the thirteen amendments filed for the roster by Minority Members were offered. Of the eleven amendments offered by Minority Members for committee consideration, eight were agreed to and included in the reported version of the bill.

H.R. 2200, the TSA Authorization Act, is the product of months of bi- partisan cooperation and negotiations. Provisions proposed by the Minority were included in the bill at each and every stage of its consideration. Contrary to the assertion in the Minority Views, at no point during Committee consideration did the Majority prevent the Minority from putting forth amendments for consideration.

In closing, I would remind the Chair that the Committee on Homeland Security has a strong record of working in a bi-partisan fashion to ensure sound homeland security legislation is put before the House. As Chairman, I am committed to ensuring that practice continues.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Homeland Security,

Washington, DC, May 15, 2009.

Hon. Bart Gordon,

Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Washington,

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to recognize the vice chair of the full committee for 2 minutes, Ms. Sanchez, for a colloquy.

I yield an additional 30 seconds to respond.

I appreciate the gentlewoman from California's leadership on this critical issue. I share her concerns about the impact that applications backlogs has had on port workers around the Nation and appreciate the comprehensive approach she has taken to addressing the weaknesses in the program that she has identified through her oversight work on the committee and look forward to solving the problem.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Paterson, New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Let me say that I appreciate the gentleman from Alaska bringing this to my attention. This is a novel issue for us, but I believe there could be some efficiencies in making the change. I'm pleased to work with you on this issue as the bill moves to conference.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Mr. Chairman, I recognize for 1\1/2\ minutes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for the purposes of a colloquy.

I can assure the gentleman--and I thank him for his concerns--that the committee will work with TSA in conducting appropriate and periodic reviews of prohibited items. Your graphic display of those prohibited items speaks volumes as to why this review should occur.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the subcommittee, who also is the author of this legislation, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

At this point, I'll take it in two phases.

There are some obvious misunderstandings of this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

If you read the legislation, it talks about those detainees from Gitmo being on the No Fly List. So I don't know what is it we can do to solve the issue other than to refer people to page 87 of House bill 2200 and you can see--and we don't have a disagreement.

But that has nothing to do with the legislation before us today.

I agree with you. If those individuals have been captured who have been released, then the procedure automatically places them on the No Fly List. There is no question.

As to how many there are, I don't know. But, again, I say to my colleague from Texas, there is no real debate on the issue of being on the No Fly List.

I would like to acknowledge and recognize the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for 1 minute to make another attempt to clarify for this body the issue around Gitmo and detainees on the No Fly List.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chair, I recognize the gentlelady from California (Ms. Richardson) for 1 minute.

Mr. Chair, I recognize the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

In closing, I would emphasize the importance of passing the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act. This bill is the first comprehensive authorization bill for TSA since its creation in 2001. It is the product of extensive bipartisan negotiation and reflects input from GAO, DHS, IG and oversight conducted by the Committee on Homeland Security. It makes major investments in surface transportation and triples the overall funding for TSA activities.

Mr. Chairman, let me for the record say that there are 239 detainees presently housed at Gitmo. Under this legislation, all those individuals, if they were found innocent or guilty, will go on the No Fly List. So there is no question about the intent of this legislation to put those individuals on the No Fly List.

Apart from that, this is a good bill, and I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my manager's amendment which makes a few perfecting changes to H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration authorization bill. My amendment helps make the bill even more comprehensive by addressing five areas.

First, in the area of public transportation security assistance, my amendment improves the Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Grant Program by streamlining the award process. My amendment ensures accountability and transparency by requiring annual reports from TSA on the status of outstanding grant awards. It was developed in response to concerns expressed by public transportation agencies about when the clock should start ticking on the grant performance period. Under my amendment, it doesn't begin until grantees are actually able to access their awards. Additionally, this amendment would prohibit cost sharing for transportation security grants to ensure that grants are awarded efficiently and fairly. It also provides public transportation agencies with the tools and support they need to conduct comprehensive risk assessments in order to better secure their systems.

Second, Mr. Chair, this amendment tackles the question of whether TSA needs to be reorganized to get TSA away from behaving like the Aviation Security Administration. Specifically, it requires an honest assessment of creating two equal positions at the deputy assistant secretary level, one for surface transportation security and one for aviation security. It also articulates a sense of congress that the creation of a deputy assistant secretary for surface transportation security will provide the focused leadership and resource management necessary to secure surface transportation in a manner commensurate with aviation security.

Third, in the area of pipeline security, the amendment contains a provision offered at the markup by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis). This provision instructs the Comptroller General to study the roles and responsibilities of DHS and the Department of Transportation with respect to pipeline security in order to better secure our pipelines against intentional breaches.

Fourth, Mr. Chair, regarding workforce improvement, the amendment instructs the DHS Secretary to study the feasibility and merits of establishing a centralized advanced aviation training facility.

Finally, Mr. Chair, the amendment contains a provision to address the special needs of travelers with artificial metal implants.

The amendment contains a provision requiring TSA to establish a program to screen passengers with metal implants.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that makes key improvements to an already robust security bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as you have heard, my amendment helps to strengthen the underlying bill and addresses the issues of interest to my colleague. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon for the purpose of opposition debate.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for the purpose of closing.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, while not in opposition to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my colleague's amendment requiring TSA to establish expedited screening protocols for passengers with a Top Secret Security Clearance.

This amendment enhances section 234 by requiring TSA to establish special protocols for individuals in the Registered Traveler Program who possess a valid Top Secret Security Clearance issued by the Federal Government.

These individuals have access to some of the most sensitive secrets this country has. TSA should be able to figure out how to adopt a screening system to take into account that these passengers are well- known to the Federal Government, have this special status and, as added layers of security, are traveling with a biometric card that confirms their identity.

I'm pleased that Mr. Mica worked with me to fine-tune this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, while not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). It directs TSA to craft special security screening protocols for men and women of the Armed Forces.

All of us have been in airports. We've seen our men and women returning subject to all kinds of searches. It is absolutely important that we say thank you for putting themselves in harm's way. And I support 100 percent the directive requiring TSA to set up a protocol to recognize their value to the country.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this is a classic example of a commonsense amendment. There is no reason why some airports should be reimbursed at 90 percent and others at 75 percent. This corrects that inequity. We support it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while not opposed to the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to support this amendment which reaffirms that grants awarded to general aviation airports under this bill are done so through a competitive process.

Mr. Flake's amendment, based on the competition and the risk, is the right thing to do. I support the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would like to bring to the attention of the House a letter I received this week from dozens of airports across the country concerning a provision in the pending legislation (H.R. 2200) pertaining to background screening services for aviation workers. I ask unanimous consent that the letter, which is addressed to me as well as the distinguished leaders of the Homeland Security Committee and Chairman Oberstar, be included in the Record.

This is an important issue with which I have a great deal of familiarity as the former Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee. Following the tragic events of 9/11, Congress mandated that all workers with access to secure areas of airports be given criminal history background checks. While that now seems like a necessary and reasonable requirement, gaining those checks for nearly a million workers at airports was a daunting task given the fact that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)--the entity then in charge of processing background checks for aviation workers--routinely took more than 50 days to complete the process for each worker.

Without major upgrades to the process, meeting the congressional mandate was simply not achievable without significant disruptions to the aviation system. Recognizing that fact, the Federal Aviation Administration took the initiative to create a better system to facilitate the required checks and reached out to the private sector to help accomplish that goal. The result was a unique public/private partnership with the creation of the Transportation Security Clearinghouse to process background checks for aviation workers.

The Transportation Security Clearinghouse established the first high- speed, secure connection to the federal fingerprint processing system and ensured that more than 500 airports were able to access that system and complete the necessary background checks. It is my understanding that the TSC reduced a process that took more than 50 days down to an average of four hours, with many checks occurring in a matter of minutes. I am told that error rates with transmissions were reduced to 2 percent, well below the average government error rate of 8 percent.

As a result, the initial mandate for completing background checks was completed successfully. Numerous subsequent security enhancements-- issued directly by the Transportation Security Administration, the agency now in charge of aviation security--have likewise been completed successfully. Notably, all aviation workers and many others in the airport environment undergo detailed Security Threat Assessments, a process that has been facilitated by the TSC.

Over the past seven-plus years, the TSC has processed more than 4 million record checks for aviation workers. The costs of the checks for aviation workers have been reduced twice and at $27 are dramatically lower than for workers in other modes of transportation that require similar checks, including port workers and hazardous material truckers.

I raise these points to make clear that I concur with the view outlined by numerous airports on this letter. The current process for aviation workers works well and should not be disrupted as TSA seeks to comply with this legislation. Additionally, the agency needs to ensure that there is no diminution of security by requiring that any entity that seeks to provide these services in the future is capable of facilitating all current checks and can meet any other additional requirements deemed critical by the agency.

I appreciate the work of the Homeland Security Committee on this issue and look forward to working with them as this process moves forward.

June 2, 2009.

Hon. Bennie Thompson,

Chairman, House Homeland Security Committee, Washington, DC.

Hon. Peter King,

Ranking Member, House Homeland Security Committee,

Washington, DC.

Hon. James Oberstar,

Chairman, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Mica,

Ranking Member, House Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thompson, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member

King, and Ranking Member Mica: with the House poised to

consider important TSA authorization legislation (H.R. 2200)

in the near future, we are writing to express our strong

support for the Transportation Security Clearinghouse (TSC)

and to ask that attempts to address competition in security

background screening services legislatively do not interfere

with the critical security services that the TSC currently

facilitates.

Created in the aftermath of September 11th in partnership

with the federal government to meet a congressional mandate

for the completion of background checks for aviation workers,

the TSC has built an incredible record of success over the

past seven-plus years. To date, more than four million

records have been vetted against federal criminal and

terrorist data bases at a cost much lower than other

comparable vetting programs. A process that took weeks to

complete prior to the creation of the TSC, now takes minutes,

collectively saving airports and our industry hundreds of

millions of dollars in operational and employee time savings

that would otherwise have been spent waiting for background

checks and away from their jobs.

For the federal government, the TSC serves as an invaluable

partner in ensuring the highest level of security in the

background screening process for aviation workers. As TSA has

expanded background check requirements for aviation workers

and others in the airport environment over the years, the

Clearinghouse has repeatedly risen to the occasion--most

often at its own expense--to ensure that additional checks

are performed quickly and effectively and in a manner that

limits disruptions to airport operations. Additionally, the

TSC adheres to all federal data and privacy standards and has

passed rigorous DHS certification requirements.

For airports, the TSC has repeatedly proven its value in

keeping costs low and services high. Difficult TSA mandates

have been met with minimal disruption, and Clearinghouse fees

have been reduced twice in recent years--currently $27 per

employee and significantly below the costs of similar

programs. The TSC was established to serve a

critical need of airports, and the incentives inherent in the

TSC model ensure that it will continue to put the needs of

airports and the aviation industry at the forefront.

While competition in this area is a worthy goal, it must

not come at the expense of a process that works well and that

has served our industry and the cause of aviation security

admirably for nearly eight years. As you have the opportunity

to consider legislation aimed at enhancing competition in

security background screening services, we ask that you take

steps to ensure that the current process facilitated by the

TSC is not disrupted and that any service providers approved

to perform similar functions are able to meet the same levels

of security and service that are currently provided by the

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which is also offered by Congressman Ehlers, Congressman Graves and Congressman Petri. This amendment would tighten standards for when TSA can issue an emergency regulation or security directive.

After 9/11, Congress wanted to ensure the TSA could act quickly to respond to terrorist threats. I was instrumental in crafting some of that legislation, and we wanted to give TSA the ability to waive the Administrative Procedures Act and issue a security directive any time they believed there was an ``immediate threat to transportation security.''

Now we come some 8 years after 9/11 and we see the TSA issuing security directives when the ``immediate threat'' they are seeking to address is sometimes unclear. And also there are some problems with use of this authority.

First, we have security directives that change from week to week. TSA is also issuing many directives that are unfunded mandates without an opportunity to comment; others are ``published'' and then remain open for months. And then we have seen examples of even security directives that have been revised seven or eight times.

TSA's use of the security directive makes us ask the question: What immediate threat is TSA addressing with these security directives in the manner they are proceeding?

This amendment would ensure that the waiver of the Administrative Procedures Act occurs only when there is an ``imminent threat of finite duration.'' TSA would still have the ability to quickly respond to such threats, but if the directive is in place for longer than 6 months, it would be required to conduct a regular rulemaking process.

This amendment would refine TSA's security directive issuance process to make it truly responsive to imminent threats and not just the whim of the agency. That is not what we intended. So I ask my colleagues to join other colleagues here in trying to strengthen and clarify this law.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Might I inquire as to the balance of our time?

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), also a cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, do we have 1 minute left on our side?

To close for our side, I would like to yield the balance of my time to another distinguished leader of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment with the modification which I have provided at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First of all, I do want to express my sincere gratitude to Chairman Thompson, to the majority staff, and to the staff on our side of the aisle and Members from the minority. They worked together, I think, in the best interest of trying to bring forward the best possible Transportation Security Administration authorization and legislation they could, and also worked very closely to modify an amendment that I originally proposed.

My colleagues, Congress has repeatedly directed the Transportation Security Administration to use biometric identifier technology for identification cards, travel documents and access control programs.

In fact, Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, these are the times, and I was one of the original authors of the TSA legislation, in which we included a similar directive back immediately after 9/11. But these are the times I have passed, or Congress has passed, into law directives, law after law, directive after directive to TSA to use biometric. And I'd like to submit a list of those for the Record.

Congressional Mandates for the Utilization of Biometric Identifier

Technology for Identification Cards, Travel Documents, and Access

Control Programs * * *

USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001

Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002

Maritime and Transportation Security Act of 2002

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for

I only have a short period of time, but I would like to yield it to Mr. Dent.

Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment, the way it is crafted. I thank the gentlelady from Florida. My colleague has very good intentions, but let's look at the results here.

First of all, this isn't going to eliminate the duplication that was referred to. Florida can still issue an identity card, its own identity card. And it would be better to have just one identity card, but they can still issue one identity card.

What this amendment does is it says that the State is prohibited from conducting a separate background check. So what this becomes is a protection and cover for basically thugs and criminals who are at our ports. You cannot do a criminal background check. This actually prohibits that. That's why I'm opposed to it.

The reason we're concerned in Florida about having criminal background checks--this is the Camber Report. I was in Congress when this was conducted in 2000. One of our ports had over 60 percent of those working at the port with criminal backgrounds.

Here's part of the security assessment. I will name this port; Jacksonville. It has a large physical layout of its facilities, three noncontiguous terminals. The port represents a lucrative target to would-be smugglers and terrorists.

So this amendment, by the way it is crafted--and it should be revised--would prohibit Florida from, even if they want to, and still can with this amendment, they can issue their own card, but they can't conduct a criminal background check. That's wrong. That's wrong.

We can't provide cover for thugs and criminals. And you hear from this report that it does pose both a criminal and terrorist threat, and that needs to be addressed.

This amendment, the way it's crafted, does not do that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Georgia (Mr. Broun).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to Dr. Broun.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining on this side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Beavercreek, Ohio (Mr. Austria).

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Macomb County, Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished naval aviator from Sugar Land, Texas (Mr. Olson).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. McCaul control the balance of my time for our side.

I would like to reserve the balance of my time at this time.

I would just like at this time to thank Chairman Bennie Thompson, Chairwoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, Pete King, everybody else for their collaboration on this important piece of legislation. It is a good bill. I won't get into some of the deficiencies here right now except to say that we need to deal with the Large Aircraft Security Program. I know the Chair has agreed to holding a committee hearing on that very important issue. It's important that we address that issue.

But there are a few things about this bill that are very, very important. It does prohibit tipping off TSA employees of covert testing efforts. I think that's important. This legislation also requires a secure biometrically enhanced system to verify the status of law enforcement officers traveling armed on commercial passenger aircraft. It also authorizes demonstration projects to test technology design to mitigate a terrorist attack against underwater tunnels or open rail lines. It also prohibits the TSA's outsourcing of the terrorist watch list, No Fly List and selectee list verifications to non-governmental entities.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses a number of concerns raised by transit agencies and the GAO in an upcoming report. One of the biggest concerns of stakeholders was that TSA and FEMA were taking too long in distributing grant funding. This amendment requires that applications for grants be made available within 30 days of passage of an appropriations act. It then requires the transit agency to submit an application within 45 days and the Secretary to act within 60 days of receipt. These are the same deadlines that are usually required in any appropriations bills.

This amendment also codifies current practice prohibiting cost sharing required for grants. Previously, public transit agencies were required to share up to 25 percent of the cost of a project. Many agencies found this requirement prohibitive, given that they are largely funded by State and local taxpayers and that the costs associated with improving open architecture public transportation systems were considered too expensive.

This amendment also establishes a technical assistance pilot program that gives grants to transit agencies to conduct comprehensive risk assessments using approved third parties. The Office of Domestic Preparedness previously provided grants for such assessments, but these ended when ODP was combined with FEMA and Preparedness. Many State and local agencies do not necessarily have the in-house expertise to conduct comprehensive risk assessments and require outside assistance.

This amendment requires the GAO to examine the roles of the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation with respect to pipeline security. During a recent release of anhydrous ammonium from a pipeline in Florida, local response personnel were given differing opinions of which Federal agency regulated the security of pipelines. The GAO would examine if current responsibilities for protection against and responding to intentional pipeline breaches are adequately identified in interagency MOUs. The time to identify a lead Federal agency for pipeline security is never after an intentional breach.

So, again, I would just like to say I support this manager's amendment. I think it is a good revision to this legislation of which the underlying bill, of course, is a strong bill too. I support it.

At this time, I would yield back the balance of my time.

Real quickly, I just want to say that individuals with Top Secret Security Clearance go through an extensive background check and investigation every 5 years and friends, family members, coworkers and even neighbors are interviewed during this process.

This amendment recognizes the expansive nature of the top secret investigation and the reduced risk individuals with these clearances pose. For these reasons, I strongly support this amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment by Mr. Bachus. It's a good amendment. Expedited screening services are provided to frequent flier travelers and registered travelers at our Nation's commercial airports all the time. And yet our servicemen and women, many with metal items such as combat boots, medals and badges, often need additional screening when they set off the magnetometer.

Our brave servicemen and women are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. Surely some kind of expedited treatment at an airport checkpoint is the least our country can do for them.

Currently there is no formal TSA requirement or process in place to screen our servicemen and women in any expedited fashion. At some airports, Transportation Security Officers may escort members of the Armed Forces to the front of the checkpoint, but at other airports no such special treatment is given.

So Mr. Bachus' amendment is an excellent one. It's just common sense that a formal checkpoint screening process should be established for servicemen and women who sacrifice so much for their country.

And finally, these men and women place themselves in harm's way to the benefit of our American way of life. The very least we can do is make the airport checkpoint experience as smooth and as pleasurable as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the TSA to report on the number of claims it receives for lost and damaged property, as well as the value of that property and an estimation on the time and resources necessary to resolve such claims.

The men and women of the TSA work hard every day to protect the property entrusted into their care. While the underlying premise is faulty, in that it assumes TSA personnel are to blame for loss or damage associated with baggage, the information gleaned from this report might prove useful in allocating additional resources to manage these claims.

The TSA has instituted a process in which a tag is placed inside every bag they open and inspect. This includes bags that are sealed and require a forcible entry.

Unfortunately, the traveling public is sometimes quick to blame the TSA for any loss or damage associated with their luggage, as opposed to the air carriers, baggage handlers, or simple errors in bar code scanning.

This report may prove useful in identifying any possible improvements to the TSA notification and claims process.

So, as I said, I support the amendment.

At this time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment.

While the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, TWIC, card was intended to be the one security credential required of port workers nationwide, some State governments could not wait for the Federal Government to establish its programs, and they moved forward with their own.

Currently, as has been stated, Florida is one State requiring a separate and, some argue, duplicative security background check and card for workers entering port facilities. While it's unfortunate that Florida port employees are required to pay for background checks twice, TSA cannot share the results of its background checks with Florida.

Florida State law allows for individuals to be disqualified even if they were found qualified by the TSA due to differences in disqualifying crimes. Perhaps a better amendment would have been to allow TSA to share the results of its TWIC background checks with Florida. I would suggest that as a better amendment than the one currently before us.

As written, this amendment would preempt Florida from continuing their security background check program, a program that the Florida State Legislature strongly supports. Additionally, some workers in port facilities receive criminal background checks, drug and alcohol testing, and credit checks as part of their screening process.

Many have distinguished this type of employment screening from the security-focused screening of the TWIC program. It is unclear if DHS would see the Waterfront Commission's background check as being preempted under this amendment because it is an employment-safety criminal background check, not a security background check.

While the amendment does allow a State to demonstrate a ``compelling homeland security reason'' that a separate background check is warranted, this places an extraordinary burden on a State legislature. State legislatures should have the right to determine what offenses qualify as disqualifying offenses in their ports, and this amendment would preempt that.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time, reluctantly, in opposition to the amendment.

Just yesterday, I visited Reagan National Airport and took a look at the whole-body imaging machines over there, and I just have to say a couple of things about this.

I was impressed by the technology. It seems that we have a great deal of satisfaction from passengers who utilize that type of screening. There are limitations to the magnetometer. A magnetometer can pick up metallic items, like keys, but other prohibited items, like liquids and C4 for potential explosives, will be detected under the whole-body imaging technology but not under a magnetometer. So I do believe that this technology is valid.

As for the privacy concerns that have been raised, while I understand them, I think they have been overstated. There are strong, strong restrictions in place to make sure that those individuals, the transportation security officers who actually help the passengers go through the whole-body imaging scanning, are not in contact with the person who is actually viewing the image. Those people are in a separate room, so they're separated. The face of the individual is also blurred, so that's another protection.

So I do think that this technology is very valuable. It will help make us safer. Again, I think it is a step in the right direction. So I would reluctantly oppose the amendment. I understand the concerns expressed, but nevertheless, I feel that this technology is valuable and that it enhances security.

At this time, I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who previously served as the ranking member on the Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I have no real objections to the amendment.

First, I would like to say I support the amendment. Guam International Airport does not segregate passengers traveling internationally from those passengers traveling domestically. There is no physical separation by either a separate floor or by a solid wall. Prior to 9/11, the commingling of domestic and international travelers was not a concern. Guam International is concerned about the security implications of the current system and is looking for a long-term solution to prevent the commingling of domestic and international passengers.

This amendment would simply require that the TSA review the current procedures in place at the airports of the U.S. territories and make recommendations to the airports on how best to address the commingling of passengers. I have no objections. I support the amendment.

I would yield, at this time, to Ms. Jackson-Lee.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to offer an amendment that promotes economic growth and fairness.

My amendment eliminates redundant and expensive additional background checks that are making the Transportation Worker ID Card less effective and keeping qualified verified workers from jobs at our ports.

The Transportation Worker ID Card was designed to ensure that people working at our ports are not security risks. We now verify that port workers have not been involved in activities related to terrorism or other serious criminal activity.

The TWIC harmonizes port security across the Nation, so that any port authority in the country can be secure in the knowledge that job applicants have been examined by the TSA and deemed qualified and safe to access our ports.

While the Transportation Worker ID Card has standardized port security for the vast majority of States, in Florida a worker who holds that national TWIC card is still not allowed to access ports without additional background checks and additional fees under a parallel and duplicative State-run system. That's not fair.

A trucker delivering a load to a port in Georgia or South Carolina can simply present the TWIC card and make his or her delivery, as Congress intended when the TWIC program was designed. However, the same trucker in Florida will have to pay additional fees because the State refuses to recognize the TWIC as a sufficient security credential.

Florida is the only State in the country to require two security clearances to enter public seaports. These duplicative clearances not only defeat the purpose of having a Federal port security credential, but they put Florida's seaports, tenants, trucking companies and workers at a competitive disadvantage, and this is hurting Florida's economy. It's a terrible burden on business.

Now, in 2007, this Congress directed TSA to work with Florida to come to a mutually agreeable solution that would allow the TWIC to serve its purpose, but the ensuing years of negotiations led Florida to reaffirm this spring that it would not accept the national standard for port security but would continue to require expensive duplicative and unnecessary extra background checks.

The criminal background checks are almost identical. Both screen for crimes such as trafficking and narcotics, robbery and assault. Both agencies also have the ability to issue waivers to applicants when offenses are judged to represent no threat to port commerce or national security.

The price of the DHS TWIC port credential 5-year card is $132.50. And if you're in Florida, you have to pay an additional $100 to $130 for the Florida clearance for the same 5-year period. This additional financial and bureaucratic burden on Florida port businesses and workers is unnecessary.

The amendment I'm offering will restore a reasonable, rational, and cost-efficient maritime business environment. Duplicative and unnecessary costs erode the efforts to stimulate and grow Florida's economy and decrease the effectiveness of national standards put in place by Congress through the TWIC program.

Now, for those that might be concerned, if Florida can justify additional background checks with legitimate homeland security concerns, this amendment gives them the opportunity to do so, and the parallel program could be maintained. But if the duplicative and expensive background checks required by Florida are not making our ports safer, workers should not have to pay for them.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the chair of the committee, Mr. Thompson from Mississippi, for his leadership on this issue and the professional Homeland Security staff who are the committee supportive of the amendment.

I'd also submit, for the Record, letters of support from the Transportation Trades Department, the Florida Ports Council, Port Everglades, Port Manatee, Port of Miami, the Tampa Port Authority, and the Passenger Vessel Association.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and come down on the side of economic growth in a time of economic disaster; to come down on the side of the hardworking folks at our ports, to say that it's not fair in America that just because you live in one State, that you're going to be subjected to additional bureaucratic barriers to get to your job. I urge approval of the amendment.

Transportation Trades

Department, AFL-CIO,

Washington, DC, June 4, 2009.

Support the TSA Authorization Act and the Castor Amendment

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Transportation Trades

Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), I urge you to support the

Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act

(H.R. 2200) which will make significant improvements to the

security of our transportation network. I also urge you to

vote for an amendment offered by Representative Castor which

seeks to eliminate duplicative security credentials.

As we approach the 8th anniversary of the September 11,

2001 attacks on our country, we are reminded that much work

remains to better secure our entire transportation system and

to ensure that front-line workers are well-positioned to help

address our security vulnerabilities. Toward this end, we

applaud Chairman Bennie Thompson and the members of the

Homeland Security Committee for reporting out legislation

that will impose new security requirements and move to ensure

that rules already on the books are quickly implemented.

Specifically, we support the provision in the bill that

will finally ensure that flight attendants receive the

uniform and mandatory security training they need to respond

to threats in the aircraft cabin. Despite claims by some in

industry, the costs of this program are minimal--it would add

five hours of training to pre-existing safety training and

would only occur every other year. This provision is a

significant compromise from the original multi-day proposal

and we simply do not see how industry can responsibly oppose

it. The concept that workers themselves should have to pay

for this mandatory training is ludicrous and we thank the

Committee for rejecting this concept.

We also support the expanded training and support for the

Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program. The bill provides

that Federal Air Marshal Service field office facilities can

be used for the FFDO activities. The section also allows for

reimbursement of costs incurred by flight deck officers

during requalification for this program, which is required to

work as a flight deck officer. The bill also provides

additional training for cargo pilots. For years, security

regulations pertaining to cargo operations have been

inadequate and this mandate will take an important step to

address this problem.

Section 206 mandates the issuance of security standards for

foreign and domestic aircraft repair stations performing

maintenance work on U.S. aircraft. The provision also

mandates that security standards at foreign stations working

on U.S. aircraft are comparable to the security standards for

maintenance work done in this country. These regulations were

originally mandated by Congress in 2003 and were supposed to

be finalized in August 2004. With over 70 percent of

maintenance work now outsourced to domestic and foreign

stations, security rules and the required inspections must

be immediately implemented.

The TSA Authorization makes several urgently needed

improvements to the Transportation Worker Identification

Credential (TWIC) program. Section 403 requires the Coast

Guard to coordinate with owners and operators of port

facilities and vessels to allow TWIC applicants to be

escorted on port facilities by a TWIC holder. This will

provide relief to workers who have waited up to several

months in some cases to receive their credential. Many now

are suffering severe financial harm because, through no fault

of their own, they cannot access their job sites. This

section also reiterates the need for TSA to process

applications in a timely manner by instructing TSA to respond

to applicants within 30 days after receiving a completed

application and creating a 30-day timeline for the review of

requests for appeals and waivers. Additionally, this

provision addresses serious deficiencies in the TWIC

distribution process by allowing credentials to be sent to a

card holder's home and subsequently activated at a TWIC

enrollment center. These changes are absolutely essential to

the creation of a functional and trustworthy TWIC program

that improves our nation's maritime and port security.

Rep. Castor's amendment would prohibit a state or local

government from imposing a separate, additional security

check for a purpose for which a federal transportation

security card has already been issued. Workers, for example,

who have already applied for and received a TWIC should not

be subject to additional and duplicate security checks for

entering a port or a maritime vessel. The purpose of the TWIC

and other federal security checks was to create a uniform

credential that minimizes costs and creates one level of

security. To allow states to impose their own security checks

without any limitation would defeat one of the main goals of

the TWIC and make it hard for workers and cargo to move from

state to state. This is a modest prohibition and can be

waived by DHS if a state can demonstrate compelling homeland

security reason for imposing additional security checks.

Again, I urge you to vote for H.R. 2200 and for the Castor

amendment.

Sincerely,

Edward Wytkind,

President.

I thank the distinguished chairman for his leadership on this issue, as well the leadership of the ranking full committee member. As well, I am thankful to have had the opportunity to work with the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Dent.

This has been a bipartisan effort. It has been a tough effort for my colleagues. It is important to realize that the work has been intense and that it has been concerted, direct and, I think, open. I want to applaud the process. Likewise, I would like to acknowledge the Homeland Security Committee's staff and particularly Mike Finan--the subcommittee staff director--for their leadership as well.

So I rise today with great pride in the efforts of my subcommittee and of the full committee, and I look forward to today's swift passage of H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act.

H.R. 2200 provides TSA with the resources it needs by authorizing over $15.6 billion for the Transportation Security Administration for FY 2010 and FY 2011. At the beginning of this Congress, Chairman Thompson stated that the committee will be moving to pass authorizing legislation for the Department of Homeland Security.

It is good to make good on a promise. It is good that this committee recognizes that it is sometimes the only firewall between the security of this Nation and the terrible, heinous acts of 9/11. Sometimes we forget that we are only a few short years away from that terribly tragic day that no one in America will ever forget. We continue to mourn those who have been lost, and we continue to give our support to those families who have experienced those severe and devastating losses.

Therefore, this bill comes before us in the backdrop of recognizing the ultimate challenge of our responsibility. The bill before us, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, helps to further this important effort. I am proud that it is substantiated by over a dozen hearings held over the past 2 years, by countless briefings and by reports from the GAO and from the IG. I am proud of the bipartisan manner in which this comprehensive TSA bill was crafted. I am especially pleased that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), as I mentioned earlier, is an original cosponsor of this legislation.

Chairman Thompson and Secretary Napolitano agreed during the beginning of this Congress that surface transportation security needed to be on equal footing with aviation at TSA. This bill furthers this important objective.

As the chairwoman of this subcommittee, I have visited a number of surface transportation sites, including the 2nd Street site being built in New York--a multibillion dollar project--as there are many new starts coming about in this country. The existing rail system is utilized by millions of Americans every single day.

Mr. Chairman, this bill acts on recommendations issued in 2008 by the inspector general that were reaffirmed earlier this year by establishing the Surface Transportation Security Inspection Office to house the Surface

Transportation Security Inspection Program, by streamlining its mission and by clarifying its command structure.

In an effort to reach out more constructively to surface transportation security stakeholders, this bill creates the Surface Transportation Security Advisory Committee to give them a formal outlet for giving TSA feedback on security issues.

My subcommittee has heard many worthy criticisms about the dissemination of surface transportation security grants over the last 2 years. Accordingly, this bill has included language that will begin to improve the process so that we can get the inventiveness of America back into the security mainstream so that we can secure this Nation.

This bill also directs the GAO to study the efforts of the Department, its components and other relevant entities to learn from foreign nations whose passenger rail and transit systems have been attacked by terrorists and to access lessons to address security gaps in the United States, such as the tragedy of Mumbai, where I visited to assess the horrificness of the impact of that terrorist act and of the victims who were impacted. In the last several years, we have seen attacks on rail systems from Europe to Asia. H.R. 2200 takes steps to learn important lessons that can be applied at home.

In addition, I have worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren) on a provision that creates a new class of materials requiring a security background check for truckers. This provision will target the transport of truly sensitive materials, and it will enable companies and their drivers to have a more seamless gateway to the market. I thank the gentleman for his bipartisan cooperation.

In addition to the great strides this bill makes to secure our surface transportation, it also builds on the work we have done over the years. Earlier this year, the Inspector General confirmed that TSA has in the past compromised covert testing operations. We have corrected that. The bill prohibits advanced notice of covert testing. H.R. 2200 also codifies the Aviation Security Advisory Committee. It requires it to perform specific duties. We also have concerns about TSA's proposed rulemaking covering general aviation. We have responded to that in this bill.

The bill also requires the rigorous oversight of the Secure Flight passenger watch list matching program by requiring updates to Congress every 90 days. In fact, we are not allowing Guantanamo Bay detainees to travel without, if you will, regulation at all. We are working with the White House.

I also believe it is important to note that we are training flight attendants, that we are working on technologies and are helping TSA employees.

Mr. Chairman, this is a great bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

I thank the ranking member very much for yielding. And I would like to applaud the gentlelady from Guam for this very thoughtful amendment.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to have homeland security, we must have expanded homeland security, and that includes our territories. This amendment directs TSA to identify in its report funding sources to recover the costs of any long-term security improvements that will be needed at these airports in the territories.

I believe this is crucial. This is a seamless and important part of homeland security, and I would ask my colleagues to support it, which includes U.S. territories, especially the Guam International Airport, which is subject to significant fluctuations in passenger volumes because of the tourism market.

This is a good amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support it.

I rise to claim the time in opposition. I will not oppose the amendment, and I thank the chairman.

Again, let me thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Thompson, and as well Mr. King and my colleague, Mr. Dent. It was a pleasure to work with Mr. Hastings and Rogers of Alabama.

So I rise in support of the Hastings/Rogers/Jackson-Lee amendment. I appreciate their collegiality and their willingness to work with me on this important amendment. We have toured the Homeland Security sites that have had K-9s. I have heard from airports who said, Give me one good dog, and we will provide security for America.

TSA's explosive detection K-9 teams are important and effective tools for securing all modes of transportation in the United States. The use of K-9 teams has managed what few other security measures can boast: They are well-liked by the community and traveling public. Our committee worked hard to reaffirm our support of K-9 teams for explosive detection in the different transportation modes through H.R. 2200. I'm proud to have led these efforts.

This amendment rounds out these important provisions. As we speak,

TSA continues its work meeting the hundred percent cargo screening requirement established by the 9/11 Act. And let me, as an insert, indicate that I am very proud of the language that we have about 100 percent cargo screening. It is one that we worked on with the Department of Homeland Security. We worked with Mr. Markey, we worked with our chairman and our ranking member of both committees--the subcommittee and full committee.

We want to have 100 percent cargo screening. A hundred additional K-9 teams that will be deployed under this amendment will help ensure TSA's success. Mr. Hastings, Mr. Rogers, and I have offered what I perceive to be a thoughtful amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I thank Mr. Hastings and Mr. Rogers for their collaboration.

With that, I am going to yield back.