Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 522, S. 2464.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 585, S. 1902.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the committee- reported substitute be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 594, H.R. 1442.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 550 and the Senate now proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

I ask unanimous consent that the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from the consideration of S. Res. 559 and the Senate

proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record.

I ask unanimous consent to now proceed to consideration of S. Res. 569, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent S. 3861 be star printed, and the changes are at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar No. 376, Calendar No. 887, Calendar No. 888, Calendar No. 889, Calendar No. 891, and Calendar No. 894. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that the President be immediately notified

of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow, Thursday, September 14. I further ask unanimous consent that following the prayer and pledge the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be considered approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for up to 30 minutes, with the first 15 minutes under the control of the majority leader or his designee and the final 15 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee; further, that following morning business the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 4954, the port security bill.

I further ask unanimous consent that there be 1 hour of debate equally divided in the usual form, followed by a vote on the cloture motion.

Mr. President, tomorrow the Senate will finish consideration of the port security bill. The cloture vote will occur at approximately 11 a.m. The leader urges our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for cloture so that we can expedite passage of this important bill. Following the cloture vote, the bill's manager will work through the remaining amendments. Senators should expect votes throughout the day.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 4954, the port security bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all second- degree amendments be filed at the desk by 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. President, I send to the desk a package of amendments. I would like to read them: amendment No. 4924, as modified, for Senator Rockefeller; amendment No. 4928, for Senator Bingaman; amendment No. 4932, for Senator Domenici; amendment No. 4933, for Senator Domenici; amendment No. 4939, as modified, for Senator Kerry; amendment No. 4946, as modified, for Senator Burns; amendment No. 4950, as modified, for Senator Cantwell; amendment No. 4949, for Senator Cantwell; amendment No. 4951, for Senator McCain; amendment No. 4953, for Senator Vitter; amendment No. 4954, as modified, for Senator Snowe; amendment No. 4955, for Senator Allard; amendment No. 4959, as modified, for Senator Pryor; amendment No. 4964, for Senator Burns; amendment No. 4976, for Senator Boxer; amendment No. 4985, as modified, for Senator Baucus; amendment No. 4988, as modified, for Senator Lautenberg; amendment No. 5000, for Senator Snowe; and amendment No. 4947, as modified, for Senator Burns.

I ask unanimous consent that these amendments be considered en bloc, adopted en bloc, and I move to reconsider that action.

Mr. President, there may be statements that Senators wish to have printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order that they be printed in the Record prior to the adoption of any of these amendments I have just presented.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

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

Mr. President, is the pending business the DeMint amendment?

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I understand the Lautenberg amendment is the pending amendment.

Mr. President, this would lift the TSA's current screener cap of 45,000 persons. The cap is at 45,000, but currently the resources available to TSA allow for only 43,000 screeners, and currently there are only 41,000. The reason is there is such an enormous turnover in screeners. They work for a small period of time and then move on to other jobs.

We have enhanced screening technology and improved staffing models that have helped maximize the workforce currently available. We have a strong security system with minimal passenger line waits. They have been reduced considerably.

I do believe the Lautenberg amendment is not necessary. The current cap of 45,000 screeners helps us maintain the pressure on the TSA to employ new screening technology. I personally met in a classified briefing with the head of the TSA to discuss this problem last week. It was classified because of some of the technology that is involved and new models being pursued. One of the comments that was made to me was that the cap really helps us maintain the pressure to secure the new screening technology and reduce the redundancy in the workforce. The workforce is only relevant to the extent the technology does not do the job. We believe we should have more and quicker screening, and that is going to be brought about by new technology. That is where we have put our money this year.

Unless my friend wants to make any further comments, I intend to move to table this amendment. I still have the floor. Does my friend wish to have some time on the amendment?

I say to the Senator, in answer to the question, I personally talked with the head of TSA. He told us they have never been able to reach the cap yet because of unavailability of people to take these jobs under the circumstances that they must be screened and checked themselves before they are employed. The delay in getting the clearances for screeners is one of those things that hold people up. It is not the limited resources or the cap that is the problem; the problem is getting people who will take these jobs who can fit through the screening process they face before they become a screener.

As I said, the current cap is 45,000. There are 41,000 right now with full-time employment and people trying to find more screeners. The answer isn't to raise the cap; the answer is to keep the pressure on the system so we use more technology, not more screeners. More screeners is more delay. The technology processes these inspections faster than individual screeners can.

Mr. President, I say to my friend again that the workforce right now is approximately 41,000 in number. The turnover rate is enormous because they don't want to stay in these jobs. They are not exactly the kind of full-time jobs some people want to pursue. It is not a career.

The real problem is we already are capped at 45,000. There is room for 4,000 more right now. They are looking for

them. But as we speak, there are more people leaving than we can add to the force. The reason is the problems associated with this type of activity. It is the screening, as we all know, as we go through these lines and through the detection systems at the airports. The people who have the jobs just don't like to stay on that kind of a job. We have discussed how we get around it. I don't know, but increasing the number will not solve the problem. Increasing the cap is what the Senator wants to do. The concept of lifting that cap is not a solution. The solution is to try to find some way to make the job more attractive, maybe pay them more, whatever it takes.

The two limitations involved right now are the 45,000 cap and the budget resources that are available now. We tried to increase that, but we have not been able to get additional moneys yet for this purpose in terms of the screeners.

The TSA budget resources currently, as I said, allow for only 43,000. But still that is 2,000 more than are actually on duty right now, and the cap is still 4,000 above that. They can go to a 10-percent increase under the existing circumstance. Lifting the cap is not the answer is what I tell my friend.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from New Jersey. He is really trying hard, and I am trying hard, to work on this problem. Let me tell the Senator this: 37.5 percent of the screeners at Dulles turned over last year; 37.5 percent left. The reason is they are handling bags; they don't like the hours, as you mentioned; they work hours in accordance with the shifts based on the number of flights, not in terms of--it is not a steady workload is what I am saying. So they might be there 10 hours, but they are working 6 of that 10 hours and very hard in those 6 hours. The turnover rate is enormous.

I do think the difficulty is not in the cap; the difficulty is in the money. We have to impress on our people in the appropriations process to provide more money. We are trying to see if we can find some way to justify higher salaries. In some places, the salaries are enormous for small airports. In others where you deal with the numbers of passengers at Dulles or New York airports or Los Angeles, those airports are totally overworked, and the turnover in those big airports is enormous, almost 40 percent a year. You have to consider the fact that these replacements have to be cleared under the clearance process with regard to security. They have to be cleared people; they cannot be people who just walk in off the street. It takes months to clear one of them. You can lift the cap all you want, but you are not going to get any more than 45,000 in the next year.

Mr. President, let me tell my colleague this: We will just accept the amendment because it won't make any difference in terms of the number of screeners who are available. That is what my staff just told me. Why am I arguing? Because no matter what the ceiling is, we won't have any more screeners.

Have a vote on it?

I will give you a vote and move to table. I will tell my friend, this isn't a solution to the problem. The solution is in more money and finding a way that we can get people who are cleared to take the job and keep it. You can't put just anybody in there handling those bags. If you get a terrorist in there, they could add something rather than see whether there is something in the bags. So they all have to be cleared. This ceiling is not an issue.

Will the Senator just let us take it to conference and see what we can work out? I don't see that the number makes any difference. The problem is the process and who is hired and what are the restrictions and how much money is available, not the numbers. You could put the number at 90,000 and we will still have 41,000 people next year.

Mr. President, there is a series of meetings going on in the Capitol right now pertaining to national defense issues, and I would like to see----

I still have the floor.

I want to work this out with my friend to have the time for a vote that he wishes to have. Could we have this vote at 5 o'clock? Is that all right? We will ask for the yeas and nays with the understanding that we will vote at 5 o'clock.

I join him in requesting the yeas and nays and ask unanimous consent that the vote take place at 5 o'clock.