[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 4, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H1485-H1489]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        RIGHTS FOR TRANSPORTATION SECURITY OFFICERS ACT OF 2020


                             General Leave

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks and to include extraneous material on this measure.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Mississippi?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 877 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1140.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1351


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1140) to enhance the security operations of the Transportation 
Security Administration and stability of the transportation security 
workforce by applying the personnel system under title 5, United States 
Code, to employees of the Transportation Security Administration who 
provide screening of all passengers and property, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Cuellar in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security.
  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Rogers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1140, the Rights 
for Transportation Security Officers Act of 2020.
  For well over a decade, Chairwoman Nita Lowey and I have championed 
this legislation to provide TSA frontline security workers the basic 
rights and benefits they deserve.
  Today, H.R. 1140 has 242 bipartisan cosponsors and is strongly 
supported by the American Federation of Government Employees and the 
Transport Workers Union of America.
  When TSA was stood up after the September 11 attacks, Congress gave 
the agency broad authority to develop a new, more nimble personnel 
system to address national security issues that threatened our 
transportation system.
  Over the years, TSA's security policies, technologies, and 
capabilities have evolved to provide a formidable defense against 
potential terrorist attacks.
  Unfortunately, TSA's personnel management system has not evolved with 
the rest of the agency. The modern, nimble system Congress envisioned 
was never realized.
  Instead, Transportation Security officers, or TSOs, are subject to an 
antiquated system that does not provide appropriate pay, regular salary 
increases, or basic civil service protections.
  Further, an employee subject to a disciplinary action does not have 
the right to appeal to an independent third party, such as the Merit 
Systems Protection Board. Today, the TSA Administrator serves as judge, 
jury, and executioner for disciplinary proceedings.
  According to a former TSA Deputy Administrator, the lack of due 
process protections within TSA has bred a culture of retribution and 
arbitrary personnel practices, leading to misbehavior and a reluctance 
to report security vulnerabilities.
  When TSA leadership has used its special personnel authorities, it 
has been mostly to benefit senior management, not the frontline 
workforce.
  In one instance, a senior manager received $90,000 in bonuses in a 
single year, yet the men and women in the screening workforce make 
starting salaries of just $29,000 and are among the lowest paid Federal 
workers. They are forced to live paycheck to paycheck even as their job 
responsibilities have grown increasingly complex with changes in 
threats and technologies.
  Today, few TSOs have advanced beyond the bottom levels of TSA's pay 
bands, even after years of service.
  Under the Obama administration, the frontline TSA workforce was, for 
the first time, granted the ability to unionize. Many of us hoped that 
this change would lead to TSA abandoning unfair practices.
  Disappointingly, TSA limited the range of issues subject to 
collective bargaining to a narrow set of issues that, over time, have 
been repeatedly scaled back.

  TSA struggles with low morale and high attrition, consistently 
ranking near the bottom of the annual ``Best Places to Work'' survey. 
In fact, this year, TSA ranked 415th out of 415 agency components--dead 
last--on pay satisfaction.
  Low morale and high attrition have had an adverse impact on the 
agency, crippling TSA's ability to develop a mature workforce. 
According to the DHS inspector general, over a 2-year span in 2016 and 
2017, one in three Transportation Security officers quit.
  As Members of Congress, many of us fly two or three times a week. We 
probably see and interact with Transportation Security officers more 
than any other Federal employees. We know them.
  How can we ask these brave men and women to protect us from terrorist 
attacks, yet not provide them with the basic protections most Federal 
employees receive?
  This bill will place TSA under title 5 like most other Federal 
agencies, granting the workforce better pay and regular salary 
increases.
  Employees would have robust collective bargaining rights like other 
Federal employees, such as Customs and Border Protection officers in 
the Department of Homeland Security. And

[[Page H1486]]

in instances when an employee feels they have been unfairly 
disciplined, they could have their case considered by an independent 
party like other Federal employees.
  Importantly, TSA's management would still be able to remove screeners 
from duty if their presence jeopardizes the mission of the agency, and 
security procedures would not be subject to collective bargaining.
  While investing in the workforce will have an up-front cost, it will 
pay off in the long run. The DHS inspector general found that, in 2017 
alone, TSA spent approximately $16 million to hire and train nearly 
2,000 people who left within months of being hired. That level of 
turnover is not sustainable.
  Enactment of H.R. 1140 will reduce attrition, improve morale, and 
position TSA to have a more experienced workforce with the proficiency 
needed to execute TSA's national security mission.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their support on this bill, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1140.
  After the terror attacks of 9/11, Congress recognized that, in order 
for TSA to successfully carry out its critical mission, it had to 
accommodate the agency's unique operational needs. That is why, when 
Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, we gave 
TSA one-of-a-kind authorities to respond to evolving threats.
  TSA has used these authorities over time to remain flexible and 
accountable to the needs of a diverse transportation system where each 
airport faces a unique threat landscape. These flexibilities are key to 
keeping the public safe. That is why I am very concerned about the 
impact this bill will have on the security of our aviation system.
  By moving the screener workforce under title V, this bill would 
eliminate many of those critical flexibilities. For example, current 
law allows for the immediate termination of employees who intentionally 
allow guns, knives, or explosives through a checkpoint. Under this 
bill, that employee could remain on the TSA payroll for months, or even 
longer.
  Current law allows TSA to set new security requirements, such as 
enhanced passenger screening, when intelligence indicates credible 
threats. How new security requirements are implemented could be subject 
to negotiation if the union bill were to become law.
  Right now, TSA has the flexibility to move screener checkpoints to 
alleviate long lines and ensure security. The legislation before us 
restricts that flexibility.
  In addition to the impact on security, I am concerned with how the 
bill proposes to transition the screener workforce. I don't think it is 
fair for Congress to dictate which union gets to represent 45,000 
screeners, but that is just what this bill does. The bill sets into law 
the exclusive bargaining agent for the screeners and requires TSA to 
immediately negotiate with them.
  Under this bill, there is no intervening union election. Screeners 
never get a chance to exercise their constitutional right to choose 
their representation. I think that is wrong.
  Beyond the consequences for aviation security and the fundamental 
questions of fairness, this bill does little to improve the pay and 
working conditions for screeners. In fact, TSA screeners will lose 
benefits under this proposal.
  If this bill becomes law, screeners will lose the ability to trade 
shifts with one another or donate accrued leave to their fellow 
workers. Certain pay overtime would be prohibited. Career milestone 
bonuses would no longer be offered. Many veterans would no longer 
qualify for hiring preferences.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will cost 
$1.8 billion over 5 years. That is a 20 percent increase over TSA's 
current budget. That is a tremendous cost for so little return.
  In May 2019, a blue-ribbon panel led by Clinton and Obama 
administration human capital experts strongly argued against moving 
screeners under title V as this bill would do. That panel rightly 
pointed out that, under current law, TSA can pay screeners more than 
they would make under title V.
  That is the real irony with this bill. It purports to improve pay and 
benefits for screeners, but, under current law, screeners could be paid 
more and receive better benefits than this bill would allow.
  I have long advocated for increased pay for the screener workforce, 
and I agree with the blue-ribbon panel that TSA should build a pay 
system superior to that of the GS schedule. The problem has always been 
funding.
  Past administrations have requested funding for increased screener 
pay, and past Congresses have not provided it. Fortunately, the 
President's fiscal year 2021 budget requests an increase in funding to 
provide raises and bonuses for screeners.
  If the majority truly wants to fix the problem, they should work with 
us on a bill to fund these pay raises and implement the recommendations 
of the bipartisan blue-ribbon panel. That is the bill we should have on 
the floor today. Instead, they have, yet again, decided to move a 
partisan messaging bill that rewards their political supporters. This 
time it comes at the expense of taxpayers and security.
  Like the rest of them, this partisan messaging bill will never become 
law. The Senate won't take it up. The President said he would veto it. 
It is a waste of time.
  At some point, I hope the majority rejects this partisan approach to 
legislating and works with us on our Nation's priorities.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), who has championed this issue 
from day one.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1140, the 
Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act of 2020. Chairman 
Thompson and I have worked on this bill for a very long time, and I am 
glad the House is considering it today.
  H.R. 1140 would give TSA's screening workforce the same rights 
afforded to other Federal workers under title V, like fair pay under 
the General Schedule pay scale, sick leave according to OPM guidelines, 
and collective bargaining rights.
  Our TSOs have earned these rights. TSOs serve on the front lines of 
aviation security and protect the traveling public on a daily basis. It 
is unreasonable to deny these hardworking men and women who keep us 
safe the basic protections of Federal civil service.
  We must pass this bill today to send a clear message to TSA from 
Congress that a system denying TSOs predictability and consistency is 
unacceptable. H.R. 1140 would improve the morale and stability of our 
screening workforce and help ensure safety at our Nation's airports.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the chair of the House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  As a little bit of history, the gentleman from Alabama wasn't here 
when we created the Transportation Security Administration. It was 
created in the Aviation Subcommittee of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee. I was the ranking member; John Mica was the 
chair. The provisions he referenced were not intended to oppress the 
workforce.
  Before 9/11, all of the securities were provided by the airlines, and 
they never met a low bidder they didn't like. We had people who were 
felons and people who were in the country illegally who were doing the 
screening.
  By the way, it was the lowest entry-level job in the airport, and we 
had testimony from the Screener of the Year, once, who said: Hey, you 
know, people just move through these jobs because they got to go to 
McDonald's. They'll do better.
  Now, we aren't treating these professionals much better than that. 
They are the lowest paid Federal employees, providing security to the 
billion people who flew last year. They worked through the shutdown 
with no pay.

[[Page H1487]]

They don't earn much money, so they don't have a lot of savings, but 
they worked through the shutdown.
  These people deserve not only a pay raise, but they also deserve 
workers' rights and whistleblower protections from abusive management.
  The gentleman expressed concern about $1.8 billion over 10 years. 
Well, join me on my FASTER bill; that is, this administration is 
diverting $2 billion a year in passenger security fees. Passengers pay 
the fee. It is supposed to provide security. No, it is going into the 
maw of the Federal Government and being spent somewhere else. Reclaim 
that money.
  Don't worry about the stupid scoring stuff. Oh, it is making the 
deficit look smaller. Whatever. We are charging passengers for 
security. Give them the security. Give these workers a pay raise, and 
give them decent workers' rights and protections.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I would point out to my colleague from Oregon that the 
$1.8 billion was over 5 years, not 10 years. The screening fee that the 
gentleman was referring to was diverted under the Obama administration 
to general deficit relief.
  But the fact is I agree fully with Chairman Thompson that we should 
be paying our screeners more. It is our fault. Congress has not funded 
the ability of TSA to raise their pay.
  The irony of this bill is it would make it harder to pay them more; 
it would pay them less. If we would fund the TSA for what they are 
requesting, current law would allow them to have better incomes and 
better benefits than this bill would allow. That is the real irony 
here.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Correa), chair of the House Homeland 
Security Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime 
Security.
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1140, the Rights 
for Transportation Security Officers Act.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank, again, Chairman Thompson for his 
leadership on this issue and bringing this bipartisan piece of 
legislation to the floor that I am cosponsoring.
  Today, finally, we acknowledge that the TSA workers deserve a pay 
structure and personnel management system that recognizes their value. 
These employees have had a higher turnover than the average Federal 
employee, and, in fact, many went unpaid during the government 
shutdown.
  These hardworking men and women are effectively the thin blue line 
that stands between us and our families while they are traveling by air 
and those who would do us harm by smuggling items onto planes through 
checkpoints. That is what a TSA officer does: protect us and our 
families.
  We need to have professional TSA employees. We need to make sure that 
they are the best of the best. Our family's safety is worth it.
  As chairman of the Transportation and Maritime Security Subcommittee, 
I am proud to stand with these men and women of TSA in strong support 
of this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend and colleague from California's 
observation, but, again, I emphasize about the union representation.
  The gentleman just made the statement and reiterated what the 
chairman had said in his opening statement, and that is there has been 
enormous turnover in the TSA over the last decade because of the poor 
pay, benefits, and working circumstances.
  The fact is that very few people who work at TSA today voted for AFGE 
to be the union. It won by plurality--not a majority--10 years ago, and 
very few people who were there then are here now.
  So, if, in fact, this bill were ever to become law--which it is not--
at a minimum, we should allow the workers to decide who they want their 
representation to be. AFGE may win it, but it is wrong for Congress to 
dictate to 45,000 employees who they should have for representation.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, just for the record, 
nothing in H.R. 1140 restricts the workforce's ability to elect union 
representation. I want to be very clear on that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi 
for yielding.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi for his wisdom in 
putting forward a bill that is long overdue, and that is H.R. 1140, 
which is the Rights for Transportation Security Officers Act of 2020.
  Let me congratulate the storied organization AFGE. They have a 
stellar reputation for fairly representing government workers in a way 
that provides them a better quality of life. I am not sure why they 
have become the issue on this floor, and our chairman has just 
indicated that there is no such language that limits any actions by our 
TSO officers.
  Let me be very clear: Starting with the TSO and Homeland Security 
from the very beginning, this organizing was done for purposes of 
emergency. So now you have denied, for over 20 years, the rights of 
these individuals to live a decent life.
  I take issue with this one example of an individual who, obviously, 
was not managed, because we all know that a man does not examine a 
female passenger, period, or traveler. We know that doesn't happen.
  So a bad apple does not reflect on the fact that these workers need 
better rights, grievances, higher pay, professional development, and to 
be treated in the civil system such that we will develop a professional 
workforce that stays, that has a high morale and not a low morale.

                              {time}  1415

  Are we doing this to the FBI, the Defense Department, and ATF?
  Are we telling them that at any moment they can be fired without due 
process?
  This doesn't make sense. These people have put their life on the 
line. They have stopped so much that you do not even know protecting 
the traveling public.
  Mr. Chairman, if you take a moment to talk with them, you will find 
out the massive number of weapons and other types of items that they 
have to be astute enough and keen enough to know what to do with.
  I support the TSA. I support TSOs because I see them every day as the 
front line for this Nation in providing a safe and secure aviation 
system.
  Yes, their job is difficult and deadly. We lost a gentleman in Los 
Angeles, and we all surrounded his family, he died in the line of duty.
  I believe this is an important legislative initiative. Let us take 
this and finally give to these workers the decency that they deserve. 
Let us not make excuses. Let us make it right, and let us stand with 
them as American workers and defenders of the security and freedom of 
this Nation. Support H.R. 1140.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in response to my friend and colleague from 
Mississippi, who, in his last statements, emphasized that the employees 
at TSA would have the right to elect their union representation, I 
would refer him to page 9, line 24 of his bill, ``Exclusive 
Representative--The labor organization certified by the Federal Labor 
Relations Authority on June 29, 2011, or successor labor organization 
shall be treated as the exclusive representative of full- and part-time 
nonsupervisory TSA personnel carrying out screening functions under 
section 44901`` et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
  This bill does pick winners and losers and, in this case, AFGE is the 
winner. I am just saying, I don't think that is right.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume to say that I appreciate my colleague next door to me 
citing the section about Federal Labor Relations Authority because that 
is my reference.
  It says, ``or successor labor organization.'' And it says in the 
``Sunset Provision--The provisions of this section

[[Page H1488]]

shall cease to be effective as of the conversion date.''
  So there are options available. It is not a closed-door process, and 
we wouldn't have it that way anyway.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. 
Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank our chairman for 
bringing this bill and his leadership on this issue.
  I have the honor of representing Nevada's First Congressional 
District in the heart of Las Vegas. Every week, as I travel to and from 
Las Vegas through McCarran International Airport--just like more than 
50 million travelers do each year--I see our TSA employees very hard at 
work screening passengers, baggage, and cargo. They play a critical 
role in allowing Las Vegas to be a truly international city with an 
economy that thrives on tourism and visitors who come to work, hike, 
and play.
  More broadly, Transportation Security officers have the immense 
responsibility of making sure passengers from all over the world, on 
hundreds of flights a day, make it safely to their destinations, 
wherever they may be. Yet, Federal law prohibits them from collectively 
bargaining for better pay, better benefits, and better working 
conditions. This shortcoming has led to a high level of turnover at TSA 
which threatens our security.
  It is time for that to change. That is why I strongly support this 
long overdue piece of legislation that will improve TSA agents' pay and 
boost their collective bargaining power, not to mention their morale.
  So let's come together today to give them the rights that other 
Federal employees have and that they so rightly deserve. Let's respect 
them and give them this privilege so they can do what they do and keep 
us all safe. It is the least we can do to recognize that sacrifice.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this bill, and I urge my colleagues 
to vote in favor of it.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I would say to my friend from Nevada that the irony with this bill is 
they are moving TSA under a 70-year-old personnel management system 
widely panned by good government organizations as unable to meet the 
needs of the 21st century workforce.
  So which system really is outdated?
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I think, for the record, 
we want our TSOs to be treated just like all other Federal employees. 
If it is good enough for everybody else except TSA, then it should be 
good for TSA too.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. 
Watson Coleman).
  Mrs. WATSON COLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me, and I want to thank him for this leadership on this 
very important issue.
  I join him in calling for support and passage of the Transportation 
Security Officers Act. We rely on Transportation Security officers to 
keep us safe. They work hard, including going without pay for more than 
5 weeks during the last government shutdown. Yet these TSOs have none 
of the rights or the protections we have set for the rest of the 
Federal workforce, and that is what this bill would finally correct.
  H.R. 1140 offers TSOs the ability to organize themselves and fight 
for better pay through collective bargaining and puts them on the 
Federal general schedule pay scale, ensuring they see the same regular 
step increases as the rest of the Federal workers who keep our 
government running.
  It would ensure TSOs can appeal personnel decisions to a neutral 
third party--something their managers and others within TSA can already 
do. It would give these workers the paid family leave and medical leave 
that all other Federal workers now have, ensuring they can care for an 
ailing parent, be home with a new baby, or deal with a new diagnosis.
  H.R. 1140 finally gives TSOs equal footing, recognizing that they are 
equally valued members of the Federal workforce--people we rely upon 
daily to keep our skies safe.
  I am grateful to our chairman, Mr. Thompson, for his work to bring 
this bill through committee and for his tireless efforts of workplace 
rights and protections for TSOs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the passage of this bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact is, if we do treat the TSA officers the same 
as other employees by putting them in title 5, they will actually lose 
benefits. I talked about that in my opening statement.
  Right now, they already get the same benefits like paid family leave, 
but they are going to lose the ability to have bonuses, get certain 
overtime pay, and trade shifts. Those are things that are valuable.
  But the biggest problem I have is that we, as a Congress, have not 
funded the pay system they have now which would allow greater pay than 
title 5. I just think we need to stop shirking our duty and recognize 
it is our responsibility to pay these employees fairly. We have not 
been doing that, and this bill will accommodate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Chairman, first, let me commend the chairman of the 
Homeland Security Committee for this timely piece of legislation, this 
long-time coming piece of legislation.
  As has been stated, we fly home every week, and us being in Homeland 
Security, we interact with the TSOs on a regular basis. I don't know 
what is going on in the gentleman from Alabama's airports, but these 
officers are really first responders who stand in the gap of whether we 
fly or travel safely every single day.
  They check thousands of bags for weapons that could be used to harm 
people flying or the pilots or the staff on airplanes, and we can't 
give them a dignified wage, a living wage?
  I talk to them. Some of them have two jobs.
  Why should someone with such an important duty to keep our airways 
safe from terrorists and harm have to leave there and go work at Burger 
King?
  It is not right. I commend the gentleman from Mississippi once again 
for this.
  These people need to be given the dignity that they deserve. They 
stand in the gap every single day, and not to pay them a commensurate 
salary with their job is criminal.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague from New Jersey is a great member of the 
Homeland Security Committee, and his heart is obviously in the right 
place. Everything he said I agree with about our TSA workforce. I 
travel through airports every week just like all the Members of this 
House.
  The fact is, it pains me to know we are not treating them better. 
These are the people who came to work in the last government shutdown 
without pay throughout that shutdown to make sure that we remained safe 
as we flew back and forth.
  We ought to be treating them better, and this bill doesn't do it. If 
we want to treat these people the way they should be treated, we should 
use current law and properly fund it and give them pay and benefits 
better than anything this bill would ever accommodate.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I have no more speakers, 
and I am prepared to close after the gentleman from Alabama closes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  I want to make Mr. Thompson aware that I have no further speakers and 
I am prepared to close.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to close by thanking the men and women of TSA. 
The debate we are having today does not impact the sincere appreciation 
we have for the tremendous job they do each and every day. While we may 
disagree on the best way forward, I think we all share the same goal of 
improving screener pay and morale. We understand how important it is to 
the workforce and to our security.

[[Page H1489]]

  Unfortunately, this bill would do little more than undermine the goal 
that we seek to achieve.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the arguments my colleagues have made in 
favor of this bill as well as the amendments offered to improve it. 
This is ultimately a simple bill with a simple but critical goal.
  Following the September 11 attack, Congress determined that the need 
to ensure the security of our Nation's transportation systems required 
the creation of a new Federal agency, the TSA.
  Yet, in standing up this critical national security agency, Congress 
mistakenly gave TSA broad personnel authority that has resulted in the 
workforce lagging far behind other Federal workers with respect to pay, 
benefits, and rights. By passing this bill, we will finish the job we 
started and make TSA a Federal agency that follows the laws Congress 
had constructed over many decades to govern treatment of Federal 
employees.
  This is the right thing to do for the frontline workers, the right 
thing to do for the traveling public, and the right thing to do for our 
national security.
  Mr. Chair, I thank my colleagues for their support, I urge passage of 
H.R. 1140, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do 
now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Payne) having assumed the chair, Mr. Cuellar, Chair of the Committee of 
the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1140) to 
enhance the security operations of the Transportation Security 
Administration and stability of the transportation security workforce 
by applying the personnel system under title 5, United States Code, to 
employees of the Transportation Security Administration who provide 
screening of all passengers and property, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________