[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5496-5505]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007

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

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

  Pending:

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

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


                 Amendment No. 333 to Amendment No. 275

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

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

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

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

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

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I can explain this easily. It is a 
bipartisan amendment. I offer it on behalf of myself and Senators 
Thomas, Stevens, Roberts, Pryor, Sanders, Enzi, Hatch, and Whitehouse 
to restore the minimum allocation for States under the State Homeland 
Security Grant Program. Right now, in the underlying bill, it is 
proposed at .45 percent. Our amendment would restore it to current law 
which is .75. That means that every State would have, of the homeland 
security money, at least .75 percent of it.
  I should point out, incidentally, as with current law, our State 
minimum, under our amendment, would apply only to 40 percent of the 
overall funding of this program. This may sound somewhat tricky, but 
what it means is we have special funding for certain unique areas--
ports areas, large cities and all--but this applies to only 40 percent 
of the overall funding. The majority of the funds would continue to be 
allocated based on risk assessment criteria--again, the idea of a major 
port, or something like that, as are the funds under the several 
separate discretionary programs which Congress has established for 
solely urban and high-risk areas. These are also governed by risk 
assessment calculations. That is not something that is going to be 
affected by the so-called small State minimum.

[[Page 5497]]

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

[[Page 5498]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 5499]]

     screeners differently than other employees of the agency.

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


                           Amendment No. 345

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

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

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

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

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

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

     SEC. __. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

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

     SEC. __. REPEAL.

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

     SEC. __. RULE OF APPLICATION.

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


                           Amendment No. 301

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

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

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


                           AMENDMENT NO. 301

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

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

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

       (a) Definitions.--In this section, the term--
       (1) ``appropriate committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the 
     House of Representatives; and
       (2) ``improper payment'' has the meaning given that term 
     under section 2(d)(2) of the

[[Page 5500]]

     Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (31 U.S.C. 3321 
     note).
       (b) Requirement for Compliance Certification and Report.--A 
     grant recipient of funds received under any grant program 
     administered by the Department may not expend such funds, 
     until the Secretary submits a report to the appropriate 
     committees that--
       (1) contains a certification that the Department has for 
     each program and activity of the Department--
       (A) performed and completed a risk assessment to determine 
     programs and activities that are at significant risk of 
     making improper payments; and
       (B) estimated the total number of improper payments for 
     each program and activity determined to be at significant 
     risk of making improper payments; and
       (2) describes the actions to be taken to reduce improper 
     payments for the programs and activities determined to be at 
     significant risk of making improper payments.


                           Amendment No. 314

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

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

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

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

  In response to his question, he said:

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

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


                           Amendment No. 352

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[[Page 5501]]

  Mr. MENENDEZ. I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 314

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Senators be added as cosponsors of the DeMint amendment: Senators 
Vitter, Craig, Roberts, Bunning, Enzi, Hatch, and Graham.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I want to speak about the DeMint amendment 
and make sure all of my colleagues are clear on what is about to 
happen.
  The majority leader has said at 12 o'clock today he will make a 
motion to table or to kill the DeMint amendment to the 9/11 bill. It 
would be a large mistake for this body to kill this amendment, because 
it enables our airport security personnel to keep Americans safer.
  One of the biggest threats we have now as a nation is we are 
beginning to forget 9/11 and what happened and what could happen. We 
are forgetting we are under a constant threat, that we live under 
alerts every day. It is not a matter of saying one day is an emergency 
and one day is not. It is not a matter of saying one passenger is an 
imminent threat but the other one might not be.
  Our transportation security agency is charged with making sure we 
screen every passenger, every bag, and that we have an alert system 
based on intelligence and other information that allows them to move 
toward possible threats.
  Unfortunately, we have heard Members of this Senate saying the war on 
terror is not an emergency, that al-Qaida is not a new imminent threat, 
when we know that every day al-Qaida may have a new plan to attack 
Americans at different points.
  When the Homeland Security agency was formed, we had a debate about 
whether the transportation security agencies, the officers working for 
them, the screeners, should have collective bargaining. It was agreed 
at the time, because of the need for flexibility and constant change, 
that screeners would have the freedom to join a union, and a number of 
workers' rights and protections were put into place, but that they 
would not have collective bargaining arrangements as some of our other 
agencies do.
  I point out we have heard some in this Chamber use border security as 
an example of collective bargaining working. What I hold in my hands is 
only one example of a collective bargaining agreement for our Customs 
Service.
  We cannot make a case that our border security has worked well. We 
have over 12 million illegals in this country that testify it is not. 
Our customs system is becoming well known as being one of the slowest 
in the world. Collective bargaining will not work for our airports. I 
am afraid, again, we are beginning to forget we are in an emergency 
situation. The 9/11 Commission didn't recommend we change current 
airport security.
  My amendment is designed to keep current law the same. The majority 
leader will ask this Chamber to kill that bill, which would mean we 
would lose the 9/11 security bill we have all worked on.
  I ask unanimous consent that several items be printed in the Record. 
First is a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, 
Kip Hawley, who tells us if collective bargaining is implemented with 
the transportation security agency, it will significantly reduce their 
ability to keep our country safe. Next is a letter with over 36 
Senators signing it, saying they will sustain the President's veto of 
the 9/11 bill if it hampers our security by injecting collective 
bargaining into the process. Next is a letter from the House of 
Representatives, with 155 signatures, saying they will sustain the 
veto.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

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



                                                  U.S. Senate,

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



                                Congress of the United States,

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

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, a vote to kill the DeMint amendment is a 
vote to kill the 9/11 bill we have all worked on. Let there be no 
question about it, the vote should be no. There is no reason to change 
the operation of the transportation security agency and to inject third 
party negotiations, particularly when it involves sensitive 
information.
  So let us be clear that the motion to table my amendment is a motion 
to make our airports less secure. I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
the motion to table.

[[Page 5502]]

  Mr. President, I see our minority leader is here. I will yield to him 
for comments at this time.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. COBURN. Will the leader yield for a parliamentary procedure?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Yes. The Senator from Oklahoma wants to modify an 
amendment, I believe.


                           Amendment No. 294

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

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

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

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

       After title XV, add the following:

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

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

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


                           Amendment No. 314

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

[[Page 5503]]

among Federal agencies. In 2006, the attrition rate for TSOs was 16 
percent--more than 3 times that of any other security agency, and more 
than 6 times the national average for the Federal government. They have 
a higher attrition rate than even high turnover private sector 
employers. The chances are good that the person preparing your coffee 
at the airport has more experience than the screener who checked your 
bags for bombs.
  These sky-high attrition rates are alarming. The lack of experienced 
security screeners threatens our national security. Constant turnover 
reduces institutional knowledge and undermines the agency's ability to 
implement effective security procedures. It also has a high financial 
price--the cost of training new employees has risen so high that TSA 
has had to request an additional $10 million in funds from Congress for 
this year to address these turnover concerns.
  Low morale and high turnover at a front-line security agency is a 
recipe for disaster. We have to solve the problem. Our Nation, and 
these hard-working federal employees, deserve better.
  TSOs have earned the right to be treated with respect. They deserve 
the same fundamental workplace rights as other Federal security 
employees, including whistleblower protections, appeal rights, and 
collective bargaining rights. The issue is one of basic respect for 
this valuable workforce.
  I have heard some deeply disturbing rhetoric from my Republican 
colleagues about the effect of restoring these collective bargaining 
rights. It has been suggested that if these rights are restored, 
workers will try to hide behind their contracts and not respond in an 
emergency. It has been suggested that collective bargaining rights keep 
security workers from performing their jobs effectively.
  These suggestions are an insult to every man and woman in uniform who 
works under a collective bargaining agreement across this country. To 
suggest that union workers will not do what is best for our country in 
the event of an emergency is scandalous, particularly in light of 
recent history.
  Every New York City firefighter, EMT and police officer who responded 
to the disaster at the World Trade Center on 9/11 was a union member 
under a collective bargaining agreement. No one questions these 
employees' loyalty or devotion to duty because they are union members.
  On 9/11, Department of Defense employees were required to report to 
wherever they were told, regardless of their usual work assignments. No 
Federal union tried to hold up this process in any way to bargain or 
seek arbitration. Not a single grievance was filed to challenge the 
assignments after the fact.
  Other Federal security employees already have the protections that 
the bill would provide, including Border Patrol agents, Capitol police 
officers, Customs and Border inspection officers, and Federal 
Protective Service officers. Many of these officers--particularly 
customs and border inspection officers who work at airports, seaports, 
and border crossings--perform fundamentally similar tasks to TSOs and 
have been performing them effectively with collective bargaining rights 
for years. It is an insult to each of these men and women to suggest 
that they will not be capable of fully performing their important 
duties if they are given a voice at work.
  Collective bargaining is the best way to bring dignity, consistency, 
and fairness to the workplace. It will make our TSO workforce safer and 
more stable, and enhance our security. Restoring these essential rights 
is long overdue, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the DeMint 
amendment that would remove these valuable protections from the bill.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
amendment offered by Senator DeMint that would continue to deny basic 
employee rights and protections to transportation security officers, 
TSOs, at the Transportation Security Administration, TSA.
  Yesterday, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Oversight of Government 
Management Subcommittee to review TSA's personnel system. Very quickly, 
the discussion turned to collective bargaining. Despite claims that 
collective bargaining would be a threat to national security, TSA 
Administrator Kip Hawley said that the San Francisco International 
Airport, which uses private sector screeners who engage in collective 
bargaining, is safe. In addition, Mr. Hawley cited the London bombing 
plot and how TSA needed the flexibility to move TSOs to respond to that 
situation. When asked, he also admitted that the airports in the United 
Kingdom, which have screeners who engage in collective bargaining, are 
also safe.
  I, along with every other American, want TSA to have the flexibility 
to move staff and resources as necessary to keep air travel safe. 
However, I do not believe that this flexibility precludes workers from 
having basic rights and protections. In 2002, when Congress created the 
Department of Homeland Security, we debated this very issue. The 
President argued that he needed flexibility in the areas of pay, 
classification, labor relations, and appeals in order to prevent and 
respond to terrorist attacks. While the Homeland Security Act gave the 
President that flexibility, it also explicitly provided for full 
whistleblower protections, collective bargaining, and a fair appeals 
process. I fail to see why TSA employees should be denied these same 
protections.
  Since 2001, TSA has faced high attrition rates, high numbers of 
workers compensation claims, and low employee morale which, in my 
opinion, are a direct result of a lack of employee rights and 
protections. Without collective bargaining, employees have no voice in 
their working conditions, which could drastically reduce attrition 
rates. Moreover, without a fair process to bring whistleblower 
complaints, employees are constrained in coming forward to disclose 
vulnerabilities to national security. At our hearing yesterday, Mr. 
Hawley said that he knew of only one TSO whistleblower case that was 
investigated by the Office of Special Counsel, OSC, in the past 2 
years. For non-TSOs, the number of whistleblower cases is 12. However, 
OSC informs me that it has received 124 whistleblower complaints since 
OSC began investigating TSO whistleblower cases. This demonstrates to 
me that even without full rights and protections, employees are trying 
to come forward and disclose wrongdoing and threats to public health 
and safety. However, a lack of protections may keep others from coming 
forward when only one TSO has seen a positive resolution to their case.
  Granted, TSA has made improvements in managing the screening 
workforce, but we must build upon these efforts and give employees a 
real place at the table. Protecting employees from retaliatory action 
complements efforts to secure our nation. Strong employee rights and 
protections ensures that we have a screener workforce focused on their 
mission and not preoccupied by fear of retaliatory treatment by 
management. As such, I urge my colleagues to ensure that TSOs, who work 
to provide safe air transportation for all Americans, receive basic 
worker rights and protections.
  I have a letter from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association 
which opposes the premise that collective bargaining could adversely 
affect national security. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Federal Law Enforcement


                                         Officers Association,

                                    Lewisberry, PA, March 2, 2007.
     Hon. Daniel Akaka, Chairman,
     Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the 
         Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Akaka: As the President of the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), representing over 
     25,000 Federal law enforcement officers, I am writing to you 
     regarding a potential threat of a veto of vital law 
     enforcement legislation (H.R. 1 and S. 4) that Congress is 
     about to pass, because of the provision giving TSA employees 
     collective bargaining rights.
       We have sat back in silence and watched the on-going debate 
     over collective bargaining rights for TSA employees, since 
     this

[[Page 5504]]

     does not directly impact our members. However, now that this 
     issue has the potential to stop implementation of the final 
     9/11 Commission Recommendation Bill, we deem it appropriate 
     to weigh in.
       The absurd premise put out by both DHS and TSA that being a 
     union member precludes someone from serving our country in a 
     national security capacity is unacceptable. There are 
     currently hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers 
     on a Federal, State and local level who are all members of a 
     union and have collective bargaining rights. This has never 
     impacted their ability to react to terrorist threats, respond 
     to terrorist incidents or impaired their ability to fulfill 
     their critical mission of homeland security. This was quite 
     evident on September 11, 2001.
       FLEOA supports and agrees with the recent statement of AFGE 
     President John Gage, when he stated, ``The notion that 
     granting bargaining rights to TSOs would result in a less 
     flexible workforce is just plain nonsense, and is also an 
     insult to the hundreds of thousands of dedicated public 
     safety officers with collective bargaining rights from Border 
     Patrol Agents to firefighters to Capitol Hill Police.''
       Senator Akaka, thank you for your support in this matter 
     and your continued support for the entire Federal workforce. 
     You truly are a friend to all of us in Federal law 
     enforcement and we appreciate all of your efforts on our 
     behalf.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Art Gordon,
                                               National President.

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

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

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

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

                                NAYS--46

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Dole
     Enzi
     Johnson
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page 5505]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). The Senator from New Jersey.


                           Amendment No. 352

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, just a little while earlier, I offered 
an amendment that deals with trying to move us forward in a middle 
ground on the question of cargo screening.
  Last week, this body voted down an amendment that I offered with 
Senator Schumer that would have set some strong, clear deadlines to 
achieve 100 percent scanning of cargo coming into our Nation's ports. 
While I wish we could have persuaded more of our colleagues to support 
this framework for expanding scanning of our cargo containers, I 
understand a number of our colleagues have serious concerns about the 
consequences of setting a strict timeline to achieve 100 percent 
scanning. I hope this body will take a step forward toward achieving 
that goal rather than take no action at all.
  With that in mind, the amendment I have offered I hope will find a 
middle ground. This amendment would ensure that we are indeed on the 
road to 100 percent scanning of cargo, but it would not do so within 
the confines of any strict deadline. Instead, it builds upon the 
framework of the SAFE Port Act to call for a plan to meet the goal of 
100 percent scanning. The SAFE Port Act already requires the Department 
of Homeland Security to report on the lessons learned from the pilot 
program currently underway at six ports. This amendment would simply 
expand that reporting requirement by calling on the Department to 
submit a plan for achieving 100 percent scanning of cargo before it 
reaches U.S. ports.
  I think all of us agree that we want to obtain the goal of 100 
percent scanning of cargo containers. We may disagree on how to 
implement that goal or what timeline we should set, but at the end of 
the day I think we all know that 100 percent scanning is the ideal that 
we should strive for. That is essentially what this amendment is about. 
It simply prods the Department to come up with a plan to take the 
lessons learned from the pilot project and submit a proposal for 
reaching 100 percent scanning.
  We have to look at a few contradictions in our national security. Not 
everyone who walks into the White House is a high threat. Yet we screen 
100 percent of people. We need to apply the same understanding to other 
aspects of our security. We must recognize that the terrorists will 
come to understand what we consider as high-risk cargo. As we say we 
are looking at high-risk cargo and we do 100 percent of that, that 
still leaves 95 percent of all the cargo unscanned. Eventually, the 
terrorists will adapt and they will determine that they should go and 
try to place their device in that which is not considered high-risk 
cargo. Without 100 percent scanning, we will not be able to adapt to 
terrorists as they change their tactics.
  We have seen in aviation security how they have changed their 
strategy from box cutters, to shoes, to liquids. The methods they use 
to infiltrate our security continue to evolve. So must we. We are naive 
to think only high-risk cargo should be scanned. We need to be able to 
be as adaptable as they are so we can stay one step ahead.
  My colleagues, in noting their opposition to the Schumer-Menendez 
amendment last week, did not object to the goal of reaching 100 percent 
scanning. In fact, the distinguished Senator from Maine stressed the 
importance of moving forward with vigorous implementation of the SAFE 
Port Act, including the requirement that 100 percent of all high-risk 
cargo be scanned. I would argue this amendment helps achieve that goal 
and will ensure that we continue to move forward toward 100 percent 
scanning.
  Last year, I offered an amendment that would have required the 
Department to develop a similar plan to achieve 100 percent scanning, 
and there were a few provisions my colleague from Maine took issue 
with, and so we have amended this version. In the scheme of things, 
this is a very small additional requirement for the Department, but in 
my opinion it takes us a significant step forward toward a very crucial 
goal.
  Finally, this amendment does not ignore the progress we are making 
because of the SAFE Port Act. In fact, it would build upon the SAFE 
Port Act's goal of expanding scanning at foreign ports on a reasonable 
timeline.
  I also hope my colleagues will not look at the 9/11 Commission Report 
as a way to argue that improving security of our cargo is not in line 
with the 9/11 Commission recommendations. There is no doubt our ports 
remain one of the most vulnerable transportation assets. The 9/11 
Commission recognized this. Let's take a step back and look at what the 
Commission actually said.
  First, I think it is important to keep the Commission's report in 
context. It runs nearly 600 pages and covers an incredible amount of 
material, from a factual accounting of the events leading up to 
September 11, an assessment of the weaknesses of our national security, 
and, finally, what the Commission itself calls a limited number of 
recommendations. The recommendations are wide ranging in scope, and 
there is no way we can expect each recommendation to carry out each 
detail of what that recommendation should entail and the action that 
should be carried out.
  In discussing cargo security, the Commission lumped it together with 
aviation and transportation security. Given the nature of the attacks, 
we understand the obvious focus on aviation security. However, the 
Commission also noted the vulnerabilities in cargo security and 
lamented the lack of a strategic plan for maritime security.
  In making its recommendations on transportation security, the 
Commission called on Congress to do two very specific things: Set a 
specific date for the completion of these plans, and hold the 
Department of Homeland Security accountable for achieving them.
  I could not agree more. We come to the floor calling for the 
opportunity to work our way, building upon the present port security 
initiative--to work our way to see the Department of Homeland Security 
give us a plan to achieve that final goal, recognizing all of the 
challenges. In doing so, we move closer and closer to that day in 
which, in fact, we will be adaptable to the reality that at some point 
the terrorists will come to understand that only going after high-risk 
cargo leaves them a huge opening, 95 percent of all the other cargo, to 
get in their weapon of mass destruction.
  That is not a risk that we can afford. We need to be right all the 
time. They only need to be right once. Therefore, I believe this is an 
amendment that creates a middle ground and moves us forward to that 100 
percent scanning opportunity and therefore improves our national 
security. I hope when the time comes to vote on it we will have the 
support of our colleagues in this body.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________