[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14002-14044]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 474 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. 2200.

                              {time}  1225


                     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. 2200) to authorize the Transportation Security Administration's 
programs relating to the provision of transportation security, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Hastings of Florida 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.
  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. King) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much 
time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security 
Administration Authorization Act. This legislation is a product of 
months of negotiations, and includes significant contribution from 
Republicans, industry stakeholders, labor, the Government 
Accountability Office and the Department of Homeland Security's 
Inspector General.
  I want to recognize the bipartisan efforts of my colleagues on the 
committee, most especially, Ms. Jackson-Lee, the chair, and Mr. Dent, 
the ranking member. They worked hard to produce a thorough, 
comprehensive, well-considered bill.
  H.R. 2200 is the first measure to come to the House floor that fully 
authorizes the Transportation Security Administration since its 
establishment in 2001. Since that time, TSA has made significant 
strides and rolled out several important programs to address security 
challenges. As a result, today our transportation systems are more 
secure than they were on September 11, 2001. However, they are not as 
secure as they need to be.
  With the change in administrations, TSA is at a critical crossroads 
in its 8-year history. H.R. 2200 steers TSA on a course to becoming an 
effective agency that works to enhance security in all our 
transportation sectors, partners with key stakeholders, and does a 
better job of utilizing technology to address gaps in security.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill fulfills our constitutional responsibility to 
provide a thorough road map to TSA on where it should go the next 2 
years. H.R. 2200 authorizes $15.6 billion for TSA for fiscal year 2010 
and fiscal year 2011. With these resources, the bill directs TSA, for 
the first time, to work to achieve greater parity between security 
efforts to protect aviation and surface transportation systems.
  In the past few years, attacks on rail stations worldwide have 
underscored the vulnerabilities to these systems. In response, H.R. 
2200 triples funding for surface transportation over what was provided 
in fiscal year 2009, and authorizes 300 more surface transportation 
inspectors.
  Among its key provisions is the creation of a Transit Security 
Advisory Committee to provide greater stakeholder input and a Surface 
Transportation Security Inspection Office to train and manage 
inspectors.
  The bill also strengthens security training for transportation 
security officers, flight attendants, all cargo pilots, surface 
transportation workers, and Federal flight deck officers.
  I'm particularly pleased that we were able to include provisions to 
enhance flight attendants' training and reimbursement for pilots 
participating in Federal flight deck officers recurrent training.
  To bolster airport security and screening, H.R. 2200 authorizes a 
demonstration project and plan for the implementation of a secure 
verification system for law enforcement officers flying while armed.
  Further, it directs TSA to develop a strategic risk-based plan to 
enhance security of airport perimeter access controls and a 
demonstration program for

[[Page 14003]]

biometric-based access control systems.
  For too long we've been told that the wide-scale deployment of 
biometrics is too difficult and impractical. But just last week, Mr. 
Chairman, I saw biometrics, including readers, in use in Argentina at a 
port and a federal building. This bill embraces the promise of this and 
other 21st-century technologies to address our security challenges.
  Additionally, there are a number of other noteworthy provisions that 
grew out of extensive committee oversight that covers such programs as 
Registered Traveler, Secure Flight, and the TWIC program.

                              {time}  1230

  For example, the bill directs DHS to work with port operators to help 
workers who are waiting for TWIC cards to be escorted so they can 
continue to work. The TWIC provision also puts in place strict 
timelines and flexibility on how cards are transmitted.
  A key theme that runs throughout the bill is greater stakeholder 
participation.
  The Aviation Security Advisory Committee is codified in this bill. 
So, too, is the Air Cargo and General Aviation Working Groups.
  General aviation, in particular, gets a great deal of attention in 
this bill. Members from both sides of the aisle have expressed serious 
concern about TSA's approach when it comes to general aviation. Until 
recently, TSA displayed a lack of understanding of the uniqueness of 
the general aviation environment. H.R. 2200 takes some major steps 
forward, with the authorization of a strong General Aviation Working 
Group and the establishment of a new grant program for security 
improvements to general aviation airports.
  Finally, H.R. 2200 makes key improvements to air cargo and checked 
baggage security. Specifically, H.R. 2200 eliminates the use of bag 
match as an alternative means of checked baggage screening.
  It also directs TSA to develop a process to consider reimbursement 
claims by airports who invested in in-line explosive detection 
equipment on a promise that TSA would defray the costs.
  With respect to air cargo, it requires TSA to report on the status of 
the Certified Cargo Screening Program.
  TSA, Mr. Chairman, has testified that the 100 percent screening 
requirement for passenger planes will not be achieved by 2010 because 
TSA has had to expend extensive resources on trying to negotiate 
international agreements with foreign authorities on inbound 
international cargo. TSA, as a domestic security agency, lacks 
jurisdiction or expertise to negotiate such agreements. Achievement of 
this requirement is, therefore, dependent upon assistance from CBP, the 
State Department and others, and, most specifically, foreign 
governments.
  To ensure that TSA meets the statutory 100 percent screening 
requirement, section 201 of the bill gives TSA up to 2 more years to 
negotiate agreements on inbound international cargo. Enactment of H.R. 
2200, therefore, will help TSA put needed focus on working to meet 
mandates for screening all cargo transported between U.S. airports on 
passenger planes, whether originating in the U.S. or abroad.
  This provision in no way eliminates the 100 percent screening 
requirement. Instead, it sets TSA up for success and is responsive to 
the real-world challenges of implementing the mandate in jurisdictions 
where TSA has no jurisdiction.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to our work today, and I encourage my 
colleagues to pass H.R. 2200 in a swift, bipartisan fashion in order to 
better ensure the security of all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record exchanges of letters on this 
legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to address concerns put forth in the Minority Views 
section of the Committee Report for H.R. 2200. Specifically, I want to 
address the Minority's assertion that the Majority rejected 
consideration of proposed amendments during committee consideration of 
the bill.
  As is its custom, the Committee used a roster for amendments during 
both full and subcommittee consideration of the TSA Authorization bill. 
Each amendment submitted to be placed on the roster was considered by 
the Committee unless the sponsor decided to withdraw it from 
consideration.
  Each of the twenty amendments filed prior to the Full Committee 
markup were placed on the roster for Committee consideration. Of the 
twenty amendments filed, thirteen were sponsored by Minority Members. 
All but two of the thirteen amendments filed for the roster by Minority 
Members were offered. Of the eleven amendments offered by Minority 
Members for committee consideration, eight were agreed to and included 
in the reported version of the bill.
  H.R. 2200, the TSA Authorization Act, is the product of months of bi-
partisan cooperation and negotiations. Provisions proposed by the 
Minority were included in the bill at each and every stage of its 
consideration. Contrary to the assertion in the Minority Views, at no 
point during Committee consideration did the Majority prevent the 
Minority from putting forth amendments for consideration.
  In closing, I would remind the Chair that the Committee on Homeland 
Security has a strong record of working in a bi-partisan fashion to 
ensure sound homeland security legislation is put before the House. As 
Chairman, I am committed to ensuring that practice continues.

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 2009.
     Hon. Bart Gordon,
     Chairman, Committee on Science and Technology, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 
     2200, the ``Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act,'' introduced by Congresswoman Sheila 
     Jackson-Lee on April 30, 2009.
       I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this 
     legislation. I acknowledge that the Committee on Science and 
     Technology has a jurisdictional interest in certain 
     provisions of H.R. 2200. I appreciate your agreement to not 
     seek a sequential referral of this legislation and I 
     acknowledge that your decision to forgo a sequential referral 
     does not waive, alter, or otherwise affect the jurisdiction 
     of the Committee on Science and Technology.
       I will ensure that this exchange of letters is included in 
     the legislative report on H.R. 2200 and in the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration of the bill. I look forward 
     to working with you on this legislation and other matters of 
     great importance to this nation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Bennie G. Thompson,
                                                         Chairman.
                                  ____
                                  
         House of Representatives, Committee on Science and 
           Technology,
                                     Washington, DC, May 15, 2009.
     Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science and 
     Technology in H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security 
     Administration Authorization Act. H.R. 2200 was introduced 
     and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security on April 
     30, 2009.
       H.R. 2200 contains provisions that fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Science and Technology. I 
     acknowledge the importance of H.R. 2200 and the need for the 
     legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a 
     valid claim to jurisdiction over this bill, I agree not to 
     request a sequential referral. This, of course, is 
     conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this 
     legislation or my decision to forgo a sequential referral 
     waives, reduces, or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Science and Technology, and that a copy of this 
     letter and of your response will be included in the 
     legislative report on H.R. 2200 and in the Congressional 
     Record when the bill is considered on the House Floor.
       I also ask for your commitment to support our request to be 
     conferees during any House-Senate conference on H.R. 2200 or 
     similar legislation.
       Thank you for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bart Gordon,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2009.
     Hon. James L. Oberstar,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Oberstar: Thank you for your letter regarding 
     H.R. 2200, the ``Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act,'' introduced by Congresswoman Sheila 
     Jackson-Lee on April 30, 2009.
       I appreciate your willingness to work cooperatively on this 
     legislation. I acknowledge that the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure has a jurisdictional 
     interest

[[Page 14004]]

     in certain provisions of H.R. 2200. I appreciate your 
     agreement to not seek a sequential referral of this 
     legislation and I acknowledge that your decision to forgo a 
     sequential referral does not waive, alter, or otherwise 
     affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure.
       Further, I recognize that your Committee reserves the right 
     to seek appointment of conferees on the bill for the portions 
     of the bill over which your Committee has a jurisdictional 
     interest and I agree to support such a request.
       I will ensure that this exchange of letters is included in 
     the legislative report on H.R. 2200 and in the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration of the bill. I look forward 
     to working with you on this legislation and other matters of 
     great importance to this nation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Bennie G. Thompson,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

         House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and 
           Infrastructure,
                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2009.
     Hon. Bennie G. Thompson,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thompson: I write to you regarding H.R. 2200, 
     the ``Transportation Security Administration Authorization 
     Act of 2009''.
       H.R. 2200 contains provisions that fall within the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure. I recognize and appreciate your desire to 
     bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious 
     manner and, accordingly, I will not seek a sequential 
     referral of the bill. However, I agree to waive consideration 
     of this bill with the mutual understanding that my decision 
     to forgo a sequential referral of the bill does not waive, 
     reduce, or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure over H.R. 2200.
       Further, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     reserves the right to seek the appointment of conferees 
     during any House-Senate conference convened on this 
     legislation on provisions of the bill that are within the 
     Committee's jurisdiction. I ask for your commitment to 
     support any request by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure for the appointment of conferees on H.R. 2200 
     or similar legislation.
       Please place a copy of this letter and your response 
     acknowledging the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure's jurisdictional interest in the Committee 
     Report on H.R. 2200 and in the Congressional Record during 
     consideration of the measure in the House.
       I look forward to working with you as we prepare to pass 
     this important legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                James L. Oberstar,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                               Committee on Homeland Security,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 2009.
     Hon. Nydia M. Velazquez,
     Chairwoman, Committee on Small Business, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairwoman Velazquez: Thank you for your letter 
     regarding H.R. 2200, the ``Transportation Security 
     Administration Authorization Act,'' introduced by 
     Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee on April 30, 2009.
       I acknowledge that Section 103 of the reported version of 
     the bill contains a provision within the jurisdictional 
     interest of the Committee on Small Business. I appreciate 
     your agreement to not seek a sequential referral of this 
     legislation and I acknowledge that your decision to forgo a 
     sequential referral does not waive, alter, or otherwise 
     affect the jurisdiction of the Committee on Small Business. I 
     will be offering a manager's amendment to the legislation 
     that will strike Section 103 of the bill.
       I will ensure that this exchange of letters is included in 
     the legislative report on H.R. 2200 and in the Congressional 
     Record during floor consideration of the bill. I look forward 
     to working with you on this legislation and other matters of 
     great importance to this nation.
           Sincerely,
                                               Bennie G. Thompson,
     Chairman.
                                  ____

                                         House of Representatives,


                                  Committee on Small Business,

                                   Washington, DC, April 19, 2009.
     Hon. Bennie Thompson,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to you concerning the 
     jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Small Business in 
     H.R. 2200, Transportation Security Administration Act of 
     2009.
       The Committee on Small Business recognizes the importance 
     of the legislation and the need to move the legislation 
     expeditiously. Therefore, while the Committee on Small 
     Business has a valid claim to jurisdiction of Section 103 of 
     the bill, I will agree not to request a sequential referral 
     even though the Speaker and the Parliamentarian of the House 
     recognize this Committee's valid assertion of jurisdiction 
     over parts of the bill. I appreciate your willingness to 
     striking section 103 of H.R. 2200 from the bill in the 
     manager's amendment.
       Nothing in this legislation or my decision to forgo a 
     sequential referral waives, reduces, or otherwise affects the 
     jurisdiction of the Committee on Small Business. I request 
     that a copy of this letter and of your response acknowledging 
     our valid jurisdictional interest be included as part of the 
     Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the 
     House.
       I share the Chairman's commitment to increase contracting 
     opportunities for small businesses in the federal marketplace 
     and look forward to working with him on this and other 
     matters to achieve this.
           Sincerely,
                                               Nydia M. Velazquez,
                             Chairwoman, Small Business Committee.

  Mr. Chairman, I'd also like at this time to acknowledge my ranking 
Member, Mr. King from New York, who played a very important role in 
shepherding this legislation through the committee, and I'd like to 
acknowledge that at this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KING of New York. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, at the very outset, let me commend Chairman Thompson 
and his staff and the majority side for the cooperation that they 
extended on this bill for making a truly bipartisan effort. I also want 
to commend the chair of the subcommittee, Sheila Jackson-Lee, for her 
bipartisan spirit and also, in a special way, Congressman Dent, the 
ranking member of the subcommittee.
  This, as the chairman said, was a collaborative effort. There was 
tremendous cooperation. Obviously, there's some differences between 
what we wanted and what ended up in this bill, but basically, it's a 
fine bill.
  And, Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend the outstanding men and 
women of the TSA for the job that they do day in and day out in 
protecting us. I see Mr. Pascrell is here. Just in the New York-New 
Jersey region alone, last year they inspected 110 million passengers 
coming through those airports, and again, last week alone, they 
confiscated 23 illegal firearms that were going through airports. So 
they do a very, very dedicated and outstanding job. And also, as far as 
rail transportation, VIPER Teams have become a vital part of our 
homeland security apparatus.
  Having said that, let me just mention some of the concerns I do have 
about the bill.
  One is, Mr. Chairman, that there is, as of now, as of yet, no TSA 
administrator. Also, my understanding is that there is not even anyone 
in the wings. There's no one being considered, no one's being mentioned 
to be the TSA administrator, and yet we put together this bill, which I 
think is a good bill, but without any input from the head of TSA. And 
since this is a 2-year authorization, we're going to be basically 
laying out a plan, a plan of action for the next 2 years, I would have 
preferred that we could have waited until we got an administrator in 
place to work with us on it.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I raised the issue--and I think these two 
issues are now interrelated--the issue of an authorization bill and the 
issue of jurisdiction. This will be, as I see it, the second year in a 
row that the committee will not have done an authorization bill. And 
yet next week in the appropriations subcommittee, the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill will be marked up, and the appropriators will act 
without our committee's input on 80 percent of the Department of 
Homeland Security's budget. They will act without our input on 75 
percent of the Department of Homeland Security's personnel. And they 
will consider funding of programs, like the 287(g) program, border 
security, student visa enforcement, FEMA's hurricane response 
capabilities, the Coast Guard's port security programs, Secret Service 
protection of the President, to name a few, all without guidance from 
this committee.
  Now, I believe the main reason for this--and I understand the 
position that the chairman is in--the main, I

[[Page 14005]]

think, as I see the reason is that because of the multiplicity of 
jurisdictional claims to homeland security, it is very difficult for 
our committee to move forward. Now, the 9/11 Commission, one of their 
strongest recommendations was that homeland security be consolidated in 
one committee.
  Several years ago, there were 88 committees and subcommittees that 
claimed some piece of jurisdiction over homeland security. That number 
is now up to 108, and this should not be a partisan issue. Both 
Secretary Chertoff in the previous administration and Secretary 
Napolitano in the Obama administration have called for consolidation, 
and yet it's not being done.
  So, for instance, if we had gone forward and tried to do an 
authorization bill, we couldn't authorize the Coast Guard or FEMA 
because the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure would 
object. We couldn't authorize Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the 
Secret Service, or U.S. Citizen Immigration Services because the 
Committee on Judiciary would object. And we can't authorize Customs and 
Border Protection because the Ways and Means Committee would object.
  So I think it's really important that we make an effort over the next 
year during this Congress to implement, again, one of the most 
fundamental concerns of the 9/11 Commission, and that was to 
consolidate jurisdiction in one committee, the Homeland Security 
Committee.
  And I believe that in 2005 and 2006, when this side of the aisle did 
control the committee, we did get authorization bills done, and there 
were jurisdictional disputes. We won them, and I think that was the 
direction we were going in, and the direction we should continue to go 
in.
  I gave the chairman tremendous credit 2 years ago when we adopted 
H.R. 1, which implemented many of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, 
but this fundamental one still has not been done. And I realize that no 
one likes to cede jurisdiction, no one likes to give up turf, but the 
fact is we're talking about an issue that threatens the survival of our 
country, homeland security. And so long as we have this dysfunctional 
system where jurisdiction is spread out over so many committees of the 
Congress, I don't believe we can fully do the job that we should do.
  The chairman does a good job, the staff does a good job, I believe we 
do a very good job on our side of the aisle, but we are limited because 
of these jurisdictional limitations. And so as we go forward on this 
debate today, I would hope we would keep that in mind, and as we go 
forward over the course of the year, we keep that in mind, also, as we 
try to do the job that we were established to do when we became a 
permanent committee back in 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Dent, the ranking 
member of the subcommittee, be authorized to control the remainder of 
my time, and I reserve the balance of our time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. King)?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how 
much time each side has remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) has 21\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) has 
24\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to recognize the 
vice chair of the full committee for 2 minutes, Ms. Sanchez, for a 
colloquy.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of 
H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization 
Act, and I would like to engage the honorable Member from Mississippi, 
the chairman, Mr. Thompson, in a colloquy regarding the Transportation 
Worker Identity Credential, or TWIC as it is known here in the 
Congress.
  During the full committee markup, I offered an amendment addressing 
several important issues within the TWIC program, and I was pleased 
that my amendment was passed unanimously.
  A key provision in my amendment requires that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security work with owners and operators of facilities and 
vessels to develop procedures which allow those who are waiting for 
their TWIC card to have access to secure and restricted areas, as long 
as they are escorted. This also applies to those who are waiting for a 
reissuance of an existing card.
  Without clear collaboration between DHS and port officials, 
individuals waiting for their TWIC card have been unable to work. Some 
workers have waited up to 15 months to receive their TWIC card.
  And the goal of my amendment is to ensure that these workers are 
still able to support themselves and their families.
  Many people have been negatively affected by TSA's delays in issuing 
the TWIC. For example, there's the case of a longshoreman in the Port 
of Seattle who applied for a TWIC on October 25, 2008, more than 4 
months before he was required to do so at his port. And unfortunately, 
the gentleman was unable to work for several weeks since it took 4 
months for TSA to come back to him and to ask for a copy of his birth 
certificate. You see, he had been born on a military base abroad, and I 
understand that the gentleman had to drain his savings account to 
support his family while he waited for his TWIC, and thus, this is 
unacceptable.
  I hope this legislation becomes law soon, and in the meantime, we 
must act immediately to ensure that our port workers are able to work 
and support their families.
  I want to thank Chairman Thompson for his support on this issue.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield an additional 30 seconds to 
respond.
  I appreciate the gentlewoman from California's leadership on this 
critical issue. I share her concerns about the impact that applications 
backlogs has had on port workers around the Nation and appreciate the 
comprehensive approach she has taken to addressing the weaknesses in 
the program that she has identified through her oversight work on the 
committee and look forward to solving the problem.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Recently, while I was on a hunting trip up 
north, I flew out of an airport in Montana. The number of screeners 
actually outnumbered the number of passengers. So, when this bill came 
before the Homeland Security Committee, I offered several amendments, 
one of which would have required a GAO study of the current staffing 
levels at TSA to determine their appropriateness and whether or not 
staffing levels could be reduced by consolidation of duties and 
functions or by enhanced use of technology.
  In March 2009, GAO reported that, ``TSA has not followed Federal 
internal control standards to assist it in implementing DHS's risk 
management framework and informing resource allocation.'' I wanted to 
ensure that hard-earned taxpayer funds were being used in the most 
cost-effective and efficient manner and ensure that TSA wouldn't become 
known as Thousands Standing Around.

                              {time}  1245

  I'm disappointed that my amendment was not accepted. A number of 
commonsense provisions were not included by the majority, or were 
watered down to avoid the jurisdiction of other committees. Rather than 
produce a good bill and negotiate final language with other committees, 
our committee only allowed provisions to be considered in committee 
that were wholly within the Committee on Homeland Security's rule 10 
jurisdiction. This bill could be much better.
  For example, the majority showed that they saw no value in affirming 
TSA employees' rights to protect themselves during a public health 
emergency. One of my amendments offered in committee would have simply

[[Page 14006]]

allowed any TSA employee to choose to wear a protective face mask in 
the event of a pandemic flu outbreak or other public health emergency.
  TSA employees encounter 2 million domestic and international 
passengers every day and should not be prohibited by their supervisors 
from wearing the appropriate personal protective equipment in the event 
of a public health emergency, particularly when the disease is both 
contagious and deadly.
  The National Treasury Employees Union, which represents many of the 
employees, voiced strong support for this provision designed to protect 
the TSA's frontline officers. The only reason this provision was 
essentially gutted by the majority with a ``perfecting'' amendment and 
any references to public health emergency was removed is because the 
provision could have allowed the Committee on Energy and Commerce to 
review the language requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
collaborate with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  Other changes were made to weaken other Republican amendments as 
well. At the markup, I, along with my fellow Republican members of the 
committee, unanimously supported an amendment authored by 
Representative Mark Souder that would have placed any detainee that is 
housed down at Guantanamo Bay on or after January 1, 2009, to place 
them on TSA's No Fly List. I think that makes sense.
  Again, this amendment was gutted, giving the President the sole 
authority to determine if a former Guantanamo detainee should be 
assigned to the No Fly List. The committee must assert its jurisdiction 
and conduct vigorous oversight of the transfer or release of detainees 
currently housed at Guantanamo Bay.
  The Homeland Security Committee is the primary authorizing committee 
for the Department of Homeland Security, which was created after the 9/
11 attacks to protect our homeland. We cannot shirk our responsibility. 
It is justified and necessary for this committee to take a lead role in 
protecting and securing American citizens.
  I'm pleased, however, that my cybersecurity amendment was included 
with others in the bipartisan en bloc amendment adopted by the 
committee. My amendment adds the vulnerability of cyberattack to the 
list of risks to be assessed and ranked by TSA.
  Reports indicate that civilian air traffic computer networks have 
been penetrated multiple times in recent years.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DENT. I yield an additional 30 seconds to Dr. Broun.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. They include an attack that partially shut down 
air traffic data systems in Alaska. Our transportation systems are 
networked. Train switches can operate remotely. Even some metro buses 
can change a traffic light as they approach. It is a very important 
amendment, and I thank my colleagues for accepting it.
  In closing, I would like to thank my colleagues and the staff on this 
committee from both sides of the aisle for working together on this 
bill and on numerous other amendments in a bipartisan manner. I'm sorry 
we cannot come to agreement on all of our amendments.
  Going forward, I hope that we can work together to address the 
jurisdiction concerns that have caused so many problems for our 
committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Paterson, New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong support of H.R. 
2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, as 
this is a necessary piece of legislation that is long overdue. In fact, 
we have never fully authorized the TSA since the enactment of the 
Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001.
  I want to particularly thank Mr. Thompson, who chaired this and led 
this legislation through committee; along with Peter King, the ranking 
member; Ms. Jackson-Lee as the subcommittee chairwoman; and Mr. Dent 
from Pennsylvania. I want to congratulate all of them for working hard 
to have a bipartisan piece of legislation.
  We recognize that the safety of the American people must be our 
number one job. Nothing that we do here can supercede that.
  The bill authorizes $7.6 billion in fiscal year 2010 and $8.1 billion 
in fiscal 2011 for the activities of the TSA, including key increases, 
many of which have already been mentioned.
  As an original member of the Homeland Security Committee, one thing I 
observed was that ever since TSA was created in 2001, its focus has 
been almost solely on aviation security, to the detriment of surface 
transportation taken by millions of Americans each day.
  A strong aspect of this legislation is beginning to put surface 
transportation security on an equal footing with aviation security, 
with key surface transportation security enhancements.
  I'm glad to see that this authorization also addresses the long 
unattended issue of airport perimeter security, whose vulnerability to 
infiltration I have tried to highlight for many years. I think that 
this is important. We're looking at it. We're studying this issue so we 
do not overreact but make sure that the perimeters are just as much 
protected as the inside.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I think all of us should read Secretary Napolitano's 
speech yesterday at Aspen, where there were bipartisan group folks 
studying the security of this country. She laid out five principal 
areas of concern if we're going to protect America and its 
neighborhoods. It is a great guidepost to inclusive security. I ask 
that we do this.
  I also ask to consider, Mr. Chairman, in the future the issue and the 
quality of resilience, which Joshua Cooper Ramo presented in his book 
which was just published in March. If we truly want to protect America, 
what about the resiliency and how much can we take that into 
consideration, God forbid we have another attack.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy 
with the distinguished chairman of Homeland Security, Mr. Thompson.
  Mr. Thompson, as we prepare to authorize appropriations for the 
Transportation Security Administration, I'd like to thank you for your 
leadership in the committee and your efforts to bring this legislation 
to the floor.
  I would also like to bring to your attention an issue that needs to 
be corrected. In 2003, when I was chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, language was included in the Vision 100 Act, 
Public Law 108-176, which required deployment of TSA screeners in the 
Alaskan communities of Kenai, Homer, and Valdez. Since that time, the 
Ted Stevens International Airport has improved bag screening 
capabilities and can adequately screen bags for the three previously 
mentioned airports.
  Kenai, Homer, and Valdez are serviced by air carriers under a partial 
program. There are no regulatory requirements to screen bags for 
partial program carriers, so section 613 of the Vision 100 Act imposes 
a requirement not in effect for other similarly situated airports. The 
screeners are no longer needed, and TSA has asked that I repeal the 
language from Vision 100.
  This will not cost any money. Rather, this will save TSA money. TSA 
has informed me that by including this legislation in the TSA 
Authorization, it would save $1 million a year.
  I'd like to ask the gentleman to comment on this.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Let me say that I appreciate the 
gentleman from Alaska bringing this to my attention. This is a novel 
issue for us, but I believe there could be some efficiencies in making 
the change. I'm pleased to work with you on this issue as the bill 
moves to conference.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I thank the gentleman for working with us. And 
this is requested by the TSA, and hopefully when this bill gets to 
conference, this will be included.

[[Page 14007]]

  I thank the gentleman for working with me.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. I rise today in support of the TSA reauthorization bill 
and to thank Chairman Thompson for his leadership in this important 
issue. I also would like to highlight two elements of the bill that I 
particularly support.
  It's been over 7 years since the attacks of September 11 and there 
are still no guidelines for security training for flight attendants. 
H.R. 2200 requires that these individuals undergo mandatory and 
standardized security training.
  Flight attendants are the only working group in the cabin aboard 
every commercial flight. They are literally on the front lines. They 
are an integral part of air security.
  This legislation provides for meaningful training that will equip 
these flight attendants with danger detection and self-defense 
techniques and other important skills needed in the event of a crisis. 
This mandatory security training, which is needed and wanted by flight 
attendants, is an important step in ensuring our skies are as safe as 
they can be.
  The second aspect of this legislation that I'd like to address is 
general aviation. In 2008, there were more than 400,000 general 
aviation flights from the Las Vegas area serving an estimated 1.3 
million passengers. From our three local airports, you can take one of 
these flights to view the grandeur of the Grand Canyon and the desert 
which surrounds our city.
  General aviation flights are also critical to supplying goods to Las 
Vegas. And they also are an efficient means for business travelers to 
reach our great city, one of the most popular business travel 
destinations.
  This is a vital industry to my district, and I will be a voice for it 
here in Congress. I am hopeful that the TSA will involve this important 
industry in rulemaking, and I'm confident that they will.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining on this side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 18\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from Mississippi has 15 minutes.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the State of Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from the great 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for yielding. I also rise in support of 
H.R. 2200.
  Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, our Nation took 
unprecedented steps to secure our Nation's airlines. Since then, 
Congress has continued to provide the needed level of funding to ensure 
that our airlines are among the safest in the world. But until 
recently, however, rail and transit security grant programs remain 
badly underfunded given both the volume of riders carried each day and 
the known terrorist threat to such passengers.
  Each weekday, more than 14 million people use public transportation. 
Nearly 30 million people ride Amtrak each year, including millions of 
commuters along the heavily traveled Northeast corridor. Given the 
attacks on rail and transit in Spain, the United Kingdom, and India, 
this is a vulnerability that cannot be ignored.
  In response, I have worked closely with Congressmen Peter King, Rush 
Holt, and other Members of this body to focus more of our security 
efforts on protecting rail and transit riders and infrastructure.
  Over the last several years, we have made progress on this front by 
increasing rail and transit security grant funding, studying foreign 
rail security practices, and expanding rail and transit canine teams 
and public awareness campaigns.
  I must say, however, that I was extremely discouraged to learn in 
March that TSA and FEMA have struggled when it comes to spending 
Federal grant dollars in a timely fashion. In fact, recent reports 
indicate that large percentages of grant dollars appropriated in fiscal 
years 2006, 2007, and 2008 had yet to be awarded to local authorities.
  For this reason, I strongly support section 307 of this legislation, 
which requires the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General 
to investigate the administration of these security grants and make 
recommendations for streamlining the grant award process within 180 
days.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to reading the results of the IG's 
report on the rail and transit security grant distribution process, and 
I encourage my colleagues to support this important legislation.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I recognize for 1\1/2\ 
minutes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for the purposes of 
a colloquy.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate 
the chairman's leadership.
  I rise in a colloquy to discuss with you the TSA revised list of 
prohibited items on airplanes.
  In 2005, they revised rules to allow items up to 7 inches--knitting 
needles, scissors, screwdrivers--but they continue to prohibit tiny pen 
knives under 2.5 inches. I find it frustrating for the traveling public 
who can't understand the distinctions between these items, and it has 
had a significant commercial impact.
  This little Leatherman tool, which is very popular, is manufactured 
in my district. It is certainly less dangerous, one would think, than 
the items that they're already letting in the air. Since they have made 
those rules, it has had a significant impact on the sales because 
consumers don't think about this when they go through airport security 
lines and lose the items.
  I wonder if it's possible to work with you, Mr. Chairman, to 
encourage the TSA to conduct periodic comprehensive reviews of this 
prohibited items list to ensure that it reflects the most current risk-
based assessment?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I can assure the gentleman--and I thank 
him for his concerns--that the committee will work with TSA in 
conducting appropriate and periodic reviews of prohibited items. Your 
graphic display of those prohibited items speaks volumes as to why this 
review should occur.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your words of 
encouragement as I appreciate your leadership, and I look forward to 
working with you.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 90 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Beavercreek, Ohio (Mr. Austria).
  Mr. AUSTRIA. I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank Chairman Thompson, 
Ranking Member King, as well as the subcommittee that worked on this, 
for working in a bipartisan manner.
  All of our lives changed after 9/11. This committee plays a very 
important role in ensuring the safety of all Americans. As a new Member 
of Congress and as a new member of the Homeland Security Committee, it 
is good to see this committee work in a bipartisan manner as we push 
good legislation forward that I support.
  Let me just say that, as a member of that subcommittee who heard this 
bill, we had an opportunity to talk to and to listen to industry 
groups, to business coalitions, to union representatives, and to 
subject matter experts. However, it seems to me that we would have had 
a better opportunity to create an even better bill had we had an 
opportunity to wait for the administrator of TSA to be appointed and to 
understand what policies that new administrator was going to put in 
place. We then would have been able to work around those policies. With 
that being said, the other side of the aisle decided it was important 
to move this legislation forward.
  I think we've got a good bill before us that does some good things. 
It will help ensure that the screening processes that are being used 
for passengers are working. It will help us to address other 
vulnerabilities in our transportation system, such as underwater 
tunnels and open rail lines. It will prohibit

[[Page 14008]]

the outsourcing of terrorist watch lists--No Fly Lists, selectee lists, 
verifications--to other nongovernmental entities or to private 
companies. I think those are good things.
  I also think there were some good amendments that were offered in 
this committee that could have strengthened this bill, and we're going 
to hear about some of those amendments as we proceed.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield the gentleman an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. AUSTRIA. Just to close, I think we have an opportunity to 
strengthen this bill, and I would hope that we will continue to work 
together in a bipartisan manner with this committee to strengthen this 
bill.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished chairwoman of the subcommittee, who also is the author of 
this legislation, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman for his 
leadership on this issue, as well the leadership of the ranking full 
committee member. As well, I am thankful to have had the opportunity to 
work with the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Dent.
  This has been a bipartisan effort. It has been a tough effort for my 
colleagues. It is important to realize that the work has been intense 
and that it has been concerted, direct and, I think, open. I want to 
applaud the process. Likewise, I would like to acknowledge the Homeland 
Security Committee's staff and particularly Mike Finan--the 
subcommittee staff director--for their leadership as well.
  So I rise today with great pride in the efforts of my subcommittee 
and of the full committee, and I look forward to today's swift passage 
of H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization 
Act.
  H.R. 2200 provides TSA with the resources it needs by authorizing 
over $15.6 billion for the Transportation Security Administration for 
FY 2010 and FY 2011. At the beginning of this Congress, Chairman 
Thompson stated that the committee will be moving to pass authorizing 
legislation for the Department of Homeland Security.
  It is good to make good on a promise. It is good that this committee 
recognizes that it is sometimes the only firewall between the security 
of this Nation and the terrible, heinous acts of 
9/11. Sometimes we forget that we are only a few short years away from 
that terribly tragic day that no one in America will ever forget. We 
continue to mourn those who have been lost, and we continue to give our 
support to those families who have experienced those severe and 
devastating losses.
  Therefore, this bill comes before us in the backdrop of recognizing 
the ultimate challenge of our responsibility. The bill before us, the 
Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, helps to 
further this important effort. I am proud that it is substantiated by 
over a dozen hearings held over the past 2 years, by countless 
briefings and by reports from the GAO and from the IG. I am proud of 
the bipartisan manner in which this comprehensive TSA bill was crafted. 
I am especially pleased that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Dent), as I mentioned earlier, is an original cosponsor of this 
legislation.
  Chairman Thompson and Secretary Napolitano agreed during the 
beginning of this Congress that surface transportation security needed 
to be on equal footing with aviation at TSA. This bill furthers this 
important objective.
  As the chairwoman of this subcommittee, I have visited a number of 
surface transportation sites, including the 2nd Street site being built 
in New York--a multibillion dollar project--as there are many new 
starts coming about in this country. The existing rail system is 
utilized by millions of Americans every single day.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill acts on recommendations issued in 2008 by the 
inspector general that were reaffirmed earlier this year by 
establishing the Surface Transportation Security Inspection Office to 
house the Surface Transportation Security Inspection Program, by 
streamlining its mission and by clarifying its command structure.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentlewoman an 
additional 2 minutes.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. In an effort to reach out more 
constructively to surface transportation security stakeholders, this 
bill creates the Surface Transportation Security Advisory Committee to 
give them a formal outlet for giving TSA feedback on security issues.
  My subcommittee has heard many worthy criticisms about the 
dissemination of surface transportation security grants over the last 2 
years. Accordingly, this bill has included language that will begin to 
improve the process so that we can get the inventiveness of America 
back into the security mainstream so that we can secure this Nation.
  This bill also directs the GAO to study the efforts of the 
Department, its components and other relevant entities to learn from 
foreign nations whose passenger rail and transit systems have been 
attacked by terrorists and to access lessons to address security gaps 
in the United States, such as the tragedy of Mumbai, where I visited to 
assess the horrificness of the impact of that terrorist act and of the 
victims who were impacted. In the last several years, we have seen 
attacks on rail systems from Europe to Asia. H.R. 2200 takes steps to 
learn important lessons that can be applied at home.
  In addition, I have worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Daniel E. Lungren) on a provision that creates a new class of materials 
requiring a security background check for truckers. This provision will 
target the transport of truly sensitive materials, and it will enable 
companies and their drivers to have a more seamless gateway to the 
market. I thank the gentleman for his bipartisan cooperation.
  In addition to the great strides this bill makes to secure our 
surface transportation, it also builds on the work we have done over 
the years. Earlier this year, the Inspector General confirmed that TSA 
has in the past compromised covert testing operations. We have 
corrected that. The bill prohibits advanced notice of covert testing. 
H.R. 2200 also codifies the Aviation Security Advisory Committee. It 
requires it to perform specific duties. We also have concerns about 
TSA's proposed rulemaking covering general aviation. We have responded 
to that in this bill.
  The bill also requires the rigorous oversight of the Secure Flight 
passenger watch list matching program by requiring updates to Congress 
every 90 days. In fact, we are not allowing Guantanamo Bay detainees to 
travel without, if you will, regulation at all. We are working with the 
White House.
  I also believe it is important to note that we are training flight 
attendants, that we are working on technologies and are helping TSA 
employees.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a great bill, and I ask my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Macomb County, Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support 
of H.R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization 
Act.
  The men and women of the TSA are really dedicated professionals who 
ensure that our flying public arrive at their destinations safely. 
Although at times it might be a hassle for us to remove our shoes or to 
show our boarding passes and identification, these measures have made 
it much more difficult for terrorists to take advantage of dangerous 
situations or to bring weapons and explosives on commercial aircraft.
  It has been almost 8 years from that horrific day on 9/11 when 
terrorists turned our airplanes into missiles, taking the lives of 
almost 3,000 of our fellow Americans. Thankfully, we've not been 
attacked again, and it's not just because we're lucky. It's because 
dedicated professionals throughout the

[[Page 14009]]

government are working day and night to prevent attacks, and we need to 
provide them with the means to prevent, to deter and to respond to 
terrorist attacks.
  A key piece of our success is that we have not become complacent. We 
must remain vigilant. Part of that vigilance requires that we make 
certain that those charged with ensuring our safety are adequately 
trained. So I was especially pleased to see that a section mandating 
advanced security training for flight attendants was included in this 
bill.
  As we are all too painfully aware, flight attendants were among the 
first victims on 9/11. Flight attendants need to know how to handle a 
crowd and how to be aware of all of the activity that might be 
surrounding them in such an enclosed space. So security training, good 
security training, will help prepare them for such a scenario on how to 
work with the other flight attendants in controlling a crowd or, again, 
being conscious of other things that are going on in the cabin as well.
  In fact, Richard Reid, the convicted shoe bomber, was prevented from 
detonating his shoe, filled with explosives, because alert flight 
attendants interrupted him from detonating those explosives.
  Also, providing adequate security to the flying public should be a 
principle goal of this body, so I was dismayed to see that our friends 
on the other side of the aisle rejected an amendment that would have 
placed all of the detainees from Guantanamo Bay on the No Fly List. 
Instead, they watered down this commonsense amendment and left that 
decision up to the discretion of the President. Now, I don't know about 
you, but I shudder to think that we might allow these detainees to 
actually board a commercial aircraft and to sit next to us and our 
families.
  Isn't the whole purpose of the No Fly List to keep dangerous people 
off these airplanes? I would say, if the Gitmo detainees don't qualify 
for the No Fly List, who in the world does qualify for that list? 
Congress shouldn't allow these dangerous detainees to fly on commercial 
aircraft. I think we should err on the side of caution and put them on 
the No Fly List.
  I want to recognize the good work of Chairman Thompson and certainly 
of Ranking Member King. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2200.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the 
distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi, and I thank all 
of those who have worked on this very important bill.
  I had the opportunity to serve on the committee on oversight. Last 
week, we had a hearing on H1N1, the flu. Most people have forgotten 
about the flu already. What was very startling to me was that, like 
many things, they come and they go in our public consciousness. This 
flu is coming back by all the scientists' projections, and when it 
comes back, it's going to have mutated into an even more deadly strain.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The average age of death of people from this flu is 19 
years old. The average person in an ICU is 24 years old. So this is a 
whole new phenomenon in terms of your father's Chevrolet. This is a 
whole new issue we are dealing with. I would hope that Homeland 
Security would be working with public health and with everyone else to 
help address this.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished naval aviator from Sugar Land, Texas (Mr. Olson).
  Mr. OLSON. Thank you to my friend from Pennsylvania. I will be quick 
here.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2200, the Transportation 
Security Administration Authorization Act, and I urge its immediate 
passage.
  As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I was pleased by the 
serious bipartisan manner in which this legislation was considered. In 
fact, the hard work and dedication that the committee members showed in 
crafting this bill makes me hopeful that we can enact a much-needed, 
full Department of Homeland Security authorization bill rather than 
continue to legislate piece by piece.

                              {time}  1315

  I rise specifically today to speak about the general aviation 
security provisions in the bill and the TSA's Large Aircraft Security 
Program.
  The TSA's notice of proposed rulemaking to address the perceived 
threats posed by general aviation aircraft essentially took the 
Department's principles of risk-based security measures and threw them 
out the window. The deficiencies of the proposal were the direct result 
of consultation without collaboration. The TSA met with industry 
stakeholders and interested parties and then dismissed their input.
  Given the terrible flaws in this process, it is not surprising that 
the proposed product is less than satisfactory as well. Many of the 
provisions will place a heavy financial burden on the general aviation 
community yet result in little genuine improvement in security.
  Now is not the time to put a financial squeeze on an industry that 
contributes so much to our national economy. The TSA has proposed using 
third-party private contractors to review general aviation manifests 
and conduct watch list verifications. I find it unacceptable that 
unaccountable contractors would have access to travelers' personal 
information and have the authority to bar them from a private flight. 
Any check against a No Fly List or Terrorist Watch List is an 
inherently governmental function and must be performed by a 
democratically accountable agency. I am glad the committee adopted my 
amendment that will prohibit such a practice.
  But let me be clear, I strongly support improving security for 
general aviation and airports. What I object to is a heavy-handed 
approach that abandons the risk-based principles upon which TSA 
operates.
  The provision I was able to include in H.R. 2200 is a step in the 
right direction but there is more to be done in the future. I thank the 
committee for hearing my concerns and I am pleased to join them in 
supporting this bill today.
  I would like to thank subcommittee Chairman Jackson-Lee and Chairman 
Thompson for making this a bi-partisan bill and bringing both sides to 
the negotiating table at an early stage. I would also like to thank 
subcommittee ranking member Dent and Committee ranking member King for 
their work on this important issue.
  I urge passage of the bill.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time we have 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 10\1/4\ minutes. The 
gentleman from Mississippi has 7\3/4\ minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill 
because this bill is inclusive in approach and comprehensive in scope. 
It's not perfect, Mr. Chairman, yet it does help perfect Homeland 
Security.
  It provides for surface transportation, security enhancement by 
tripling the funds available. It provides security training and 
performance enhancement for significant employees. It provides that 
airport security and screening enhancement policies be put in place. It 
provides, Mr. Chairman, that foreign repair stations' security be 
elevated to U.S. standards. It provides transportation security 
credential improvements to guard against intruders. It provides for 
domestic air cargo and checked baggage security to better protect the 
traveling public. It provides for a general aviation enhancement grant 
program to help general aviation airports. It provides K-9 detection 
resources to sniff out drugs. It provides research and development to 
integrate transportation and security technologies.
  It's not perfect, yet it does help to perfect Homeland Security. It 
is inclusive in approach in that we had the inclusion of all parties 
interested--the

[[Page 14010]]

partners, all of the stakeholders were brought into this, Republicans 
and Democrats alike, labor and industry as well. It is comprehensive in 
scope.
  I support this bill. I thank the chairman for the wonderful work he 
has done, the ranking member, and also the subcommittee chair, Sheila 
Jackson-Lee, the Congresswoman from Texas, my colleague, as well as Mr. 
Dent, the ranking member.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2200, the 
Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act. This bill 
will help to enhance our Nation's transportation security and contains 
many important provisions.
  I'm particularly pleased that the manager's amendment includes a 
provision I authored to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation 
with respect to the security of pipelines. I thank Chairman Thompson 
for working with me on this issue and for including this in the 
manager's amendment.
  Over the past 36 years, there have been multiple instances of 
individuals rupturing pipelines in areas surrounding my district. Most 
recently in November 2007, three teenagers drilled into an anhydrous 
ammonia pipeline after being told that the pipeline contained money. 
The pipeline breach necessitated the evacuation of nearly 300 people in 
my district.
  At the time, local officials received conflicting guidance from the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation 
about whether this was a security incident or a safety incident.
  My provision seeks to resolve issues of this sort by requiring the 
Comptroller General to study the roles and responsibilities of the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation 
with respect to pipelines and report the results of the study to the 
Committee on Homeland Security within 6 months.
  Finally, my amendment requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
review and analyze the GAO study and report to the Committee on 
Homeland Security on her review and analysis, including recommendations 
for changes to the Annex to the Memorandum of Understanding between DHS 
and DOT or other improvements to pipeline security activities at DHS. 
Clarifying the respective roles of DHS and DOT will help to ensure that 
the officials in the areas that we represent do not receive conflicting 
guidance in the event of a future pipeline breach.
  I'm also pleased that the bill includes my provision that would 
provide reimbursement to airports that used their own funding to 
install explosive detective systems after 9/11. These airports 
installed such systems after receiving assurances from the Federal 
Government that they would be reimbursed. However, to date, they have 
not been reimbursed.
  Congress addressed this issue in section 1604 of the Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act. But despite this explicit 
direction in 2007, TSA has not yet reimbursed a single eligible 
airport. My provision requires TSA to establish a process for resolving 
reimbursement claims within 6 months of receiving them. It also 
requires TSA to report to the Committee on Homeland Security an outline 
of the process used for the consideration for reimbursement claims, 
including a reimbursement schedule. This is a commonsense provision 
that will ensure that airports that did the right thing to protect the 
traveling public after the September 11th attacks will finally get the 
reimbursement they were promised by TSA and Congress.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, but above all, I 
thank him for his masterful work in further cleaning up airport 
transportation security and for the cooperation he established with the 
minority.
  I particularly thank the chair for including helicopters in the 
General Aviation Working Group section and for the working group itself 
because, Mr. Chairman, the large-scale airport requirements have begun 
to creep into general aviation. The best example of that is right here 
in the Nation's Capital, where we're down from 200 general aviation 
flights per month to 200 per year--only, I must say, in the District of 
Columbia because we don't have enough guidance as to how general 
aviation should be treated.
  General Aviation was reopened here in the Nation's Capital for the 
first time only a couple years ago after the Transportation Committee 
threatened to hold TSA in contempt if it didn't open Reagan National 
Airport to general aviation. Then TSA issued regulations that 
essentially kept general aviation out of the Nation's Capital, 
signalling that, 7 or 8 years after 9/11, we still don't know how to 
keep our capital safe, which surely is not the case. The irrationality 
begins to mount. In addition, commercial helicopters had been allowed 
to come to Reagan with the Secret Service's permission, which had kept 
the helicopter port open because it served certain security purposes 
but has closed down commercial service now.
  So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the General Aviation working group 
to straighten out these issues.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to have Mr. McCaul 
control the balance of my time for our side.
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Recently, I participated in a congressional delegation down in 
Guantanamo, the first congressional delegation since the President 
ordered that Guantanamo will be closed. We saw the detainees down 
there. We saw the top 16 al Qaeda operatives. We saw Khalid Sheikh 
Mohammed praying, bowing to Mecca. To look at the man who was 
responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans was perhaps the most 
chilling experience of my congressional career.
  As a former Federal prosecutor, to extend constitutional protections 
to these detainees as criminal defendants is, in my view, setting a 
very dangerous precedent. They were captured on the battlefield, and 
they're enemies of war.
  The Souder amendment--while I do support the overall bill--the denial 
of the Souder amendment raises big concerns, in my view. The idea that 
detainees held in Guantanamo cannot be placed on the No Fly List begs 
the question who is qualified to be put on the No Fly List. And since 
that time, we've released 500 detainees from Guantanamo, 60 of whom 
have been captured on the battlefield trying to kill our soldiers in 
Afghanistan.
  So I would like to pose a question to the distinguished chairman of 
the Homeland Security Committee, and I would be happy to yield time to 
him.
  And the question is simply this: We have debated whether the 
detainees currently being held should be on the No Fly List. In my view 
it's a no-brainer that we should reach agreement on in a bipartisan 
way. But as to the 530 who have been released from Guantanamo, does the 
chairman know whether or not they have been placed on the Terrorist 
Watch List or the No Fly List?
  I yield.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. At this point, I'll take it in two 
phases.
  There are some obvious misunderstandings of this legislation.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McCAUL. I am happy to yield myself an additional 2 minutes.
  And I yield to Mr. Thompson.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time.
  If you read the legislation, it talks about those detainees from 
Gitmo being on the No Fly List. So I don't know what is it we can do to 
solve the issue other than to refer people to page 87 of House bill 
2200 and you can see--and we don't have a disagreement.
  Mr. McCAUL. Reclaiming my time, as to the 530 detainees who we know

[[Page 14011]]

are dangerous actors who have already been released from Guantanamo, do 
we know if they've been placed on the No Fly List and the Terrorist 
Watch List?
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. But that has nothing to do with the 
legislation before us today.
  Mr. McCAUL. I submit they should be.
  The administration has been vague in its response on this issue and 
perhaps we should entertain the idea of a bill that I would be happy to 
work with the chairman on to ensure that those who have been captured 
on the battlefield in Afghanistan, those terrorist suspects who were at 
Guantanamo who have since been released--many of whom have been 
returned to the battlefield to kill our soldiers--that at the very 
least if we're going to put anybody on the No Fly List and the 
Terrorist Watch List, that these individuals should be placed on this 
list.
  And I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I agree with you. If those individuals 
have been captured who have been released, then the procedure 
automatically places them on the No Fly List. There is no question.
  As to how many there are, I don't know. But, again, I say to my 
colleague from Texas, there is no real debate on the issue of being on 
the No Fly List.
  Mr. McCAUL. There is a debate on the current detainees--and I know 
it's pending disposition from the President--in my view, they should 
automatically be placed on the list. This is not a difficult decision.
  With respect to those who have been released, Congress should take a 
stand and not defer to the administration on this and ensure that the 
suspected terrorists are never allowed on a U.S. commercial aircraft.
  And with that, I reserve.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I would like to acknowledge and 
recognize the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for 1 minute to make 
another attempt to clarify for this body the issue around Gitmo and 
detainees on the No Fly List.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the chairman.
  ``Inclusion of Detainees on No Fly List: The Assistant Secretary, in 
coordination with the Terrorist Screening Center, shall include on the 
No Fly List any individual who was a detainee housed at the Naval 
Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after January 1, 2009, after a 
final disposition has been issued by the President.'' The quibbling 
seems to be over the final disposition.
  The only point at which any of these people might have some 
opportunity to try and get on an airplane will be after they get out of 
Guantanamo. The President determines the final disposition, and if they 
are sent to a third country or transferred elsewhere at that point, 
they go on the No Fly List. We have terrorists in our super maximum 
security prisons in the United States who aren't on the No Fly List 
because they're in a super maximum security prison. If they ever get 
parole or otherwise get released, they'll go on the No Fly List. But we 
don't junk up the No Fly List, which already has problems, with a whole 
bunch of people who are in shackles in ultra-secure locations and are 
in security already. It doesn't make a lot of sense.
  I know you're trying to get political advantage here to say somehow 
we're soft on terrorism. These people will go on the list if they ever 
get out.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 3\1/4\ minutes. The gentleman 
from Mississippi has 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished 
colleague from Indiana (Mr. Souder).
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank my colleague from Texas.
  First, I get tired of hearing my own language read back to me. The 
only language that's relevant here was the part that gutted my 
amendment which says, ``after a final disposition has issued,'' which 
eliminates, one, what are they doing until there is a final 
disposition? If they've been released into America, they are on the 
planes with us, and we're hoping that the final disposition might occur 
in--I don't know--2 years, 6 years, 8 years, if they're released. The 
amendment only covers those who are released. That's if they're on the 
list. They automatically go on the list. But the big concern is not if 
they're imprisoned, unless they escape, but whether they're released 
and that the final disposition, if it is that either we didn't 
challenge it--in other words, we just released them because we didn't 
want to have them in trial or that they were found not guilty.
  To quote Mr. Pascrell, my good friend--and we are good friends--he 
doesn't want, nor does Mr. DeFazio want, these potential and actual 
terrorists--I mean, understand in Gitmo, the people that are there, 
they are the ones we haven't released. Maybe they were innocently 
carrying an IED or a Kalashnikov, but these were picked up in 
Afghanistan on the battlefield. These are military detainees. These 
aren't kind of casual people here that we're talking about. They have 
been picked up on the battlefield. The only question is, how are we 
going to try them? How are we going to process them?
  By the way, the only thing we can get out of the administration as 
far as the question of being in prison, many are likely already on the 
No Fly List. The key words here are ``many are likely on the No Fly 
List.'' They should all be on the No Fly List. Whether they're detained 
or imprisoned or not, they should be on the No Fly List. We also heard 
a reference to the Aspen Conference yesterday. Secretary Napolitano 
said that DHS's role would be--apparently this is a summary--to address 
the security aspects of the immigration issue regarding the detainees.
  Now I was in the El Paso Detention Center. There I saw Arellano 
Felix, one of the major drug people, about to be released in Ciudad 
Juarez. We hope they picked him up. But this has been the process. We 
also had a Chinese illegal who was about to be released. He was in the 
high-risk detention center with Arellano Felix because he had been 
violent, beating up guards, particularly beating up other prisoners.
  I said, What's going to happen?
  They said, Well, China won't take him back. We have to release him 
into the United States.
  So is anybody going to be warned? Are we going to track him?
  No, we can't. We can only hold detainees for so long; and then if we 
want to proceed with another court case, they're released until then.
  What happens to him?
  Well, he may wind up in a prison if he beats up somebody or does 
something.
  We have an obligation, as Congress, to make sure that none of these 
detainees are on an airplane with us.
  Mr. Chair, during the Committee on Homeland Security consideration of 
H.R. 2200, Mr. Pascrell spoke against my amendment to require all 
detainees at Guantanamo Bay, GTMO, to be placed on the Transportation 
Security Administration, TSA, No Fly List. Mr. Pascrell argued that it 
was presumptive and that the President should have the opportunity to 
make a final disposition on each case rather than automatically require 
that all GTMO detainees be prevented from flying on U.S. commercial 
aircraft.
  Specifically, Mr. Pascrell stated, ``We know that many--and it could 
be all--are bad actors of those 270. But we don't know that yet, do we? 
We don't know that. And the point of the matter is, the President has a 
right to exercise his authority. I'm saying, let the President act, and 
then we can always respond.''
  I originally intended to include this quote in my oral statement to 
demonstrate the lack of clarity and understanding regarding what will 
happen with the GTMO detainees given the President's decision to close 
the GTMO facility. I agree with Mr. Pascrell that no one knows yet what 
will happen. Where I strongly disagree is that Congress should not wait 
to see what the President decides, which could open up a huge security 
loophole. Congress must take proactive measures to ensure the safety 
and security of the American traveling public and my amendment would 
have ensured that they were not going to be sitting next to a suspected 
terrorist from GTMO on their next flight.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much 
time is remaining?

[[Page 14012]]

  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi has 3\1/2\ minutes. The 
gentleman from Pennsylvania has 45 seconds.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I recognize the gentlelady 
from California (Ms. Richardson) for 1 minute.
  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2200, and I 
welcome the opportunity for us to get back on topic of what we're 
really here to discuss today. I want to applaud Chairman Thompson who 
has brought forward this legislation in a bipartisan manner. And if 
it's not my mistake, I believe this very legislation was brought 
forward to our committee and supported in a bipartisan fashion. So 
let's really talk about what this bill is about.
  This bill is about ensuring that passengers in the United States, 
Americans everywhere, that we can have a greater ease and comfort as we 
travel. The power of this particular bill ensures that, yes, we will 
have the legislation in place to ensure that we can have training and 
adequate inspection.
  In my district I have the Long Beach Airport and the Compton Woodley 
Airport less than 30 miles from Los Angeles International where we move 
over 3,000 tons of air cargo and 3 million passengers.
  Now is not the time to play games. Now is the time to pass this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues, let's get past the rhetoric. Let's 
read the bill and look at the facts. The facts are, this bill will 
assist travelers, increase training and ensure that we have a vibrant 
economy.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2200, the Transportation 
Security Administration Act of 2009, which fully reauthorizes the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for the first time since 
enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001. I 
want to thank my Chairman, Mr. Thompson for his leadership and skill in 
shepherding this important legislation to the floor.
  I also want to acknowledge the efforts of Congresswoman Jackson-Lee, 
the chair of the Transportation Security Subcommittee, who worked so 
hard to produce a bill that will strengthen the ability of TSA to 
fulfill its mission of securing all modes of transportation including 
rail, mass transit, trucking, bus, and aviation.
  Mr. Chair, H.R. 2200 authorizes nearly $16 billion for TSA for the 
next two fiscal years. This legislation is the result of months of 
bipartisan negotiations and cooperation and consultations with key 
stakeholders, including labor organizations, industry groups, the 
Government Accountability Office, and the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Mr. Chair, let me list a few reasons why I believe all Members should 
support this bill.
  My district is home to two airports--Long Beach International and 
Compton Woodley--and is less than 30 miles from Los Angeles 
International. Long Beach International alone handles more than 3,000 
tons of air cargo each month and 3 million air travelers every year. So 
this legislation has a particular impact on my district. It protects 
the travelers and the cargo coming in and out of California that helps 
to drive the local, regional, and national economy.


                    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

  Regarding surface transportation, the bill provides for a tripling in 
the amount of funding over FY09 levels and authorizes the hiring of an 
additional 200 surface transportation security inspectors for FY20l0 
and an additional l00 inspectors for FY2011.
  Second, the bill establishes a Surface Transportation Security 
Inspection Office within TSA to train and manage inspectors to conduct 
and assist with security activities in surface transportation systems. 
This is important because personnel with surface transportation 
security inspection responsibilities should be trained and mentored by 
persons with substantial expertise in surface transportation security. 
That has not always been true in the past.
  Third, the bill creates a Transit Security Advisory Committee to 
facilitate stakeholder input to TSA on surface transportation policy.


              AIRPORT SECURITY AND SCREENING ENHANCEMENTS

  Mr. Chair, airport security is of special interest to me because my 
district includes the Long Beach International Airport. In the area of 
air transport security, the bill directs TSA to develop a strategic, 
risk-based plan to enhance security of airport perimeters and it 
prohibits federal employees and contractors from providing advance 
notice of covert testing to airport security screeners.
  The bill also enhances air travel security training and performance 
capabilities by:
  1. Directing TSA to establish an oversight program for carrier-
provided security training for flight attendants and crews;
  2. Authorizing resources for the administration of the Federal Flight 
Deck Officer program and requires additional training sites for 
recurring training;
  3. Directing TSA to develop a security training plan for all-cargo 
aircraft crews; and
  4. Creating an Ombudsman for the federal air marshals.


         MINORITY, SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS CONTRACTING

  Finally, Mr. Chair, I support this bill because of the inclusion of 
section 103, which establishes reporting requirements for TSA on 
contracts valued at $300,000 or more to ensure compliance with existing 
Federal government-wide participation goals for small and disadvantaged 
businesses.
  For all of these reasons, I strongly support H.R. 2200 and urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting for the bill and in thanking the 
Homeland Security Chairman and Ranking Member for producing this 
excellent legislation.
  Mr. DENT. I would like to reserve the balance of my time at this 
time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I recognize the gentlelady 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey) for 1 minute.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this legislation, 
and I thank the chairman for including two initiatives on which I've 
worked closely with the chairman.
  One was to make sure there is notification of covert testing within 
our transportation system, and last year we successfully implemented a 
pilot program to test the effectiveness of physically screening 
employees who have access to secure and sterile areas in airports 
nationwide.
  While the underlying legislation makes significant improvements in 
the safety of our air system, I'm disappointed; but I'm very pleased 
that the chairman is going to address the inability of TSA workers to 
collectively bargain. Without this change, TSA workers will continue to 
suffer, and we need to have a strong workforce.
  So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for including several 
initiatives, and I look forward to continue working together.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2200, the Transportation 
Security Administration Authorization Act. This important legislation 
will ensure that the traveling public is protected in our skies and on 
our roads and railways.
  The measure incorporates two initiatives on which I have worked 
closely with Chairman Thompson. First, H.R. 2200 includes legislation I 
authored to prohibit the advance notification of covert testing within 
our transportation systems. The core principles and goals of covert 
testing are undermined when individuals are alerted in advance to 
tests, and these provisions will bolster accountability for and 
integrity of covert operations.
  Last year, we successfully implemented a pilot program to test the 
effectiveness of physically screening employees with access to secure 
and sterile areas of airports nationwide. H.R. 2200 builds upon this 
pilot by testing the use of biometrics for these individuals.
  We know there is criminal activity taking place at some airports, 
which could lead to possible terrorist activity. We cannot wait for the 
next security breach to take action, and biometric technology will 
ensure that only those who have permission to be in the most sensitive 
parts of our airports are granted access.
  While the underlying legislation makes significant improvements in 
the safety of our air systems, I am disappointed that it does not 
address the inability of TSA workers to collectively bargain. Without 
this change, TSA workers will continue to suffer from high rates of 
injury, attrition, and lowest morale of all federal agencies.
  These factors and poor workforce management in recent years have 
created potential gaps in our aviation security. My legislation, the 
Transportation Security Workforce Enhancement Act, would provide the 
same rights and protections as other DHS employees to TSA workers, and 
I look forward to working with Chairman Thompson to enact this 
legislation.
  I commend the Committee for crafting H.R. 2200 to enhance our 
transportation security, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. DENT. I would just like at this time to thank Chairman Bennie 
Thompson, Chairwoman Sheila Jackson-Lee, Pete King, everybody else for 
their collaboration on this important piece of legislation. It is a 
good bill. I won't get into some of the deficiencies

[[Page 14013]]

here right now except to say that we need to deal with the Large 
Aircraft Security Program. I know the Chair has agreed to holding a 
committee hearing on that very important issue. It's important that we 
address that issue.
  But there are a few things about this bill that are very, very 
important. It does prohibit tipping off TSA employees of covert testing 
efforts. I think that's important. This legislation also requires a 
secure biometrically enhanced system to verify the status of law 
enforcement officers traveling armed on commercial passenger aircraft. 
It also authorizes demonstration projects to test technology design to 
mitigate a terrorist attack against underwater tunnels or open rail 
lines. It also prohibits the TSA's outsourcing of the terrorist watch 
list, No Fly List and selectee list verifications to non-governmental 
entities.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of the time.
  In closing, I would emphasize the importance of passing the 
Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act. This bill is 
the first comprehensive authorization bill for TSA since its creation 
in 2001. It is the product of extensive bipartisan negotiation and 
reflects input from GAO, DHS, IG and oversight conducted by the 
Committee on Homeland Security. It makes major investments in surface 
transportation and triples the overall funding for TSA activities.
  Mr. Chairman, let me for the record say that there are 239 detainees 
presently housed at Gitmo. Under this legislation, all those 
individuals, if they were found innocent or guilty, will go on the No 
Fly List. So there is no question about the intent of this legislation 
to put those individuals on the No Fly List.
  Apart from that, this is a good bill, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. NADLER of New York. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Authorization Act (HR 
2200). For the most part, this bill is a good bill. However, it 
contains a troubling provision extending the deadline to screen 100 
percent of air cargo on passenger planes bound for the United States.
  Each year, over 6 billion pounds of cargo are transported on 
passenger planes within, or to, the United States. Almost half of this 
amount, 3.3 billion pounds of cargo, is carried on passenger planes 
that originate in foreign countries bound for the United States. There 
is no active requirement that this cargo be screened for explosives. 
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed legislation to 
strengthen aviation security, but it failed to address this glaring 
loophole.
  Just two years ago, Congress finally passed legislation implementing 
all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations (H.R. 1 in the 110th 
Congress), requiring 100 percent screening of air cargo by August 2010. 
Even though this deadline is more than a full year away, Section 201 of 
H.R. 2200 as reported by the Committee appears to grant TSA up to an 
additional two years from the date of enactment of this bill to screen 
inbound cargo for explosives. It makes no good sense to provide an 
extension a full year in advance of the current deadline.
  We must not wait to impose security measures until cargo reaches the 
United States. If we wait to check for a bomb on a plane when it 
arrives in Newark, or Miami, or Los Angeles, it may be too late. 
Congress recognized this and intentionally set a deadline for screening 
all air cargo abroad. We will have to reach international agreements to 
implement the requirement, and in some cases that could be challenging, 
but it is precisely for this reason that Congress set an aggressive 
deadline. It has been almost eight years since the terrorist attacks of 
9/11. We should have implemented 100 percent air cargo screening years 
ago. Only with vigorous oversight can we be sure that all stakeholders 
involved finally take action on this vital national security measure.
  The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA) and Families of 
September 11th also oppose the inclusion of this provision. We search 
little old ladies' shampoo bottles. Certainly, we can screen cargo in 
the belly of the plane for explosives.
  I am also concerned about Section 405 of the bill, which would 
require that any person detained at the Guantanamo Bay facility on or 
after January 1, 2009 must be placed on the no-fly list. As the 
Distinguished Chairman has made clear, ``regardless of the nature of 
the disposition'' of their case. This provision could lead to extremely 
bizarre results. For example, a person who was cleared of any 
wrongdoing, and who has been shown to be not a threat to the United 
States, would still be required to be placed on the no-fly list. Where 
is the sense in that? We now know that most of the people who have been 
held at Guantanamo at one time or another were not a threat, and were 
not in fact guilty of engaging in hostilities against the United 
States. There are people still imprisoned at Guantanamo today who are 
there, not because they are a threat, but because our government can't 
figure out what to do with them. The Uigers, who are viewed as 
terrorists only by the repressive regime in Beijing, would be labeled 
as terrorists and added to the no-fly list. Is that the policy we want 
on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre?
  I must reluctantly vote ``no'' on final passage.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act.
  America's vast, interconnected transportation networks are the 
lifeblood of our economy, safely conveying millions of Americans to 
countless destinations from coast to coast. Unfortunately, these 
arteries of commerce--so critical to our national well-being--also 
represent a tremendous vulnerability and the difficult task of securing 
them falls to a single agency: the Transportation Security 
Administration.
  Thankfully, that organization is staffed by thousands of dedicated 
professionals and their efforts to defend our transportation system 
will be sensibly strengthened by this legislation. With greater 
resources, newer technology and more innovative strategies at its 
disposal, TSA will be better equipped to take on the immense challenge 
of preserving our freedom of movement.
  American aviation faces an array of threats, but guided by this bill, 
TSA is working to address them in ways that save tax dollars and don't 
unnecessarily inconvenience travelers.
  The Act establishes the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, which 
will enhance the agency's decision-making processes by bringing 
together key stakeholders, both in private industry and the law 
enforcement community. The bill also bars TSA from providing advance 
notice of covert tests, thus increasing their usefulness as a 
performance indicator. In addition, it requires TSA to report on the 
deployment of advanced systems to screen air travelers' baggage, 
another crucial step in preventing future terror attacks.
  While commercial aviation should undoubtedly remain TSA's top 
priority, the London and Madrid bombings tragically illustrated the 
vulnerability of mass transit systems. This legislation emphasizes the 
importance of modes of transportation that were neglected as the agency 
understandably focused the lion's share of its resources on securing 
our nation's airports in the years after 9/11.
  H.R. 2200 establishes a Surface Transportation Inspection Office and 
directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to hire additional 
inspectors. By identifying vulnerabilities and enforcing regulations, 
these men and women play a crucial role in protecting our mass transit 
systems and I'm pleased that this legislation will bolster their ranks. 
In addition, this bill creates a grant program that would aid the 
efforts of state and local governments to augment the security of their 
public transportation networks.
  While I'm confident that every member-of this body is deeply 
concerned about the security of the nation's transportation system, the 
issue is especially important to me as a representative of one of 
America's great cities. Los Angeles is home to our largest container 
port complex, one of our busiest airports, and a sprawling transit 
network that covers hundreds of square miles.
  Beset by threats both foreign and domestic, all Americans--but 
especially the inhabitants of urban areas like L.A.--expect that their 
government will do what is necessary to safeguard the buses they ride 
across town and the jets they fly across the country. By enacting this 
legislation, we are working to fulfill that responsibility to our 
constituents and to the dedicated TSA personnel charged with protecting 
them.
  Please join me in supporting H.R. 2200.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2200, 
the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act. This 
legislation takes great steps to enhance the ability of TSA to secure 
our skies, rail lines, and roads and to protect the Americans that rely 
on these transportation systems daily.
  I am especially pleased H.R. 2200 contains a provision to help 
provide flight attendants with the self defense training needed to keep 
the traveling public safe.

[[Page 14014]]

  Mr. Chair, for years, flight attendants across the country have 
raised concerns over the lack of self defense training provided by 
carriers. Adequate self defense training for flight attendants will 
increase the ability of flight attendants to work together to manage a 
potentially threatening situation. And because a flight attendant's 
main objective during an attack is to slow it down so the aircraft can 
land safely and quickly, self defense training is just common sense.
  I would also like to point out this bill simply takes the first step 
in providing flight attendants with much needed self defense training. 
The legislation requires one day of five hour training every other 
year. The cost associated with this additional training--which could 
occur in conjunction with existing safety training programs--is a small 
price to pay for increased aviation security.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chair, I would like to bring to the attention of the 
House a letter I received this week from dozens of airports across the 
country concerning a provision in the pending legislation (H.R. 2200) 
pertaining to background screening services for aviation workers. I ask 
unanimous consent that the letter, which is addressed to me as well as 
the distinguished leaders of the Homeland Security Committee and 
Chairman Oberstar, be included in the Record.
  This is an important issue with which I have a great deal of 
familiarity as the former Chairman of the House Aviation Subcommittee. 
Following the tragic events of 9/11, Congress mandated that all workers 
with access to secure areas of airports be given criminal history 
background checks. While that now seems like a necessary and reasonable 
requirement, gaining those checks for nearly a million workers at 
airports was a daunting task given the fact that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM)--the entity then in charge of processing 
background checks for aviation workers--routinely took more than 50 
days to complete the process for each worker.
  Without major upgrades to the process, meeting the congressional 
mandate was simply not achievable without significant disruptions to 
the aviation system. Recognizing that fact, the Federal Aviation 
Administration took the initiative to create a better system to 
facilitate the required checks and reached out to the private sector to 
help accomplish that goal. The result was a unique public/private 
partnership with the creation of the Transportation Security 
Clearinghouse to process background checks for aviation workers.
  The Transportation Security Clearinghouse established the first high-
speed, secure connection to the federal fingerprint processing system 
and ensured that more than 500 airports were able to access that system 
and complete the necessary background checks. It is my understanding 
that the TSC reduced a process that took more than 50 days down to an 
average of four hours, with many checks occurring in a matter of 
minutes. I am told that error rates with transmissions were reduced to 
2 percent, well below the average government error rate of 8 percent.
  As a result, the initial mandate for completing background checks was 
completed successfully. Numerous subsequent security enhancements--
issued directly by the Transportation Security Administration, the 
agency now in charge of aviation security--have likewise been completed 
successfully. Notably, all aviation workers and many others in the 
airport environment undergo detailed Security Threat Assessments, a 
process that has been facilitated by the TSC.
  Over the past seven-plus years, the TSC has processed more than 4 
million record checks for aviation workers. The costs of the checks for 
aviation workers have been reduced twice and at $27 are dramatically 
lower than for workers in other modes of transportation that require 
similar checks, including port workers and hazardous material truckers.
  I raise these points to make clear that I concur with the view 
outlined by numerous airports on this letter. The current process for 
aviation workers works well and should not be disrupted as TSA seeks to 
comply with this legislation. Additionally, the agency needs to ensure 
that there is no diminution of security by requiring that any entity 
that seeks to provide these services in the future is capable of 
facilitating all current checks and can meet any other additional 
requirements deemed critical by the agency.
  I appreciate the work of the Homeland Security Committee on this 
issue and look forward to working with them as this process moves 
forward.

                                                     June 2, 2009.
     Hon. Bennie Thompson,
     Chairman, House Homeland Security Committee, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Peter King,
     Ranking Member, House Homeland Security Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. James Oberstar,
     Chairman, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Mica,
     Ranking Member, House Transportation and Infrastructure 
         Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thompson, Chairman Oberstar, Ranking Member 
     King, and Ranking Member Mica: with the House poised to 
     consider important TSA authorization legislation (H.R. 2200) 
     in the near future, we are writing to express our strong 
     support for the Transportation Security Clearinghouse (TSC) 
     and to ask that attempts to address competition in security 
     background screening services legislatively do not interfere 
     with the critical security services that the TSC currently 
     facilitates.
       Created in the aftermath of September 11th in partnership 
     with the federal government to meet a congressional mandate 
     for the completion of background checks for aviation workers, 
     the TSC has built an incredible record of success over the 
     past seven-plus years. To date, more than four million 
     records have been vetted against federal criminal and 
     terrorist data bases at a cost much lower than other 
     comparable vetting programs. A process that took weeks to 
     complete prior to the creation of the TSC, now takes minutes, 
     collectively saving airports and our industry hundreds of 
     millions of dollars in operational and employee time savings 
     that would otherwise have been spent waiting for background 
     checks and away from their jobs.
       For the federal government, the TSC serves as an invaluable 
     partner in ensuring the highest level of security in the 
     background screening process for aviation workers. As TSA has 
     expanded background check requirements for aviation workers 
     and others in the airport environment over the years, the 
     Clearinghouse has repeatedly risen to the occasion--most 
     often at its own expense--to ensure that additional checks 
     are performed quickly and effectively and in a manner that 
     limits disruptions to airport operations. Additionally, the 
     TSC adheres to all federal data and privacy standards and has 
     passed rigorous DHS certification requirements.
       For airports, the TSC has repeatedly proven its value in 
     keeping costs low and services high. Difficult TSA mandates 
     have been met with minimal disruption, and Clearinghouse fees 
     have been reduced twice in recent years--currently $27 per 
     employee and significantly below the costs of similar 
     programs. The TSC was established to serve a critical need of 
     airports, and the incentives inherent in the TSC model ensure 
     that it will continue to put the needs of airports and the 
     aviation industry at the forefront.
       While competition in this area is a worthy goal, it must 
     not come at the expense of a process that works well and that 
     has served our industry and the cause of aviation security 
     admirably for nearly eight years. As you have the opportunity 
     to consider legislation aimed at enhancing competition in 
     security background screening services, we ask that you take 
     steps to ensure that the current process facilitated by the 
     TSC is not disrupted and that any service providers approved 
     to perform similar functions are able to meet the same levels 
     of security and service that are currently provided by the 
     TSC.
       We appreciate your attention to this important matter.
           Sincerely,
         Mr. Benjamin DeCosta, A.A.E. Aviation General Manager 
           Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Intl Airport;
         Mr. John L Martin, Airport Director, San Francisco Int'l 
           Airport;
         Mr. Jose Abreu, Aviation Director, Miami International 
           Airport;
         Mr. Mark Gale, A.A.E., Memphis International Airport, 
           Acting Director, Philadelphia Int'l Airport;
         Mr. Thomas Kinton, Executive Director/CEO, Massachusetts 
           Port Authority;
         Mr. James Bennett, A.A.E., President & C.E.O., 
           Metropolitan Washington Airports Auth., Dulles 
           International Airport/Washington Regan National 
           Airport.
         Mr. Timothy Campbell, A.A.E., Executive Director, 
           Baltimore/Washington Int'l Thurgood Marshall;
         Mr. Brian Sekiguchi, Deputy Director, State Dept. of 
           Transportation, Honolulu International Airport;
         Mr. Ricky Smith, Director of Airports, Cleveland Airport 
           System;
         Mr. Larry Cox, A.A.E., President & C.E.O., Memphis-Shelby 
           County Airport Auth., Memphis International Airport;
         Mr. Bradley Penrod, A.A.E., Executive Director/C.E.O., 
           Allegheny County Airport Authority, Pittsburgh 
           International Airport;
         Ms. Elaine Roberts, A.A.E., President & C.E.O., Columbus 
           Regional Airport Authority, Port Columbus International 
           Airport.
         Mr. Sean Hunter, M.B.A., ACE, Director of Aviation, Louis 
           Armstrong New Orleans Int'l Airport;
         Mr. Bruce Pelly, Director of Airports, Palm Beach 
           International Airport;
         Mr. Stephen Korta, A.A.E., State Aviation Administrator, 
           Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bradley 
           International Airport;

[[Page 14015]]

         Ms. Christine Klein, A.A.E., Alaska DOT&PF Deputy 
           Commissioner, Acting Airport Director, Ted Stevens 
           Anchorage International Airport;
         Mr. Kevin Dillon, A.A.E., President & C.E.O., Rhode 
           Island Airport Corp., T.F. Green State;
         Ms. Krys Bart, A.A.E., President & C.E.O., Reno-Tahoe 
           Airport Authority, Reno-Tahoe Int'l Airport;
         Mrs. Bonnie Allin, A.A.E., President/C.E.O., Tucson 
           Airport Authority.
         Mr. Mark Brewer, A.A.E., Airport Director, Manchester-
           Boston Regional Airport;
         Mr. Jon Mathiasen, A.A.E., President & C.E.O., Capital 
           Region Airport Commission, Richmond International 
           Airport;
         Ms. Monica Lombrana, A.A.E., Director of Aviation, El 
           Paso International Airport;
         Mr. Jeffrey Mulder, A.A.E., Airport Director, Tulsa 
           Airport Authority, Tulsa International Airport;
         Ms. Susan Stevens, AAE, Director of Airports, Charleston 
           County Aviation Authority;
         Mr. Mark Earle, C.M., Aviation Director, Colorado Springs 
           Airport;
         Mr. James Koslosky, A.A.E., Executive Director, Gerald R. 
           Ford International Airport.
         Mr. George Speake, Jr., C.M., VP of Operations & 
           Maintenance, Orlando Sanford International Airport;
         Mr. Timothy Edwards, A.A.E., Executive Director, 
           Susquehanna Area Reg. Airport Auth., Harrisburg 
           International Airport;
         Mr. Victor White, A.A.E., Wichita Airport Authority, 
           Wichita Mid-Continent Airport;
         Mr. Brian Searles, Director of Aviation, Burlington 
           International Airport;
         Mr. Richard McQueen, Airport Director, Akron-Canton 
           Regional Airport;
         Mr. Richard Tucker, Executive Director, Huntsville 
           International Airport;
         Mr. James Loomis, A.A.E., Director of Aviation, Lubbock 
           Preston Smith Int'l Airport.
         Ms. Kelly Johnson, A.A.E., Airport Director, N.W. 
           Arkansas Regional Airport Auth;
         Mr. Eric Frankl, A.A.E., Executive Director, Lexington 
           Blue Grass Airport;
         Mr. Dan Mann, A.A.E., Airport Director, The Eastern Iowa 
           Airport;
         Mr. Anthony Marino, Director of Aviation, Baton Rouge 
           Metropolitan Airport;
         Mr. Bruce Carter, A.A.E., Director of Aviation, Quad City 
           Int'l Airport;
         Mr. Gary Cyr, A.A.E., Director of Aviation, Springfield/
           Branson National Airport;
         Mr. Thomas Binford, A.A.E., Director of Aviation & 
           Transit, Billings Logan Int'l Airport.
         Mr. Philip Brown, C.M., Director of Aviation, McAllen 
           Int'l Airport/City of McAllen;
         Mr. John Schalliol, A.A.E., Executive Director, St. 
           Joseph County Airport Authority, South Bend Regional 
           Airport;
         Mr. Jon Rosborough, Airport Director, Wilmington 
           International Airport;
         Mr. Timothy Doll, A.A.E., Airport Director, Eugene 
           Airport;
         Mr. Torrance Richardson, A.A.E., Executive Director of 
           Airports, Fort Wayne International Airport;
         Mr. Lew Bleiweis, A.A.E., Deputy Airport Director, 
           Asheville Regional Airport Authority;
         Mr. Thomas Braaten, Airport Director, Coastal Carolina 
           Regional Airport.
         Mr. Joseph Brauer, Airport Director, Rhinelander/Oneida 
           County Airport;
         Mr. Robert Bryant, A.A.E., Airport Director, Salisbury-
           Ocean City Wicomico Regional Airport, Wicomico Regional 
           Airport;
         Mr. Barry Centini, Airport Director, Wilkes-Barre/
           Scranton Int'l Airport;
         Mr. Patrick Dame, Executive Director, Grand Forks 
           International Airport;
         Mr. David Damelio, Director of Aviation, Greater 
           Rochester International Airport;
         Mr. Rod Dinger, A.A.E., Airport Manager, Redding 
           Municipal Airport;
         Mr. Shawn Dobberstein, A.A.E., Executive Director, Hector 
           International Airport.
         Mr. John Duval, A.A.E., ACE, Director of Operations, 
           Planning and Development, Beverly Municipal Airport;
         Ms. Jennifer Eckman, A.A.E., Finance and Administration 
           Manager, Rapid City Regional Airport;
         Mr. Luis Elguezabal, A.A.E., Airport Director, San Angelo 
           Regional Airport;
         Mr. Jim Elwood, A.A.E., Airport Director, Aspen/Pitkin 
           County Airport;
         Mr. Jose Flores, Airport Manager, Laredo International 
           Airport;
         Mr. David Gordon, A.A.E., Airport Director, Fort Collins 
           Loveland Municipal Airport.
         Mr. Thomas Greer, A.A.E., General Manager, Monterey 
           Peninsula Airport District;
         Mr. Rick Griffith, A.A.E., Airport Manager, Bert Mooney 
           Airport Authority;
         Mr. Thomas Hart, Executive Director, Williamsport 
           Regional Airport;
         Mr. Gregory Haug, Airport Manager, Bismarck Airport;
         Mr. Glenn Januska, A.A.E., Airport Manager, Casper/
           Natrona County Int'l Airport.
         Mr. Cris Jensen, A.A.E., Airport Director, Missoula 
           County Airport Authority, Missoula International 
           Airport;
         Mr. Gary Johnson, C.M., Airport Director, Stillwater 
           Regional Airport;
         Mr. Stephen Luebbert, Airport Director, Texarkana 
           Regional Airport-Webb Field;
         Mrs. Cindi Martin, C.M., Airport Director, Glacier Park 
           International Airport;
         Mr. Derek Martin, A.A.E., Airport Director, Klamath Falls 
           Airport;
         Mr. Ronald Mercer, Airport Director, Helena Regional 
           Airport;
         Mr. Clifton Moshoginis, Airport Director, Kalamazoo 
           Battle Creek Int'l Airport;
         Mr. Lenard Nelson, A.A.E., Aviation Director, Idaho Falls 
           Regional Airport;
         Mr. Robert Nicholas, A.A.E., Airport Manager, Ithaca 
           Tompkins Regional Airport.
         Mr. Robb Parish, Airport Manager, Pullman-Moscow 
           Regional;
         Mr. Timothy Reid, C.M., Assistant Airport Manager, 
           Cheyenne Regional Airport;
         Mr. Richard Roof, Airport Manager/Security Coord., 
           Barkley Regional Airport Authority;
         Mr. David Ruppel, C.M., Airport Manager, Yampa Valley 
           Regional Airport;
         Mr. Darwin Skelton, Airport Director, Western Nebraska 
           Regional Airport;
         Mr. Jack Skinner, Airport Manager, Laramie Regional 
           Airport;
         Mr. John Sutton, Director of Aviation, Killeen-Fort Hood 
           Regional Airport;
         Mr. Robin Turner, A.A.E., Airport Manager, Lewiston-Nez 
           Perce County Reg. Airport;
         Mr. Bradley Whited, A.A.E., Airport Director, 
           Fayetteville Regional Airport.

  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. ChaIr, as of February 28, 2009 all port workers 
must have a Transportation worker Identification Credential, TWIC, to 
be granted port access. However, many longshoremen have not yet 
received a TWIC due to large backlogs at TSA.
  This backlog is causing undue hardship on longshoremen and their 
families--many are being prevented from doing their jobs and earning a 
living. In order to get by, many are depleting their savings to support 
their families. This problem also unduly disrupts the operations of the 
ports and the flow of commerce.
  Today we will consider important legislation to reauthorize the 
Transportation Security Administration, TSA, and enhance our surface 
and aviation transportation security.
  I commend the committee for including language in the bill which 
clarifies that those who perform work in secure areas of our ports be 
allowed escorted access to such areas while their application for a 
TWIC is pending.
  There is a real need to ensure the safety and security of our ports, 
however, we must balance this with our need to ensure workers, who pose 
no threat to the U.S., are able to do their job and earn an honest 
living.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, there are many worthy and needed provisions in 
this legislation. It authorizes a tripling of surface transportation 
security funding, to $15.6 billion. It requires the Transportation 
Security Administration to field at least 100 canine teams, which are 
absolutely critical to our bomb detection efforts. The bill creates a 
$10 million grant program for improving security measures at general 
aviation airports. These and many other provisions in the bill are 
laudable.
  Unfortunately, the bill includes a provision that would allow TSA at 
least two more years to achieve the congressionally-mandated goal of 
screening 100 percent of air cargo on passenger jets. Mr. Chair, we 
can't keep kicking this can down the road. The traveling public has 
been demanding for years that we close this major airline security gap. 
We said we would fulfill all the recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission. We haven't.
  If we give TSA two more years, two years from now TSA will say ``We 
need more time.'' Congress has supplied the money to achieve this goal. 
What we need from TSA is results-oriented leadership to get the job 
done. The best way to finish this job is to keep the existing deadline 
in place, which is why I could not support this bill. I hope that we 
can improve this bill during any conference with the Senate or if it is 
included in a larger Homeland Security authorization bill by removing 
this two-year extension on meeting the cargo screening requirement.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
printed in

[[Page 14016]]

the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of 
amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment is as follows:

                               H.R. 2200

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the 
     ``Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
Sec. 2. Definitions.
Sec. 3. Authorities vested in Assistant Secretary.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 102. Risk-based system for allocation of resources.
Sec. 103. Ensuring contracting with small business concerns and 
              disadvantaged business concerns.

                      TITLE II--AVIATION SECURITY

                 Subtitle A--Amendments to Chapter 449

Sec. 201. Screening air cargo and checked baggage.
Sec. 202. Prohibition of advance notice of covert testing to security 
              screeners.
Sec. 203. Secure verification system for law enforcement officers.
Sec. 204. Ombudsman for Federal Air Marshal Service.
Sec. 205. Federal flight deck officer program enhancements.
Sec. 206. Foreign repair stations.
Sec. 207. Assistant Secretary defined.
Sec. 208. TSA and homeland security information sharing.
Sec. 209. Aviation security stakeholder participation.
Sec. 210. General aviation security.
Sec. 211. Security and self-defense training.
Sec. 212. Security screening of individuals with metal implants 
              traveling in air transportation.
Sec. 213. Prohibition on outsourcing.

                       Subtitle B--Other Matters

Sec. 221. Security risk assessment of airport perimeter access 
              controls.
Sec. 222. Advanced passenger prescreening system.
Sec. 223. Biometric identifier airport access enhancement demonstration 
              program.
Sec. 224. Transportation security training programs.
Sec. 225. Deployment of technology approved by science and technology 
              directorate.
Sec. 226. In-line baggage screening study.
Sec. 227. In-line checked baggage screening systems.
Sec. 228. GAO report on certain contracts and use of funds.
Sec. 229. IG report on certain policies for Federal air marshals.
Sec. 230. Explosives detection canine teams minimum for aviation 
              security.
Sec. 231. Assessments and GAO Report of inbound air cargo screening.
Sec. 232. Status of efforts to promote air cargo shipper certification.
Sec. 233. Full and open competition in security background screening 
              service.
Sec. 234. Registered traveler.
Sec. 235. Report on cabin crew communication.
Sec. 236. Air cargo crew training.
Sec. 237. Reimbursement for airports that have incurred eligible costs.
Sec. 238. Report on whole body imaging technology.
Sec. 239. Protective equipment.

               TITLE III--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

Sec. 301. Assistant Secretary defined.
Sec. 302. Surface transportation security inspection program.
Sec. 303. Visible intermodal prevention and response teams.
Sec. 304. Surface Transportation Security stakeholder participation.
Sec. 305. Human capital plan for surface transportation security 
              personnel.
Sec. 306. Surface transportation security training.
Sec. 307. Security assistance IG Report.
Sec. 308. International lessons learned for securing passenger rail and 
              public transportation systems.
Sec. 309. Underwater tunnel security demonstration project.
Sec. 310. Passenger rail security demonstration project.
Sec. 311. Explosives detection canine teams.

            TITLE IV--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CREDENTIALING

                   Subtitle A--Security Credentialing

Sec. 401. Report and recommendation for uniform security background 
              checks.
Sec. 402. Animal-propelled vessels.
Sec. 403. Requirements for issuance of transportation security cards; 
              access pending issuance.
Sec. 404. Harmonizing security card expirations.
Sec. 405. Securing aviation from extreme terrorist threats.

                 Subtitle B--SAFE Truckers Act of 2009

Sec. 431. Short title.
Sec. 432. Surface transportation security.
Sec. 433. Conforming amendment.
Sec. 434. Limitation on issuance of hazmat licenses.
Sec. 435. Deadlines and effective dates.
Sec. 436. Task force on disqualifying crimes.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act, the following definitions apply:
       (1) Assistant secretary.--The term ``Assistant Secretary'' 
     means Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
     (Transportation Security Administration).
       (2) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the 
     Transportation Security Administration.
       (3) Aviation security advisory committee.--The term 
     ``Aviation Security Advisory Committee'' means the advisory 
     committee established by section 44946 of title 49, United 
     States Code, as added by this Act.
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITIES VESTED IN ASSISTANT SECRETARY.

       Any authority vested in the Assistant Secretary under this 
     Act shall be carried out under the direction and control of 
     the Secretary.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

     SEC. 101. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
     $7,604,561,000 for fiscal year 2010 and $8,060,835,000 for 
     fiscal year 2011 for the necessary expenses of the 
     Transportation Security Administration for such fiscal years.

     SEC. 102. RISK-BASED SYSTEM FOR ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.

       (a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit 
     to the appropriate congressional committees, including the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, a report on the status of its implementation 
     of recommendations from the Comptroller General with respect 
     to the use by the Transportation Security Administration of a 
     risk-based system for allocating security resources 
     effectively.
       (b) Assessments.--The report shall include assessments of 
     the Transportation Security Administration's progress in--
       (1) adopting security goals that define specific outcomes, 
     conditions, end points, and performance targets;
       (2) conducting comprehensive risk assessments for the 
     transportation sector that meet the criteria established 
     under Homeland Security Presidential Directive-7 in effect as 
     of January 1, 2009, and combine individual assessments of 
     threat, vulnerability, and consequence;
       (3) analyzing the assessments described in paragraph (2) to 
     produce a comparative analysis of risk across the entire 
     transportation sector to guide current and future investment 
     decisions;
       (4) establishing an approach for gathering data on 
     investments by State, local, and private sector security 
     partners in transportation security;
       (5) establishing a plan and corresponding benchmarks for 
     conducting risk assessments for the transportation sector 
     that identify the scope of the assessments and resource 
     requirements for completing them;
       (6) working with the Department of Homeland Security to 
     effectuate the Administration's risk management approach by 
     establishing a plan and timeframe for assessing the 
     appropriateness of the Administration's intelligence-driven 
     risk management approach for managing risk at the 
     Administration and documenting the results of the assessment 
     once completed;
       (7) determining the best approach for assigning uncertainty 
     or confidence levels to analytic intelligence products 
     related to the Transportation Security Administration's 
     security mission and applying such approach; and
       (8) establishing internal controls, including--
       (A) a focal point and clearly defined roles and 
     responsibilities for ensuring that the Administration's risk 
     management framework is implemented;
       (B) policies, procedures, and guidance that require the 
     implementation of the Administration's framework and 
     completion of related work activities; and
       (C) a system to monitor and improve how effectively the 
     framework is being implemented.
       (c) Assessment and Prioritization of Risks.--
       (1) In general.--Consistent with the risk and threat 
     assessments required under sections 114(s)(3)(B) and 44904(c) 
     of title 49, United States Code, the report shall include--
       (A) a summary that ranks the risks within and across 
     transportation modes, including vulnerability of a cyber 
     attack; and
       (B) a description of the risk-based priorities for securing 
     the transportation sector, both within and across modes, in 
     the order that the priorities should be addressed.
       (2) Methods.--The report also shall--
       (A) describe the underlying methodologies used to assess 
     risks across and within each transportation mode and the 
     basis for any assumptions regarding threats, vulnerabilities, 
     and consequences made in assessing and prioritizing risks 
     within and across such modes; and
       (B) include the Assistant Secretary's working definition of 
     the terms ``risk-based'' and ``risk-informed''.
       (d) Format.--The report shall be submitted in classified or 
     unclassified formats, as appropriate.

[[Page 14017]]



     SEC. 103. ENSURING CONTRACTING WITH SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS 
                   AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS CONCERNS.

       (a) Requirements for Prime Contracts.--The Assistant 
     Secretary shall include in each contract, valued at 
     $300,000,000 or more, awarded for procurement of goods or 
     services acquired for the Transportation Security 
     Administration--
       (1) a requirement that the contractor shall implement a 
     plan for the award, in accordance with other applicable 
     requirements, of subcontracts under the contract to small 
     business concerns, including small business concerns owned 
     and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals, small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     women, small business concerns owned and controlled by 
     service-disabled veterans, HUBZone small business concerns, 
     small business concerns participating in the program under 
     section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)), 
     institutions of higher education receiving assistance under 
     title III or V of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     1051 et seq.; 1101 et seq.), and Alaska Native Corporations 
     created pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), including the terms of such plan; 
     and
       (2) a requirement that the contractor shall submit to the 
     Assistant Secretary, during performance of the contract, 
     periodic reports describing the extent to which the 
     contractor has complied with such plan, including 
     specification (by total dollar amount and by percentage of 
     the total dollar value of the contract) of the value of 
     subcontracts awarded at all tiers of subcontracting to small 
     business concerns, institutions, and corporations referred to 
     in subsection (a)(1).
       (b) Utilization of Alliances.--The Assistant Secretary 
     shall seek to facilitate award of contracts by the 
     Administration to alliances of small business concerns, 
     institutions, and corporations referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1).
       (c) Annual Report.--
       (1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate by October 31 each year a report 
     on the award of contracts to small business concerns, 
     institutions, and corporations referred to in subsection 
     (a)(1) during the preceding fiscal year.
       (2) Contents.--The Assistant Secretary shall include in 
     each report--
       (A) specification of the value of such contracts, by dollar 
     amount and as a percentage of the total dollar value of all 
     contracts awarded by the United States in such fiscal year;
       (B) specification of the total dollar value of such 
     contracts awarded to each of the categories of small business 
     concerns, institutions, and corporations referred to in 
     subsection (a)(1); and
       (C) if the percentage specified under subparagraph (A) is 
     less than 25 percent, an explanation of--
       (i) why the percentage is less than 25 percent; and
       (ii) what will be done to ensure that the percentage for 
     the following fiscal year will not be less than 25 percent.

                      TITLE II--AVIATION SECURITY

                 Subtitle A--Amendments to Chapter 449

     SEC. 201. SCREENING AIR CARGO AND CHECKED BAGGAGE.

       (a) Inbound Air Cargo on Passenger Aircraft.--Section 
     44901(g) of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) as 
     paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3) Inbound air cargo on passenger aircraft.--Not later 
     than 2 years after the date of enactment of the 
     Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act, the 
     Assistant Secretary shall establish a system to verify that 
     all cargo transported on passenger aircraft operated by an 
     air carrier or foreign air carrier inbound to the United 
     States be screened for explosives. The system shall include a 
     risk assessment for inbound air cargo on passenger and all 
     air cargo airplanes, and the Assistant Secretary shall use 
     this assessment to address vulnerabilities in cargo 
     screening. The Assistant Secretary shall identify 
     redundancies in inbound cargo inspection on passenger 
     aircraft by agencies and address these to ensure that all 
     cargo is screened without subjecting carriers to multiple 
     inspections by different agencies.''.
       (b) Mandatory Screening Where EDS Is Not Yet Available.--
     Section 44901(e)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(1) A bag match program, ensuring that no checked baggage 
     is placed aboard an aircraft unless the passenger who checked 
     the baggage is aboard the aircraft, is not authorized as an 
     alternate method of baggage screening where explosive 
     detection equipment is available unless there are exigent 
     circumstances as determined by the Assistant Secretary. The 
     Assistant Secretary shall report to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security of the House of Representatives within 90 days of 
     the determination that bag match must be used as an alternate 
     method of baggage screening.''.

     SEC. 202. PROHIBITION OF ADVANCE NOTICE OF COVERT TESTING TO 
                   SECURITY SCREENERS.

       (a) Covert Testing.--Section 44935 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating the second subsection (i) (as 
     redesignated by section 111(a)(1) of Public Law 107-71 (115 
     Stat. 616), relating to accessibility of computer-based 
     training facilities) as subsection (k); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Prohibition of Advance Notice to Security Screeners 
     of Covert Testing and Evaluation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall ensure 
     that information concerning a covert test of a transportation 
     security system to be conducted by a covert testing office, 
     the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, 
     or the Government Accountability Office is not provided to 
     any individual prior to the completion of the test.
       ``(2) Exceptions.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1)--
       ``(A) an authorized individual involved in a covert test of 
     a transportation security system may provide information 
     concerning the covert test to--
       ``(i) employees, officers, and contractors of the Federal 
     Government (including military personnel);
       ``(ii) employees and officers of State and local 
     governments; and
       ``(iii) law enforcement officials who are authorized to 
     receive or directed to be provided such information by the 
     Assistant Secretary, the Inspector General of the Department 
     of Homeland Security, or the Comptroller General, as the case 
     may be; and
       ``(B) for the purpose of ensuring the security of any 
     individual in the vicinity of a site where a covert test of a 
     transportation security system is being conducted, an 
     individual conducting the test may disclose his or her status 
     as an individual conducting the test to any appropriate 
     individual if a security screener or other individual who is 
     not a covered employee identifies the individual conducting 
     the test as a potential threat.
       ``(3) Special rules for tsa.--
       ``(A) Monitoring and security of testing personnel.--The 
     head of each covert testing office shall ensure that a person 
     or group of persons conducting a covert test of a 
     transportation security system for the covert testing office 
     is accompanied at the site of the test by a cover team 
     composed of one or more employees of the covert testing 
     office for the purpose of monitoring the test and confirming 
     the identity of personnel involved in the test under 
     subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Responsibility of cover team.--Under this paragraph, 
     a cover team for a covert test of a transportation security 
     system shall--
       ``(i) monitor the test; and
       ``(ii) for the purpose of ensuring the security of any 
     individual in the vicinity of a site where the test is being 
     conducted, confirm, notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     identity of any individual conducting the test to any 
     appropriate individual if a security screener or other 
     individual who is not a covered employee identifies the 
     individual conducting the test as a potential threat.
       ``(C) Aviation screening.--Notwithstanding subparagraph 
     (A), the Transportation Security Administration is not 
     required to have a cover team present during a test of the 
     screening of persons, carry-on items, or checked baggage at 
     an aviation security checkpoint at or serving an airport if 
     the test--
       ``(i) is approved, in coordination with the designated 
     security official for the airport operator by the Federal 
     Security Director for such airport; and
       ``(ii) is carried out under an aviation screening 
     assessment program of the Department of Homeland Security.
       ``(D) Use of other personnel.--The Transportation Security 
     Administration may use employees, officers, and contractors 
     of the Federal Government (including military personnel) and 
     employees and officers of State and local governments to 
     conduct covert tests.
       ``(4) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Appropriate individual.--The term `appropriate 
     individual', as used with respect to a covert test of a 
     transportation security system, means any individual that--
       ``(i) the individual conducting the test determines needs 
     to know his or her status as an individual conducting a test 
     under paragraph (2)(B); or
       ``(ii) the cover team monitoring the test under paragraph 
     (3)(B)(i) determines needs to know the identity of an 
     individual conducting the test.
       ``(B) Covered employee.--The term `covered employee' means 
     any individual who receives notice of a covert test before 
     the completion of a test under paragraph (2)(A).
       ``(C) Covert test.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `covert test' means an exercise 
     or activity conducted by a covert testing office, the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, or 
     the Government Accountability Office to intentionally test, 
     compromise, or circumvent transportation security systems to 
     identify vulnerabilities in such systems.
       ``(ii) Limitation.--Notwithstanding clause (i), the term 
     `covert test' does not mean an exercise or activity by an 
     employee or contractor of the Transportation Security 
     Administration to test or assess compliance with relevant 
     regulations.
       ``(D) Covert testing office.--The term `covert testing 
     office' means any office of the Transportation Security 
     Administration designated by the Assistant Secretary to 
     conduct covert tests of transportation security systems.
       ``(E) Employee of a covert testing office.--The term 
     `employee of a covert testing office' means an individual who 
     is an employee of

[[Page 14018]]

     a covert testing office or a contractor or an employee of a 
     contractor of a covert testing office.''.
       (b) Uniforms.--Section 44935(j) of such title is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Under Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) Uniform requirement.--The Assistant Secretary''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Allowance.--The Assistant Secretary may grant a 
     uniform allowance of not less than $300 to any individual who 
     screens passengers and property pursuant to section 44901.''.

     SEC. 203. SECURE VERIFICATION SYSTEM FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                   OFFICERS.

       Section 44917 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Secure Verification System for Law Enforcement 
     Officers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall develop a 
     plan for a system to securely verify the identity and status 
     of law enforcement officers flying while armed. The Assistant 
     Secretary shall ensure that the system developed includes a 
     biometric component.
       ``(2) Demonstration.--The Assistant Secretary shall conduct 
     a demonstration program to test the secure verification 
     system described in paragraph (1) before issuing regulations 
     for deployment of the system.
       ``(3) Consultation.--The Assistant Secretary shall consult 
     with the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, established 
     under section 44946 of title 49, United States Code, when 
     developing the system and evaluating the demonstration 
     program.
       ``(4) Report.--The Assistant Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, evaluating the demonstration program of the 
     secure verification system required by this section.
       ``(5) Authorization of appropriations.--From the amounts 
     authorized under section 101 of the Transportation Security 
     Administration Authorization Act, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended.''.

     SEC. 204. OMBUDSMAN FOR FEDERAL AIR MARSHAL SERVICE.

       Section 44917 of title 49, United States Code, as amended 
     by section 203 of this Act, is further amended by adding at 
     the end the following:
       ``(f) Ombudsman.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Assistant Secretary shall 
     establish in the Federal Air Marshal Service an Office of the 
     Ombudsman.
       ``(2) Appointment.--The head of the Office shall be the 
     Ombudsman, who shall be appointed by the Assistant Secretary.
       ``(3) Duties.--The Ombudsman shall carry out programs and 
     activities to improve morale, training, and quality of life 
     issues in the Service, including through implementation of 
     the recommendations of the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Homeland Security and the Comptroller 
     General.''.

     SEC. 205. FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICER PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS.

       (a) Establishment.--Section 44921(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking the following: ``The 
     Under Secretary of Transportation for Security'' and 
     inserting ``The Secretary of Homeland Security, acting 
     through the Assistant Secretary of Transportation Security''.
       (b) Administrators.--Section 44921(b) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Under'' in paragraphs (1), (2), (4), (6), 
     and (7); and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Administrators.--The Assistant Secretary shall 
     implement an appropriately sized administrative structure to 
     manage the program, including overseeing--
       ``(A) eligibility and requirement protocols administration; 
     and
       ``(B) communication with Federal flight deck officers.''.
       (c) Training, Supervision, and Equipment.--Section 
     44921(c)(2)(C) of such title is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(iv) Use of federal air marshal service field office 
     facilities.--In addition to dedicated Government and contract 
     training facilities, the Assistant Secretary shall require 
     that field office facilities of the Federal Air Marshal 
     Service be used for the administrative and training needs of 
     the program. Such facilities shall be available to Federal 
     flight deck officers at no cost for firearms training and 
     qualification, defensive tactics training, and program 
     administrative assistance.''.
       (d) Reimbursement.--Section 44921 of such title is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Reimbursement.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary, shall reimburse all Federal flight deck 
     officers for expenses incurred to complete a recurrent and 
     requalifying training requirement necessary to continue to 
     serve as a Federal flight deck officer. Eligible expenses 
     under this subsection include ground transportation, lodging, 
     meals, and ammunition, to complete any required training as 
     determined by the Assistant Secretary.''.

     SEC. 206. FOREIGN REPAIR STATIONS.

       Section 44924(f) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(f) Regulations.--The Assistant Secretary shall issue 
     regulations establishing security standards for foreign 
     repair stations performing maintenance for aircraft used to 
     provide air transportation and shall ensure that comparable 
     standards apply to maintenance work performed by employees of 
     repair stations certified under part 121 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, and maintenance work performed by 
     employees of repair stations certified under part 145 of such 
     title.''.

     SEC. 207. ASSISTANT SECRETARY DEFINED.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 449 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by inserting before section 
     44933 the following:

     ``Sec. 44931. Assistant Secretary defined

       ``(a) In General.--In this chapter--
       ``(1) the term `Assistant Secretary' means the Assistant 
     Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security 
     Administration); and
       ``(2) any reference to the Administrator of the 
     Transportation Security Administration, the Under Secretary 
     of Transportation for Security, the Under Secretary of 
     Transportation for Transportation Security, or the Under 
     Secretary for Transportation Security shall be deemed to be a 
     reference to the Assistant Secretary.
       ``(b) Authorities Vested in Assistant Secretary.--Any 
     authority vested in the Assistant Secretary under this 
     chapter shall be carried out under the direction and control 
     of the Secretary of Homeland Security.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such subchapter 
     is amended by inserting before the item relating to section 
     44933 the following:

``44931. Assistant Secretary defined.''.

     SEC. 208. TSA AND HOMELAND SECURITY INFORMATION SHARING.

       (a) Federal Security Director.--Section 44933 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the section heading, by striking ``Managers'' and 
     inserting ``Directors'';
       (2) by striking ``Manager'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Director'';
       (3) by striking ``Managers'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``Directors''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(c) Information Sharing.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of enactment of the Transportation Security 
     Administration Authorization Act, the Assistant Secretary 
     shall--
       ``(1) require an airport security plan to have clear 
     reporting procedures to provide that the Federal Security 
     Director of the airport is immediately notified whenever any 
     Federal, State, or local law enforcement personnel are called 
     to an aircraft at a gate or on an airfield at the airport to 
     respond to any security matter;
       ``(2) require each Federal Security Director of an airport 
     to meet at least quarterly with law enforcement agencies 
     serving the airport to discuss incident management protocols; 
     and
       ``(3) require each Federal Security Director at an airport 
     to inform, consult, and coordinate, as appropriate, with the 
     airport operator in a timely manner on security matters 
     impacting airport operations and to establish and maintain 
     operational protocols with airport operators to ensure 
     coordinated responses to security matters.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 114(f)(6) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``Managers'' and inserting ``Directors''.
       (2) Section 44940(a)(1)(F) of title 49, United States Code, 
     is amended by striking ``Managers'' and inserting 
     ``Directors''.
       (c) Technical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     449 is amended by striking the item relating to section 44933 
     and inserting the following:

``44933. Federal Security Directors.''.

     SEC. 209. AVIATION SECURITY STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 449 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 44946. Aviation Security Advisory Committee

       ``(a) Establishment of Aviation Security Advisory 
     Committee.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall establish 
     in the Transportation Security Administration an advisory 
     committee, to be known as the Aviation Security Advisory 
     Committee (in this chapter referred to as the `Advisory 
     Committee'), to assist the Assistant Secretary with issues 
     pertaining to aviation security, including credentialing.
       ``(2) Recommendations.--The Assistant Secretary shall 
     require the Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for 
     improvements to civil aviation security methods, equipment, 
     and processes.
       ``(3) Meetings.--The Assistant Secretary shall require the 
     Advisory Committee to meet at least semiannually and may 
     convene additional meetings as necessary.
       ``(4) Unpaid position.--Advisory Committee members shall 
     serve at their own expense and receive no salary, 
     reimbursement of travel expenses, or other compensation from 
     the Federal Government.
       ``(b) Membership.--
       ``(1) Member organizations.--The Assistant Secretary shall 
     ensure that the Advisory Committee is composed of not more 
     than one individual representing not more than 27 member 
     organizations, including representation of air carriers, all 
     cargo air transportation, indirect air carriers, labor 
     organizations representing air carrier employees, aircraft 
     manufacturers, airport operators, general aviation, and the 
     aviation technology security industry, including biometrics.
       ``(2) Appointments.--Members shall be appointed by the 
     Assistant Secretary, and the Assistant Secretary shall have 
     the discretion to review the participation of any Advisory 
     Committee member and remove for cause at any time.
       ``(c) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.)

[[Page 14019]]

     shall not apply to the Advisory Committee under this section.
       ``(d) Air Cargo Security Working Group.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall establish 
     within the Advisory Committee an air cargo security working 
     group to provide recommendations for air cargo security 
     issues, including the implementation of the air cargo 
     screening initiatives proposed by the Transportation Security 
     Administration to screen air cargo on passenger aircraft in 
     accordance with established cargo screening mandates.
       ``(2) Meetings.--The working group shall meet at least 
     semiannually and provide annual reports to the Assistant 
     Secretary with recommendations to improve the 
     Administration's cargo screening initiatives established to 
     meet all cargo screening mandates set forth in section 
     44901(g) of title 49, United States Code.
       ``(3) Membership.--The working group shall include members 
     from the Advisory Committee with expertise in air cargo 
     operations and representatives from other stakeholders as 
     determined by the Assistant Secretary.
       ``(4) Reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--The working group shall prepare and 
     submit reports to the Assistant Secretary in accordance with 
     this paragraph that provide cargo screening mandate 
     implementation recommendations.
       ``(B) Submission.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of enactment of this section and on an annual basis 
     thereafter, the working group shall submit its first report 
     to the Assistant Secretary, including any recommendations of 
     the group--
       ``(i) to reduce redundancies and increase efficiencies with 
     the screening and inspection of inbound cargo; and
       ``(ii) on the potential development of a fee structure to 
     help sustain cargo screening efforts.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such subchapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following:

``44946. Aviation Security Advisory Committee.''.

     SEC. 210. GENERAL AVIATION SECURITY.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 449 of title 49, 
     United States Code, as amended by section 209 of this Act, is 
     further amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 44947. General aviation security

       ``(a) General Aviation Security Grant Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall carry out 
     a general aviation security grant program to enhance 
     transportation security at general aviation airports by 
     making grants to operators of general aviation airports for 
     projects to enhance perimeter security, airfield security, 
     and terminal security.
       ``(2) Eligible projects.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of submission of the first report of the working group 
     under subsection (b), the Assistant Secretary shall develop 
     and make publically available a list of approved eligible 
     projects for such grants under paragraph (1) based upon 
     recommendations made by the working group in such report.
       ``(3) Federal share.--The Federal share of the cost of 
     activities for which grants are made under this subsection 
     shall be 90 percent.
       ``(b) General Aviation Security Working Group.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall establish, 
     within the Aviation Security Advisory Committee established 
     under section 44946, a general aviation working group to 
     advise the Transportation Security Administration regarding 
     transportation security issues for general aviation 
     facilities general aviation aircraft, and helicopter 
     operations at general aviation and commercial service 
     airports.
       ``(2) Meetings.--The working group shall meet at least 
     semiannually and may convene additional meetings as 
     necessary.
       ``(3) Membership.--The Assistant Secretary shall appoint 
     members from the Aviation Security Advisory Committee with 
     general aviation experience.
       ``(4) Reports.--
       ``(A) Submission.--The working group shall submit a report 
     to the Assistant Secretary with recommendations on ways to 
     improve security at general aviation airports.
       ``(B) Contents of report.--The report of the working group 
     submitted to the Assistant Secretary under this paragraph 
     shall include any recommendations of the working group for 
     eligible security enhancement projects at general aviation 
     airports to be funded by grants under subsection (a).
       ``(C) Subsequent reports.--After submitting the report, the 
     working group shall continue to report to the Assistant 
     Secretary on general aviation aircraft and airports.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--From amounts made 
     available under section 101 of the Transportation Security 
     Administration Authorization Act, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated for making grants under subsection (a) 
     $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for such subchapter 
     is further amended by adding at the end the following:

``44947. General aviation security.''.

     SEC. 211. SECURITY AND SELF-DEFENSE TRAINING.

       (a) Section 44918(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
       ``(1) Self-defense training program.--Not later than 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of the Transportation Security 
     Administration Authorization Act, the Assistant Secretary 
     shall provide advanced self-defense training of not less than 
     5 hours during each 2-year period for all cabin crewmembers. 
     The Assistant Secretary shall consult with the Advisory 
     Committee, established under section 44946. and cabin crew 
     and air carrier representatives in developing a plan for 
     providing self-defense training in conjunction with existing 
     recurrent training.'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Participation.--A crewmember shall not be required to 
     engage in any physical contact during the training program 
     under this subsection.''; and
       (3) by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating paragraphs 
     (5) through (7) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively.
       (b) Security Training.--Section 44918(a)(6) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following: ``The Assistant Secretary shall establish an 
     oversight program for security training of cabin crewmembers 
     that includes developing performance measures and strategic 
     goals for air carriers, and standard protocols for 
     Transportation Security Administration oversight inspectors, 
     in accordance with recommendations by the Inspector General 
     of the Department of Homeland Security and the Comptroller 
     General.''.

     SEC. 212. SECURITY SCREENING OF INDIVIDUALS WITH METAL 
                   IMPLANTS TRAVELING IN AIR TRANSPORTATION.

       (a) In General.--Section 44903 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(m) Security Screening of Individuals With Metal 
     Implants.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall ensure 
     fair treatment in the screening of individuals with metal 
     implants traveling in air transportation.
       ``(2) Plan.--The Assistant Secretary shall submit a plan to 
     the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives for improving security screening procedures 
     for individuals with metal implants to limit disruptions in 
     the screening process while maintaining security. The plan 
     shall include benchmarks for implementing changes to the 
     screening process and analysis of approaches to limit such 
     disruptions for individuals with metal implants including 
     participation in the Registered Traveler program, as 
     established pursuant to section 109(a)(3) of the Aviation 
     Transportation Security Act (115 Stat. 597), and the 
     development of a new credential or system that incorporates 
     biometric technology and other applicable technologies to 
     verify the identity of an individual who has a metal implant.
       ``(3) Metal implant defined.--In this subsection, the term 
     `metal implant' means a metal device or object that has been 
     surgically implanted or otherwise placed in the body of an 
     individual, including any metal device used in a hip or knee 
     replacement, metal plate, metal screw, metal rod inside a 
     bone, and other metal orthopedic implants.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     submit the plan for security screening procedures for 
     individuals with metal implants, as required by section 
     44903(m) of title 49, United States Code.

     SEC. 213. PROHIBITION ON OUTSOURCING.

       Section 44903(j)(2)(C) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) Outsourcing prohibited.--Upon implementation of the 
     advanced passenger prescreening system required by this 
     section, the Assistant Secretary shall prohibit any non-
     governmental entity from administering the function of 
     comparing passenger information to the automatic selectee and 
     no fly lists, consolidated and integrated terrorist 
     watchlists, or any list or database derived from such 
     watchlists for activities related to aviation security. The 
     Assistant Secretary shall report to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate when any 
     non-governmental entity is authorized access to the 
     watchlists described in this clause.''.

                       Subtitle B--Other Matters

     SEC. 221. SECURITY RISK ASSESSMENT OF AIRPORT PERIMETER 
                   ACCESS CONTROLS.

       (a) In General.--The Assistant Secretary shall develop a 
     strategic risk-based plan to improve transportation security 
     at airports that includes best practices to make airport 
     perimeter access controls more secure at all commercial 
     service and general aviation airports.
       (b) Contents.--The plan shall--
       (1) incorporate best practices for enhanced perimeter 
     access controls;
       (2) evaluate and incorporate major findings of all relevant 
     pilot programs of the Transportation Security Administration;
       (3) address recommendations of the Comptroller General on 
     perimeter access controls;
       (4) include a requirement that airports update their 
     security plans to incorporate the best practices, as 
     appropriate, based on risk and adapt the best practices to 
     meet the needs specific to their facilities; and
       (5) include an assessment of the role of new and emerging 
     technologies, including unmanned and autonomous perimeter 
     security technologies, that could be utilized at both 
     commercial and general aviation facilities.

[[Page 14020]]



     SEC. 222. ADVANCED PASSENGER PRESCREENING SYSTEM.

       (a) Initial Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall 
     submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report that--
       (1) describes the progress made by the Department of 
     Homeland Security in implementing the advanced passenger 
     prescreening system;
       (2) compares the total number of misidentified passengers 
     who must undergo secondary screening or have been prevented 
     from boarding a plane during the 3-month period beginning 90 
     days before the date of enactment of the Transportation 
     Security Administration Authorization Act with the 3-month 
     period beginning 90 days after such date; and
       (3) includes any other relevant recommendations that the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security or 
     the Comptroller General determines appropriate.
       (b) Subsequent Reports.--The Comptroller General shall 
     submit subsequent reports on the implementation to such 
     Committees every 90 days thereafter until the implementation 
     is complete.

     SEC. 223. BIOMETRIC IDENTIFIER AIRPORT ACCESS ENHANCEMENT 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--The Assistant Secretary shall carry out a 
     demonstration program under which biometric identifier access 
     systems for individuals with unescorted access to secure or 
     sterile areas of an airport, including airport employees and 
     flight crews, are evaluated for the purposes of enhancing 
     transportation security at airports and to determine how 
     airports can implement uniform biometric identifier and 
     interoperable security systems.
       (b) Airports Participating in Program.--The Assistant 
     Secretary shall select at least 7 airports, including at 
     least 2 large airports, to participate in the demonstration 
     program.
       (c) Initiation and Duration of Program.--
       (1) Deadline for initiation.--The Assistant Secretary shall 
     conduct the demonstration program not later than one year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Duration.--The program shall have a duration of not 
     less than 180 days and not more than one year.
       (d) Required Elements.--In conducting the demonstration 
     program, the Assistant Secretary shall--
       (1) assess best operational, administrative, and management 
     practices in creating uniform, standards-based, and 
     interoperable biometric identifier systems for all 
     individuals with access to secure or sterile areas of 
     commercial service airports; and
       (2) conduct a risk-based analysis of the selected airports 
     and other airports, as the Assistant Secretary determines 
     appropriate, to identify where the implementation of 
     biometric identifier systems could benefit security.
       (e) Considerations.--In conducting the demonstration 
     program, the Assistant Secretary shall consider, at a 
     minimum, the following:
       (1) Parallel systems.--Existing parallel biometric 
     transportation security systems applicable to workers with 
     unescorted access to transportation systems, including--
       (A) transportation worker identification credentials issued 
     under section 70105 of title 46, United States Code;
       (B) armed law enforcement travel credentials issued under 
     section 44903(h)(6) of title 49, United States Code; and
       (C) other credential and biometric identifier systems used 
     by the Federal Government, as the Assistant Secretary 
     considers appropriate.
       (2) Efforts by transportation security administration.--Any 
     biometric identifier system or proposals developed by the 
     Assistant Secretary.
       (3) Infrastructure and technical requirements.--The 
     architecture, modules, interfaces, and transmission of data 
     needed for airport security operations.
       (4) Existing airport systems.--Credentialing and access 
     control systems in use in secure and sterile areas of 
     airports.
       (5) Associated costs.--The costs of implementing uniform, 
     standards-based, and interoperable biometric identifier 
     systems at airports, including--
       (A) the costs to airport operators, airport workers, air 
     carriers, and other aviation industry stakeholders; and
       (B) the costs associated with ongoing operations and 
     maintenance and modifications and enhancements needed to 
     support changes in physical and electronic infrastructure.
       (6) Information from other sources.--Recommendations, 
     guidance, and information from other sources, including the 
     Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security, the 
     Comptroller General, the heads of other governmental 
     entities, organizations representing airport workers, and 
     private individuals and organizations.
       (f) Identification of Best Practices.--In conducting the 
     demonstration program, the Assistant Secretary shall identify 
     best practices for the administration of biometric identifier 
     access at airports, including best practices for each of the 
     following processes:
       (1) Registration, vetting, and enrollment.
       (2) Issuance.
       (3) Verification and use.
       (4) Expiration and revocation.
       (5) Development of a cost structure for acquisition of 
     biometric identifier credentials.
       (6) Development of redress processes for workers.
       (g) Consultation.--In conducting the demonstration program, 
     the Assistant Secretary shall consult with the Aviation 
     Security Advisory Committee regarding how airports may 
     transition to uniform, standards-based, and interoperable 
     biometric identifier systems for airport workers and others 
     with unescorted access to secure or sterile areas of an 
     airport.
       (h) Evaluation.--The Assistant Secretary shall conduct an 
     evaluation of the demonstration program to specifically 
     assess best operational, administrative, and management 
     practices in creating a standard, interoperable, biometric 
     identifier access system for all individuals with access to 
     secure or sterile areas of commercial service airports.
       (i) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     last day of that demonstration program ends, the Assistant 
     Secretary shall submit to the appropriate congressional 
     committees, including the Committee on Homeland Security of 
     the House of Representatives, a report on the results of the 
     demonstration program. The report shall include possible 
     incentives for airports that voluntarily seek to implement 
     uniform, standards-based, and interoperable biometric 
     identifier systems.
       (j) Biometric Identifier System Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``biometric identifier system'' means a system that 
     uses biometric identifier information to match individuals 
     and confirm identity for transportation security and other 
     purposes.
       (k) Authorization of Appropriations.--From amounts 
     authorized under section 101, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated a total of $20,000,000 to carry out this section 
     for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

     SEC. 224. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY TRAINING PROGRAMS.

       Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Assistant Secretary shall establish recurring 
     training of transportation security officers regarding 
     updates to screening procedures and technologies in response 
     to weaknesses identified in covert tests at airports. The 
     training shall include--
       (1) internal controls for monitoring and documenting 
     compliance of transportation security officers with training 
     requirements;
       (2) the availability of high-speed Internet and Intranet 
     connectivity to all airport training facilities of the 
     Administration; and
       (3) such other matters as identified by the Assistant 
     Secretary with regard to training.

     SEC. 225. DEPLOYMENT OF TECHNOLOGY APPROVED BY SCIENCE AND 
                   TECHNOLOGY DIRECTORATE.

       (a) In General.--The Assistant Secretary, in consultation 
     with the Directorate of Science and Technology of the 
     Department of Homeland Security, shall develop and submit to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress, including the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, a strategic plan for the certification and 
     integration of technologies for transportation security with 
     high approval or testing results from the Directorate and the 
     Transportation Security Laboratory of the Department.
       (b) Contents of Strategic Plan.--The strategic plan 
     developed under subsection (a) shall include--
       (1) a cost-benefit analysis to assist in prioritizing 
     investments in new checkpoint screening technologies that 
     compare the costs and benefits of screening technologies 
     being considered for development or acquisition with the 
     costs and benefits of other viable alternatives;
       (2) quantifiable performance measures to assess the extent 
     to which investments in research, development, and deployment 
     of checkpoint screening technologies achieve performance 
     goals for enhancing security at airport passenger 
     checkpoints; and
       (3) a method to ensure that operational tests and 
     evaluations have been successfully completed in an 
     operational environment before deploying checkpoint screening 
     technologies to airport checkpoints.
       (c) Report to Congress.--
       (1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall submit to 
     the appropriate committees of Congress, including the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives, an annual report on the status of all 
     technologies that have undergone testing and evaluation, 
     including technologies that have been certified by the 
     Department, and any technologies used in a demonstration 
     program administered by the Administration. The report shall 
     also specify whether the technology was submitted by an 
     academic institution, including an institution of higher 
     education eligible to receive assistance under title III or V 
     of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1051 et seq. 
     and 1101 et seq.)
       (2) First report.--The first report submitted under this 
     subsection shall assess such technologies for a period of not 
     less than 2 years.

     SEC. 226. IN-LINE BAGGAGE SCREENING STUDY.

       The Assistant Secretary shall consult with the Advisory 
     Committee and report to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress, including the Committee on Homeland Security of the 
     House of Representatives, on deploying optimal baggage 
     screening solutions and replacing baggage screening equipment 
     nearing the end of its life cycle at commercial service 
     airports. Specifically, the report shall address the 
     Administration's plans, estimated costs, and current 
     benchmarks for replacing explosive detection equipment that 
     is nearing the end of its life cycle.

     SEC. 227. IN-LINE CHECKED BAGGAGE SCREENING SYSTEMS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

[[Page 14021]]

       (1) Since its inception, the Administration has procured 
     and installed over 2,000 explosive detection systems 
     (referred to in this section as ``EDS'') and 8,000 explosive 
     trace detection (referred to in this section as ``ETD'') 
     systems to screen checked baggage for explosives at the 
     Nation's commercial airports.
       (2) Initial deployment of stand-alone EDS machines in 
     airport lobbies resulted in operational inefficiencies and 
     security risks as compared to using EDS machines integrated 
     in-line with airport baggage conveyor systems.
       (3) The Administration has acknowledged the advantages of 
     fully integrating in-line checked baggage EDS systems, 
     especially at large airports. According to the 
     Administration, in-line EDS systems have proven to be cost-
     effective and more accurate at detecting dangerous items.
       (4) As a result of the large upfront capital investment 
     required, these systems have not been deployed on a wide-
     scale basis. The Administration estimates that installing and 
     operating the optimal checked baggage screening systems could 
     potentially cost more than $20,000,000,000 over 20 years.
       (5) Nearly $2,000,000,000 has been appropriated for the 
     installation of in-line explosive detection systems, 
     including necessary baggage handling system improvements, 
     since 2007.
       (6) Despite substantial funding, the Administration has 
     made limited progress in deploying optimal screening 
     solutions, including in-line systems, to 250 airports 
     identified in its February 2006 strategic planning framework.
       (b) GAO Report.--The Comptroller General shall submit to 
     the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report on the Administration's 
     progress in deploying optimal baggage screening solutions and 
     replacing aging baggage screening equipment at the Nation's 
     commercial airports. The report shall also include an 
     analysis of the Administration's methodology for expending 
     public funds to deploy in-line explosive detection systems 
     since 2007. The report shall address, at a minimum--
       (1) the Administration's progress in deploying optimal 
     screening solutions at the Nation's largest commercial 
     airports, including resources obligated and expended through 
     fiscal year 2009;
       (2) the potential benefits and challenges associated with 
     the deployment of optimal screening solutions at the Nation's 
     commercial airports; and
       (3) the Administration's plans, estimated costs, and 
     current milestones for replacing EDS machines that are 
     nearing the end of their estimated useful product lives.
       (c) Updates Required.--Not later than 6 months after 
     submitting the report required in subsection (b) and every 6 
     months thereafter until the funds appropriated for such 
     systems are expended, the Comptroller General shall provide 
     the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives an update regarding its analysis of the 
     Administration's expenditures for explosive detection and in-
     line baggage systems.

     SEC. 228. GAO REPORT ON CERTAIN CONTRACTS AND USE OF FUNDS.

       Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, and every 6 months thereafter, the Comptroller General 
     shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report regarding 
     any funds made available by the Consolidated Security, 
     Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 
     (Public Law 110-329), the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 
     (Public Law 111-8), or the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 
     (Public Law 110-185) used by the Transportation Security 
     Administration to award a contract for any explosive 
     detection screening system or to implement any other 
     screening or detection technology for use at an airport.

     SEC. 229. IG REPORT ON CERTAIN POLICIES FOR FEDERAL AIR 
                   MARSHALS.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland 
     Security shall review the minimum standards and policies 
     regarding rest periods between deployments and any other 
     standards or policies applicable to Federal air marshals 
     reporting to duty. After such review, the Inspector General 
     shall make any recommendations to such standards and policies 
     the Inspector General considers necessary to ensure an alert 
     and responsible workforce of Federal air marshals.

     SEC. 230. EXPLOSIVES DETECTION CANINE TEAMS MINIMUM FOR 
                   AVIATION SECURITY.

       The Assistant Secretary shall ensure that the number of 
     explosives detection canine teams for aviation security is 
     not less than 250 through fiscal year 2011.

     SEC. 231. ASSESSMENTS AND GAO REPORT OF INBOUND AIR CARGO 
                   SCREENING.

       Section 1602 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/
     11 Commission Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 478) is amended by 
     inserting at the end the following:
       ``(c) Assessment of Inbound Compliance.--Upon establishment 
     of the inbound air cargo screening system, the Assistant 
     Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Homeland 
     Security in the House of Representatives on the impact, 
     rationale, and percentage of air cargo being exempted from 
     screening under exemptions granted under section 44901(i)(1) 
     of title 49, United States Code.
       ``(d) GAO Report.--Not later than 120 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act and quarterly thereafter, the 
     Comptroller General shall review the air cargo screening 
     system for inbound passenger aircraft and report to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security in the House of 
     Representatives on the status of implementation, including 
     the approximate percentage of cargo being screened, as well 
     as the Administration's methods to verify the screening 
     system's implementation.''.

     SEC. 232. STATUS OF EFFORTS TO PROMOTE AIR CARGO SHIPPER 
                   CERTIFICATION.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate a report on the status of the implementation of the 
     Administration's plan to promote a program to certify the 
     screening methods used by shippers in a timely manner, in 
     accordance with section 44901(g) of title 49, United States 
     Code, including participation by shippers with robust and 
     mature internal security programs.

     SEC. 233. FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION IN SECURITY BACKGROUND 
                   SCREENING SERVICE.

       Not later than 9 months after the date of enactment of this 
     section, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register 
     a notice that the selection process for security background 
     screening services for persons requiring background screening 
     in the aviation industry is subject to full and open 
     competition. The notice shall include--
       (1) a statement that airports and other affected entities 
     are not required to use a single service provider of 
     background screening services and may use the services of 
     other providers approved by the Assistant Secretary;
       (2) requirements for disposal of personally identifiable 
     information by the approved provider by a date certain; and
       (3) information on all technical specifications and other 
     criteria required by the Assistant Secretary to approve a 
     background screening service provider.

     SEC. 234. REGISTERED TRAVELER.

       (a) Assessments and Background Checks.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2) and not later 
     than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to 
     enhance aviation security through risk management at airport 
     checkpoints through use of the Registered Traveler program, 
     established pursuant to section 109(a)(3) of the Aviation 
     Transportation Security Act (115 Stat. 597), the Assistant 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) reinstate an initial and continuous security threat 
     assessment program as part of the Registered Traveler 
     enrollment process; and
       (B) allow Registered Traveler providers to perform private 
     sector background checks as part of their enrollment process 
     with assurance that the program shall be undertaken in a 
     manner consistent with constitutional privacy and civil 
     liberties protections and be subject to approval and 
     oversight by the Assistant Secretary.
       (2) Requirements.--The Assistant Secretary shall not 
     reinstate the threat assessment component of the Registered 
     Traveler program or allow certain background checks unless 
     the Assistant Secretary--
       (A) determines that the Registered Traveler program, in 
     accordance with this subsection, is integrated into risk-
     based aviation security operations; and
       (B) expedites checkpoint screening, as appropriate, for 
     Registered Traveler members who have been subjected to a 
     security threat assessment and the private sector background 
     check under this subsection.
       (b) Notification.--
       (1) Contents.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, if the Assistant Secretary determines 
     that the Registered Traveler program can be integrated into 
     risk-based aviation security operations under subsection (a), 
     the Assistant Secretary shall report to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate regarding--
       (A) the level of risk reduction provided by carrying out 
     section (a); and
       (B) how the Registered Traveler program has been integrated 
     into risk-based aviation security operations.
       (2) Changes to protocol.--The Assistant Secretary shall 
     also set forth what changes to the program, including 
     screening protocols, have been implemented to realize the 
     full potential of the Registered Traveler program.
       (c) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to authorize any nongovernmental entity to perform 
     vetting against the terrorist screening database maintained 
     by the Administration.

     SEC. 235. REPORT ON CABIN CREW COMMUNICATION.

       Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Assistant Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Advisory Committee established under section 44946 of title 
     49, United States Code, shall prepare a report that assesses 
     technologies and includes standards for the use of wireless 
     devices to enhance transportation security on aircraft for 
     the purpose of ensuring communication between and among cabin 
     crew and pilot crewmembers, embarked Federal air marshals, 
     and authorized law enforcement officials, as appropriate.

     SEC. 236. AIR CARGO CREW TRAINING.

       The Assistant Secretary, in consultation with the Advisory 
     Committee established under section 44946 of title 49, United 
     States Code, shall develop a plan for security training for 
     the all-cargo aviation threats for pilots and, as 
     appropriate, other crewmembers operating in all-cargo 
     transportation.

[[Page 14022]]



     SEC. 237. REIMBURSEMENT FOR AIRPORTS THAT HAVE INCURRED 
                   ELIGIBLE COSTS.

       Section 1604(b)(2) of the Implementing Recommendations of 
     the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (121 Stat. 481) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) Airports that have incurred eligible costs.--
       ``(A) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act, the Assistant Secretary of Homeland 
     Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall 
     establish a process for resolving reimbursement claims for 
     airports that have incurred, before the date of enactment of 
     this Act, eligible costs associated with development of 
     partial or completed in-line baggage systems.
       ``(B) Process for receiving reimbursement.--The process 
     shall allow an airport--
       ``(i) to submit a claim to the Assistant Secretary for 
     reimbursement for eligible costs described in subparagraph 
     (A); and
       ``(ii) not later than 180 days after date on which the 
     airport submits the claim, to receive a determination on the 
     claim and, if the determination is positive, to be 
     reimbursed.
       ``(C) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date on 
     which the Assistant Secretary establishes the process under 
     subparagraph (B), the Assistant Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives a report containing a description of the 
     process, including a schedule for the timely reimbursement of 
     airports for which a positive determination has been made.''.

     SEC. 238. REPORT ON WHOLE BODY IMAGING TECHNOLOGY.

       Upon completion of the ongoing whole body imaging 
     technology pilot, the Assistant Secretary shall submit a 
     report to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate on the results of the pilot, 
     including how privacy protections were integrated.

     SEC. 239. PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     develop protocols for the use of protective equipment for 
     personnel of the Transportation Security Administration and 
     for other purposes.
       (b) Definition.--In this section the term ``protective 
     equipment'' includes surgical masks and N95 masks.

               TITLE III--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

     SEC. 301. ASSISTANT SECRETARY DEFINED.

       Section 1301 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/
     11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1111) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) through (6) as 
     paragraphs (3) through (7), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
       ``(2) Assistant secretary.--The term `Assistant Secretary' 
     means the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security 
     (Transportation Security Administration).''.

     SEC. 302. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY INSPECTION PROGRAM.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Surface transportation security inspectors assist 
     passenger rail stakeholders in identifying security gaps 
     through Baseline Assessment for Security Enhancement 
     (``BASE'') reviews, monitor freight rail stakeholder efforts 
     to reduce the risk that toxic inhalation hazard shipments 
     pose to high threat urban areas through Security Action Item 
     (``SAI'') reviews, and assist in strengthening chain of 
     custody security.
       (2) Surface transportation security inspectors play a 
     critical role in building and maintaining working 
     relationships with transit agencies and acting as liaisons 
     between such agencies and the Transportation Security 
     Operations Center, relationships which are vital to effective 
     implementation of the surface transportation security 
     mission.
       (3) In December 2006, the Transportation Security 
     Administration shifted from a system in which surface 
     transportation security inspectors reported to surface-
     focused supervisors to a system in which inspectors report to 
     aviation-focused supervisors in the field; a shift which has 
     resulted in a strained chain of command, misappropriation of 
     inspectors to nonsurface activities, the hiring of senior-
     level inspectors with no surface qualifications, and 
     significant damage to relationships with transit agencies and 
     inspector morale.
       (b) Surface Transportation Security Inspection Office.--
     Section 1304 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
     Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1113) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (j) as 
     subsections (b) through (i), respectively; and
       (2) by striking subsections (a) and (b) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(a) Surface Transportation Security Inspection Office.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--The Secretary, acting through the 
     Assistant Secretary, shall establish an office to be known as 
     the Surface Transportation Security Inspection Office (in 
     this section referred to as the `Office').
       ``(2) Mission.--The Secretary shall use the Office to 
     train, employ, and utilize surface transportation security 
     inspectors to--
       ``(A) assist surface transportation carriers, operators, 
     owners, entities, and facilities to enhance their security 
     against terrorist attacks and other security threats; and
       ``(B) assist the Secretary in enforcing applicable surface 
     transportation security regulations and directives.
       ``(3) Officers.--
       ``(A) Director.--The head of the Office shall be the 
     Director, who shall--
       ``(i) oversee and coordinate the activities of the Office, 
     including all officers and any corresponding surface 
     transportation modes in which the Office carries out such 
     activities, and the surface transportation security 
     inspectors who assist in such activities; and
       ``(ii) act as the primary point of contact between the 
     Office and other entities that support the Department's 
     surface transportation security mission to ensure efficient 
     and appropriate use of surface transportation security 
     inspectors and maintain strong working relationships with 
     surface transportation security stakeholders.
       ``(B) Deputy director.--There shall be a Deputy Director of 
     the Office, who shall--
       ``(i) assist the Director in carrying out the 
     responsibilities of the Director under this subsection; and
       ``(ii) serve as acting Director in the absence of the 
     Director and during any vacancy in the office of Director.
       ``(4) Appointment.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Director and Deputy Director shall 
     be responsible on a full-time basis for the duties and 
     responsibilities described in this subsection.
       ``(B) Classification.--The position of Director shall be 
     considered a position in the Senior Executive Service as 
     defined in section 2101a of title 5, United States Code, and 
     the position of Deputy Director shall be considered a 
     position classified at grade GS-15 of the General Schedule.
       ``(5) Limitation.--No person shall serve as an officer 
     under subsection (a)(3) while serving in any other position 
     in the Federal Government.
       ``(6) Field offices.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish primary 
     and secondary field offices in the United States to be 
     staffed by surface transportation security inspectors in the 
     course of carrying out their duties under this section.
       ``(B) Designation.--The locations for, and designation as 
     `primary' or `secondary' of, such field offices shall be 
     determined in a manner that is consistent with the 
     Department's risk-based approach to carrying out its homeland 
     security mission.
       ``(C) Command structure.--
       ``(i) Primary field offices.--Each primary field office 
     shall be led by a chief surface transportation security 
     inspector, who has significant experience with surface 
     transportation systems, facilities, and operations and shall 
     report directly to the Director.
       ``(ii) Secondary field offices.--Each secondary field 
     office shall be led by a senior surface transportation 
     security inspector, who shall report directly to the chief 
     surface transportation security inspector of a geographically 
     appropriate primary field office, as determined by the 
     Director.
       ``(D) Personnel.--Not later than 18 months after the date 
     of enactment of the Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act, field offices shall be staffed with--
       ``(i) not fewer than 7 surface transportation security 
     inspectors, including one chief surface transportation 
     security inspector, at every primary field office; and
       ``(ii) not fewer than 5 surface transportation security 
     inspectors, including one senior surface transportation 
     security inspector, at every secondary field office.''.
       (c) Number of Inspectors.--Section 1304(e) of such Act (6 
     U.S.C. 1113(e)), as redesignated by subsection (b) of this 
     section, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(e) Number of Inspectors.--Subject to the availability of 
     appropriations, the Secretary shall hire not fewer than--
       ``(1) 200 additional surface transportation security 
     inspectors in fiscal year 2010; and
       ``(2) 100 additional surface transportation security 
     inspectors in fiscal year 2011.''.
       (d) Coordination.--Section 1304(f) of such Act (6 U.S.C. 
     1113(f)), as redesignated by subsection (b) of this section, 
     is amended by striking ``114(t)'' and inserting ``114(s)''.
       (e) Report.--Section 1304(h) of such Act (6 U.S.C. 
     1113(h)), as redesignated by subsection (b) of this section, 
     is amended by striking ``2008'' and inserting ``2011''.
       (f) Plan.--Section 1304(i) of such Act (6 U.S.C. 1113(i)), 
     as redesignated by subsection (b) of this section, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(i) Plan.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a plan for expanding the 
     duties and leveraging the expertise of surface transportation 
     security inspectors to further support the Department's 
     surface transportation security mission.
       ``(2) Contents.--The plan shall include--
       ``(A) an analysis of how surface transportation security 
     inspectors could be used to conduct oversight activities with 
     respect to surface transportation security projects funded by 
     relevant grant programs administered by the Department;
       ``(B) an evaluation of whether authorizing surface 
     transportation security inspectors to obtain or possess law 
     enforcement qualifications or status would enhance the 
     capacity of the Office

[[Page 14023]]

     to take an active role in the Department's surface 
     transportation security operations; and
       ``(C) any other potential functions relating to surface 
     transportation security the Secretary determines 
     appropriate.''.
       (g) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1304 of such 
     Act (6 U.S.C. 1113) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(j) Authorization of Appropriations.--From amounts made 
     available under section 101 of the Transportation Security 
     Administration Authorization Act, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Secretary 
     to carry out this section for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.''.
       (h) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1304(b) of such Act (6 
     U.S.C. 1113(b)), as redesignated by subsection (b) of this 
     section, is amended by striking ``subsection (e)'' and 
     inserting ``subsection (d)''.

     SEC. 303. VISIBLE INTERMODAL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE TEAMS.

       Section 1303 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/
     11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1112) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a) by striking ``Administrator of the 
     Transportation Security Administration,'' and inserting 
     ``Assistant Secretary,'';
       (2) in subsection (a)(4) by striking ``team,'' and 
     inserting ``team as to specific locations and times within 
     their facilities at which VIPR teams should be deployed to 
     maximize the effectiveness of such deployment and other 
     matters,''; and
       (3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
       ``(b) Performance Measures.--Not later than one year after 
     the date of enactment of the Transportation Security 
     Administration Authorization Act, the Secretary shall develop 
     and implement a system of qualitative performance measures 
     and objectives by which to assess the roles, activities, and 
     effectiveness of VIPR team operations on an ongoing basis, 
     including a mechanism through which the transportation 
     entities listed in subsection (a)(4) may submit feedback on 
     VIPR team operations involving their systems or facilities.
       ``(c) Plan.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of the Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act, the Secretary shall develop and implement 
     a plan for ensuring the interoperability of communications 
     among all participating VIPR team components as designated 
     under subsection (a)(1) and between VIPR teams and any 
     relevant transportation entities as designated in subsection 
     (a)(4) whose systems or facilities are involved in VIPR team 
     operations, including an analysis of the costs and resources 
     required to carry out the plan.
       ``(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--From amounts made 
     available under section 101 of the Transportation Security 
     Administration Authorization Act, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this section such 
     sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.''.

     SEC. 304. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY STAKEHOLDER 
                   PARTICIPATION.

       (a) In General.--Title XIII of the Implementing 
     Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 
     1111 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1311. TRANSIT SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

       ``(a) Establishment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall establish 
     in the Transportation Security Administration an advisory 
     committee, to be known as the Transit Security Advisory 
     Committee (in this section referred to as the `Advisory 
     Committee'), to assist the Assistant Secretary with issues 
     pertaining to surface transportation security.
       ``(2) Recommendations.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall require 
     the Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for 
     improvements to surface transportation security planning, 
     methods, equipment, and processes.
       ``(B) Priority issues.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of the Transportation Security 
     Administration Authorization Act, the Advisory Committee 
     shall submit to the Assistant Secretary recommendations on--
       ``(i) improving homeland security information sharing 
     between components of the Department of Homeland Security and 
     surface transportation security stakeholders, including those 
     represented on the Advisory Committee; and
       ``(ii) streamlining or consolidating redundant security 
     background checks required by the Department under relevant 
     statutes governing surface transportation security, as well 
     as redundant security background checks required by States 
     where there is no legitimate homeland security basis for 
     requiring such checks.
       ``(3) Meetings.--The Assistant Secretary shall require the 
     Advisory Committee to meet at least semiannually and may 
     convene additional meetings as necessary.
       ``(4) Unpaid position.--Advisory Committee Members shall 
     serve at their own expense and receive no salary, 
     reimbursement for travel expenses, or other compensation from 
     the Federal Government.
       ``(b) Membership.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall ensure 
     that the Advisory Committee is composed of not more than one 
     individual representing not more than 27 member 
     organizations, including representatives from public 
     transportation agencies, passenger rail agencies or 
     operators, railroad carriers, motor carriers, owners or 
     operators of highways, over-the-road bus operators and 
     terminal owners and operators, pipeline operators, labor 
     organizations representing employees of such entities, and 
     the surface transportation security technology industry.
       ``(2) Appointments.--Members shall be appointed by the 
     Assistant Secretary and the Assistant Secretary shall have 
     the discretion to review the participation of any Advisory 
     Committee member and remove for cause at any time.
       ``(c) Nonapplicability of FACA.--The Federal Advisory 
     Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to the Advisory 
     Committee under this section.
       ``(d) Passenger Carrier Security Working Group.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall establish 
     within the Advisory Committee a passenger carrier security 
     working group to provide recommendations for successful 
     implementation of initiatives relating to passenger rail, 
     over-the-road bus, and public transportation security 
     proposed by the Transportation Security Administration in 
     accordance with statutory requirements, including relevant 
     grant programs and security training provisions.
       ``(2) Meetings.--The working group shall meet at least 
     semiannually and provide annual reports to the Assistant 
     Secretary with recommendations to improve the Transportation 
     Security Administration's initiatives relating to passenger 
     rail, over-the-road bus, and public transportation security, 
     including grant, training, inspection, or other relevant 
     programs authorized in titles XIII and XIV, and subtitle C of 
     title XV of this Act.
       ``(3) Membership.--The working group shall be composed of 
     members from the Advisory Committee with expertise in public 
     transportation, over-the-road bus, or passenger rail systems 
     and operations, all appointed by the Assistant Secretary.
       ``(4) Reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--The working group shall prepare and 
     submit reports to the Assistant Secretary in accordance with 
     this paragraph that provide recommendations as described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(B) Submission.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of enactment of the Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act, and on an annual basis thereafter, the 
     working group shall submit a report on the findings and 
     recommendations developed under subparagraph (A) to the 
     Assistant Secretary.
       ``(e) Freight Rail Security Working Group.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall establish 
     within the Advisory Committee a freight rail security working 
     group to provide recommendations for successful 
     implementation of initiatives relating to freight rail 
     security proposed by the Transportation Security 
     Administration in accordance with statutory requirements, 
     including relevant grant programs and security training 
     provisions.
       ``(2) Meetings.--The working group shall meet at least 
     semiannually and provide annual reports to the Assistant 
     Secretary with recommendations to improve the Transportation 
     Security Administration's initiatives relating to freight 
     rail security, including grant, training, inspection, or 
     other relevant programs authorized in titles XIII and XV of 
     this Act.
       ``(3) Membership.--The working group shall be composed of 
     members from the Advisory Committee with expertise in freight 
     rail systems and operations, all appointed by the Assistant 
     Secretary.
       ``(4) Reports.--
       ``(A) In general.--The working group shall prepare and 
     submit reports to the Assistant Secretary in accordance with 
     this paragraph that provide recommendations as described in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2).
       ``(B) Submission.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of enactment of the Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act, and on an annual basis thereafter, the 
     working group shall submit a report on the findings and 
     recommendations developed under subparagraph (A) to the 
     Assistant Secretary.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1(b) of the Implementing 
     Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Public 
     Law 110-53) is amended by adding at the end of title XIII 
     (Transportation Security Enchantments) the following:

``Sec. 1311. Transit Security Advisory Committee.''.

     SEC. 305. HUMAN CAPITAL PLAN FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION 
                   SECURITY PERSONNEL.

       (a) In General.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a human capital plan for 
     hiring, training, managing, and compensating surface 
     transportation security personnel, including surface 
     transportation security inspectors.
       (b) Consultation.--In developing the human capital plan, 
     the Assistant Secretary shall consult with the chief human 
     capital officer of the Department of Homeland Security, the 
     Director of the Surface Transportation Security Inspection 
     Office, the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and the Comptroller General.
       (c) Approval.--Prior to submission, the human capital plan 
     shall be reviewed and approved by the chief human capital 
     officer of the Department of Homeland Security.

[[Page 14024]]



     SEC. 306. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY TRAINING.

       (a) Status Report.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate on the status of the 
     Department's implementation of sections 1408, 1517, and 1534 
     of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
     Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1137, 1167, and 1184), including 
     detailed timeframes for development and issuance of the 
     transportation security training regulations required under 
     such sections.
       (b) Private Providers.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall 
     identify criteria and establish a process for approving and 
     maintaining a list of approved private third-party providers 
     of security training with whom surface transportation 
     entities may enter into contracts, as needed, for the purpose 
     of satisfying security training requirements of the 
     Department of Homeland Security, including requirements 
     developed under sections 1408, 1517, and 1534 of the 
     Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 
     2007 (6 U.S.C. 1137, 1167, and 1184), in accordance with 
     section 103 of this Act.

     SEC. 307. SECURITY ASSISTANCE IG REPORT.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee 
     on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate a report on the roles and responsibilities of the 
     Transportation Security Administration and any other relevant 
     component of the Department of Homeland Security in 
     administering security assistance grants under section 1406 
     of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 
     Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1135).
       (b) Contents.--The report shall--
       (1) clarify and describe the roles and responsibilities of 
     each relevant component of the Department, including the 
     Transportation Security Administration, at different stages 
     of the grant process, including the allocation stage, the 
     award stage, and the distribution stage;
       (2) identify areas in which relevant components of the 
     Department, including the Transportation Security 
     Administration, may better integrate or coordinate their 
     activities in order to streamline the grant administration 
     process and improve the efficiency of the project approval 
     process for grantees;
       (3) assess the current state of public transportation and 
     passenger rail security expertise possessed by relevant 
     personnel involved in the grant administration or project 
     approval processes carried out by relevant components of the 
     Department, including the Transportation Security 
     Administration; and
       (4) include recommendations for how each relevant component 
     of the Department, including the Transportation Security 
     Administration, may further clarify, coordinate, or maximize 
     its roles and responsibilities in administering grant funds 
     and approving grant projects under section 1406.

     SEC. 308. INTERNATIONAL LESSONS LEARNED FOR SECURING 
                   PASSENGER RAIL AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION 
                   SYSTEMS.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) numerous terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, 
     have targeted passenger rail or public transportation 
     systems;
       (2) nearly 200 people were killed and almost 2,000 more 
     were injured when terrorists set off 10 simultaneous 
     explosions on 4 commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, on March 
     11, 2004;
       (3) 50 people were killed and more than 700 injured in 
     successive bombings of 3 transit stations and a public bus in 
     London, England, on July 7, 2005, and a second attack against 
     4 similar targets on July 21, 2005, failed because of faulty 
     detonators;
       (4) more than 200 people were killed and more than 700 
     injured in simultaneous terrorist bombings of commuter trains 
     on the Western Line in the suburbs of Mamba, India, on July 
     11, 2006;
       (5) the acts of terrorism in Mamba, India, on November 26, 
     2008, included commando-style attacks on a major railway 
     station; and
       (6) a disproportionately low amount of attention and 
     resources have been devoted to surface transportation 
     security by the Department of Homeland Security, including 
     the security of passenger rail and public transportation 
     systems, as compared with aviation security, which has been 
     the primary focus of Federal transportation security efforts 
     generally, and of the Transportation Security Administration 
     in particular.
       (b) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     on the efforts undertaken by the Secretary and Assistant 
     Secretary, as well as other entities determined by the 
     Comptroller General to have made significant efforts, since 
     January 1, 2004, to learn from foreign nations that have been 
     targets of terrorist attacks on passenger rail and public 
     transportation systems in an effort to identify lessons 
     learned from the experience of such nations to improve the 
     execution of Department functions to address transportation 
     security gaps in the United States.
       (c) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit 
     to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the results of 
     the study. The report shall also include an analysis of 
     relevant legal differences that may affect the ability of the 
     Department to apply lessons learned.
       (2) Recommendations.--The Comptroller General shall include 
     in the report recommendations on how the Department and its 
     components, including the Transportation Security 
     Administration, can expand efforts to learn from the 
     expertise and the security practices of passenger rail and 
     public transportation systems in foreign nations that have 
     experienced terrorist attacks on such systems.

     SEC. 309. UNDERWATER TUNNEL SECURITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) Demonstration Project.--The Assistant Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Under Secretary for Science and 
     Technology, shall conduct a full-scale demonstration project 
     to test and assess the feasibility and effectiveness of 
     certain technologies to enhance the security of underwater 
     public transportation tunnels against terrorist attacks 
     involving the use of improvised explosive devices.
       (b) Inflatable Plugs.--
       (1) In general.--At least one of the technologies tested 
     under subsection (a) shall be inflatable plugs that may be 
     rapidly deployed to prevent flooding of a tunnel.
       (2) First technology tested.--Not later than 180 days after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary 
     shall carry out a demonstration project that tests the 
     effectiveness of using inflatable plugs for the purpose 
     described in paragraph (1).
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after 
     completion of the demonstration project under this section, 
     the Assistant Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress, including the Committee 
     on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, on the 
     results of the demonstration project.
       (d) Authorization of Appropriation.--Of the amounts made 
     available under section 101 for fiscal year 2010, $8,000,000 
     shall be available to carry out this section.

     SEC. 310. PASSENGER RAIL SECURITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) Demonstration Project.--The Assistant Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Under Secretary for Science and 
     Technology, shall conduct a demonstration project in a 
     passenger rail system to test and assess the feasibility and 
     effectiveness of technologies to strengthen the security of 
     passenger rail systems against terrorist attacks involving 
     the use of improvised explosive devices.
       (b) Security Technologies.--The demonstration project under 
     this section shall test and assess technologies to--
       (1) detect improvised explosive devices on station 
     platforms, through the use of foreign object detection 
     programs in conjunction with cameras; and
       (2) defeat improvised explosive devices left on rail 
     tracks.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 180 days after 
     completion of the demonstration project under this section, 
     the Assistant Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress, including the Committee 
     on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives, on the 
     results of the demonstration project.

     SEC. 311. EXPLOSIVES DETECTION CANINE TEAMS.

       Section 1307 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/
     11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1116) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking ``2010'' and inserting 
     ``2011''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Allocation.--
       ``(A)  In general.--The Secretary shall increase the number 
     of canine teams certified by the Transportation Security 
     Administration for the purpose of passenger rail and public 
     transportation security activities to not less than 200 
     canine teams by the end of fiscal year 2011.
       ``(B) Cooperative agreements.--The Secretary shall expand 
     the use of canine teams to enhance passenger rail and public 
     transportation security by entering into cooperative 
     agreements with passenger rail and public transportation 
     agencies eligible for security assistance under section 1406 
     of this Act for the purpose of deploying and maintaining 
     canine teams to such agencies for use in passenger rail or 
     public transportation security activities and providing for 
     assistance in an amount not less than $75,000 for each canine 
     team deployed, to be adjusted by the Secretary for inflation.
       ``(C) Authorization of appropriations.--From amounts made 
     available under section 101 of the Transportation Security 
     Administration Authorization Act, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be necessary 
     to carry out this paragraph for fiscal years 2010 and 
     2011.'';
       (2) in subsection (d)--
       (A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``and'';
       (B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting the following: ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) expand the use of canine teams trained to detect 
     vapor wave trails in passenger rail and public transportation 
     security environments, as the Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Assistant Secretary, determines appropriate.'';
       (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``, if appropriate,'' 
     and inserting ``, to the extent practicable,''; and

[[Page 14025]]

       (4) by striking subsection (f) and inserting the following 
     new subsection (f):
       ``(f) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of the Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees a report on--
       ``(1) utilization of explosives detection canine teams to 
     strengthen security in passenger rail and public 
     transportation environments;
       ``(2) the capacity of the national explosive detection 
     canine team program as a whole; and
       ``(3) how the Assistant Secretary could better support 
     State and local passenger rail and public transportation 
     entities in maintaining certified canine teams for the life 
     of the canine, including by providing financial 
     assistance.''.

            TITLE IV--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY CREDENTIALING

                   Subtitle A--Security Credentialing

     SEC. 401. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR UNIFORM SECURITY 
                   BACKGROUND CHECKS.

       Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report 
     that contains--
       (1) a review of background checks and forms of 
     identification required under State and local transportation 
     security programs;
       (2) a determination as to whether the background checks and 
     forms of identification required under such programs 
     duplicate or conflict with Federal programs; and
       (3) recommendations on limiting the number of background 
     checks and forms of identification required under such 
     programs to reduce or eliminate duplication with Federal 
     programs.

     SEC. 402. ANIMAL-PROPELLED VESSELS.

       Notwithstanding section 70105 of title 46, United States 
     Code, the Secretary shall not require an individual to hold a 
     transportation security card, or be accompanied by another 
     individual who holds such a card if--
       (1) the individual has been issued a license, certificate 
     of registry, or merchant mariner's document under part E of 
     subtitle II of title 46, United States Code;
       (2) the individual is not allowed unescorted access to a 
     secure area designated in a vessel or facility security plan 
     approved by the Secretary; and
       (3) the individual is engaged in the operation of a live 
     animal-propelled vessel.

     SEC. 403. REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION 
                   SECURITY CARDS; ACCESS PENDING ISSUANCE.

       Section 70105 of title 46, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(n) Escorting.--The Secretary shall coordinate with 
     owners and operators subject to this section to allow any 
     individual who has a pending application for a transportation 
     security card under this section or is waiting for reissuance 
     of such card, including any individual whose card has been 
     lost or stolen, and who needs to perform work in a secure or 
     restricted area to have access to such area for that purpose 
     through escorting of such individual in accordance with 
     subsection (a)(1)(B) by another individual who holds a 
     transportation security card.
       ``(o) Processing Time.--The Secretary shall review an 
     initial transportation security card application and respond 
     to the applicant, as appropriate, including the mailing of an 
     Initial Determination of Threat Assessment letter, within 30 
     days after receipt of the initial application. The Secretary 
     shall, to the greatest extent practicable, review appeal and 
     waiver requests submitted by a transportation security card 
     applicant, and send a written decision or request for 
     additional information required for the appeal or waiver 
     determination, within 30 days after receipt of the 
     applicant's appeal or waiver written request. For an 
     applicant that is required to submit additional information 
     for an appeal or waiver determination, the Secretary shall 
     send a written decision, to the greatest extent practicable, 
     within 30 days after receipt of all requested information.
       ``(p) Receipt of Cards.--Within 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of the Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act, the Secretary shall develop a process to 
     permit an individual approved for a transportation security 
     card under this section to receive the card at the 
     individual's place of residence.
       ``(q) Fingerprinting.--The Secretary shall establish 
     procedures providing for an individual who is required to be 
     fingerprinted for purposes of this section to be 
     fingerprinted at facilities operated by or under contract 
     with an agency of the Department of the Secretary that 
     engages in fingerprinting the public for transportation 
     security or other security purposes.''.

     SEC. 404. HARMONIZING SECURITY CARD EXPIRATIONS.

       Section 70105(b) of title 46, United States Code, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) The Secretary may extend for up to one year the 
     expiration of a biometric transportation security card 
     required by this section to align the expiration with the 
     expiration of a license, certificate of registry, or merchant 
     mariner document required under chapter 71 or 73.''.

     SEC. 405. SECURING AVIATION FROM EXTREME TERRORIST THREATS.

       Section 44903(j)(2)(C) of title 49, United States Code, as 
     amended by section 213 of this Act, is further amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(vi) Inclusion of detainees on no fly list.--The 
     Assistant Secretary, in coordination with the Terrorist 
     Screening Center, shall include on the no fly list any 
     individual who was a detainee housed at the Naval Station, 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after January 1, 2009, after a 
     final disposition has been issued by the President. For 
     purposes of this clause, the term `detainee' means an 
     individual in the custody or under the physical control of 
     the United States as a result of armed conflict.''.

                 Subtitle B--SAFE Truckers Act of 2009

     SEC. 431. SHORT TITLE.

       This subtitle may be cited as the ``Screening Applied 
     Fairly and Equitably to Truckers Act of 2009'' or the ``SAFE 
     Truckers Act of 2009''.

     SEC. 432. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.

       (a) In General.--The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 
     U.S.C. 101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

              ``TITLE XXI--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

     ``SEC. 2101. TRANSPORTATION OF SECURITY SENSITIVE MATERIALS.

       ``(a) Security Sensitive Materials.--Not later than 120 
     days after the date of enactment of this section, the 
     Secretary shall issue final regulations, after notice and 
     comment, defining security sensitive materials for the 
     purposes of this title.
       ``(b) Motor Vehicle Operators.--The Secretary shall 
     prohibit an individual from operating a motor vehicle in 
     commerce while transporting a security sensitive material 
     unless the individual holds a valid transportation security 
     card issued by the Secretary under section 70105 of title 46, 
     United States Code.
       ``(c) Shippers.--The Secretary shall prohibit a person 
     from--
       ``(1) offering a security sensitive material for 
     transportation by motor vehicle in commerce; or
       ``(2) causing a security sensitive material to be 
     transported by motor vehicle in commerce,
     unless the motor vehicle operator transporting the security 
     sensitive material holds a valid transportation security card 
     issued by the Secretary under section 70105 of title 46, 
     United States Code.

     ``SEC. 2102. ENROLLMENT LOCATIONS.

       ``(a) Fingerprinting Locations.--The Secretary shall--
       ``(1) work with appropriate entities to ensure that 
     fingerprinting locations for individuals applying for a 
     transportation security card under section 70105 of title 46, 
     United States Code, have flexible operating hours; and
       ``(2) permit an individual applying for such transportation 
     security card to utilize a fingerprinting location outside of 
     the individual's State of residence to the greatest extent 
     practicable.
       ``(b) Receipt and Activation of Cards.--The Secretary shall 
     develop guidelines and procedures to permit an individual to 
     receive a transportation security card under section 70105 of 
     title 46, United States Code, at the individual's place of 
     residence and to activate the card at any enrollment center.
       ``(c) Number of Locations.--The Secretary shall develop and 
     implement a plan--
       ``(1) to offer individuals applying for a transportation 
     security card under section 70105 of title 46, United States 
     Code, the maximum number of fingerprinting locations 
     practicable across diverse geographic regions; and
       ``(2) to conduct outreach to appropriate stakeholders, 
     including owners, operators, and relevant entities (and labor 
     organizations representing employees of such owners, 
     operators, and entities), to keep the stakeholders informed 
     of the timeframe and locations for the opening of additional 
     fingerprinting locations.
       ``(d) Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
     section.

     ``SEC. 2103. AUTHORITY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE.

       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized to ensure 
     compliance with this title.
       ``(b) Memorandum of Understanding.--The Secretary may enter 
     into a memorandum of understanding with the Secretary of 
     Transportation to ensure compliance with section 2101.

     ``SEC. 2104. CIVIL PENALTIES.

       ``A person that violates this title or a regulation or 
     order issued under this title is liable to the United States 
     Government pursuant to the Secretary's authority under 
     section 114(v) of title 49, United States Code.

     ``SEC. 2105. COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE OPERATORS REGISTERED TO 
                   OPERATE IN MEXICO OR CANADA.

       ``The Secretary shall prohibit a commercial motor vehicle 
     operator licensed to operate in Mexico or Canada from 
     operating a commercial motor vehicle transporting a security 
     sensitive material in commerce in the United States until the 
     operator has been subjected to, and not disqualified as a 
     result of, a security background records check by a Federal 
     agency that the Secretary determines is similar to the 
     security background records check required for commercial 
     motor vehicle operators in the United States transporting 
     security sensitive materials in commerce.

     ``SEC. 2106. OTHER SECURITY BACKGROUND CHECKS.

       ``The Secretary shall determine that an individual applying 
     for a transportation security card under section 70105 of 
     title 46, United States Code, has met the background check 
     requirements for such card if the individual was subjected 
     to, and not disqualified as a result of, a security 
     background records check by a Federal agency that the 
     Secretary determines is equivalent to or more stringent than 
     the background check requirements for such card.

[[Page 14026]]



     ``SEC. 2107. REDUNDANT BACKGROUND CHECKS.

       ``(a) In General.--After the date of enactment of this 
     title, the Secretary shall prohibit a State or political 
     subdivision thereof from requiring a separate security 
     background check of an individual seeking to transport 
     hazardous materials.
       ``(b) Waivers.--The Secretary may waive the application of 
     subsection (a) with respect to a State or political 
     subdivision thereof if the State or political subdivision 
     demonstrates a compelling homeland security reason that a 
     separate security background check is necessary to ensure the 
     secure transportation of hazardous materials in the State or 
     political subdivision.
       ``(c) Limitation on Statutory Construction.--Nothing in 
     this section shall limit the authority of a State to ensure 
     that an individual has the requisite knowledge and skills to 
     safely transport hazardous materials in commerce.

     ``SEC. 2108. TRANSITION.

       ``(a) Treatment of Individuals Receiving Prior Hazardous 
     Materials Endorsements.--The Secretary shall treat an 
     individual who has obtained a hazardous materials endorsement 
     in accordance with section 1572 of title 49, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, before the date of enactment of this title, as 
     having met the background check requirements of a 
     transportation security card under section 70105 of title 46, 
     United States Code, subject to reissuance or expiration dates 
     of the hazardous materials endorsement.
       ``(b) Reduction in Fees.--The Secretary shall reduce, to 
     the greatest extent practicable, any fees associated with 
     obtaining a transportation security card under section 70105 
     of title 46, United Sates Code, for any individual referred 
     to in subsection (a).

     ``SEC. 2109. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

       ``Nothing in this title shall be construed as affecting the 
     authority of the Secretary of Transportation to regulate 
     hazardous materials under chapter 51 of title 49, United 
     States Code.

     ``SEC. 2110. DEFINITIONS.

       ``In this title, the following definitions apply:
       ``(1) Commerce.--The term `commerce' means trade or 
     transportation in the jurisdiction of the United States--
       ``(A) between a place in a State and a place outside of the 
     State; or
       ``(B) that affects trade or transportation between a place 
     in a State and a place outside of the State.
       ``(2) Hazardous material.--The term `hazardous material' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 5102 of title 49, 
     United States Code.
       ``(3) Person.--The term `person', in addition to its 
     meaning under section 1 of title 1, United States Code--
       ``(A) includes a government, Indian tribe, or authority of 
     a government or tribe offering security sensitive material 
     for transportation in commerce or transporting security 
     sensitive material to further a commercial enterprise; but
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) the United States Postal Service; and
       ``(ii) in section 2104, a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the Government.
       ``(4) Security sensitive material.--The term `security 
     sensitive material' has the meaning given that term in 
     section 1501 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
     Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1151).
       ``(5) Transports; transportation.--The term `transports' or 
     `transportation' means the movement of property and loading, 
     unloading, or storage incidental to such movement.''.

     SEC. 433. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       The table of contents contained in section 1(b) of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 2135) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:

              ``TITLE XXI--SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SECURITY

``Sec. 2101. Transportation of security sensitive materials.
``Sec. 2102. Enrollment locations.
``Sec. 2103. Authority to ensure compliance.
``Sec. 2104. Civil penalties.
``Sec. 2105. Commercial motor vehicle operators registered to operate 
              in Mexico or Canada.
``Sec. 2106. Other security background checks.
``Sec. 2107. Redundant background checks.
``Sec. 2108. Transition.
``Sec. 2109. Savings clause.
``Sec. 2110. Definitions.''.

     SEC. 434. LIMITATION ON ISSUANCE OF HAZMAT LICENSES.

       Section 5103a of title 49, United States Code, and the item 
     relating to that section in the analysis for chapter 51 of 
     such title, are repealed.

     SEC. 435. DEADLINES AND EFFECTIVE DATES.

       (a) Issuance of Transportation Security Cards.--Not later 
     than May 31, 2010, the Secretary shall begin issuance of 
     transportation security cards under section 70105 of title 
     46, United States Code, to individuals who seek to operate a 
     motor vehicle in commerce while transporting security 
     sensitive materials.
       (b) Effective Date of Prohibitions.--The prohibitions 
     contained in sections 2101 and 2106 of the Homeland Security 
     Act of 2002 (as added by this subtitle) shall take effect on 
     the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act.
       (c) Effective Date of Section 434 Amendments.--The 
     amendments made by section 434 of this Act shall take effect 
     on the date that is 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

     SEC. 436. TASK FORCE ON DISQUALIFYING CRIMES.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a task 
     force to review the lists of crimes that disqualify 
     individuals from transportation-related employment under 
     current regulations of the Transportation Security 
     Administration and assess whether such lists of crimes are 
     accurate indicators of a terrorism security risk.
       (b) Membership.--The task force shall be composed of 
     representatives of appropriate industries, including labor 
     unions representing employees of such industries, Federal 
     agencies, and other appropriate entities, as determined by 
     the Secretary.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the task force shall submit to the 
     Secretary and the Committee on Homeland Security of the House 
     of Representatives a report containing the results of the 
     review, including recommendations for a common list of 
     disqualifying crimes and the rationale for the inclusion of 
     each crime on the list.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the committee amendment is in order except 
those printed in House Report 111-127. Each amendment shall be 
considered only in the order printed in the report; by a Member 
designated in the report; shall be considered read; shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent of the amendment; shall not be subject to 
amendment; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question.


         Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 111-127.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi:

       Strike section 103 of the bill (with the correct sequential 
     provision designations [replacing the numbers currently shown 
     for such designations]) and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly.
       In section 206 of the bill in the matter to be proposed to 
     be inserted in section 44924(f), strike ``FOREIGN'' in the 
     section heading.
       In section 206 of the bill in the matter to be proposed to 
     be inserted in section 44924(f), insert ``and domestic'' 
     after ``foreign''.
       In section 206 of the bill, insert ``security'' after 
     ``comparable''.
       In section 210 of the bill in the matter proposed to be 
     inserted as section 44947(b)(1) of title 49, United States 
     Code, strike ``facilities general aviation aircraft,''and 
     insert ``facilities, general aviation aircraft, heliports,''.
       In section 212 of the bill, in the matter proposed to be 
     inserted in section 44903(m) of title 49, United States Code, 
     strike paragraphs (1) through (3) and insert the following:
       ``(m) Security Screening of Individuals With Metal Implants 
     Traveling in Air Transportation.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall carry out 
     a program to ensure fair treatment in the screening of 
     individuals with metal implants traveling in air 
     transportation.
       ``(2) Plan.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit a 
     plan to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives for improving security screening procedures 
     for individuals with metal implants to limit disruptions in 
     the screening process while maintaining security. The plan 
     shall include an analysis of approaches to limit such 
     disruptions for individuals with metal implants, and 
     benchmarks for implementing changes to the screening process 
     and the establishment of a credential or system that 
     incorporates biometric technology and other applicable 
     technologies to verify the identity of an individual who has 
     a metal implant.
       ``(3) Program.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of the Transportation Security Administration 
     Authorization Act, the Assistant Secretary shall implement a 
     program to improve security screening procedures for 
     individuals with metal implants to limit disruptions in the 
     screening process while maintaining security, including a 
     credential or system that incorporates biometric technology 
     or other applicable technologies to verify the identity of an 
     individual who has a metal implant.
       ``(4) Metal implant defined.--In this paragraph, the term 
     `metal implant' means a metal device or object that has been 
     surgically implanted or otherwise placed in the body of an 
     individual, including any metal device used in a hip or knee 
     replacement, metal plate, metal screw, metal rod inside a 
     bone, and other metal orthopedic implants.''.
       Strike section 228 of the bill (with the correct sequential 
     provision designations [replacing the numbers currently shown 
     for such designations]) and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly.
       In section 233(2) of the bill, insert ``any'' before 
     ``requirements''.

[[Page 14027]]

       In section 234 of the bill, strike the section heading and 
     insert the following: ``TRUSTED PASSENGER/REGISTERED TRAVELER 
     PROGRAM.''.
       In section 234 of the bill, insert ``a trusted passenger 
     program, commonly referred to as'' before ``the Registered''.
       Strike section 307 of the bill and insert the following: 
     (and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 307. IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SECURITY 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 1406 of the Implementing 
     Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 
     1135; Public Law 110-53) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``bollards,'' after 
     ``including''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by inserting after ``including'' 
     the following: ``projects for the purpose of demonstrating or 
     assessing the capability of such systems and'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (e) through (k) as 
     subsections (f) through (l), respectively;
       (3) by redesignating subsections (l) and (m) as subsections 
     (n) and (o), respectively;
       (4) by inserting after subsection (d) the following new 
     subsection (e):
       ``(e) Procedure.--
       ``(1) Timeline.--
       ``(A) Availability of applications.--Applications for 
     grants under this section for a grant cycle shall be made 
     available to eligible applicants not later than 30 days after 
     the date of the enactment of the appropriations Act for the 
     Department of Homeland Security for the same fiscal year as 
     the grant cycle.
       ``(B) Submission of applications.--A public transportation 
     agency that is eligible for a grant under this section shall 
     submit an application for a grant not later than 45 days 
     after the applications are made available under subparagraph 
     (A).
       ``(C) Action.--The Secretary shall make a determination 
     approving or rejecting each application submitted under 
     subparagraph (B), notify the applicant of the determination, 
     and immediately commence any additional processes required to 
     allow an approved applicant to begin to receive grant funds 
     by not later than 60 days after date on which the Secretary 
     receives the application.
       ``(2) Prohibition of cost-sharing requirement.--No grant 
     under this section may require any cost-sharing contribution 
     from the grant recipient or from any related State or local 
     agency.
       ``(3) Annual report.--Not later than the date that is 180 
     days after the last determination made under paragraph (1)(C) 
     for a grant cycle, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committees on Appropriations and Homeland Security of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committees on Appropriations 
     and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate 
     a report that includes a list of all grant awarded under this 
     section for that grant cycle for which the grant recipient is 
     not, as of such date, able to receive grant funds and an 
     explanation of why such funds have not yet been released for 
     use by the recipient.
       ``(4) Performance.--
       ``(A) Duration.--The performance period for grants made 
     under this section shall be a period of time not less than 36 
     months in duration.
       ``(B) Timing.--The performance period for any grant made 
     under this section shall not begin to run until the recipient 
     of the grant has been formally notified that funds provided 
     under the terms of the grant have been released for use by 
     the recipient.''.
       (5) by inserting after subsection (l), as redesignated by 
     paragraph (2) of this section, the following new subsection 
     (m):
       ``(m) Access.--The Secretary shall ensure that, for each 
     grant awarded under this section, the Inspector General of 
     the Department is authorized to--
       ``(1) examine any records of the grant recipient or any 
     contractors or subcontractors with which the recipient enters 
     into a contract, or any State or local agency, that directly 
     pertain to and involve transactions relating to grants under 
     this section; and
       ``(2) interview any officer or employee of the recipient, 
     any contractors or subcontractors with which the recipient 
     enters into a contract, or State or local agency regarding 
     such transactions.''; and
       (6) in subsection (o), as redesignated by paragraph (3) of 
     this section--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following 
     new paragraph (1):
       ``(1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     to the Secretary to make grants under this section--
       ``(A) $900,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, except that not 
     more than 30 percent of such funds may be used for 
     operational costs under subsection (b)(2) of this section; 
     and
       ``(B) $1,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, except that not 
     more than 30 percent of such funds may be used for 
     operational costs under subsection (b)(2) of this section.'';
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (3) and (4) as paragraphs 
     (4) and (5), respectively; and
       (C) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph (3):
       ``(3) Exception.--The limitation on the percentage of funds 
     that may be used for operational costs under paragraph (1) 
     shall not apply to any costs involved with or relating to 
     explosives detection canine teams acquired or used for the 
     purpose of securing public transportation systems or 
     facilities.''.
       (b) Technical Assistance Pilot Program.--
       (1) Pilot program required.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall 
     conduct and complete a pilot program to provide grants to not 
     more than 7 public transportation agencies eligible for 
     security grants under section 1406 of the Implementing 
     Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 
     1135; Public Law 110-53) for the purpose of obtaining 
     external technical support and expertise to assist such 
     agencies in conducting comprehensive security risk 
     assessments of public transportation systems, resources, and 
     facilities.
       (B) Methodology.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall 
     identify--
       (i) a comprehensive risk methodology for conducting 
     comprehensive security risk assessments using grants made 
     under this subsection that accounts for all three elements of 
     risk, including threat, vulnerability, and consequence; and
       (ii) an approved third-party provider of technical support 
     and expertise for the purpose of providing external 
     assistance to grantees in conducting comprehensive security 
     risk assessments.
       (C) Participants.--
       (i) In general.--In selecting public transportation 
     agencies to participate in the pilot program, the Assistant 
     Secretary shall approve eligible agencies based on a 
     combination of factors, including risk, whether the agency 
     has completed a comprehensive security risk assessment 
     referred to in subparagraph (B)(i) within a year preceding 
     the date of enactment of this Act, and geographic 
     representation.
       (ii) Prior efforts.--No eligible public transportation 
     agency may be denied participation in the pilot program on 
     the grounds that it has applied for other grants administered 
     by the Department for the purpose of conducting a 
     comprehensive security risk assessment.
       (D) Prohibitions.--In carrying out the pilot program the 
     Assistant Secretary shall ensure that--
       (i) grants awarded under the pilot program shall supplement 
     and not replace other sources of Federal funding;
       (ii) other sources of Federal funding are not taken into 
     consideration when assistance is awarded under the pilot 
     program; and
       (iii) no aspect of the pilot program is conducted or 
     administered by a component of the Department other than the 
     Transportation Security Administration.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the completion 
     of the pilot program, the Assistant Secretary shall submit to 
     the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the results of the pilot program, 
     including an analysis of the feasibility and merit of 
     expanding the pilot program to a permanent program and any 
     recommendations determined appropriate by the Assistant 
     Secretary.
       (3) Authorization of appropriations.--Of amounts made 
     available pursuant to section 101 for fiscal year 2010, 
     $7,000,000 shall be available to the Assistant Secretary to 
     carry out this subsection. Any amount made available to the 
     Assistant Secretary pursuant to this paragraph shall remain 
     available until the end of fiscal year 2011.
       (c) Report on Recommendations of Comptroller General.--
       (1) Report required.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on 
     the status of the Secretary's implementation of the 
     recommendations of the Comptroller General with respect to 
     the improvement of the administration of security grants 
     under section 1406 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 
     9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (6 U.S.C. 1135; Public Law 110-
     53).
       (2) Review by inspector general.--Before the Secretary 
     submits the report required under paragraph (1), the report 
     shall be reviewed by the Inspector General of the Department 
     of Homeland Security. When the Secretary submits the report 
     to Congress under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include 
     with the report documentation verifying that the report was 
     reviewed by the Inspector General in accordance with this 
     paragraph.
       At the end of title III of the bill, insert the following 
     (with the correct sequential provision designations 
     [replacing the numbers currently shown for such 
     designations]) and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly):

     SEC. 312. DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SURFACE 
                   TRANSPORTATION SECURITY.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--

[[Page 14028]]

       (1) the Transportation Security Administration's capacity 
     to address surface transportation security would be enhanced 
     significantly by establishing a position of Deputy Assistant 
     Secretary for Surface Transportation Security to lead the 
     Transportation Security Administration's surface 
     transportation security mission; and
       (2) a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Surface Transportation 
     Security could provide the focused leadership and resource 
     management necessary to implement the policies and programs 
     that are critical to securing surface transportation modes 
     and ensure the effectiveness of the Surface Transportation 
     Security Inspection Office, security policy and grant 
     functions affecting surface transportation modes, and the 
     Transit Security Advisory Committee.
       (b) Report.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 270 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Inspector General of the 
     Department of Homeland Security shall submit to the Committee 
     on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate a report on the feasibility and merit of 
     establishing a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Surface 
     Transportation Security in the Transportation Security 
     Administration to reflect the reality of security threats 
     that are faced by all modes of transportation in the United 
     States and also whether establishing the position of a Deputy 
     Assistant Secretary for Aviation Security would more 
     effectively streamline or enhance the operational and 
     policymaking capabilities of the Transportation Security 
     Administration for all transportation modes.
       (2) Recommendations.--The Inspector General shall include 
     in the report recommendations on--
       (A) the most effective and efficient ways to organize 
     offices, functions, personnel, and programs of the 
     Transportation Security Administration under or among all 
     respective Deputy Assistant Secretary positions to be 
     created;
       (B) what offices, functions, personnel, and programs of the 
     Transportation Security Administration would best remain 
     outside of the scope of any new Deputy Assistant Secretary 
     positions in order that such offices, functions, personnel, 
     and programs maintain the status of reporting directly to the 
     Assistant Secretary; and
       (C) any other relevant matters, as the Inspector General 
     determines appropriate.
       In the heading of title IV of the bill, strike 
     ``CREDENTIALING'' and insert ``ENHANCEMENTS''.
       In the heading of subtitle A of title IV of the bill, 
     strike ``Credentialing'' and insert ``Enhancements''.
       Add at the end of subtitle A of title IV of the bill the 
     following (with the correct sequential provision designations 
     [replacing the numbers currently shown for such 
     designations]) and conform the table of contents accordingly:

     SEC. 406. PIPELINE SECURITY STUDY.

       (a) Study.--The Comptroller General shall conduct a study 
     regarding the roles and responsibilities of the Department of 
     Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation with 
     respect to pipeline security. The study shall address 
     whether--
       (1) the Annex to the Memorandum of Understanding executed 
     on August 9, 2006, between the Department of Homeland 
     Security and the Department of Transportation adequately 
     delineates strategic and operational responsibilities for 
     pipeline security, including whether it is clear which 
     Department is responsible for--
       (A) protecting against intentional pipeline breaches;
       (B) responding to intentional pipeline breaches; and
       (C) planning to recover from the effects of intentional 
     pipeline breaches;
       (2) the respective roles and responsibilities of each 
     Department are adequately conveyed to relevant stakeholders 
     and to the public; and
       (3) the processes and procedures for determining whether a 
     particular pipeline breach is a terrorist incident are clear 
     and effective.
       (b) Report on Study.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of enactment of this section, the Comptroller General 
     shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security in the 
     House of Representatives a report containing the findings of 
     the study conducted under subsection (a).
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     issuance of the report regarding the study conducted pursuant 
     to this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall 
     review and analyze the study and submit to the Committee on 
     Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a report on 
     such review and analysis, including any recommendations for--
       (1) changes to the Annex to the Memorandum of Understanding 
     described in subsection (a)(1); and
       (2) other improvements to pipeline security activities at 
     the Department of Homeland Security.
       At the end of subtitle A of title IV (with the correct 
     sequential provision designations [replacing the numbers 
     currently shown for such designations]) and conform the table 
     of contents accordingly:

     SEC. 407. TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION CENTRALIZED 
                   TRAINING FACILITY.

       (a)  Study.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall carry 
     out a study on the feasibility of establishing a centralized 
     training center for advanced security training provided by 
     the Transportation Security Administration for the purpose of 
     enhancing aviation security.
       (b) Considerations.--In conducting the study, the Secretary 
     shall take into consideration the benefits, costs, equipment, 
     personnel needs, and building requirements for establishing 
     such a training center and if the benefits of establishing 
     the center are an efficient use of resources for training 
     transportation security officers.
       (c) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a report regarding the results 
     of the study.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my 
manager's amendment which makes a few perfecting changes to H.R. 2200, 
the Transportation Security Administration authorization bill. My 
amendment helps make the bill even more comprehensive by addressing 
five areas.
  First, in the area of public transportation security assistance, my 
amendment improves the Department of Homeland Security's Transportation 
Security Grant Program by streamlining the award process. My amendment 
ensures accountability and transparency by requiring annual reports 
from TSA on the status of outstanding grant awards. It was developed in 
response to concerns expressed by public transportation agencies about 
when the clock should start ticking on the grant performance period. 
Under my amendment, it doesn't begin until grantees are actually able 
to access their awards. Additionally, this amendment would prohibit 
cost sharing for transportation security grants to ensure that grants 
are awarded efficiently and fairly. It also provides public 
transportation agencies with the tools and support they need to conduct 
comprehensive risk assessments in order to better secure their systems.
  Second, Mr. Chair, this amendment tackles the question of whether TSA 
needs to be reorganized to get TSA away from behaving like the Aviation 
Security Administration. Specifically, it requires an honest assessment 
of creating two equal positions at the deputy assistant secretary 
level, one for surface transportation security and one for aviation 
security. It also articulates a sense of congress that the creation of 
a deputy assistant secretary for surface transportation security will 
provide the focused leadership and resource management necessary to 
secure surface transportation in a manner commensurate with aviation 
security.
  Third, in the area of pipeline security, the amendment contains a 
provision offered at the markup by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Bilirakis). This provision instructs the Comptroller General to study 
the roles and responsibilities of DHS and the Department of 
Transportation with respect to pipeline security in order to better 
secure our pipelines against intentional breaches.
  Fourth, Mr. Chair, regarding workforce improvement, the amendment 
instructs the DHS Secretary to study the feasibility and merits of 
establishing a centralized advanced aviation training facility.
  Finally, Mr. Chair, the amendment contains a provision to address the 
special needs of travelers with artificial metal implants.

                              {time}  1345

  The amendment contains a provision requiring TSA to establish a 
program to screen passengers with metal implants.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that makes key 
improvements to an already robust security bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 14029]]


  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses a number of concerns 
raised by transit agencies and the GAO in an upcoming report. One of 
the biggest concerns of stakeholders was that TSA and FEMA were taking 
too long in distributing grant funding. This amendment requires that 
applications for grants be made available within 30 days of passage of 
an appropriations act. It then requires the transit agency to submit an 
application within 45 days and the Secretary to act within 60 days of 
receipt. These are the same deadlines that are usually required in any 
appropriations bills.
  This amendment also codifies current practice prohibiting cost 
sharing required for grants. Previously, public transit agencies were 
required to share up to 25 percent of the cost of a project. Many 
agencies found this requirement prohibitive, given that they are 
largely funded by State and local taxpayers and that the costs 
associated with improving open architecture public transportation 
systems were considered too expensive.
  This amendment also establishes a technical assistance pilot program 
that gives grants to transit agencies to conduct comprehensive risk 
assessments using approved third parties. The Office of Domestic 
Preparedness previously provided grants for such assessments, but these 
ended when ODP was combined with FEMA and Preparedness. Many State and 
local agencies do not necessarily have the in-house expertise to 
conduct comprehensive risk assessments and require outside assistance.
  This amendment requires the GAO to examine the roles of the 
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation 
with respect to pipeline security. During a recent release of anhydrous 
ammonium from a pipeline in Florida, local response personnel were 
given differing opinions of which Federal agency regulated the security 
of pipelines. The GAO would examine if current responsibilities for 
protection against and responding to intentional pipeline breaches are 
adequately identified in interagency MOUs. The time to identify a lead 
Federal agency for pipeline security is never after an intentional 
breach.
  So, again, I would just like to say I support this manager's 
amendment. I think it is a good revision to this legislation of which 
the underlying bill, of course, is a strong bill too. I support it.
  At this time, I would yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, as you have heard, my 
amendment helps to strengthen the underlying bill and addresses the 
issues of interest to my colleague. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the manager's amendment 
to H.R. 2200, the ``Transportation Security Administration 
Authorization Act of 2009'', offered by the gentleman from Mississippi 
(Mr. Thompson), the Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.
  The manager's amendment modifies section 212 of the reported bill and 
directs the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to carry out a 
program to ensure fair treatment in the screening of passengers with 
metal implants while traveling in air transportation. The purpose of 
this provision is to ensure that, consistent with security regulations, 
such individuals can travel by air with greater ease and be treated 
with dignity and respect.
  According to the Joint Implant Surgery & Research Foundation, there 
are approximately 500,000 total hip and knee replacements performed in 
the United States each year. An estimated 11 million people in the 
United States currently have a medical implant, and this number will 
grow as the population with implants increases.
  In a 2007 study, researchers at the Harvard Medical School found that 
100 percent of hip replacements and 90 percent of knee replacements 
cause commercial airport metal detectors to alert. Whenever a passenger 
triggers the walk-through metal detector, additional screening must be 
conducted to locate and resolve the source of the alarm. A 
Transportation Security Officer (TSO) checks the passenger with a hand-
held metal detector and conducts a pat-down inspection of any area that 
alarms; the TSO then conducts a whole-body pat-down. This additional 
screening consumes an average five minutes more of a passenger's time 
at security checkpoints. This excess screening of individuals with 
metal implants is also an inefficient use of a TSO's time.
  This provision is based on H.R. 2335, a bill that I introduced to 
require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a travel 
credential that incorporates biometric or other applicable technologies 
to verify the identity of an individual with a metal implant.
  The manager's amendment requires TSA to submit a plan to Congress, 
within six months of the date of enactment, on ways to improve security 
screening procedures for individuals with metal implants. Within 12 
months, TSA must implement the program, including the establishment of 
a biometric credential to limit disruptions for such travelers.
  I thank Chairman Thompson for working with me on this provision, 
which is of great importance to me and millions of travelers with metal 
implants.
  While I support the manager's amendment, I have significant concerns 
with Subtitle B of Title IV of the underlying bill, entitled the ``Safe 
Truckers Act of 2009''. The Safe Trucker provisions, offered as an 
amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) during 
Committee consideration of the bill, eliminate background checks for 
most commercial drivers who haul hazardous materials.
  Currently, drivers who haul hazardous materials in a commercial motor 
vehicle in quantities requiring vehicle placards under Department of 
Transportation (DOT) regulations must have a hazardous materials 
endorsement (HME). In 2001, Congress enacted the USA Patriot Act (P.L. 
107-56), which prohibited states from issuing a license to transport 
hazardous materials in commerce to any individual without a 
determination by DHS that the individual does not pose a security risk. 
Drivers seeking to apply for, renew, or transfer an HME on their state-
issued Commercial Driver's License (CDL) must undergo a security threat 
assessment by TSA.
  H.R. 2200 significantly narrows the scope of this requirement. The 
bill requires background checks only for a small subset of drivers--as 
few as five percent--who haul ``security sensitive materials''. 
Limiting background checks to only those drivers who haul extremely 
dangerous materials stands to weaken security on our roadways.
  It will be extremely difficult to enforce a requirement that only 
some drivers carrying hazardous materials undergo background checks. If 
a driver is able to carry these security sensitive materials without 
special credential on his or her CDL that requires successful 
completion of a background check, we will have to rely on roadside 
inspectors to find drivers hauling these materials and verify that the 
driver has passed a background check. Only a small group of drivers 
undergo inspections, conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA) and its state partners. Moreover, it will be 
difficult for inspectors to determine whether a driver is carrying a 
class of hazmat requiring special verification. To make this system 
work, it would be necessary to develop a special identification for 
trucks carrying hazmat for which a driver must have undergone a 
background check.
  The bill repeals the hazardous materials law that sets forth the 
existing process of conditioning the issuance of a commercial license 
on the successful completion of a background check. Instead, the bill 
institutes a vague enforcement requirement that the Secretary of 
Homeland Security ``shall prohibit an individual from operating a motor 
vehicle in commerce while transporting a security sensitive material'' 
unless the individual holds a Transportation Worker Identification Card 
(TWIC). Commercial drivers are not like port or airport workers who 
enter a defined, secure area on a regular basis for their employment, 
and where verification that they have undergone a background check by 
TSA inspectors or TWIC card readers can routinely occur.
  Roadside inspections target particular carriers with a record of 
safety problems, not compliance with TSA regulations. Current resources 
do not result in adequate oversight of this geographically broad 
industry: in 2008, less than two percent of motor carriers underwent 
compliance reviews, and 3.5 million roadside inspections were conducted 
on an industry of 7 million drivers and over 700,000 motor carriers. 
Under this system, unfortunately, carriers and drivers that are not in 
compliance with regulations commonly go undetected.
  DHS and DOT may recognize these enforcement problems and choose to 
implement the Safe Trucker requirements by requiring state Departments 
of Motor Vehicles to have

[[Page 14030]]

separate processes for granting HMEs to drivers who haul hazardous 
materials and security sensitive materials. This approach would create 
a significant administrative burden for states. The associated costs 
will be shouldered by states, supplemented by Federal motor carrier 
safety grants funded out of the Highway Trust Fund. The resources 
diverted to meet this mandate will take away badly-needed funds from 
critical commercial driver safety activities.
  Finally, the Safe Trucker provisions require operators hauling 
security sensitive materials licensed in Canada or Mexico to undergo a 
similar background check to U.S. drivers. The Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure included this requirement, applicable 
to all drivers hauling hazardous materials, in the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (P.L. 
109-59). TSA has failed to properly implement this requirement. 
Instead, TSA currently grants commercial drivers from Mexico authority 
to transport hazardous materials in the United States (currently 
limited to commercial zones on the U.S.-Mexico border) without 
conducting a check of their criminal history in Mexico. Our Committee 
will seek to address this in our broader efforts to ensure the safety 
of Mexico-domiciled carriers on U.S. roads.
  I understand the arguments that the background checks associated with 
the HME and the TWIG are not well coordinated by TSA and the associated 
problems, including duplicate charges for drivers. I support finding a 
solution to these implementation issues. However, the solutions 
included in H.R. 2200 far exceed this problem and stand to strain 
insufficient motor carrier oversight and enforcement resources while 
potentially weakening security.
  I support Chairman Thompson's efforts to move this bill expeditiously 
through the House, and have made every effort to facilitate the 
consideration of this legislation. I look forward to working with the 
gentleman from Mississippi on issues of mutual interest to our 
Committees as this bill moves ahead.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Mica

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 111-127.
  Mr. MICA. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Mica:
       At the end of subtitle B of title II of the bill, add the 
     following (with the correct sequential provision designations 
     [replacing the numbers currently shown for such 
     designations]) and conform the table of contents accordingly:

     SEC. 240. ISSUANCE OF REGULATIONS AND SECURITY DIRECTIVES 
                   USING EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 114(l) of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)--
       (A) in subparagraph (A) by striking ``immediately in order 
     to protect transportation security'' and inserting ``in order 
     to respond to an imminent threat of finite duration''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B) by inserting ``to determine if the 
     regulation or security directive is needed to respond to an 
     imminent threat of finite duration'' before the period at the 
     end of the first sentence;
       (2) by striking paragraph (3) and inserting the following:
       ``(3) Factors to consider.--
       ``(A) In general.--In determining whether to issue, 
     rescind, or revise a regulation or security directive under 
     this subsection, the Under Secretary shall consider, as 
     factors in the final determination--
       ``(i) whether the costs of the regulation or security 
     directive are excessive in relation to the enhancement of 
     security the regulation or security directive will provide;
       ``(ii) whether the regulation or security directive will 
     remain effective for more than a 90-day period; and
       ``(iii) whether the regulation or security directive will 
     require revision in the subsequent 90-day period.
       ``(B) Authority to waive certain requirements.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A)(i), the Under Secretary may 
     waive requirements for an analysis that estimates the number 
     of lives that will be saved by the regulation or security 
     directive and the monetary value of such lives if the Under 
     Secretary determines that it is not feasible to make such an 
     estimate.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Rulemaking required.--Any regulation or security 
     directive issued under paragraph (2) that remains effective, 
     with or without revision, for a period of more than 180 days 
     shall be subject to a rulemaking pursuant to subchapter II of 
     chapter 5 of title 5.''.
       (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) 
     shall apply to a regulation issued under section 114(l)(2) of 
     title 49, United States Code, before, on, or after the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which is 
also offered by Congressman Ehlers, Congressman Graves and Congressman 
Petri. This amendment would tighten standards for when TSA can issue an 
emergency regulation or security directive.
  After 9/11, Congress wanted to ensure the TSA could act quickly to 
respond to terrorist threats. I was instrumental in crafting some of 
that legislation, and we wanted to give TSA the ability to waive the 
Administrative Procedures Act and issue a security directive any time 
they believed there was an ``immediate threat to transportation 
security.''
  Now we come some 8 years after 9/11 and we see the TSA issuing 
security directives when the ``immediate threat'' they are seeking to 
address is sometimes unclear. And also there are some problems with use 
of this authority.
  First, we have security directives that change from week to week. TSA 
is also issuing many directives that are unfunded mandates without an 
opportunity to comment; others are ``published'' and then remain open 
for months. And then we have seen examples of even security directives 
that have been revised seven or eight times.
  TSA's use of the security directive makes us ask the question: What 
immediate threat is TSA addressing with these security directives in 
the manner they are proceeding?
  This amendment would ensure that the waiver of the Administrative 
Procedures Act occurs only when there is an ``imminent threat of finite 
duration.'' TSA would still have the ability to quickly respond to such 
threats, but if the directive is in place for longer than 6 months, it 
would be required to conduct a regular rulemaking process.
  This amendment would refine TSA's security directive issuance process 
to make it truly responsive to imminent threats and not just the whim 
of the agency. That is not what we intended. So I ask my colleagues to 
join other colleagues here in trying to strengthen and clarify this 
law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Oregon for the purpose of opposition 
debate.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  I share with the gentleman--he and I helped create the Transportation 
Security Administration--tremendous frustration with bureaucracy that 
gets over the edge for no real purpose, and I will not say that the 
current process is perfect. Particularly as relates to general 
aviation, we have had a couple of problems, one in which the chairman 
has been very involved, having to do with standards for what 
constitutes a potential threat aircraft and also the issue of 
background checks for those who work in the general aviation field.
  But beyond that, many of these directives are based on sensitive 
security information or even classified information. So they could not 
very well, if you were dealing, say, with the gel and liquids rule, 
subject that to the bureaucratic rulemaking process. I don't think the 
way to solve inadequacies and problems with the current directive 
process is to create an even more lengthy, expensive bureaucratic 
process. I don't think on a normal day the gentleman from Florida would 
ever present the idea to this Congress that we should expand rulemaking 
and go back and revisit rules that have already been made and put them 
through a very lengthy and expensive process.

[[Page 14031]]

What he wants is more transparency. He wants common sense, and he wants 
stakeholder groups to have an opportunity to intervene. The legislation 
does bring stakeholder groups into the process, particularly as relates 
to general aviation.
  The chairman is using his oversight authority to go after nonsensical 
rules and problems that have occurred. One happened recently with a 
group of aged veterans on a charter aircraft where the chairman has 
called the agency to account and asked for a review of the procedures 
they are using. So I would say there is a new era here.
  We are going to make them responsive and responsible and make their 
work make more sense and meet our true security needs. But if you 
impose this on the entire structure, you're going to divert a lot of 
resources in the Transportation Security Administration over into a 
bureaucratic, lengthy rulemaking process. They are not going to have 
the flexibility to change, say, the liquids rule as they did from ``all 
liquids are banned'' to ``well, prescriptions can go'' to ``so many 
ounces can go.'' Each of those would have required a 6-month to 2-year 
change in the process during which we would be locked into whatever the 
first emergency rule was for only 6 months under the gentleman's 
proposal. It is not a practical way to address this.
  Mr. MICA. Might I inquire as to the balance of our time?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Mississippi has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MICA. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Ehlers), also a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. EHLERS. Somebody asked, Why do this? Just look at the history and 
the record of the TSA and some of the things they have done. How many 
of you remember whenever we would fly into Washington National Airport 
we had to sit in our seats for 30 minutes before landing and we had to 
sit in the seats for 30 minutes after takeoff? That was a totally 
nonsensical rule which many of us tried to change.
  The point is they make nonsensical rules that are totally 
unresponsive to our efforts to change it. And that rule was not changed 
until I offered an amendment on the floor. This was the only case in 
history I know of where an amendment was passed by acclamation and 
laughter because everybody supported it.
  Now they have done some more regulations about general aviation 
without consulting the committee, without consulting general aviation 
interest and doing what I think is really very strange, often stupid 
regulations. It is clear that they need better review and that they 
have to use more caution and consult with those affected when they are 
developing rules. I believe that this amendment is badly needed and 
will force them to think more carefully and more thoroughly about what 
they are doing and what they are proposing to do.
  So I strongly support this amendment, particularly as it affects 
general aviation, because that is where a lot of the problems have 
developed recently.
  I urge the body to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to who has the right to 
close?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Mississippi has the right to close.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First off, last week, I was subjected to the absolutely stupid 30-
minute rule. United Airlines can't get it into their manual that it was 
repealed 4 years ago. I did ask to have my card sent up to the pilot, 
but I have complained several times. Some pilots still think that since 
it is apparently still in the United manual, that it was not created by 
the TSA. And our former Chairman Mica knows that. That was a Secret 
Service directive which preempted all of the agencies of the government 
and the newly created TSA.
  The TSA agreed with us that it was an absolutely asinine rule, but we 
were told it was a higher authority. So that would never have gone 
through a rulemaking process. That was imposed.
  Now, those sorts of things could be imposed for 6 months still under 
the gentleman's rule. And I don't know that the Secret Service would 
claim that they could preempt even the 6-month limit. So we can't 
prevent all stupidity, but we push back against it.
  Again, back to the gel rule. Under the gentleman's proposed 
amendment, they would still be amending the gel rule to get down to the 
4 ounces or get to 4 ounces or whatever the current limit is. Maybe it 
is 3.4. I can't remember. That seems to change, too. But you don't need 
a 2-year process and shouldn't impose a 2-year process and an 
extraordinary expense to the taxpayers in that sort of a case.
  Yes, there are problems. There is stupidity when it comes to the GA 
rule. The committee is dealing with it through oversight and pressure.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, do we have 1 minute left on our side?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman 
from Mississippi has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MICA. To close for our side, I would like to yield the balance of 
my time to another distinguished leader of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Chair, I want to quote the conclusion of the Civil 
Aviation Threat Assessment released in December 2008 by the Department 
of Homeland Security. ``While terrorist groups maintain the capability 
and intent to conduct terrorist attacks against U.S. civil aviation and 
have shown some interest in conducting attacks using general aviation 
overseas, there is little evidence to suggest that terrorists are 
turning their attention specifically to the general aviation sector in 
the homeland.''
  Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, to date there has not been 
a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil using general aviation aircraft. 
As a pilot more than 20 years myself, I know firsthand how general 
aviation security operates. The bottom line is that it works.
  My remarks before Congress today are not meant to downplay the 
importance of the TSA. As we all know, the TSA is tasked with ensuring 
the safety of the traveling public. It is an extremely important and 
difficult task and one that we all take very seriously.
  However, recently the TSA has been focusing their resources, efforts, 
and taxpayer dollars on further regulating the general aviation 
industry, which the agency itself concludes there is little evidence to 
suggest a threat.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment offered by Mr. Mica, co-offered by 
myself, Mr. Petri, and Mr. Ehlers, is simple. It does not prohibit the 
TSA from issuing security directives if and when a threat exists. It 
simply requires them to go through the normal rulemaking process if a 
security directive is in place for more than 180 days.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for the purpose of closing.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Where the gentleman concluded is where the debate should 
end, the normal rule-making process. On any ordinary day, the 
Republicans would not stand up and say that we need more bureaucracy; 
we need more 2-year rule-making on things that are important to the 
American people.
  We are creating transparency here. We're creating a stakeholder 
committee.
  Yes, they have done some stupid things in GA. But does that mean 
you're going to go to all of the things that relate to passengers and 
airports and baggage screening and explosives and everything else and 
put those out into a public rule-making process with all the sensitive 
security information that's involved? That's impossible. It's 
impractical, and it would jeopardize the safety of the American public.
  Yes, let's fix the problems with GA. Somebody down there needs to be 
picked up and shaken upside down to understand what GA's all about. The

[[Page 14032]]

chairman's doing that. We'll continue to do that. We'll work with you. 
We're creating a stakeholder group so that GA will have a voice. But 
don't throw out all of the other critical security directives and the 
flexibility to put them in place and change them without a bureaucratic 
process.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment offered by 
my colleague Mr. Mica and co-sponsored by myself and fellow 
subcommittee members, Congressman Ehlers and Congressman Graves.
  This amendment seeks to clarify the standard for when TSA is allowed 
to circumvent the rulemaking process under the Administrative 
Procedures Act and issue a security directive in order to respond to an 
``imminent threat'' of limited duration. While there are circumstances 
in which these security directives are necessary to address immediate 
threats to our transportation systems, they too often have been issued 
under unclear circumstances and have even been known to change from 
week to week. This places an unnecessary burden on commercial and 
general aviation alike--as well as other modes of transportation.
  For example, TSA recently issued a security directive that required 
background checks and restrictive badging requirements for general 
aviation at airports with commercial service. This directive placed 
unneeded restrictions on thousands of pilots and others without 
identifying what imminent threat existed. The TSA subsequently eased 
the requirements somewhat, but the fact remains that a security 
directive was used to regulate an entirely new population of airport 
personnel and users. This is basically regulation by policy statement--
not the more proper rulemaking that provides for the opportunity for 
public comment, consideration of costs and operational impacts, and 
greater transparency and accountability. By the way, this one Security 
Directive has been revised 8 times!
  We are all aware of the threats our nation's transportation systems 
face. TSA must have the authority to address imminent threats by 
bypassing the formal rulemaking process. But this authority should not 
be used to impose new security requirements that do not meet the 
security directive threshold as contemplated by Congress.
  This amendment not only will ensure that TSA retains this needed 
authority, but also establishes a proper balance between security and 
the protection of our civil liberties by tightening the issuance 
standard.
  I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Mica and others for their 
work to bring this amendment to the floor, and urge my colleagues to 
support its adoption.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mica

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 111-127.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Mica:
       At the end of subtitle A of title II of the bill, add the 
     following (with the correct sequential provision designations 
     [replacing the numbers currently shown for such 
     designations]) and conform the table of contents accordingly:

     SEC. 214. KNOWN AIR TRAVELER CREDENTIAL.

       (a) Establishment.--Section 44903(h) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (8); and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) Known air traveler credential.--Not later than 6 
     months after the date of enactment of the Transportation 
     Security Administration Authorization Act, the Assistant 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) establish a known air traveler credential that 
     incorporates biometric identifier technology;
       ``(B) establish a process by which the credential will be 
     used to verify the identity of known air travelers and allow 
     them to bypass airport passenger and carry-on baggage 
     screening;
       ``(C) establish procedures--
       ``(i) to ensure that only known air travelers are issued 
     the known air traveler credential;
       ``(ii) to resolve failures to enroll, false matches, and 
     false nonmatches relating to use of the known air traveler 
     credential; and
       ``(iii) to invalidate any known air traveler credential 
     that is lost, stolen, or no longer authorized for use;
       ``(D) begin issuance of the known air traveler credential 
     to each known air traveler that applies for a credential; and
       ``(E) take such other actions with respect to the known air 
     traveler credential as the Assistant Secretary considers 
     appropriate.''.
       (b) Known Air Traveler Defined.--Section 44903(h)(8) of 
     such title (as redesignated by subsection (a) of this 
     section) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (G); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following:
       ``(F) Known air traveler.--The term `known air traveler' 
     means a United States citizen who--
       ``(i) has received a security clearance from the Federal 
     Government;
       ``(ii) is a Federal Aviation Administration certificated 
     pilot, flight crew member, or cabin crew member;
       ``(iii) is a Federal, State, local, tribal, or territorial 
     government law enforcement officer not covered by paragraph 
     (6);
       ``(iv) is a member of the armed forces (as defined by 
     section 101 of title 10) who has received a security 
     clearance from the Federal Government; or
       ``(v) the Assistant Secretary determines has appropriate 
     security qualifications for inclusion under this 
     subparagraph.''.
       (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     the amendments made by this section.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.


          Modification to Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Mica

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify the 
amendment with the modification which I have provided at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Mica:
       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       In section 234 of the bill, redesignate subsection (c) as 
     subsection (d) and insert after subsection (b) the following:
       (c) Treatment of Individuals With Top Secret Security 
     Clearances.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall 
     establish protocols to--
       (1) verify the identity of United States citizens who 
     participate in the Registered Traveler program and possess a 
     valid top secret security clearance granted by the Federal 
     Government; and
       (2) allow alternative screening procedures for individuals 
     described in paragraph (1), including random, risk-based 
     screening determined necessary to respond to a specific 
     threat to security identified pursuant to a security threat 
     assessment.

  The CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MICA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I do want to express my sincere gratitude to Chairman 
Thompson, to the majority staff, and to the staff on our side of the 
aisle and Members from the minority. They worked together, I think, in 
the best interest of trying to bring forward the best possible 
Transportation Security Administration authorization and legislation 
they could, and also worked very closely to modify an amendment that I 
originally proposed.
  My colleagues, Congress has repeatedly directed the Transportation 
Security Administration to use biometric identifier technology for 
identification cards, travel documents and access control programs.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, these are the times, 
and I was one of the original authors of the TSA legislation, in which 
we included a similar directive back immediately after 9/11. But these 
are the times I have passed, or Congress has passed, into law 
directives, law after law, directive after directive to TSA to use 
biometric. And I'd like to submit a list of those for the Record.

  Congressional Mandates for the Utilization of Biometric Identifier 
   Technology for Identification Cards, Travel Documents, and Access 
                         Control Programs * * *

       USA PATRIOT Act of 2001

[[Page 14033]]

       Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001
       Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002
       Maritime and Transportation Security Act of 2002
       Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
       Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 
     FY2006

  Unfortunately, to date, TSA has still failed to fully implement this 
technology for airport security purposes. And while I'm very supportive 
of the Registered Traveler Program and its use of biometric technology, 
the TSA still has failed to utilize this program to its fullest 
potential.
  Biometric technology, fingerprint technology, that uses the thumb, 
the eye, and is used for registered travelers, is very common, not only 
for, again, our Registered Traveler Program, but also for various 
Federal agencies. And I have copies of their IDs, which we use, 
scanning the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense. However, 
it is, in fact, used also for secure Federal installations, including 
very sensitive operations at national laboratories, at military bases 
and other government facilities. However, we still don't have this 
technology for use, again, with TSA.
  The use of biometric identifier technology, I believe, will not only 
improve the security of our air transportation, but also the 
efficiency. If we know who a person is, having a thoroughly vetted 
background of that individual, we can, in fact, confirm their 
identification through the use of these credentials that incorporate 
this biometric technology. Then we can cut down on the amount of 
unnecessary screening at airports and some of the costs incurred and 
inefficiency. Wait times for all air travelers, hopefully, will be 
lessened, and the TSA will actually be able to focus their scarce 
resources on unknown people who do potentially pose a threat to the 
system.
  To this end, my amendment is a simple one. It requires again the 
Transportation Security Administration to establish protocols, first, 
to verify the identity of United States citizens who participate in a 
Registered Traveler Program, and who possess valid Top Secret Security 
Clearance, and there are hundreds of thousands that do that. And that 
clearance is granted by the Federal Government.
  It would also allow an alternative screening procedure for those 
alternatives. And I hope that would be part of the Registered Traveler 
Program, again, making it more effective, and leveraging existing 
biometric identifier technology.
  So I think we can stop some of the duplication of efforts, the 
unnecessary screening, creating multiple credentials.
  I want to thank, again, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member King and 
staffs on both sides of the aisle for working with us to perfect this 
amendment. I believe it's a win-win for everybody.
  And, again, I can't be more grateful for the cooperation in trying to 
get an amendment that, hopefully, will make a significant difference in 
our transportation security system.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, while not in opposition to 
the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Mississippi is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my 
colleague's amendment requiring TSA to establish expedited screening 
protocols for passengers with a Top Secret Security Clearance.
  This amendment enhances section 234 by requiring TSA to establish 
special protocols for individuals in the Registered Traveler Program 
who possess a valid Top Secret Security Clearance issued by the Federal 
Government.
  These individuals have access to some of the most sensitive secrets 
this country has. TSA should be able to figure out how to adopt a 
screening system to take into account that these passengers are well-
known to the Federal Government, have this special status and, as added 
layers of security, are traveling with a biometric card that confirms 
their identity.
  I'm pleased that Mr. Mica worked with me to fine-tune this amendment, 
and I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MICA. I only have a short period of time, but I would like to 
yield it to Mr. Dent.
  Mr. DENT. Real quickly, I just want to say that individuals with Top 
Secret Security Clearance go through an extensive background check and 
investigation every 5 years and friends, family members, coworkers and 
even neighbors are interviewed during this process.
  This amendment recognizes the expansive nature of the top secret 
investigation and the reduced risk individuals with these clearances 
pose. For these reasons, I strongly support this amendment and urge its 
adoption.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Bachus

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Holden). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 4 printed in House Report 111-127.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Bachus:
       At the end of subtitle B of title II of the bill, add the 
     following (with the correct sequential provision designations 
     [replacing the numbers currently shown for such 
     designations]) and conform the table of contents accordingly:

     SEC. 240. SECURITY SCREENING FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) In General.--Section 44903 of title 49, United States 
     Code (as amended by this Act), is further amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(n) Security Screening for Members of the Armed Forces.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary shall develop 
     and implement a plan to provide expedited security screening 
     services for a member of the Armed Forces, and any 
     accompanying family member, when the member of the Armed 
     Forces is traveling on official orders while in uniform 
     through a primary airport (as defined by section 47102).
       ``(2) Protocols.--In developing the plan, the Assistant 
     Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) leveraging existing security screening models used by 
     airports and air carriers to reduce passenger wait times 
     before entering a security screening checkpoint;
       ``(B) establishing standard guidelines for the screening of 
     military uniform items, including combat boots; and
       ``(C) incorporating any new screening protocols into an 
     existing trusted passenger program, as established pursuant 
     to section 109(a)(3) of the Aviation and Transportation 
     Security Act (115 Stat. 613), or into the development of any 
     new credential or system that incorporates biometric 
     technology and other applicable technologies to verify the 
     identity of individuals traveling in air transportation.
       ``(3) Report to congress.--The Assistant Secretary shall 
     submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on 
     the implementation of the plan.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Not later than one year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall 
     establish the plan required by the amendment made by 
     subsection (a).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chair, I think there are some issues that may divide 
us, but there are other issues that unite us as Members, and this is a 
perfect example of an amendment, I think, that brings us all together.
  In fact, this amendment is cosponsored by Dennis Moore, my Democratic 
colleague from Kansas. And Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie 
Thompson was very helpful in crafting this amendment. And I express my 
appreciation to you, also, the ranking member, Peter King, and to the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Charlie Dent, and also to the 
chairman of the subcommittee, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee. They and the 
Homeland Security Committee were most helpful.

[[Page 14034]]

  Mr. Chairman, often, as we go through the airports of America, we and 
our constituents see our members of the military passing through those 
airports. Many of them are going to Iraq and Afghanistan. They're 
leaving their loved ones, facing sometimes an uncertain future. Others 
are coming in from Iraq and Afghanistan, going home to see loved ones. 
Sometimes they haven't seen them for over a year. They're often loaded 
down with heavy gear.
  Now, also, at the same time, we see the registered travelers that we 
talked about earlier, we see United Premium members, we see Delta 
Platinum members and Gold Medallion members. We all see them getting 
priority, and that's okay. I have no problem with that.
  But if there is any group of Americans who ought to get priority to 
go to the front of the line, not to skip security, but to go to the 
front of the line, it's men and women in uniform. So this amendment 
extends to them the same basic courtesy that we extend to over a 
million other Americans right now.
  In fact, this is my Southwest A-list member. I, because I travel, I 
get to use that. United members do, Delta members do. But I want to see 
our military have this same privilege.
  I will reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, while not opposed to the 
amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Mississippi 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to support the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). It 
directs TSA to craft special security screening protocols for men and 
women of the Armed Forces.
  All of us have been in airports. We've seen our men and women 
returning subject to all kinds of searches. It is absolutely important 
that we say thank you for putting themselves in harm's way. And I 
support 100 percent the directive requiring TSA to set up a protocol to 
recognize their value to the country.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as the gentleman, the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Dent from Pennsylvania, may 
consume.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment by Mr. 
Bachus. It's a good amendment. Expedited screening services are 
provided to frequent flier travelers and registered travelers at our 
Nation's commercial airports all the time. And yet our servicemen and 
women, many with metal items such as combat boots, medals and badges, 
often need additional screening when they set off the magnetometer.
  Our brave servicemen and women are on the front lines in the fight 
against terrorism. Surely some kind of expedited treatment at an 
airport checkpoint is the least our country can do for them.
  Currently there is no formal TSA requirement or process in place to 
screen our servicemen and women in any expedited fashion. At some 
airports, Transportation Security Officers may escort members of the 
Armed Forces to the front of the checkpoint, but at other airports no 
such special treatment is given.

                              {time}  1415

  So Mr. Bachus' amendment is an excellent one. It's just common sense 
that a formal checkpoint screening process should be established for 
servicemen and women who sacrifice so much for their country.
  And finally, these men and women place themselves in harm's way to 
the benefit of our American way of life. The very least we can do is 
make the airport checkpoint experience as smooth and as pleasurable as 
possible.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying this.
  We received a letter in the last 2 days from Major General Abner 
Blalock, who says this amendment will make a big difference for our 
military and for their families. And I hope it does. I think it's a 
small gesture that we can make.
  I also received an e-mail from a young marine who was coming back 
from Iraq, and this is what he said:
  As I returned from Iraq, where I had been for over a year, I had to 
remove my boots and my blouse--a military term for battle dress 
uniform--and then a hand wand was used over my entire body.
  That was after he waited in line for some period of time. He said he 
felt humiliated.
  There is a way to have proper security, and this amendment does 
nothing to change those requirements. But we can give those young men 
in uniform some expedited service, and we also ask TSA to look at when 
men and women are in uniform, under orders, to consider an expedited 
way to get them through security.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask all the Members to join with me in 
expressing our appreciation to the men and women who serve us and risk 
their life for us every day.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the 
amendment I offered with my good friend from Alabama, Representative 
Spencer Bachus.
  Like many of my colleagues, I travel home to my district almost every 
weekend, and am forced to spend a considerable amount of time in 
airports. I frequently see members of our armed forces at the airport 
traveling to fulfill assignments, in full military uniform and often 
loaded down with gear and equipment.
  The amendments Representative Bachus and I introduced would help ease 
the burden on these service men and women traveling on official orders.
  The Bachus/Moore amendment would direct the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA) to establish a dedicated screening process at 
airport security checkpoints for military personnel travelling in 
uniform on official orders. The amendment would also enable family 
members to accompany the service man or woman through the expedited 
screening process.
  While some airports and airlines have expedited screening policies in 
place for certain types of passengers, there is no group that deserves 
greater consideration than our brave men and women in uniform. Our 
servicemen and women, as well as their families, sacrifice so much as a 
part of their military service.
  This amendment represents a small, simple gesture of kindness in 
order to make travel more convenient and efficient for our heroes.
  Mr. BACHUS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 
printed in House Report 111-127.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       In title II, at the end of subtitle B add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. __. REPORT ON COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF PROPERTY 
                   FROM PASSENGER BAGGAGE.

       Not later than six months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Assistant Secretary shall report to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security of the House of 
     Representatives on complaints and claims received by the 
     Administration for loss of property with respect to passenger 
     baggage screened by the Administration, including--
       (1) the number of such claims that are outstanding;
       (2) the total value of property alleged in such outstanding 
     claims to be missing;
       (3) an estimate of the amount of time that will be required 
     to resolve all such outstanding claims;
       (4) the amount of Administration resources that will be 
     devoted to resolving such outstanding claims, including the 
     number of personnel and funding; and
       (5) efforts that the Administration is making or is 
     planning to make to address passenger grievances regarding 
     such losses, enhance passenger property security, and provide 
     effective oversight of baggage screeners and other 
     Administration personnel who come in contact with passenger 
     property.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a

[[Page 14035]]

Member opposed each will control 5 minutes
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to offer an 
amendment to the Transportation Security Administration authorization 
legislation requiring the TSA to report on the status of passenger 
property claims. Between 2003 and 2008, passengers filed almost $3.5 
million in claims for property lost after their bags were mishandled by 
the TSA, including jewelry, electronics, and other personal effects. 
This is unacceptable. The American people already deal with numerous 
hassles at the airports. Worrying about theft from their luggage should 
not be one of them.
  This amendment ensures adequate oversight of the TSA's efforts to 
address passenger complaints and claims. This amendment requires the 
TSA to report on the outstanding claims, their value, and the agency's 
efforts to enhance our passenger property security and provide 
effective oversight of baggage screeners and other TSA personnel.
  Mr. Chairman, the TSA does an outstanding job of protecting our 
Nation's airports and ensuring the safety and security of the tens of 
millions of passengers who access our air transportation network each 
year. This authorization bill--and I compliment Chairman Thompson and 
his staff, as well as the ranking member and their staff, for offering 
this very good bill--but it offers us an opportunity to improve the 
TSA's operations and ensure that all Americans can rest assured that 
their property is safely cared for under the control of TSA personnel.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I'm not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the TSA to report on 
the number of claims it receives for lost and damaged property, as well 
as the value of that property and an estimation on the time and 
resources necessary to resolve such claims.
  The men and women of the TSA work hard every day to protect the 
property entrusted into their care. While the underlying premise is 
faulty, in that it assumes TSA personnel are to blame for loss or 
damage associated with baggage, the information gleaned from this 
report might prove useful in allocating additional resources to manage 
these claims.
  The TSA has instituted a process in which a tag is placed inside 
every bag they open and inspect. This includes bags that are sealed and 
require a forcible entry.
  Unfortunately, the traveling public is sometimes quick to blame the 
TSA for any loss or damage associated with their luggage, as opposed to 
the air carriers, baggage handlers, or simple errors in bar code 
scanning.
  This report may prove useful in identifying any possible improvements 
to the TSA notification and claims process.
  So, as I said, I support the amendment.
  At this time, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to yield back the 
balance of my time, and I do so.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.


   Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida, as 
                                Modified

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 
printed in House Report 111-127.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an 
amendment, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in 
the form I have placed at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
     Florida:
       In section 237 of the bill, insert ``(a) Process.--'' 
     before ``Section 1604(b)(2)''.
       In section 237 of the bill, insert at the end the 
     following:
       (b) Reimbursements of Airports for Eligible Costs 
     Reimbursed at Less Than 90 Percent.--If the Secretary or 
     Assistant Secretary reimbursed, after August 3, 2007, an 
     airport that incurred before August 3, 2007, an amount for 
     eligible costs under section 44923 of title 49, United States 
     Code, that was less than 90 percent of such costs, the 
     Secretary or Assistant Secretary shall reimburse such airport 
     under such section an amount equal to the difference for such 
     eligible costs.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Lincoln 
     Diaz-Balart of Florida:
       The amendment as modified is as follows:
       In section 237 of the bill, insert ``(a) Process.--'' 
     before ``Section 1604(b)(2)''.
       In section 237 of the bill, insert at the end the 
     following:
       (b) Reimbursements of Airports for Eligible Costs 
     Reimbursed at Less Than 90 Percent.--If the Secretary or 
     Assistant Secretary reimbursed, after August 3, 2007, an 
     airport that incurred an amount for eligible costs under 
     section 44923 of title 49, United States Code, that was less 
     than 90 percent of such costs, the Secretary or Assistant 
     Secretary shall reimburse such airport under such section an 
     amount equal to the difference for such eligible costs.

  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank 
the distinguished chairman of the committee for his consideration and 
another clear demonstration of bipartisanship on this House floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that is a matter of simple 
fairness to airports that are installing congressionally mandated In-
Line Explosive Detection Systems, known as EDS.
  Airports that were offered TSA discretionary funding for EDS projects 
in 2008 were not treated equally. This was due to funding language 
that, in effect, pitted airports against each other, depending upon who 
was awarded in fiscal year 2008 or fiscal year 2007 appropriations.
  In the fall of 2008, TSA had funding at its disposal from fiscal year 
2007 and fiscal year 2008 to distribute EDS reimbursement funds. Some 
airports received Federal discretionary grants for 90 percent of the 
costs of installing the EDS for airport baggage systems from the fiscal 
year 2008 appropriations. At the same time, other airports were given 
grants for 75 percent of their costs from fiscal year 2007 
appropriations. Both of these awards were distributed at the same time, 
in the fall of 2008.
  Miami International Airport, which is located in the district that I 
am honored to represent, and several other large airports around the 
country fell into the 75 percent category, and these airports are now 
at a competitive disadvantage which increases costs to the airlines 
and, of course, to the flying public who ultimately pays the bills.
  The TSA and the OMB made an arbitrary funding decision. They picked 
winners and losers based on no known criteria. This amendment simply 
restores fairness to TSA's discretionary funding of EDS projects and 
assures that these critical airport security projects can be completed 
in a timely basis.
  Again, I'd like to thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member King 
and their staffs for working with my office to perfect this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, while not opposed to the 
amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Mississippi 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, this is a classic example 
of a

[[Page 14036]]

commonsense amendment. There is no reason why some airports should be 
reimbursed at 90 percent and others at 75 percent. This corrects that 
inequity. We support it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I yield back.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 7 Offered by Ms. Castor of Florida

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 
printed in House Report 111-127.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Ms. Castor of Florida:
       In the heading to section 403 of the bill, insert before 
     the period at the end the following (and conform the table of 
     contents of the bill accordingly): ``; REDUNDANT BACKGROUND 
     CHECKS''.
       At the end of section 403 of the bill, strike the closing 
     quotation marks and the final period and insert the 
     following:
       ``(r) Redundant Background Checks.--The Secretary shall 
     prohibit a State or political subdivision thereof from 
     requiring a separate security background check for any 
     purpose for which a transportation security card is issued 
     under this section. The Secretary may waive the application 
     of this subsection with respect to a State or political 
     subdivision thereof if the State or political subdivision 
     demonstrates a compelling homeland security reason that a 
     separate security background check is necessary.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Castor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to offer an 
amendment that promotes economic growth and fairness.
  My amendment eliminates redundant and expensive additional background 
checks that are making the Transportation Worker ID Card less effective 
and keeping qualified verified workers from jobs at our ports.
  The Transportation Worker ID Card was designed to ensure that people 
working at our ports are not security risks. We now verify that port 
workers have not been involved in activities related to terrorism or 
other serious criminal activity.
  The TWIC harmonizes port security across the Nation, so that any port 
authority in the country can be secure in the knowledge that job 
applicants have been examined by the TSA and deemed qualified and safe 
to access our ports.
  While the Transportation Worker ID Card has standardized port 
security for the vast majority of States, in Florida a worker who holds 
that national TWIC card is still not allowed to access ports without 
additional background checks and additional fees under a parallel and 
duplicative State-run system. That's not fair.
  A trucker delivering a load to a port in Georgia or South Carolina 
can simply present the TWIC card and make his or her delivery, as 
Congress intended when the TWIC program was designed. However, the same 
trucker in Florida will have to pay additional fees because the State 
refuses to recognize the TWIC as a sufficient security credential.
  Florida is the only State in the country to require two security 
clearances to enter public seaports. These duplicative clearances not 
only defeat the purpose of having a Federal port security credential, 
but they put Florida's seaports, tenants, trucking companies and 
workers at a competitive disadvantage, and this is hurting Florida's 
economy. It's a terrible burden on business.
  Now, in 2007, this Congress directed TSA to work with Florida to come 
to a mutually agreeable solution that would allow the TWIC to serve its 
purpose, but the ensuing years of negotiations led Florida to reaffirm 
this spring that it would not accept the national standard for port 
security but would continue to require expensive duplicative and 
unnecessary extra background checks.

                              {time}  1430

  The criminal background checks are almost identical. Both screen for 
crimes such as trafficking and narcotics, robbery and assault. Both 
agencies also have the ability to issue waivers to applicants when 
offenses are judged to represent no threat to port commerce or national 
security.
  The price of the DHS TWIC port credential 5-year card is $132.50. And 
if you're in Florida, you have to pay an additional $100 to $130 for 
the Florida clearance for the same 5-year period. This additional 
financial and bureaucratic burden on Florida port businesses and 
workers is unnecessary.
  The amendment I'm offering will restore a reasonable, rational, and 
cost-efficient maritime business environment. Duplicative and 
unnecessary costs erode the efforts to stimulate and grow Florida's 
economy and decrease the effectiveness of national standards put in 
place by Congress through the TWIC program.
  Now, for those that might be concerned, if Florida can justify 
additional background checks with legitimate homeland security 
concerns, this amendment gives them the opportunity to do so, and the 
parallel program could be maintained. But if the duplicative and 
expensive background checks required by Florida are not making our 
ports safer, workers should not have to pay for them.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DENT. While the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, 
TWIC, card was intended to be the one security credential required of 
port workers nationwide, some State governments could not wait for the 
Federal Government to establish its programs, and they moved forward 
with their own.
  Currently, as has been stated, Florida is one State requiring a 
separate and, some argue, duplicative security background check and 
card for workers entering port facilities. While it's unfortunate that 
Florida port employees are required to pay for background checks twice, 
TSA cannot share the results of its background checks with Florida.
  Florida State law allows for individuals to be disqualified even if 
they were found qualified by the TSA due to differences in 
disqualifying crimes. Perhaps a better amendment would have been to 
allow TSA to share the results of its TWIC background checks with 
Florida. I would suggest that as a better amendment than the one 
currently before us.
  As written, this amendment would preempt Florida from continuing 
their security background check program, a program that the Florida 
State Legislature strongly supports. Additionally, some workers in port 
facilities receive criminal background checks, drug and alcohol 
testing, and credit checks as part of their screening process.
  Many have distinguished this type of employment screening from the 
security-focused screening of the TWIC program. It is unclear if DHS 
would see the Waterfront Commission's background check as being 
preempted under this amendment because it is an employment-safety 
criminal background check, not a security background check.
  While the amendment does allow a State to demonstrate a ``compelling 
homeland security reason'' that a separate background check is 
warranted, this places an extraordinary burden on a State legislature. 
State legislatures should have the right to determine what offenses 
qualify as disqualifying offenses in their ports, and this amendment 
would preempt that.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the chair of 
the committee, Mr. Thompson from Mississippi, for his leadership on 
this issue

[[Page 14037]]

and the professional Homeland Security staff who are the committee 
supportive of the amendment.
  I'd also submit, for the Record, letters of support from the 
Transportation Trades Department, the Florida Ports Council, Port 
Everglades, Port Manatee, Port of Miami, the Tampa Port Authority, and 
the Passenger Vessel Association.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and come down on the 
side of economic growth in a time of economic disaster; to come down on 
the side of the hardworking folks at our ports, to say that it's not 
fair in America that just because you live in one State, that you're 
going to be subjected to additional bureaucratic barriers to get to 
your job. I urge approval of the amendment.
                                             Transportation Trades


                                          Department, AFL-CIO,

                                     Washington, DC, June 4, 2009.

       Support the TSA Authorization Act and the Castor Amendment

       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Transportation Trades 
     Department, AFL-CIO (TTD), I urge you to support the 
     Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act 
     (H.R. 2200) which will make significant improvements to the 
     security of our transportation network. I also urge you to 
     vote for an amendment offered by Representative Castor which 
     seeks to eliminate duplicative security credentials.
       As we approach the 8th anniversary of the September 11, 
     2001 attacks on our country, we are reminded that much work 
     remains to better secure our entire transportation system and 
     to ensure that front-line workers are well-positioned to help 
     address our security vulnerabilities. Toward this end, we 
     applaud Chairman Bennie Thompson and the members of the 
     Homeland Security Committee for reporting out legislation 
     that will impose new security requirements and move to ensure 
     that rules already on the books are quickly implemented.
       Specifically, we support the provision in the bill that 
     will finally ensure that flight attendants receive the 
     uniform and mandatory security training they need to respond 
     to threats in the aircraft cabin. Despite claims by some in 
     industry, the costs of this program are minimal--it would add 
     five hours of training to pre-existing safety training and 
     would only occur every other year. This provision is a 
     significant compromise from the original multi-day proposal 
     and we simply do not see how industry can responsibly oppose 
     it. The concept that workers themselves should have to pay 
     for this mandatory training is ludicrous and we thank the 
     Committee for rejecting this concept.
       We also support the expanded training and support for the 
     Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program. The bill provides 
     that Federal Air Marshal Service field office facilities can 
     be used for the FFDO activities. The section also allows for 
     reimbursement of costs incurred by flight deck officers 
     during requalification for this program, which is required to 
     work as a flight deck officer. The bill also provides 
     additional training for cargo pilots. For years, security 
     regulations pertaining to cargo operations have been 
     inadequate and this mandate will take an important step to 
     address this problem.
       Section 206 mandates the issuance of security standards for 
     foreign and domestic aircraft repair stations performing 
     maintenance work on U.S. aircraft. The provision also 
     mandates that security standards at foreign stations working 
     on U.S. aircraft are comparable to the security standards for 
     maintenance work done in this country. These regulations were 
     originally mandated by Congress in 2003 and were supposed to 
     be finalized in August 2004. With over 70 percent of 
     maintenance work now outsourced to domestic and foreign 
     stations, security rules and the required inspections must be 
     immediately implemented.
       The TSA Authorization makes several urgently needed 
     improvements to the Transportation Worker Identification 
     Credential (TWIC) program. Section 403 requires the Coast 
     Guard to coordinate with owners and operators of port 
     facilities and vessels to allow TWIC applicants to be 
     escorted on port facilities by a TWIC holder. This will 
     provide relief to workers who have waited up to several 
     months in some cases to receive their credential. Many now 
     are suffering severe financial harm because, through no fault 
     of their own, they cannot access their job sites. This 
     section also reiterates the need for TSA to process 
     applications in a timely manner by instructing TSA to respond 
     to applicants within 30 days after receiving a completed 
     application and creating a 30-day timeline for the review of 
     requests for appeals and waivers. Additionally, this 
     provision addresses serious deficiencies in the TWIC 
     distribution process by allowing credentials to be sent to a 
     card holder's home and subsequently activated at a TWIC 
     enrollment center. These changes are absolutely essential to 
     the creation of a functional and trustworthy TWIC program 
     that improves our nation's maritime and port security.
       Rep. Castor's amendment would prohibit a state or local 
     government from imposing a separate, additional security 
     check for a purpose for which a federal transportation 
     security card has already been issued. Workers, for example, 
     who have already applied for and received a TWIC should not 
     be subject to additional and duplicate security checks for 
     entering a port or a maritime vessel. The purpose of the TWIC 
     and other federal security checks was to create a uniform 
     credential that minimizes costs and creates one level of 
     security. To allow states to impose their own security checks 
     without any limitation would defeat one of the main goals of 
     the TWIC and make it hard for workers and cargo to move from 
     state to state. This is a modest prohibition and can be 
     waived by DHS if a state can demonstrate compelling homeland 
     security reason for imposing additional security checks.
       Again, I urge you to vote for H.R. 2200 and for the Castor 
     amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Edward Wytkind,
     President.
                                  ____



                                        Florida Ports Council,

                                    Tallahassee, FL, June 4, 2009.
     Hon. Kathy Castor,
     U.S. Congresswoman--11th District,
     Cannon HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Castor: On behalf of Florida's fourteen 
     deepwater seaports, I write to express our support for your 
     amendment to H.R. 2200 concerning redundant criminal history 
     checks.
       As you know, Florida's seaports help to foster growth in 
     trade and tourism. Our ports generate more than 350,550 jobs 
     with an average wage of more than $48,000 per year--well 
     above the Florida average wage of approximately $34,000. In 
     addition, goods and services that move through Florida 
     seaports generates more that $1.3 billion in state and local 
     revenues. Thus, we are concerned with any unnecessary or 
     redundant costs that impact our ability to stimulate and grow 
     Florida's economy.
       Florida has been a leader on seaport security since 2000. 
     Florida's seaports have invested millions in infrastructure 
     and security forces to ensure that our seaports are safe, and 
     that passengers and cargo are protected. However, the State 
     of Florida also has been slow to change unnecessary and 
     duplicative seaport security requirements in light of the 
     significant changes made by the federal government since 9/
     11. The Florida criminal history background check is a 
     product of out-of-date analysis and requirements.
       We believe that the threat assessment conducted by the 
     Transportation Security Administration (TSA) under the 
     Transportation Workers Identification Credential (TWIC) 
     provides a significant level of protection for the country--
     including Floridians and visitors to Florida. This TSA threat 
     assessment, coupled with the significant investment by 
     Florida's seaports in infrastructure and operational security 
     provides a level of safety and security in Florida second to 
     none.
       The redundant criminal history background check has been 
     the law in Florida for over nine (9) years, and has become 
     unnecessary and redundant now that the federal TSA threat 
     assessment is in place and operational. We do not believe 
     that an additional criminal history check provides any 
     additional safety in Florida. However, if the FDLE can 
     provide some compelling reason to continue requiring a second 
     check, your amendment does allow the State of Florida to 
     request a waiver and continue requiring a second check.
       Again, thank you for your leadership on this issue, and for 
     offering this business-friendly amendment. We appreciate your 
     efforts to ensure that Florida's seaport have to ability to 
     stimulate and grow Florida's economy.
           Respectfully yours,
                                                 Michael L. Rubin,
     Vice President.
                                  ____

                                           Broward County Florida,


                                              Port Everglades,

                                Fort Lauderdale, FL, June 4, 2009.
       Dear Mr. Phillips: On our behalf, please sincerely thank 
     Congresswoman Castor for her amendment to prohibit redundant 
     background checks for any purpose for which a transportation 
     security card (TWIC) is issued.
       Port Everglades and all of Florida's seaports have invested 
     millions in infrastructure and security forces to ensure that 
     our seaports are safe, and that passengers and cargo are 
     protected. We believe that the threat assessment conducted by 
     the TSA under the TWIC program provides a significant level 
     of protections for the country--including Floridians and 
     visitors to Florida. This TSA threat assessment, coupled with 
     the investment by Florida's seaports in infrastructure and 
     operations security provides a level of security in Florida 
     second to none.
       The redundant background check in Florida has been in 
     Florida law for over nine (9) years. It has become 
     unnecessary now that the federal TWIC process is in place. We 
     do not believe that this redundant check provides for any 
     additional security. However, if the FDLE can provide some 
     compelling reason to continue requiring a second check of

[[Page 14038]]

     port workers, then Congresswoman Castor's amendment does 
     allow the State of Florida to request a waiver and continue 
     requiring a second check.
       This issue is eroding efforts to stimulate and grow 
     Florida's economy as the duplicative and unnecessary costs 
     affect the competitive balance between Florida and other 
     Southeastern ports as the additional cost to Florida port 
     employers and port workers is significant. We appreciate 
     Congresswoman Castor's attention to this issue and her 
     business-friendly amendment.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Phillip C. Allen,
     Port Director.
                                  ____

     Hon. Kathy Castor,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Castor: I'm writing to make you aware of 
     Port Manatee's support of your amendment to H.R. 2200, which 
     prohibits states from requiring separate security background 
     checks for access to the nation's seaports.
       This important legislation eliminates a competitive 
     disadvantage suffered by all Florida ports when competing for 
     business with ports from other states. The Sunshine State is 
     the only state in the Union requiring both federal and state 
     background checks for Transportation Worker Identification 
     Credentials and Florida port access identification cards.
       Please contact me directly if I may be of further 
     assistance regarding this matter and thank you for your 
     continued leadership with regard to Florida's seaport system 
     and in particular, all that you do to make Port Manatee 
     successful.
           Respectfully,

                                            David L. McDonald,

                                               Executive Director,
     Port Manatee.
                                  ____

       Dear Congresswoman Castor: Thank you for your sponsorship 
     of the amendment to H.R. 2200 which prohibits states from 
     requiring separate security background checks for access to 
     seaports. Florida's duplicative system places the state at a 
     competitive disadvantage by increasing the cost of doing 
     business at our public seaports.
       Thank you for your leadership on this important issue for 
     the Port of Miami.
           Regards,

                                                 Addys Kuryla,

                               Manager, Intergovernmental Affairs,
     Port of Miami.
                                  ____



                                         Tampa Port Authority,

                                          Tampa, FL, June 4, 2009.
     Re: Amendment to H.R. 2200--Redundant Background Checks

     Hon. Kathy Castor,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Castor: The Tampa Port Authority 
     supports the amendment to H.R. 2200 that you have offered to 
     prohibit a State or political subdivision thereof from 
     requiring a separate security background check for any 
     purpose for which a Transportation Workers Identification 
     Credential (TWIC) card is issued under section 403 of the 
     bill. Only one security background check and one 
     transportation security card should be required for entry 
     into Florida ports. Redundant security background and 
     transportation security cards do not enhance security at 
     Florida ports and may place Florida ports at a competitive 
     economic disadvantage with other deepwater ports across the 
     United States. Consequently, we support the proposed 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Richard A. Wainio,
     Port Director and CEO.
                                  ____



                                 Passenger Vessel Association,

                                     Alexandria, VA, May 29, 2009.
     Hon. Kathy Castor,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congresswoman Castor: The Passenger Vessel Association 
     (PVA)--the national trade association for owners and 
     operators of U.S.-flagged passenger vessel operators of all 
     types--commends you for your intended amendment to the TSA 
     authorization legislation (H.R. 2200) to prohibit a state 
     from requiring security background checks for maritime 
     workers that duplicate those already performed by the federal 
     government.
       PVA has numerous members throughout Florida and in the 
     Tampa area whose crew members have to obtain the expensive 
     federal Transportation Worker Identification Credentials 
     (TWIC). A prerequisite for obtaining a TWIC is a successful 
     background check of an individual's criminal record and 
     status on the terrorist watch list.
       Requiring a TWIC for certain individuals that work on a 
     dinner cruise, harbor excursion, or sightseeing vessel is 
     burdensome and expensive enough. However, PVA's Florida 
     operators have also had to contend with the duplicative 
     state-mandated FUPAC credential. What additional value does 
     this state requirement provide?
       On behalf of our Florida members, including former PVA 
     President Troy Manthey of Yacht Starship Dining Cruises of 
     Tampa, thank you for your advocacy of your amendment. Please 
     let us know how we can assist it in its passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Edmund B. Welch,
                                             Legislative Director.

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to the amendment, the 
way it is crafted. I thank the gentlelady from Florida. My colleague 
has very good intentions, but let's look at the results here.
  First of all, this isn't going to eliminate the duplication that was 
referred to. Florida can still issue an identity card, its own identity 
card. And it would be better to have just one identity card, but they 
can still issue one identity card.
  What this amendment does is it says that the State is prohibited from 
conducting a separate background check. So what this becomes is a 
protection and cover for basically thugs and criminals who are at our 
ports. You cannot do a criminal background check. This actually 
prohibits that. That's why I'm opposed to it.
  The reason we're concerned in Florida about having criminal 
background checks--this is the Camber Report. I was in Congress when 
this was conducted in 2000. One of our ports had over 60 percent of 
those working at the port with criminal backgrounds.
  Here's part of the security assessment. I will name this port; 
Jacksonville. It has a large physical layout of its facilities, three 
noncontiguous terminals. The port represents a lucrative target to 
would-be smugglers and terrorists.
  So this amendment, by the way it is crafted--and it should be 
revised--would prohibit Florida from, even if they want to, and still 
can with this amendment, they can issue their own card, but they can't 
conduct a criminal background check. That's wrong. That's wrong.
  We can't provide cover for thugs and criminals. And you hear from 
this report that it does pose both a criminal and terrorist threat, and 
that needs to be addressed.
  This amendment, the way it's crafted, does not do that.
  Mr. DENT. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Flake

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in House Report 111-127.
  Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

  Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Flake:

       In the proposed section 44947 of title 49, United States 
     Code, as proposed to be inserted by section 210 of the bill, 
     add at the end of subsection (a) the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Presumption of congress relating to competitive 
     procedures.--
       ``(A) Presumption.--It is the presumption of Congress that 
     grants awarded under this section will be awarded using 
     competitive procedures based on risk.
       ``(B) Report to congress.--If grants are awarded under this 
     section using procedures other than competitive procedures, 
     the Assistant Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     explaining why competitive procedures were not used.''.
       In subsection (c) of such proposed section 44947, add at 
     the end the following new sentence: ``None of the funds 
     appropriated pursuant to this subsection may be used for a 
     congressional earmark as defined in clause 9d, of Rule XXI of 
     the rules of the House of Representatives of the 111th 
     Congress.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me say from the outset, this is, I 
believe, a bipartisan amendment. A similar amendment has been adopted 
in previous authorizations. So I'm pleased to offer it.

[[Page 14039]]

  H.R. 2200, as we know, establishes a new grant program that would 
provide grants to operators of general aviation airports for projects 
to enhance perimeter security, airfield security, and terminal 
security. Notably absent from the language, however, is the 
determination of how this grant money is to be spent.
  Too often we have seen legitimate grant programs become vehicles for 
Member projects. Members will simply earmark these funds for projects 
back home. A great example of this is FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation 
grant program. Originally, this program was intended to ``save lives 
and reduce property damage'' by providing funds ``for hazard mitigation 
planning, acquisition, and relocation of structures out of the 
floodplain.''
  Rather than continuing to award grants that have traditionally been 
awarded on the basis of merit, using a 70-page guidance document that 
details requirements and criteria, Congress decided in 2007 to earmark 
about half of that funding.
  That same grant program was earmarked in last year's Homeland 
Security appropriations bill. I have little doubt that it will be 
earmarked again this year as well, because once earmarks start to flow, 
you can rarely cut them off. And so you have legitimate grant programs 
with a legitimate purpose. You have applicants waiting to apply, only 
to find that the money in the account has been drained by Member 
earmarks.
  Let me just say another example of this is the COPS grant program. It 
was slated to cost $5.5 billion over the past 5 years. These are some 
of the most heavily earmarked programs that the Congress authorizes.
  Specifically, the COPS Law Enforcement and Technology grant program 
appropriated about $187 million in fiscal year 2009. That accounted for 
more than 500 earmarks, included in both the House and the Senate, at 
the cost of more than $185 million. This means that nearly 100 percent 
of the funds for that particular COPS program were earmarked for 
particular towns and cities.
  I'm mentioning this because that's an example of other areas where, 
in some cases like the Homeland Security program, we said many times we 
will not earmark these dollars, and yet unless we have a specific 
prohibition or language prohibiting it, it happens. And so these 
accounts go wanting later.
  I'm offering this amendment obviously to prevent the wasteful use of 
taxpayer dollars. If we're going to authorize grant programs to meet 
specific needs, we need to ensure that these are met in a 
straightforward manner.
  This amendment is simple. It would establish the presumption that the 
general aviation security grants will be awarded using competitive 
means and based on risk. Should the TSA decide to use an alternative 
means of awarding these grants, the amendment requires that the TSA 
provide to Congress a report explaining that decision.
  Lastly, the amendment would prohibit this grant program from ever 
being earmarked. If Congress is serious about enhancing security at 
general aviation airports, including this kind of instructive language 
is necessary. History shows that without it, these programs, these 
accounts will become earmarked and it will nullify any legitimate need 
for the program to begin with, and I urge support for this bipartisan 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, while not opposed to the 
amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Mississippi 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to support this 
amendment which reaffirms that grants awarded to general aviation 
airports under this bill are done so through a competitive process.
  Mr. Flake's amendment, based on the competition and the risk, is the 
right thing to do. I support the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I also want to thank the chairman 
for working with my staff to insert language to make sure that these 
programs, the awarding of these programs will be based on risk. That 
was a great addition to this amendment.
  I appreciate being able to work with the chairman of the committee on 
this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Lynch

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 9 
printed in House Report 111-127.
  Mr. LYNCH. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Lynch:
       In section 239 of the bill, strike subsections (a) and 
     insert the following:
       (a) Use of Personal Protective Equipment.--
       (1) In general.--Any personnel of the Transportation 
     Security Administration voluntarily may wear personal 
     protective equipment during any emergency.
       (2) Written guidance.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security shall establish, coordinate, and disseminate written 
     guidance to personnel of the Transportation Security 
     Administration to allow for the voluntary usage of personal 
     protective equipment.
       (3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term ``personal 
     protective equipment'' includes surgical and N95 masks, 
     gloves, and hand sanitizer.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Thompson, the chair of 
the Homeland Security Committee, for his great work on this bill. 
Specifically, this amendment that I have offered would address a 
difficult situation that is faced by our transit security officers, 
especially those on the Mexican border, but in every port of entry in 
the United States.
  We have about 50,000 of these officers that actually come in contact, 
physically wanding and screening travelers. As you may remember, after 
the outbreak of the H1N1 virus, the epicenter was actually in Mexico 
City; yet the officers that we put on the border, especially Laredo, 
Texas, and other affected States, were not allowed--they were not 
allowed to wear masks, to wear gloves, or to use hand sanitizer as they 
proceeded to screen travelers coming through from Mexico.
  A bizarre situation developed where our officers actually were able 
to look across at the Mexican security officers who all had masks on, 
they all had gloves on, yet our own TSA did not allow our workers to 
wear masks or gloves.
  In fact, when our officers actually took the initiative to protect 
themselves, they were told by their superiors, Take off those gloves. 
Take off those masks. You're alarming the traveling public.

                              {time}  1445

  Many of these officers actually screen up to 2,000-3,000 visitors, 
travelers, per shift. So, to a high degree, they were actually exposed 
to people who were exhibiting influenza. There are a couple of stark 
instances we received on the committee, affidavits from officers who 
actually confronted travelers who were visibly sick. Yet they were 
told, even in those instances, they were not allowed to wear gloves and 
masks. So what this amendment would do would be to direct the 
Transportation Security Administration to basically issue guidance that 
would allow these workers to protect themselves.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I am not opposed.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Utah is 
recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 14040]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Lynch for his great work 
in identifying this as a challenge.
  We have so many great men and women who serve at the TSA on the front 
lines. They are dealing with literally tens of thousands of people at a 
time, some of whom inevitably are going to be sick. It seems reasonable 
to me that we should put first and foremost the protection and the 
safety and the consideration of those TSA employees so that, if they 
choose to don a mask or to put on gloves to protect themselves and 
consequently to protect their loved ones and their livelihoods, we 
should afford them that opportunity.
  We saw in the committee hearing that there was a great deal of 
confusion with the TSA. This amendment, which I appreciate that Mr. 
Lynch has brought forward, helps clarify that so there is no ambiguity 
and so we can make sure that the TSA employees can have the safety and 
security that they deserve.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out the odd situation 
we have here. We have the World Health Organization that has actually 
brought us up to a level 5. They are now considering going to a level 6 
on this influenza. Yet you have the Transportation Security 
Administration and DHS saying they did not think it was medically 
necessary for our folks to wear these. You have the Centers for Disease 
Control here in the United States, in Atlanta, alerting Americans just 
generally to cover their mouths, to avoid unnecessary travel to Mexico, 
to take prudent steps to protect themselves. Yet we have these officers 
on the border who are screening 3,000 people per day, and they aren't 
allowing these individuals to wear masks.
  I think it points out a terrible incongruity in our policy. We've 
been trying to get them to change that policy. They would not do it 
voluntarily, so we have been put in a position where we have to do this 
legislatively.
  Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentleman from Utah has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LYNCH. I will reserve my time at this point.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield as much time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the gentleman's 
amendment. I think it's a commonsense amendment on government 
oversight. We saw how there was an inconsistency with the stated 
purpose of protecting not only the public in general but also our 
employees. We also saw that there was a degree of, let's just say, 
insensitivity to the fact of allowing individuals the decency to be 
able to protect their own health.
  Let me just say this to the author: I think that this issue also kind 
of addresses a problem that we didn't talk about in our committee, 
which is the public relations concern that has sort of trumped good 
common sense and public health, and I think that we should make this 
clear with your amendment:
  Now you have got a supervisor who may be concerned with, if somebody 
wears a mask, I might get a complaint, and I don't want to put up with 
that kind of heat. With your amendment, the supervisor may say: If I 
get a complaint, I have the ability to point to a congressional 
directive here, and I have the reason as to why I can protect myself--
by allowing the employee to make this call himself on behalf of his own 
public health.
  I say this, Mr. Chairman, as a former public employee: It serves not 
only the public health of the employee, but it also serves the 
administrative structure because it eliminates and basically reduces 
the degree of threat they have of being attacked for allowing the 
employee to have that. I think the heat should stop here. I think the 
buck stops here. I think we set the example.
  I appreciate the gentleman for proposing this amendment. I would like 
to point out that this is the kind of bipartisan cooperation we have in 
government oversight, and I am very proud of it. I am very proud to 
support your amendment, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out something that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) just raised.
  On several occasions, there have been justifications for not allowing 
people to wear masks and for not allowing these screeners to protect 
themselves on the border. The justification seems to be that the 
airlines and transportation officials don't want to alarm the public. I 
just want to point out that, when you travel around the globe, these 
are not large, evil-looking devices. These are very simple dust masks 
that can be used, and they look fairly common. You see them a lot 
overseas. It's quite a common thing. As they become more widely used, 
it will sort of, I think, become commonplace, and it will not bring 
alarm.
  The last point I want to make is this: these employees don't have the 
right to collectively bargain. They don't have the right to send in a 
representative to file a grievance when they're told to take off their 
masks or gloves or when they refuse to allow them to use Purell or 
anything to protect themselves. If these folks had had a collective 
bargaining representative, they wouldn't have had to come to me. I feel 
like I'm the business manager for the Transportation employees. While 
I'm honored to have that responsibility, I think it would be much 
better handled if they had the right to collectively bargain and if 
they had the right to have their own employee representatives intervene 
on their behalf when their own personal safety and the safety of their 
families are threatened.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of our time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Chaffetz

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in House Report 111-127.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Chaffetz:
       In title II, at the end of subtitle A add the following new 
     section:

     SEC. __. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF WHOLE-BODY IMAGING TECHNOLOGY 
                   FOR AIRCRAFT PASSENGER SCREENING.

       Section 44901 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(l) Limitations on Use of Whole-Body Imaging Technology 
     for Screening Passengers.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary of Homeland 
     Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall 
     ensure that whole-body imaging technology is used for the 
     screening of passengers under this section only in accordance 
     with this subsection.
       ``(2) Prohibition on use for routine screening.--Whole-body 
     imaging technology may not be used as the sole or primary 
     method of screening a passenger under this section. Whole-
     body imaging technology may not be used to screen a passenger 
     under this section unless another method of screening, such 
     as metal detection, demonstrates cause for preventing such 
     passenger from boarding an aircraft.
       ``(3) Provision of information.--A passenger for whom 
     screening by whole-body imaging technology is permissible 
     under paragraph (2) shall be provided information on the 
     operation of such technology, on the image generated by such 
     technology, on privacy policies relating to such technology, 
     and on the right to request a pat-down search under paragraph 
     (4) prior to the utilization of such technology with respect 
     to such passenger.
       ``(4) Pat-down search option.--A passenger for whom 
     screening by whole-body imaging technology is permissible 
     under paragraph (2) shall be offered a pat-down search in 
     lieu of such screening.
       ``(5) Prohibition on use of images.--An image of a 
     passenger generated by whole-body imaging technology may not 
     be stored, transferred, shared, or copied in any form after 
     the boarding determination with respect to such passenger is 
     made.

[[Page 14041]]

       ``(6) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this section, and annually thereafter, the 
     Assistant Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     containing information on the implementation of this 
     subsection, on the number of passengers for whom screening by 
     whole-body imaging technology was permissible under paragraph 
     (2) as a percentage of all screened passengers, on the number 
     of passengers who chose a pat-down search when presented the 
     offer under paragraph (4) as a percentage of all passengers 
     presented such offer, on privacy protection measures taken 
     with respect to whole-body imaging technology, on privacy 
     violations that occurred with respect to such technology, and 
     on the effectiveness of such technology.
       ``(7) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following 
     definitions apply:
       ``(A) Pat-down search.--The term `pat-down search' means a 
     physical inspection of the body of an aircraft passenger 
     conducted in accordance with the Transportation Security 
     Administration's standard operating procedure as described in 
     the Transportation Security Administration's official 
     training manual.
       ``(B) Whole-body imaging technology.--The term `whole-body 
     imaging technology' means a device, including a device using 
     backscatter x-rays or millimeter waves, used to detect 
     objects carried on individuals and that creates a visual 
     image of the individual's full body, showing the surface of 
     the skin and revealing objects that are on the body.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize for 2 minutes 
the gentlewoman from New Hampshire (Ms. Shea-Porter).
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank Chairman Thompson 
and his staff for their hard work on this very important bill. I would 
also like to thank my colleague Mr. Chaffetz. We share a deep concern 
and respect for the privacy of individuals.
  When this full-body imaging technology was first introduced, the TSA 
said that it would only be used as a secondary screening method for 
those people who set off the metal detectors. Now it has become very 
clear that the TSA intends for this technology to replace metal 
detectors at airports all over the country. The New York Times reported 
as much in an April 7, 2009, article.
  The Chaffetz/Shea-Porter amendment would ensure that full-body 
imaging remains a secondary screening method. It would also ensure that 
the people who do go through it are well informed and are given the 
option of a pat-down.
  Mr. Chair, we do not take this amendment lightly. As a member of the 
Armed Services Committee, I am very aware of the security threats that 
are facing our country. We, too, want to ensure that the Department of 
Homeland Security and the TSA have the tools they need to prevent 
future terrorist attacks. However, the steps that we take to ensure our 
safety should not be so intrusive that they infringe upon the very 
freedom that we aim to protect.
  Two weeks ago, I went to Washington National Airport to view one of 
these machines. I saw how the technology is being used. I saw the 
pictures it produces and the inadequate procedures TSA has put into 
place to protect our privacy. The images are incredibly revealing as I 
will show you here. This is a gross violation of a person's right to 
privacy. It is also illogical because, if we allow this intrusion into 
our lives, then there should be this same scan at every single train 
station, at every building that we enter and on every single bus that 
we board.
  So I ask that my fellow Members join me in voting for this resolution 
and for this amendment.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time, reluctantly, in 
opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DENT. Just yesterday, I visited Reagan National Airport and took 
a look at the whole-body imaging machines over there, and I just have 
to say a couple of things about this.
  I was impressed by the technology. It seems that we have a great deal 
of satisfaction from passengers who utilize that type of screening. 
There are limitations to the magnetometer. A magnetometer can pick up 
metallic items, like keys, but other prohibited items, like liquids and 
C4 for potential explosives, will be detected under the whole-body 
imaging technology but not under a magnetometer. So I do believe that 
this technology is valid.
  As for the privacy concerns that have been raised, while I understand 
them, I think they have been overstated. There are strong, strong 
restrictions in place to make sure that those individuals, the 
transportation security officers who actually help the passengers go 
through the whole-body imaging scanning, are not in contact with the 
person who is actually viewing the image. Those people are in a 
separate room, so they're separated. The face of the individual is also 
blurred, so that's another protection.
  So I do think that this technology is very valuable. It will help 
make us safer. Again, I think it is a step in the right direction. So I 
would reluctantly oppose the amendment. I understand the concerns 
expressed, but nevertheless, I feel that this technology is valuable 
and that it enhances security.
  At this time, I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), who previously 
served as the ranking member on the Transportation Security and 
Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  I happen to be one of those people who happens to have an artificial 
hip. Every time I go through, I set off the screener. Every time I go 
through, I get hand-patted down, and even though they do it in a very 
nice way, frankly, that's far more intrusive than going out to the 
Reagan National Airport and going through that particular system that 
we're talking about with those pictures.
  We have been working for many years since 9/11 to try and come up 
with devices which will allow us to be able to detect those kinds of 
things that, if brought on airliners, would be a threat to all 
passengers. The whole-body imaging technology, which this amendment 
seeks to stop in terms of its application as a primary means of 
screening, can detect many things such as small IEDs, plastic 
explosives, ceramic knives, and other objects that traditional metal 
detection cannot detect. Let me underscore that: this device that this 
amendment seeks to take off the table as a primary means of screening 
can detect small IEDs, plastic explosives, ceramic knives, and other 
objects that traditional metal detection cannot detect. That ought to 
be enough for us to understand this.
  If you look at the privacy questions, let's be clear: the person who 
actually is there, the employee of TSA who is there when you go through 
this machine, is not the one who reads the picture. That person, he or 
she, is in another room--isolated. They never see you. They actually 
talk to one another by way of radio. So this idea that somebody is 
sitting in this little room, waiting to see what you look like, 
frankly, is sort of overblown.
  All I can say is this: I have been through many, many pat-downs 
because I happen to have an artificial hip. Going through this at 
Reagan National Airport was so much quicker and so less intrusive of my 
privacy than what we go through now. For us to sit here now and to pass 
an amendment which is going to stop this development and application, 
frankly, I think, is misguided.
  With all due respect to the gentleman from Utah, who I know is 
sincere about that, and to the gentlewoman, who is also sincere, I 
would ask you to rethink this. From my experience, this is far more 
protective of my privacy than what I have to go through every time I go 
to the airport, number one; but more importantly, it protects me and 
every other passenger to a greater extent than any other procedure we 
have now. We aren't doing this because we want to do it. We're doing it 
because we have people around the world who want to kill us, who want 
to destroy our way of life, and

[[Page 14042]]

they have utilized commercial airliners for that purpose in the 
greatest attack in our Nation's history since Pearl Harbor.

                              {time}  1500

  This is a device which helps us take advantage of our technological 
know-how to gain an advance on the enemy. I would hope we would not do 
this by way of this amendment.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield myself as much time 
as I need.
  Whole-body imaging does exactly what it's going to do. It takes a 
360-degree image of your body. Now, I want to have as much safety and 
security on the airplanes I'm flying every week, but there comes a 
point in which in the name and safety and security we overstep that 
line and we have an invasion of privacy. This happens to be one of 
those invasions of privacy.
  Now I understand why the gentleman from California expressed his 
concern. Let me be clear that this amendment on whole-body imaging only 
limits primary screening. It can be used for secondary screening. You 
may get people with artificial hips or knees or something else, and 
they may elect this kind of screening. It's perfect for them.
  But to suggest that every single American--that my wife, my 8-year-
old daughter--needs to be subjected to this, I think, is just 
absolutely wrong. Now, the technology will actually blur out your face. 
The reason it does this is because there is such great specificity on 
their face, that they have to do that for some privacy. But down in 
other, more limited parts you could see specifics with a degree of 
certainty that, according to the TSA as quoted in USA Today, ``You 
could actually see the sweat on somebody's back.'' They can tell the 
difference between a dime and a nickel. If they can do that, they can 
see things that, quite frankly, I don't think they should be looking at 
in order to secure a plane. You don't need to look at my wife and 8-
year-old daughter naked in order to secure that airplane.
  Some people say there is radio communication. There is distance. 
Well, it's just as easy to say there is a celebrity or some Member of 
Congress or some weird-looking person. There is communication.
  You say you can't record the devices. Many of us have mobile phones 
or have these little cameras. There is nothing in this technology that 
would prohibit the recording of these. With 45,000 good, hardworking 
TSA employees, 450 airports, some two million air traffic travelers a 
day, there is inevitably going to be a breach of security. And I want 
our planes to be as safe and secure as we can, but at the same time, we 
cannot overstep that bound and have this invasion of privacy.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be 
postponed.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Ms. Bordallo

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 
printed in House Report 111-127.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Ms. Bordallo:
       At the end of subtitle B of title II of the bill, insert 
     the following (with the correct sequential provision 
     designations and conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. ____. REPORT ON CERTAIN SECURITY PLAN.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Assistant Secretary shall submit a report to the 
     appropriate committees of Congress that--
       (1) reviews whether the most recent security plans 
     developed by the commercial aviation airports in the United 
     States territories meet the security concerns described in 
     guidelines and other official documents issued by the 
     Transportation Security Administration pertaining to parts 
     1544 and 1546 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     particularly with regard to the commingling of passengers;
       (2) makes recommendations regarding best practices 
     supported by the Transportation Security Administration and 
     any adequate alternatives that address the problems or 
     benefits of commingling passengers at such airports to 
     satisfy the concerns described in paragraph (1);
       (3) reviews the potential costs of implementing the 
     preferred and alternative methods to address the 
     Administration concerns regarding parts 1544 and 1546 of 
     title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, particularly in 
     regards to the commingling of passengers at the airport; and
       (4) identifies funding sources, including grant programs, 
     to implement improved security methods at such airports.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentlewoman 
from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Guam.
  Ms. BORDALLO. First I want to thank Congressman Bennie Thompson of 
Mississippi and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas for their 
support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple and straightforward. It 
would require the assistant secretary of TSA to conduct a study and to 
make recommendations on specific methods by which airports in the U.S. 
territories, including the Guam International Airport in my district, 
can best and most cost-effectively comply with existing security 
regulations. Specifically, it asks TSA to review compliance with parts 
1544 and 1546 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations relating 
to the issue of commingling of passengers at U.S. airports. The report 
would evaluate alternatives and identify the costs for their 
implementation.
  Additionally, TSA is to identify sources of Federal and non-Federal 
financing to implement the preferred alternative at each of these 
airports. Guam is a small hub, Mr. Chairman, for a domestic airline. 
Our airport on Guam facilitates the daily transiting of international 
passengers to destinations in the United States, other Pacific islands, 
and major cities in the Pacific Rim, including Japan, Korea, the 
Philippines, Taiwan, and Australia.
  The current security arrangement at the airport on Guam requires 
significant resources to be expended in constant around-the-clock 
monitoring by security personnel to prevent the commingling of 
transiting and departing passengers. The security enhancements made 
subsequent to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001--particularly 
with respect to preventing the commingling of passengers at our 
airports all across the country--have been costly, and in some cases, 
difficult to fully implement. Moreover, the current decrease in tourist 
arrivals and departures due to the economic downturn further erodes the 
financial capability of small airports to implement such improvements.
  The Guam International Airport Authority has been operating under a 
waiver from the Transportation Security Administration for several 
years. Both the TSA and the Guam International Airport Authority agree 
that the temporary solution, which amounts to placement of removable 
partitions and use of security staff to prevent commingling of 
passengers in their movements throughout the terminal, is not feasible 
for the long term. However, the cost of implementing security 
arrangements and improvements at the Guam airport to ensure compliance 
is costly, and since other security enhancements and expansion of the 
airport, have completely obligated the passenger facility charge.
  The amendment before us, Mr. Chairman, simply looks to provide 
options for solving this problem on Guam and potentially other airports 
in the U.S. territories as well. More importantly, it would provide 
guidance for funding implementation of these security improvements.
  And again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman and his 
committee staff for their work with me and my staff on this amendment.
  And for the record, I urge passage of the next amendment, No. 12, 
sponsored

[[Page 14043]]

by Congresswoman Jackson-Lee and Congressman Hastings.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment, although I have no real objections to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DENT. First, I would like to say I support the amendment. Guam 
International Airport does not segregate passengers traveling 
internationally from those passengers traveling domestically. There is 
no physical separation by either a separate floor or by a solid wall. 
Prior to 9/11, the commingling of domestic and international travelers 
was not a concern. Guam International is concerned about the security 
implications of the current system and is looking for a long-term 
solution to prevent the commingling of domestic and international 
passengers.
  This amendment would simply require that the TSA review the current 
procedures in place at the airports of the U.S. territories and make 
recommendations to the airports on how best to address the commingling 
of passengers. I have no objections. I support the amendment.
  I would yield, at this time, to Ms. Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the ranking member very much for 
yielding. And I would like to applaud the gentlelady from Guam for this 
very thoughtful amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to have homeland security, we must have 
expanded homeland security, and that includes our territories. This 
amendment directs TSA to identify in its report funding sources to 
recover the costs of any long-term security improvements that will be 
needed at these airports in the territories.
  I believe this is crucial. This is a seamless and important part of 
homeland security, and I would ask my colleagues to support it, which 
includes U.S. territories, especially the Guam International Airport, 
which is subject to significant fluctuations in passenger volumes 
because of the tourism market.
  This is a good amendment, and I ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of the Bordallo 
Amendment (#25) that would direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
report to Congress on a review to be conducted by the Transportation 
Security Administration (TSA) for preferred and alternative methods of 
having commercial airports in the territories comply with TSA security 
regulations.
  I thank my colleague from Guam for her leadership and continuing to 
look out for the interest of all the territories. This amendment is 
pretty straight forward. It requires TSA to report on options for 
improving security airports in the U.S. territories with particular 
attention to the commingling of passengers that are connecting from 
international flights.
  Moreover, this amendment recognizes the importance of the Territories 
to the national security of the United States. Commercial airports in 
the U.S. territories, especially the Guam International Airport, are 
subject to fluctuations in the tourism market, and making substantial 
security improvements is a costly endeavor for them to finance. 
Consequently, the amendment asks also that the TSA report would address 
the cost differences and financing opportunities for the territories to 
fully comply with the TSA regulations.
  This amendment is especially important in light of the military 
buildup in Guam and I thank my good friend Ms. Bordallo for bringing 
this amendment that would strengthen airport security not only in Guam 
but also in the other territories.
  I strongly urge members to support this amendment.
  Mr. DENT. I yield back.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).
  The amendment was agreed to.


         Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in House Report 111-127.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington:
       In section 230 of the bill, strike ``The'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) Aviation Security.--The
       In section 230 of the bill, add at the end the following:
       (b) Cargo Screening.--The Secretary shall increase the 
     number of canine detection teams, as of the date of enactment 
     of this Act, deployed for the purpose of meeting the 100 
     percent air cargo screening requirement set forth in section 
     44901(g) of title 49, United States Code, by not less than 
     100 canine teams through fiscal year 2011.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 474, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my 
colleagues, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas and Mr. Rogers of Alabama, for 
cosponsoring this very important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, highly trained K-9 teams have been successfully 
employed in the United States to screen airports and cargo since 1973. 
Dogs are extremely reliable and their mobility makes them invaluable in 
screening all types of cargo quickly and effectively.
  As we approach the August 2010 deadline to screen 100 percent of 
cargo transported on passenger airplanes, it is critical that the TSA 
is able to deal with all types of cargo without necessarily slowing 
down exports. Within my district, cherry growers transport half of the 
cherries they export on passenger aircraft, and K-9s are by far the 
most workable screening method for these highly perishable products.
  My amendment would increase the number of K-9 teams specifically 
dedicated to air cargo by a minimum of 100 dogs. The need for 
additional K-9s to screen air cargo is clear. For example, the Seattle-
Tacoma International Airport began screening all of its cargo earlier 
this year. In order to meet the needs of all exporters, TSA will bring 
K-9 teams to the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the country 
during the cherry harvest to ensure that all cherries are screened in a 
timely manner. Once a 100 percent screening requirement goes into 
effect next year, the burden on all existing K-9 teams will only 
increase.
  At a time when our economy is struggling, we should not be adding new 
roadblocks for American farmers and businesses. I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support keeping our skies secure without interrupting 
commerce and vote ``yes'' on the Hastings/Jackson-Lee/Rogers amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I rise to claim the time in opposition. I 
will not oppose the amendment, and I thank the chairman.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Again, let me thank the chairman of the 
full committee, Mr. Thompson, and as well Mr. King and my colleague, 
Mr. Dent. It was a pleasure to work with Mr. Hastings and Rogers of 
Alabama.
  So I rise in support of the Hastings/Rogers/Jackson-Lee amendment. I 
appreciate their collegiality and their willingness to work with me on 
this important amendment. We have toured the Homeland Security sites 
that have had K-9s. I have heard from airports who said, Give me one 
good dog, and we will provide security for America.
  TSA's explosive detection K-9 teams are important and effective tools 
for securing all modes of transportation in the United States. The use 
of K-9 teams has managed what few other security measures can boast: 
They are well-liked by the community and traveling public. Our 
committee worked hard to reaffirm our support of K-9 teams for 
explosive detection in the different transportation modes through H.R. 
2200. I'm proud to have led these efforts.
  This amendment rounds out these important provisions. As we speak, 
TSA continues its work meeting the hundred percent cargo screening 
requirement established by the 9/11 Act.

[[Page 14044]]

And let me, as an insert, indicate that I am very proud of the language 
that we have about 100 percent cargo screening. It is one that we 
worked on with the Department of Homeland Security. We worked with Mr. 
Markey, we worked with our chairman and our ranking member of both 
committees--the subcommittee and full committee.
  We want to have 100 percent cargo screening. A hundred additional K-9 
teams that will be deployed under this amendment will help ensure TSA's 
success. Mr. Hastings, Mr. Rogers, and I have offered what I perceive 
to be a thoughtful amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I 
thank Mr. Hastings and Mr. Rogers for their collaboration.
  With that, I am going to yield back.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to thank my friend from Texas for her thoughtful remarks and 
for working on this issue. Agri-business is big in our area, and cherry 
season is a very tight time frame. It is important that nothing slows 
down the process of getting these cherries to market. So with that, I 
want to thank my friend from Guam for also endorsing this amendment, 
and with that, I urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my support for this 
amendment, and to speak very briefly on its relevance to my district. 
Presently, a commercial air carrier contracts with the U.S. Postal 
Service to transport mail from Honolulu to Guam, and vice versa. 
Movement of U.S. Mail to and from Guam is handled solely by this 
contract--which includes transportation on both dedicated air cargo 
freighters as well as daily by passenger aircraft. Right now, the U.S. 
Postal Service requires mail patrons to affix Customs Declarations to 
all Guam-bound mail pieces weighing 16 ounces or more--not for customs 
purposes, but as a security measure to obtain a sender's identity. The 
reason for this onerous requirement is, in part, because the TSA and 
airport authorities lack the means and resources to screen all Guam 
mail. A few years ago, TSA trained and stood-up a canine detection team 
at our airport on Guam to help with the mail backlog, but this team 
cannot screen all the mail and keep up with the volume. Additionally, 
the airport in Honolulu needs a canine team dedicated to screening mail 
there. This amendment would help our situation. I support this 
amendment, urge its adoption, and thank my colleague for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield back my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
  The amendment was agreed to.

                          ____________________