Jim DeMint

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. There is nothing that allows for it or prevents it. So I assume, again, with my colleagues in control of what comes to the floor, there is no danger of it drifting into any controversial area. I think we can certainly agree on some safe savings that would be risk free for the American people.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes, I will.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, as we all came into this debate on the first Democrat budget, a lot of us had high hopes. If you think back to the November elections, it seemed, at least for a few months, that Republicans and Democrats, in many ways, were saying a lot of the same things. We all decided it was very important we stop wasteful spending. We talked about reducing the debt. We even talked about keeping some of the tax relief that had gotten our economy going and created more jobs, although there is certainly some disagreement as to which tax cuts should be kept in place. As we see the Democratic budget at this point, there are certainly a number of us who are disappointed, particularly as we see this budget allows crushing tax increases to hit Americans at every income level, as well as tax increases on the businesses that provide us all our jobs. Even more, there is nothing in this budget that does anything to cut spending. We all know there is wasteful spending throughout this Federal Government. We need to get about the task of finding it and cutting it. Perhaps the worst example of wasteful spending is when we take the taxes people pay for Social Security and, instead of saving them, we spend them on other things. For a number of years now, the amount of taxes all Americans pay in every paycheck for their future Social Security income--they have actually been more than we need to pay the benefits of current retirees. It is what we refer to as the Social Security surplus. But instead of saving this surplus over the years, we take that money and put it in the general fund and spend it on all kinds of things. Even worse than spending Social Security on other things is we do not count it as debt when we talk about the deficit every year. So using the Social Security money is actually a way to hide even more wasteful spending without counting it as debt. Now, for everything we borrow from Social Security, we put an IOU in this so-called trust fund, with this idea someday we are going to pay it back. But we need to try to remind the American people there are no plans in this Congress--and there never have been any plans--to pay that money back. Unfortunately, the Democratic budget that has been proposed over the next 5 years will spend over $1 trillion additionally in Social Security taxes, as well as the interest that is supposed to be paid on that money that has already been borrowed. So the money that should be saved for the future of Americans in their retired days is being spent every year, and it is being used to conceal more and more wasteful spending. A lot of us have heard the news reports over the last year or two about the number of corporate pension plans that are going broke. The reason for that is, over the years not enough money has been put in those pensions to allow the companies to actually pay the benefits that have been promised. We call that an underfunded pension plan. It is creating huge problems for us throughout our country and for a number of workers who are counting on those pensions in their retirement. But as we consider Social Security, it is a pension plan. It is a pension plan Americans pay into with the reasonable expectation that one day they will be able to get their promised benefits. But Social Security is not only an underfunded pension plan, it is a completely unfunded pension plan. Not one dime of all the trillions of dollars that have been put into Social Security over our lifetime is saved. As I said before, it is actually being used to obscure a bigger debt and to obscure more and more wasteful spending at the Federal level. I commend Senator Bunning for his amendment that would require our budgeting needs not budget these Social Security dollars for other spending. I think it is very important that we take this a step further. Not only should we not spend the Social Security surplus, but we should take that money and put it in a reserve account so we actually save it for the future instead of giving it to the general fund to spend on anything we in Congress can come up with. Take the Social Security surplus--the cash itself will be about $80 billion this year; if you count the interest, it gets well more than that--put it in a reserve account and not spend it. The amendment I have offered would allow us, within the budgeting process, to set this money aside and not spend it. Unless we support this amendment as part of the budgeting process, when we bring this up to actually get it done some time this year, there will be a point of order against it and it will not be allowed to pass. So it has to be done now. That is the purpose of this amendment. Now, what will happen if we pass this amendment and we take this money off the table and no longer allow Congress to spend it? Then we are going to have to be honest about our debt, and we are probably going to have to cut some wasteful spending because this money is not going to be available for us to spend. It will put a lot of pressure on both parties, Republicans and Democrats, to figure out how to cut wasteful spending and how to save the Social Security money we promised to future generations. If we put it in a reserve account, we will also start the process to create a funded Social Security system, a Social Security system that has real money so we can keep our promises to future generations. So I support Senator Bunning's amendment. I offer another that will take it a step further, so that the money we take off the table cannot be spent on anything else; it has to be in a reserve account and can only be spent on Social Security in the future. I wish to thank the Senator for allowing me to offer that amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set the pending amendment aside.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DeMINT. Yes.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, if he is offering the amendment without an attached speech, I am fine with that. The majority leader limited our time and he will take the floor at 12. I will yield for the offering of an amendment. Amendment No. 352

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I want to speak about the DeMint amendment and make sure all of my colleagues are clear on what is about to happen. The majority leader has said at 12 o'clock today he will make a motion to table or to kill the DeMint amendment to the 9/11 bill. It would be a large mistake for this body to kill this amendment, because it enables our airport security personnel to keep Americans safer. One of the biggest threats we have now as a nation is we are beginning to forget 9/11 and what happened and what could happen. We are forgetting we are under a constant threat, that we live under alerts every day. It is not a matter of saying one day is an emergency and one day is not. It is not a matter of saying one passenger is an imminent threat but the other one might not be. Our transportation security agency is charged with making sure we screen every passenger, every bag, and that we have an alert system based on intelligence and other information that allows them to move toward possible threats. Unfortunately, we have heard Members of this Senate saying the war on terror is not an emergency, that al-Qaida is not a new imminent threat, when we know that every day al-Qaida may have a new plan to attack Americans at different points. When the Homeland Security agency was formed, we had a debate about whether the transportation security agencies, the officers working for them, the screeners, should have collective bargaining. It was agreed at the time, because of the need for flexibility and constant change, that screeners would have the freedom to join a union, and a number of workers' rights and protections were put into place, but that they would not have collective bargaining arrangements as some of our other agencies do. I point out we have heard some in this Chamber use border security as an example of collective bargaining working. What I hold in my hands is only one example of a collective bargaining agreement for our Customs Service. We cannot make a case that our border security has worked well. We have over 12 million illegals in this country that testify it is not. Our customs system is becoming well known as being one of the slowest in the world. Collective bargaining will not work for our airports. I am afraid, again, we are beginning to forget we are in an emergency situation. The 9/11 Commission didn't recommend we change current airport security. My amendment is designed to keep current law the same. The majority leader will ask this Chamber to kill that bill, which would mean we would lose the 9/11 security bill we have all worked on. I ask unanimous consent that several items be printed in the Record. First is a letter from the Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, Kip Hawley, who tells us if collective bargaining is implemented with the transportation security agency, it will significantly reduce their ability to keep our country safe. Next is a letter with over 36 Senators signing it, saying they will sustain the President's veto of the 9/11 bill if it hampers our security by injecting collective bargaining into the process. Next is a letter from the House of Representatives, with 155 signatures, saying they will sustain the veto.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as cosponsors of the DeMint amendment: Senators Vitter, Craig, Roberts, Bunning, Enzi, Hatch, and Graham.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I know Senator Collins wants to put security first in this bill, and I am looking forward to seeing her compromise amendment, but I am standing today to speak on the ongoing efforts by my Democratic colleagues to force the Transportation Security Administration--these are the folks who guard our airports today--to collectively bargain with labor unions on the decisions they make. The Senator from Missouri, Senator McCaskill, is offering an amendment that I consider very dangerous. I wish to make sure my colleagues understand all that is at stake. First, this debate is about one thing and one thing only: whether Congress believes that our airport security agency--what we refer to as TSA--should have to negotiate with unions before it can carry out decisions that will save American lives. That is what this debate is about. The McCaskill amendment will change current law to force our airport security agency to negotiate with unions. The DeMint amendment will protect current law, which makes security TSA's top priority. The security implications of this policy are becoming clear, and that is why there is an effort by my Democratic colleagues to cloud the issue. Rather than admitting that collective bargaining is a labor union initiative, not a 9/11 Commission recommendation, my Democratic colleagues are now trying to paint it as proworker and prosecurity. This is extremely disappointing because the truth is that the McCaskill amendment is prounion and it weakens security. When you boil it down, the McCaskill amendment will force airport security workers or the airport security agency, TSA, to bargain with labor unions before they make security decisions. Let me say that again. The Transportation Security Agency will have to bargain with labor unions before they make security decisions. This is an earmark for big labor that comes at the expense of homeland security. I wish to go through the arguments offered by the other side and make sure everybody understands why they are misguided. First, my colleagues say their collective bargaining amendment will prevent TSA screeners from going on strike and bargaining for higher pay. But the truth is that screeners could not strike anyway because the law prohibits Federal employees from striking. In addition, prohibiting bargaining for pay is also meaningless, since the Department of Homeland Security pay system does not allow bargaining now. So on this point, the other side is simply trying to cloud the issue and mask their union earmark with meaningless rhetoric. Second, my colleagues say their collective bargaining amendment will create new workforce protections for security screeners. But the truth is, these benefits already exist. Workers already have whistleblower protection through a memorandum of understanding with the Office of Special Counsel. Workers already have protection against discrimination through the alternative resolution of conflict program. Workers already have due process protections against disciplinary actions that are more efficient than the protections offered to other Federal employees. Madam President, again, we are talking about the collective bargaining amendment. I was pointing out the protections that current TSA workers have. They have whistleblower protection, protection against discrimination, and they already have due process protections against disciplinary action that is more efficient than the protections offered by Federal workers. Security screeners already have the right to appeal adverse actions to TSA's Disciplinary Review Board, which provides due process equivalent to that available to other Federal employees. Workers already enjoy access to the Rehabilitation Act, except where Congress has specified that security job functions require certain aptitudes and physical abilities. So all of these proworker provisions are redundant and meaningless in any amendment to current law. They are only being offered to mask the true goal of the amendment, which is to force TSA to bargain with unions on their security decisions. The other side also likes to say there are high attrition rates at TSA and that collective bargaining would stabilize the workforce. I am afraid this is also false. Before 9/11, when airport security was under collective bargaining, attrition rates were as high as 400 percent at some airports. Now the voluntary attrition rate for full-time employees is down to 12.6 percent, and it is falling. This is not only significantly lower than pre-9/11 levels, but it is also lower than the attrition rates for the private sector as a whole and lower than the Federal Government as a whole. So my colleagues must understand that these are good jobs, attrition is low and falling, and attrition is not a valid reason to create collective bargaining. It is also important that my colleagues understand how the collective bargaining amendment will weaken our homeland security, which is the priority of the 9/11 Commission bill. First, the amendment creates a security trigger that will allow TSA to turn collective bargain on and off. This acknowledges that collective bargaining weakens security. I wish to repeat so my colleagues understand my Democratic colleagues agree that collective bargaining reduces security, and they feel obligated to offer a way to bypass it. But this so-called trigger for emergencies only makes the problem of collective bargaining worse. The language defining emergencies and newly imminent threats is so vague it will take an army of lawyers to determine whether each circumstance meets the definition. This will hurt our security and force TSA to be reactive and slow in its efforts to prevent future attacks. If my colleagues need proof that there will be wide disagreement as to when the security trigger can be used, they only need to hear the comments made by the sponsor of this amendment. When I asked if the current ongoing global war on terror would be considered an emergency under the amendment, the Senator from Missouri said it would not. If TSA cannot use the war on terror as a reason to protect Americans from al-Qaida and other terrorists on a daily basis, under what circumstance can it use this flexibility? This underscores the issue that lies at the heart of this debate. On one side, there are those who believe we should always be on alert and that we must treat every person and every bag going through our airports as a potential threat. On the other side, there are those who believe we are not under constant threat and we can simply turn on and off our ability to prevent future attacks. That is the real disagreement because we all seem to agree collective bargaining weakens security. In addition to allowing our security to be switched on and off by unions, the McCaskill amendment creates all the same problems as full- blown collective bargaining. First, it still forces TSA to sign huge collective bargaining contracts, such as Customs and Border Patrol have now, and it could mean hundreds of separate contracts at airports across the country. Instead of streamlining security, it will create complex guidelines that make it harder to share and shift resources between airports as threats emerge. Second, it still forces TSA to set up a huge new bureaucracy for collective bargaining, putting new layers of redtape ahead of security and redirecting resources away from security and toward labor management. This new bureaucracy will cost TSA at least $160 million over the next year, forcing it to take 3,500 screeners off security checkpoints and doubling the wait time for passengers. Third, it still forces TSA to terminate its pay-for-performance system that currently rewards screeners for their proficiency rather than their seniority. This will only reduce TSA's ability to maintain a qualified workforce. Fourth, it still forces TSA to share sensitive security information with unions, compromising air travel security. The amendment claims to protect ``properly classified'' information, but it doesn't address other types of sensitive information, such as the emergency plans for our airports. This brings me back to my original point. This debate is about collective bargaining and whether it makes us more or less secure. All the talk about worker benefits and workplace protections and security triggers is meant to cloud the issue and prevent Senators from being accountable for their votes. This collective bargaining proposal has nothing to do with preventing another 9/11. In fact, it could increase the chance of another such attack, and my colleagues should consider that before they vote. There are only two reasons to vote for the McCaskill amendment: either political payback or out of political fear. I hope my colleagues will not act on either. Democrats should not pay back unions at the expense of our security, and we should not be afraid to stand up against union bosses so we can keep America safe. I urge my colleagues to oppose the McCaskill amendment. It will not only weaken our security, it will also kill this bill. The President will veto it and the Senate will sustain his veto. So that leaves the other side of the aisle with a clear choice. They can either have a political showdown with the President over an earmark for labor unions or they can take this provision out of the bill and make some progress on our security agenda. The DeMint amendment protects American security. The McCaskill amendment protects unions. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. DeMINT. I know another criterion is that if they could establish that we have a newly imminent threat they could act quickly to respond and not go through the collective bargaining process. Would al-Qaida be considered a newly imminent threat?

Mr. DeMINT. I want to make sure I understand the provisions in the Senator's amendment. I know one of them is TSA, in order to act quickly and make changes rapidly, would need to establish that there is an emergency. My question is, Would the ongoing global war on terror be considered an emergency?

Mr. DeMINT. If I could make one last appeal? This document is the collective bargaining procedures the border agents have for just one unit. This bill opens the possibility of literally hundreds of unions in every airport. I appeal to my colleagues. If every airport has to deal with separate collective bargaining arrangements and has to establish an emergency or imminent threat on every occasion, and we can second-guess them in Congress--and lawyers will--I think we need to work together to make sure we come to the best conclusion. I know the amendment of the Senator is well intended. Hopefully we can discuss it more on the floor tomorrow or next week.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I thank the managers for their hard work. They sincerely want to strengthen homeland security and want to keep this bill focused on that goal and not allow it to be tangled up in partisan issues. That is my goal, too. That is why I am offering this amendment today. The provision in this bill, found on page 215, that reverses a critical homeland security policy and introduces collective bargaining for airport screeners who work at the Transportation Security Administration, or what we call the TSA, has nothing to do with improving our homeland security. It was certainly not recommended by the 9/11 Commission. My amendment would strike this provision so TSA can continue to protect us from another terrorist attack. It may be helpful to review the history of this debate so my colleagues understand how we got here. Just 5 years ago, Congress voted in favor of a flexible personnel management system at TSA in recognition that special flexibility is necessary to protect American passengers from terrorists. This system allows security screeners to join a union, but it doesn't tie the hands of TSA when it comes to managing its workforce and protecting the American people. Collective bargaining, however, would allow labor unions to stand between TSA and its employees in ways that would make the agency less flexible and less nimble and create an operational and security disaster. Mr. President, collective bargaining has been a topic of discussion since TSA's inception. It is important that my colleagues know that it has been evaluated and rejected in every instance as something that would be harmful to our safety. First, in 2001, collective bargaining was not included in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act when TSA was first created. Second, in 2003, collective bargaining was rejected by the TSA Administrator for security reasons. Third, in 2004, collective bargaining was not recommended by the 9/11 Commission. I need to repeat that because it is important. This whole bill is designed to fulfill the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and they did not mention anything about collective bargaining. Finally, the decision against collective bargaining at TSA has been upheld by multiple Federal and labor relations courts between 2002 and 2006. Now I will outline six of the negative security consequences of this dramatic change in policy. First, TSA currently uses a security strategy as recommended by the 9/11 Commission that is based on flexible, random, and unpredictable methods. This approach keeps would- be attackers off guard. Under collective bargaining, TSA will have to negotiate a predetermined framework within which the agency will be required to operate. This policy was not recommended in the 9/11 Commission Report, and it goes directly against the Commission's recommendations. This will weaken our security. Second, TSA currently establishes security protocols on a national and international basis without having to bargain in advance over the impact of these protocols. Under collective bargaining, TSA will be required to negotiate on every security protocol with multiple unions on an airport-by-airport basis. At its worst, this could stop many critical new security protocols, but even at its best it will slow them down. This will weaken our security. Third, TSA currently shifts resources in real time without having to inform any entity. Under collective bargaining, redeployment decisions will be subject to binding arbitration review by a third party who has no Government or security experience but has authority to reverse TSA security decisions. As my colleagues know, arbitration can take months or even years to resolve. This will weaken our security. Fourth, TSA currently moves, upgrades, replaces, and repositions equipment to stay in tune with operational requirements. Under collective bargaining, equipment deployment will be subject to a 60- to 180-day negotiation process. All information, including standard operating procedures and tactics, will also be subject to union negotiation. This will weaken our security. Fifth, TSA currently protects sensitive security information, such as the security resources at a particular site, and releases this information only to those who need to know. Under collective bargaining, TSA will be required to disclose security information to third party negotiators and arbitrators, increasing the risk of unauthorized information release. This will weaken our security. Sixth, and finally, TSA currently deploys many innovative security programs within weeks. Under collective bargaining, new positions and promotions will all be subject to months, or years, of impact in implementation. TSA provided just-in-time explosive training to more than 38,000 security screeners in less than 3 weeks in November of 2005. Under collective bargaining, training is subject to negotiation on the need, design, order of training delivered, and method of delivery. This process could add 60 to 180 days to security training programs and weaken our security. I know my colleagues understand the need for TSA to be able to move quickly, so I want to make sure everyone knows how slow and how cumbersome collective bargaining will be. Let's please keep in mind as we look at this situation the whole purpose of TSA is to protect our country. That is their first priority. We cannot allow the unionization and union requirements to preempt this first priority of TSA. Today, TSA--and I know this is very difficult to read--can implement its changes in 1 day or less, and we will talk about some of those examples. But under collective bargaining, it can take up to 568 days to work out the negotiations and possible litigation that could occur when they are trying to establish new protocols. This is not acceptable when it comes to protecting our country. If we introduce collective bargaining at TSA as proposed in this bill, changes could take, as I said, up to 568 days. My colleagues can see a collective bargaining process starts with up to 14 days of advance notice, up to 14 days for the union to decide how they are going to negotiate, plus up to 180 days to negotiate, and followed by 7 days to implement. This whole process does not fit with national security interests. I hope my colleagues agree that this is too long and too cumbersome to subject our Nation's security to. I wish to share with my colleagues several real-world examples of how TSA has been able to rapidly respond to security threats. I will point the attention of my colleagues to the United Kingdom bomb plot, of which we are all aware, last August in 2006. On August 10 of last year, information about one of the most spectacular terrorist plots since 9/ 11 was shared with TSA. TSA worked very quickly to develop a plan that would, over the course of 12 hours, ban all liquids beyond the security checkpoint and enact the quickest changes to the prohibited items list in history. It was simply the most drastic change airport security had ever undergone, and it happened in less than 6 hours from the time the arrest of the alleged terrorists was revealed. I understand one of my colleagues has offered an amendment that would undercut the whole idea of this bill and force TSA to prove it is an emergency or an imminent threat in order to take the action we did when this plot was revealed. What will TSA have to go through to prove there is an emergency? What kind of court case, what kind of litigation, what kind of hearings in Congress will they have to go through to prove it is an emergency? This attempt to gut this bill makes it worse than the underlying bill because it subjects our security to constant litigation and second- guessing. The success of this operation--this United Kingdom bomb plot--was based on a number of factors, including a nimble and professional workforce who is highly trained and rewarded for their performance: an ability to change procedures within hours, expertise in dealing with the public to educate, inform, and help them handle the changes, and a commitment to security in the face of emerging threats. This is a clear example of why we should not tie TSA's hands and prevent it from accomplishing its security mission. Another example of how TSA has been able to react quickly happened last July, when Lebanon erupted into violence and fighting broke out, leaving thousands of Americans trapped in between the warring factions. The Government of the United States safely evacuated these Americans and thousands of other refugees. From July 22 to July 31, TSA officers helped to secure 58 chartered flights from Cypress to the United States and screened over 11,000 passengers. The overseas and domestic deployment was the first of its kind, and it demonstrated TSA's ability to use its flexible structure to appropriately respond to both domestic and overseas needs. TSA delivered on its security mission and ensured the security of arriving airplanes and passengers. The mission was designed, executed, and people were being screened overseas within 96 hours, which is remarkable for a Government agency that had never deployed overseas and had not envisioned a need to do so. It is important for us to remember at this point the amendment that has been offered to change my amendment would likely have resulted by now with TSA being in court, being challenged as to whether the situation in Lebanon was an imminent threat to our country, which is the language of the amendment that has been offered to change this bill. We cannot water down our Nation's security by allowing TSA to have to follow collective bargaining rules or, which has been proposed, prove it is an emergency or an imminent threat. This would create a heyday for lawyers. If these operations had been subject to arbitration and review required by collective bargaining, changes in deployments of personnel would have required notification on TSA's management to the collective bargaining unit, followed by a response accepting the changes in employment conditions or proposing modifications. This process would have created time-consuming rounds of negotiation, even using an expedited process. TSA's response to the United Kingdom terrorist plot was developed in 12 hours, and the screeners were deployed to Lebanon and Cypress within 96 hours, response times that would have been significantly delayed by days and weeks, if not made impossible, had the notification and negotiation requirements in this bill been in effect. We cannot allow that to happen to our Nation's security. I would now like to outline three ways collective bargaining will negatively affect workforce performance. First, TSA currently uses a paid-for performance system that is based on technical competence, readiness for duty, and operational performance. Top security screeners receive a 5-percent base pay increase on top of a 2.1-percent cost-of-living adjustment and a $3,000 bonus. Under collective bargaining, this paid-for performance system will be replaced with a pass-fail system based heavily on seniority that will not adequately assess technical skills. The collective bargaining system will not reward screening performance or good customer service, and it will reduce standards. This will weaken workforce performance. Second, TSA can also currently remove ineffective security screeners within 72 hours. Imagine that: The frontline security of our country can identify someone who is not doing their job and remove them so our country and the airline passengers can be safe. Under collective bargaining, however, arbitration proceedings will retain substandard employees for months, preventing the hiring of replacement officers. This process could take 90 to 240 days and will reduce overall workforce performance. This will weaken workforce performance. Third, TSA currently uses multiple screening disciplines, adding interlocking layers of security. Under collective bargaining, employees will be able to refuse multidisciplinary jobs resulting in fewer resources to serve passenger checkpoints. This will weaken workforce performance. My colleagues should know exactly how this weakened workforce performance affects air travelers in our country, and we can have a good look at how that is going to affect us by looking at Canada. A recent incident in Canada provides a great example. Canada's air security system does not have the flexibility that TSA enjoys. Last Thanksgiving, as part of a labor dispute, passenger luggage was not properly screened and sometimes not screened at all as airport screeners engaged in a work-to-rule campaign, as they called it, creating long lines at the Toronto airport. A government report found that to clear the lines, about 250,000 passengers were rushed through with minimal or no screening whatsoever. One Canadian security expert was quoted as saying that if terrorists had known that in those 3 days their baggage wasn't going to be searched, that would have been bad. That is an understatement of the year. We cannot afford to have this kind of union-sponsored disruption at our airports. The Canadian union's airport security was not allowed to strike either, but we can see what they did in order to disrupt the proper screening of baggage there. This would happen in our country as well. I think it is also important that people know how collective bargaining will impact passenger service. I know that for most Americans, security is the No. 1 goal when it comes to air travel, but they also want security operations to be efficient and not needlessly disrupt their schedules. I know my colleagues would be pleased to know that TSA has managed the growth of passenger travel and kept average peak wait times to less than 12 minutes. Under collective bargaining, TSA will have to pull at least 3,500 screeners, or 8 percent of the total workforce, off a line to fulfill the needs of the new labor-management infrastructure. This would close at least 250 screening lanes, causing longer lines at checkpoints. Under these circumstances, average wait times would increase from 12 minutes at peak to more than 30 minutes. This is something that will be very unpopular, especially given the fact that these longer wait lines come with less security. TSA is also currently capable of relocating security screeners to enable on-time aircraft departures. Under collective bargaining, negotiating job stations and functions will result in poor staffing, leading to longer lines, late flight departures, and other adverse industry impacts. Americans want to make their flights, and they will not support needless delays that come at the expense of their security. I think it is also important that my colleagues understand what I am talking about and how it could play out in real terms. During Hurricane Katrina, TSA deployed security officers from around the country to New Orleans to screen evacuees during the aftermath of the storm. This response allowed them to evacuate 22,000 men, women, and children through the airport safely and securely. Several weeks later, TSA responded the same in response to Hurricane Rita in Houston. Security screeners left their home airports with little notice to fly to Houston to help those in need. Another example of how TSA has been able to react quickly to weather- related events occurred this past December when a big snowstorm hit Denver. Because local TSA employees were unable to get to the airport, TSA responded quickly by deploying 55 officers from Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, and Colorado Springs to Denver. The deployment allowed TSA to open every security lane around the clock at the airport until they were back to normal operations. Should we force TSA to prove this was an imminent danger or an emergency before they respond to the needs of the American people? That is what the second-degree amendment is intended to do. We cannot allow that. That will weaken our security. These operations have been subject to arbitration review required by collective bargaining. Changes in deployment of personnel would have required notification by TSA management to the collective bargaining unit, followed by a response accepting the changes in employment conditions or proposing modifications. This process would have created time-consuming rounds of negotiations, even using an expedited process. Americans do not want needless bureaucracy in our airports, especially when it comes at the expense of our safety. I also want my colleagues to understand the amount of money collective bargaining is going to cost and how it will impact TSA's operation in air travel security. The first year startup costs of creating a collective bargaining infrastructure is conservatively estimated at $160 million, forcing TSA to relocate thousands of screeners currently working on aviation security. Since there is no money allocated for this change, this mandate would force TSA to pull 3,500 transportation security officers, or 8 percent of the total workforce, off the checkpoints. These officers equate to 250 of the 2,054 active screening lanes across the Nation at any given time, closing 250 lanes. This impact is equivalent to closing all the checkpoint screening lanes in Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, and New York. This impact is the equivalent of closing all screening operations across the system 1 day every week. This impact would result in failing to screen 300,000 passengers every day. Some may say we should increase spending for TSA by $160 million. But if we have this money, why use it to pay for redtape? Let's use it for security. I also want to address some of the objections to TSA's flexible management. First, those who want collective bargaining at TSA say they want screeners to be treated as every other Federal employee. That would be fine, except for the fact they are not like every other Federal employee. They have a mission to protect the American people, and collective bargaining will prevent them from accomplishing this mission. Second, those who want collective bargaining at TSA say it will lead to lower attrition and, therefore, more safety. Collective bargaining may lead to lower rates of attrition, but it will not lead to more security. I am sure there are security screeners who would like to be guaranteed lifetime employment, but that would prohibit TSA from keeping America safe. TSA currently has the ability to reward screeners based on their performance and to remove those screeners who are not performing. That is what ensures safety, not a workforce that is rewarded for seniority and is not accountable. We have also heard the supporters of collective bargaining at TSA say it is working at Customs and border control. First, I take issue with the claim it is working with Customs or working at our borders. Our Customs agency has experienced numerous delays and complications in securing our borders that have been caused by collective bargaining. I think our Customs agency and border security should have the same flexibility TSA enjoys, and it is a debate we should have as we look at ways to better secure our borders. Let's make sure we understand what we are saying. Advocates of collective bargaining for airport security are saying our border security has worked well. It is hard to look at 10 to 12 million illegal aliens in our country and say our border security is working well. It is not working well. We are also hearing increasingly from all over the world that our customs process is among the worst in the world. Our tourism is down and our business visits are down because we are making it harder and harder for people from around the world to get into our country. Our customs system doesn't work and neither does our border security. The supporters of collective bargaining at TSA also believe our screeners are lacking important protections to address their grievances. I hope my colleagues know TSA has given screeners the ability to have their whistleblower complaints reviewed by the Office of the Independent Counsel, even though it is not required in law. Critics also claim screeners do not have the ability to appeal adverse actions against them, such as suspensions and terminations, through the Merit System Protection Board. This is true, but TSA has created its own disciplinary review board that provides workers with relief faster than the Merit System Protection Board. I want my colleagues to understand what all of this means for unions, because I am afraid that is what this policy is all about. Unionizing the 48,000 workers at TSA will give labor unions a $17 million annual windfall in dues from these new union workers. Let me share a quote. For my colleagues who doubt this policy is being driven by unions, I want them to hear what was said earlier this week by two leaders of the American Federation of Government Employees, which is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. They said: We must gain 40,000 new members a year to break even today. But because of the age of our members and pending retirements, that number will grow to 50,000 in 2 years and probably 60,000 a few years after that. An additional comment: This campaign is the perfect opportunity to convince TSA employees to join our union and become activist volunteers in our one great union. The purpose of TSA is not to create activist volunteers for unions. It is to protect our country. Again, I need to remind my colleagues the top priority of Homeland Security and TSA is to protect Americans. I conclude by saying this is a very serious issue, and I encourage all my colleagues to think about it carefully. We all want workers to have better benefits, but that is not what this debate is about. TSA offers great benefits and important protections to its workforce. This debate is about how to keep our country safe, and we cannot tie TSA up in knots of redtape. I understand the unions want this new policy because it will add thousands of new dues-paying members to their rolls, but they are going to have to live without it in order to keep our country safe. This bill is about doing things that will prevent another 9/11 attack. Adding an earmark for labor unions that prevents TSA from doing its job is the last thing we should do. I realize the Senator from Connecticut feels strongly about this issue, and I know I probably haven't changed his mind. Unionizing the Federal workforce is something that is very important to him, and it is something he has worked on for many years, most notably when Congress created the new Department of Homeland Security in 2002. I also realize the majority leader has impressed upon the Senators on the other side of the aisle to stick together in supporting this destructive policy. This is very disappointing, because it shows the majority may be more interested in having a political showdown than they are in strengthening our security. The President has issued a veto threat on this bill if it creates collective bargaining at TSA, and there are enough Senators to sustain it. That leaves us with two options: We can remove this misguided position and preserve the bill or we can let the bill die. I simply ask my colleagues: Is this union earmark worth killing this bill for? I don't think so. I think it is important to also note the second-degree amendment that is being offered to change my amendment is not supported by Homeland Security. In fact, they believe it will make this bill worse than it is right now. My colleagues, I ask everyone to set aside the partisan politics, set aside special interests, and let us continue to improve TSA, our Transportation Security Agency. They have demonstrated that while there have been a lot of problems with starting up a new agency, each year they have gotten better. Each year their workforce has gotten better trained. Each year we are moving passengers through with less and less inconvenience and better and better security. This is not the time to turn back. This is not the time to play politics and payback with our security. I encourage everyone to take a careful look at this amendment and I ask my colleagues to support it. With that, Mr. President, I yield back.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and I be allowed to offer an amendment, which I am sending to the desk.

Mr. DeMINT

Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent----

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, if I can make a couple of comments about the modification, many will recall that this amendment is focused on our ports and the security of our ports. I think all of us are well aware that as a nation we see that our ports of entry, whether they be in Seattle, New York, or Charleston, SC, could be our most vulnerable points when it comes to smuggling in a weapon of mass destruction. We have committed many resources and lots of technology to try to detect radiation and other types of weapons that might be smuggled into our country that could hurt Americans and destroy American cities, and we are making some progress. But there is a lot more to be done. All the spending, all the technology, all the equipment in the world will make no difference at all if we don't have the right people working in the secure areas of our ports. We need to make sure those people are the most trusted we have, just as we do in our airports. Our responsibility, whether it is homeland security as an administration or we as the Congress, is to make sure these people are screened and that we have the best and the most trusted individuals working in our secure areas. This is very important. My amendment focuses on just that subject. It prohibits convicted felons from working in the secure areas of our ports. This is common sense to most Americans, and I think it is common sense to most in this Senate because when this exact same amendment was offered last year, when we were dealing with port security specifically, everyone voted for this amendment in the Senate. Unfortunately, that amendment was stripped out when we had a conference with the House. Many of my colleagues have encouraged me to reintroduce this amendment, Republicans and Democrats alike, and that is exactly what I have done. I understand the Senator from Hawaii is considering introducing a modification that would allow the Secretary to eliminate some of these felonies that we have listed in our amendment. Please keep in mind that the listed felonies are the exact same ones that homeland security has listed in the regulation that they have put in force at their agency. So this amendment puts in law what homeland security has already put into regulation. The importance of putting it in law is that we already suspect this legislation will be contested; that there will be delays, there will be challenges, and we need to make sure that our ports are secure. The modification of my amendment would allow the Secretary to add felonies in the future which may become important but that are not now listed. We think it would be a huge mistake if we put in law something that allowed future administrations to eliminate felonies that are specifically laid out in regulation and in this amendment I am offering. If anyone in the Senate would like to eliminate some of the felonies that we have listed, I would encourage them to come to the Senate floor and let's discuss those that they would like to eliminate. Maybe they would like to have some of these folks working in the secure areas of our ports, folks who have committed espionage, sedition, treason, terrorism, crimes involving transportation security, improper transport of hazardous material, unlawful use of an explosive device, bomb threats, or murder. These are specifically listed. If there are some of these that we think should be eliminated, let's discuss them. Homeland Security has evaluated this and has listed these, just like we have for our airports, to keep our ports secure. I am offering this modification that would allow our Secretary to add felonies but prohibit the elimination of these felonies which we think are so important to our security. I thank the Chair for the opportunity to offer this modification, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I ask for regular order in regards to my amendment No. 279. I have a modification of that amendment that I would like to send to the desk.

Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, may I have an additional 60 seconds?