McConnell on Final Passage of the 9/11 Bill

Press Release

"At its core, it seeks to improve America's security. But, on balance, it would do much to weaken it."

Washington, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell spoke on the Senate floor Tuesday regarding final passage of the "Improving America's Security Act of 2007." The following are his remarks from the floor.

"Madam President, let me congratulate Chairman Lieberman and ranking member Collins on their Herculean effort on this legislation. I particularly want to commend our ranking member, Senator Collins, for fighting the good fight when there are reservations on our side about a major portion of this bill that will compel me to vote against it. I know Senator Collins made every effort to strip the provision that I and others found so offensive. But regretfully, the provision was not stripped.

"In a few minutes, the Senate will vote on final passage of the ‘Improving America's Security Act of 2007.' This bill has some good features. At its core, it seeks to improve America's security. But, on balance, it would do much to weaken it. I plan to vote against the bill for this reason, and I urge my Senate colleagues to do the same.

"But before I cast my vote, a little background. Many of our Democratic friends spent last year campaigning on the claim that Republicans had ignored the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We didn't. Of the Commission's 39 recommendations, we implemented 37.

"Nor are the remaining two recommendations at issue today. Both parties agree they shouldn't be in the bill. No: I will oppose this bill on the basis of my answer to a simple question: Does it weaken America's security or strengthen it? And the answer that I and many of my colleagues have come to is the former.

"This bill would weaken America's security because of a single, dangerous provision. And that's the insistence by Big Labor that Democrats include collective bargaining rights for airport security screeners — rights that Congress has refused to give them in the past because of the impact it would have on our ability to react to terrorist threats.

"Congress wouldn't grant screeners collective bargaining rights back in 2002. We had this debate before. We had it at the time of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security; it even has a familiar ring to it to many of my colleagues. We chose not to adopt that provision then, and we won't, hopefully, this time.

"The difference is that the Democrats are letting the fight play out, they're stretching it out, based on a political calculation. They already know how this showdown's going to end: the President threatened to veto any bill that makes airport security more like the Department of Motor Vehicles. So they're delaying passage, knowing it won't be accepted, for an applause line down the road.

"Republicans tried to inject meaning into this bill, to include provisions that would actually improve security. We proposed an amendment that would make it a crime to recruit terrorists, that would authorize the deportation of suspected terrorists, that would make it easier to detain dangerous illegal aliens, and that would increase penalties for people who cruelly call the families of soldiers overseas and falsely report that their loved one has died.

"But our colleagues on the other side reject all these … And they're turning their backs on their own campaign promises in the process, by ignoring a key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission — that the U.S. do everything in its power to constrain terrorist mobility.

"TSA workers showed that mobility after the U.K. bombing threat in August. When they showed up for work that morning at 4:00 a.m., they were briefed on the situation overseas and they immediately implemented the new protocols. Anyone who traveled to or from an American airport that day wouldn't have even known anything had happened. The execution was seamless.

"It was a different story in Great Britain, where collective bargaining is the norm. Dozens of flights were cancelled while new procedures were instituted.

"The Democrats know Americans won't stand for that approach to terrorism in our country. But they're counting on the President and the Republicans to stop it for them. That way, they can call us obstructionists, get another applause line in the bargain — and maybe even a headline or two.

"It's a shame, because there are some good things in this bill — like new performance standards and auditing requirements for DHS grants.

"But we'll let them have their applause line. Republicans have never played games with national security and we're not going to start now.

"Therefore, I will vote against this bill, and, for the sake of the American people and their continued security, I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same, while saying once again how much I commend the Senator from Maine for her efforts to get this bill in the proper form, and that this provision is not in the bill as a result of any of the efforts of the ranking member of the committee. I commend her for her efforts, but regretfully must oppose final passage."

Source