Improving America's Security Act Of 2007
IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - March 01, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding time to me.
You can read the entire 567 pages of the ``9/11 Commission Report' as I have and you will not find a recommendation to undertake 100-percent scanning of cargo containers. This bill's purpose--the bill before us--is to finish the business of implementing the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations. Senator Schumer's and Senator Menendez's amendment is not one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
Further, I want to address what has been said about our system for improving the security of our seaports by focusing on cargo container security.
The fact is a great deal has been done since the attacks on our country on September 11, 2001. We have a layered approach to cargo security. It balances security interests against the need for efficient movement of millions of containers through our seaports each year--11 million, in fact, last year alone.
One layer is the screening of all cargo manifests at least 24 hours before the cargo is loaded onto ships bound for our shores. That screening, along with work done by the Coast Guard, is used in DHS's automated targeting system which identifies high-risk containers.
As a result of the cargo security bill that we passed last fall, we have a requirement that 100 percent of all high-risk cargo be subjected to scanning and that is appropriate. We want to focus our resources on the cargo that is of highest risk.
But that is only one layer in the process.
Another layer is the Container Security Initiative. This program stations Customs and Border Protection officers at foreign ports. CSI will be operational in 58 foreign ports by the end of this year, covering approximately 85 percent of all containerized cargo headed to the United States by sea. That is another layer of security.
There is yet another one. It is the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism Program, known as C-TPAT. This program is a cooperative effort between the Government and the private sector to secure the entire supply chain. It is a result of the legislation Senator Murray, Senator Coleman, Senator Lieberman, and I authored last year.
Firms that participate in C-TPAT and secure their supply chain are given certain advantages when it comes to scanning cargo because DHS will have certified that they have met certain standards. That is an important layer of security.
There is another important safeguard that is a result of the SAFE Port Act, and that is the law requires by the end of this year that the 22 largest American ports must have radiation scanners which will ensure that 98 percent--98 percent--of inbound containers are scanned for radiation. That is because we do have the technology to do scanning for radiation. We have these radiation portal monitors that trucks can drive through with the containers loaded on them and be scanned for radiation. There is a problem with some false positives. I was describing earlier that for some reason, marble and kitty litter tend to cause false positives. But at least we identify these containers that are giving off alarms, and then they are subject to further inspection and search, and that makes sense.
I should mention we are also installing these overseas as part of the Department of Energy's Megaports Initiative.
The idea that nothing has been done to secure our seaports since 9/11 is demonstrably false. We took a giant step forward last year with the passage of the SAFE Port Act.
There is more that is being done, however, and that is, as Senator Lieberman and Senator Coleman have explained, the new law authorizes pilot programs to test 100-percent integrated scanning programs.
We keep hearing Hong Kong brought up, but the fact is, in Hong Kong, there is scanning being done on only 2 of 40 lines, and the images are not being read. What good is it to take the picture, the X-ray, essentially, but then not have anyone analyzing the images? How does that increase security?
We still will learn something from the Hong Kong project, but I think we are going to learn even more from the three projects the Department has started already as a result of the SAFE Port Act.
There have been allegations that somehow the Department is sitting on its hands. That is not true. In fact, three ports--one in the United Kingdom, one in Honduras, and one in Pakistan--have been selected already and the projects are going forward to test these pilot programs. I think that is important to know.
So we have made a great deal of progress. We are going to make more as a result of these pilot projects. But the whole point is until we have the technology in place to do this effectively and efficiently, it will cause a massive backup in our ports if we are trying to scan 11 million containers--low-risk containers, containers that pose absolutely no threat to the security of this country--and that approach does not make sense.
Finally, let me read something from the Chamber of Commerce which has sent around an alert on this issue because I think this summarizes the issue:
The Chamber points out that more than 11 million containers arrive at our Nation's seaports each year and 95 percent of our Nation's trade flows through our seaports.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. I continuing quoting the Chamber of Commerce:
If adopted, the Schumer amendment would significantly disrupt the flow of trade and impose costly mandates on American businesses without providing additional security.
That is the bottom line. I urge the rejection of the Schumer amendment, and when the time has expired, I will move to table the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this is a very difficult issue that is now before the Senate. The Aviation Transportation Security Act provided TSA with flexibility with respect to the critical national security mission of TSA security officers. These management authorities allow TSA to shift resources and implement new procedures daily, in some cases hourly, to respond to critical intelligence and to meet an ever-changing airline schedule. This was made very clear to us in a classified briefing that I attended yesterday. Sometimes these situations can be classified as emergencies. Other times the day-to-day situations, such as a flight gets canceled, still require extensive modifications that may not constitute emergencies.
I think, however, that there is a middle ground in this debate. I think we can find a solution, and I am working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to try to see if there is a middle ground. It seems to me that TSA does need some flexibility to allow it to adjust the workforce in order to provide additional security. That happened in response to the United Kingdom air bombing plot last summer. In that case, TSA changed the nature of employees' work and even the location of their work to respond to that emergency.
But I see no reason TSA employees cannot have the protections of the Whistleblower Protection Act, for example. There is no reason they should not have the same protections as other Federal employees and be brought under that law.
Similarly, I think there should be some way for TSA employees to have the right to appeal adverse actions, such as a removal, a suspension action, a reduction in grade level or pay that has been taken away from them. I am still exploring this issue, but it seems to me that they should have the right to appeal adverse employment actions to the Merit System Protection Board.
I know there is another one of my colleagues waiting to speak, so I am not going to go into great detail tonight. But let me say that I do not think this is an all-or-nothing situation as, unfortunately, much of the debate suggested tonight. I do not think
that we have to deny TSA employees whistleblower protections and the right to appeal adverse employment actions in the name of security. I think we can still achieve our vital security goals while affording TSA employees employment rights when an adverse action is taken, appellate rights. I also believe there is absolutely no reason they can't be brought under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
I ask my colleagues to take a close look at this issue. I think it is unfortunate that the debate has been so polarized on this issue and that it is being portrayed as whether you appreciate the work done by the TSO's or whether you don't appreciate it or whether you are pro-union or anti-union. That does not do justice to the debate before us. I believe we can come up with a middle ground that gives TSA the flexibility it truly needs to be able to change working conditions, working hours, unexpectedly to respond to critical intelligence and new threats, or canceled flights for that matter, without depriving TSA employees of other rights that Federal employees enjoy and that they should enjoy, too.
Part of the problem is--and then I am going to yield to my colleague who I see is waiting--we have not had the kind of thorough review of this issue that is needed. I hope Senator Akaka and Senator Voinovich, who are the leaders on civil service issues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, might hold hearings to take a close look at this and to bring in the experts and hear from the employees, hear from the employees' representatives, the unions, TSA; to have the kind of information that Kip Holly, the head of TSA, has provided us in the past few days.
I think that while it is premature to do what the committee did on the spur of the moment, I also am not enamored of the idea of just striking all of that.
I think there is a middle ground and with goodwill and a sincere effort we can find it. I hope we would avoid what I saw tonight--where the tree was filled up instantly to block alternatives, to block an attempt, a good-faith attempt to find that middle ground.
I am going to keep working on that along with interested colleagues, and I hope that, in fact, maybe we can find a compromise that achieves our goals.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, I know the distinguished assistant leader is going to be making comments shortly about the schedule tomorrow, but it appears there may be two rollcall votes. It is still being negotiated as to exactly what they are going to be on. It looks as if they may be on amendments offered by Senators Salazar and Sununu.
I want, for the record, to state those amendments are acceptable on this side of the aisle. I was prepared to accept them without the need for a rollcall vote, but at this point it is my understanding that rollcalls are likely for tomorrow. I am sure we will hear shortly from the leaders on that.
Mr. President, I thank my colleague for allowing me to precede him.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov