[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 53 (Thursday, April 7, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1778-S1794]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICA'S SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2015
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
resume consideration of H.R. 636, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 636) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations,
and for other purposes.
Pending:
Thune/Nelson amendment No. 3464, in the nature of a
substitute.
Thune (for Gardner) amendment No. 3460 (to amendment No.
3464), to require the FAA Administrator to consider the
operational history of a person before authorizing the person
to operate certain unmanned aircraft systems.
Thune amendment No. 3512 (to amendment No. 3464), to
enhance airport security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, we have the FAA bill on the floor. I would
like to discuss some of the amendments that are proposed and,
hopefully, a couple that we will be voting on this morning. There are a
couple of amendments--one offered by Senator Thune on behalf of himself
and this Senator, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and
another offered by Senator Heinrich. Both amendments deal with the
issue of security but in different arenas.
Let me explain. The Thune-Nelson amendment applies to the question of
perimeter security, of allowing employees to get into an airport--not
the sterile area controlled by TSA, although, as I will explain, it can
definitely affect the sterile area as well. On the other hand, the
Heinrich amendment addresses security in the areas where passengers
bunch up outside of TSA security, such as in a queue-up line going
through TSA security, or passengers bunched up at the ticket counters,
checking in their luggage.
Either way, as we saw from the experience of the Brussels airport
explosion, those are very tempting targets for a terrorist. Therefore,
the proposal in the Heinrich amendment, which I would commend to the
Senate, is to increase the level of security, particularly with what
are called VIPR teams, which, in essence, are not only at airports but
at seaports and at transportation hubs.
Remember that in Brussels there was a bombing in one of the train
stations as well. So we need to increase the surveillance and the
security there, including dogs. As a matter of fact, our K-9 friends
are some of the best that we have when it comes to protecting us
because their noses are attuned to being able to sniff out the
explosives that you cannot detect with metal detectors or with the AIT
machine that we go through where we hold up our hands to see if we have
anything on us.
It can detect if you have a package, if you have an explosive that is
somewhere in one of your body cavities. It is going to be very, very
difficult.
Dogs, because of their God-given sense of smell, can detect that. A
properly trained dog is just amazing to watch. Now, interestingly,
concurrently there is research going on at NIST, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology, for an artificial dog nose, a mechanical
item or a piece of software and hardware that would actually do the
same job.
But that has not been perfected yet. That is going to be really
interesting to see what they come up with. This Senator will report to
the Senate later on that. But for the time being, the Heinrich
amendment, which I hope we will vote on this morning, is concerned with
that security that we have seen as a result of the Brussels bombing.
We certainly want to enhance security in our airports. Thank goodness
we have the intelligence apparatus that we do in this country to be
able to smoke out the terrorist before he ever does his dirty deed. It
is more difficult for them to do it here in America than it is in
Europe because of the alienation of those communities that then harbor
the terrorists. We see the result in Brussels as well as Paris. That is
the Heinrich amendment. That is a broad characterization of it, but
basically that is the thrust.
The Thune-Nelson amendment is going at the perimeter security. OK,
think Egypt and the Russian airliner. It was an airport employee who
smuggled the bomb onto the plane, not as a passenger but as an airport
employee. Think the Atlanta airport, 2 years ago. In a gunrunning
scheme over 3 months, over 100 guns were transported from Atlanta to
New York.
The police in New York could not figure out how all of these guns
were getting on the streets in New York. They kept checking the trains,
and they kept checking the interstates. They could not figure it out.
Here is how they did it. An employee at the Atlanta airport--because
Atlanta was not checking their employees--would smuggle the guns in.
Then that employee had access in the terminal to get into the sterile
area--the TSA sterile area--and he would go into the men's room, meet
the passenger who had already come through security and was clean, and
give the guns to him to put them in his empty knapsack, his backpack.
This employee, over the course of 17 times, over 3 months, smuggled
over 100 guns. Thank goodness it was a criminal enterprise, not a
terrorist, because you can imagine what would have happened.
The Miami International Airport 10 years ago figured this out. What
they did was, instead of having hundreds of entry points into the
airport for airport employees in a very large airport like Atlanta, in
Miami they boiled it down to a handful. There the employees went
through similar security that passengers do to check to see if they had
any weapons. They had a special identification card that they would
have to stick into an electronic machine and put in their code, which
was another way of checking to make sure that the employee was who they
said they were.
Miami solved the problem after having a problem with drugs 10 years
ago. Interestingly, in the interim, the Orlando International Airport,
likewise, about 4 years ago had a similar drug problem. They did the
same thing. They boiled down hundreds of entry points for airport
employees to a handful. They had those checks. I have gone to see those
checks at those two airports. That is exactly how they do it.
The fact is, we have 300 airports in the United States. There were
only two that were doing this kind of perimeter checking. Atlanta then
became the
[[Page S1779]]
poster boy of what can happen in a gunrunning scheme. I am happy to
report to the Senate that, in fact, the Atlanta airport has now done
exactly what Miami and Orlando have done. But we have 297 other
airports that need to do the same thing.
So the Thune-Nelson amendment is exactly getting at that kind of
perimeter security situation. I highly commend both the Thune-Nelson
amendment as well as the Heinrich amendment. There are a whole bunch of
cosponsors--bipartisan--on each of these. I highly recommend both of
these to the Senate. I hope we will vote on those today--hopefully,
this morning.
Now, there are going to be, of course, a series of many other
amendments, some very well intentioned that have some technical
glitches, and we have our very expert staff right now starting to try
to work out some of these technical glitches. Then we can get moving
with this FAA bill.
I would mention one other amendment that this Senator will be
offering, and that is on a cyber security bill. Did the Presiding
Officer see the ``60 Minutes'' segment where people with a laptop could
take over an automobile by going through the electronics of the
automobile? They can speed it up, they can make it stop it, and they
can make it turn and completely take over the operation of an
automobile.
Can the Presiding Officer imagine somebody being able to do that with
an airliner with 250 people on board? Therefore, whether we want to
face it or not, we better face it because we are in an era that what we
need to do is to make sure technically that the systems in an airliner
are separate, that there is an air gap, and that whatever those systems
are--it might be Wi-Fi for the airplane, it might be music, or it may
be whatever it is--there is an air gap so that someone cannot go into
that system and suddenly get into the aircraft controls.
That is super important. One other thing I would mention is what we
know as unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones. They have become quite
popular. But, obviously, one of the things that is already in the bill,
which Senator Thune and I have insisted on as we approach this FAA
bill, is that we have to come face-to-face with the reality that drones
are now impairing the safety of an ascending or a descending aircraft.
We have seen--the two of us--an operation where you can now take over
the operation of a drone.
Education can do so much. People have to understand that you
basically have to not fly a drone within 5 miles of an airport. Just
recently, at Miami International Airport, there was an inbound American
Airlines plane, and there was a drone about 1,000 feet off on the left
side. Remember Captain Sully Sullenberger, when a flock of geese
suddenly got sucked into the engines and all power was lost.
Fortunately, he had the Hudson River that he could belly it in after he
had taken off from LaGuardia.
You put a drone with plastic and metal, let that get sucked into the
engine, and you will have a catastrophic failure. You don't want to put
your passengers in that kind of operation. Therefore, education is one
thing, but there is always going to be a young person that does not
know about this. We don't know the answer. We know we can take over the
operation of the drone, send it over here, have it set down, and have
it land. The technology is there, but how do we apply that technology
so we avoid this aircraft collision? There is an increasing use of
drones that are so helpful for so many commercial purposes, not to
mention the pure pleasure of flying a drone around, which we are seeing
has become exceptionally popular. We address that in the bill by giving
the appropriate direction to the FAA to start coming up with the
solutions of how we are going to protect aircraft in and around
airports.
On down the line, there are going to be so many different issues with
regard to drones, far beyond the scope of the FAA bill. On the question
of privacy--a drone suddenly coming down and coming at eye level
outside your bedroom window snooping--there are all kinds of questions
about privacy. What about the fact that you can now put a gun on a
drone? We know in a war zone we have the capability of doing that with
very sophisticated weapons, such as Hellfire missiles, but now some
people are experimenting with putting a gun on a drone. We have the
ramifications of what that means for society to deal with in the
future. For the immediate future, the FAA bill on the floor--we have
this problem of avoiding drones colliding into aircraft, and that is in
the bill and it is addressed.
We have a lot of interesting issues to talk about. Let's get the
Senate on it, and hopefully we can get agreement so we can at least
vote on two of these amendments this morning.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3482, as Modified, to Amendment No. 3464
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3482, as
modified, and ask that it be reported by number.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Heinrich] proposes an
amendment numbered 3482, as modified, to amendment No. 3464.
The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
(Purpose: To expand and enhance visible deterrents at major
transportation hubs and to increase the resources to protect and secure
the United States)
At the end of title V, insert the following:
SEC. 5032. VISIBLE DETERRENT.
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)--
(A) in paragraph (3), by striking ``; and'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(5) if the VIPR team is deployed to an airport, shall
require, as appropriate based on risk, that the VIPR team
conduct operations--
``(A) in the sterile area and any other areas to which only
individuals issued security credentials have unescorted
access; and
``(B) in non-sterile areas.''; and
(2) in subsection (b), by striking ``such sums as necessary
for fiscal years 2007 through 2011'' and inserting ``such
sums as necessary, including funds to develop not more than
60 VIPR teams, for fiscal years 2016 through 2017''.
SEC. 5033. LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING FOR MASS CASUALTY AND
ACTIVE SHOOTER INCIDENTS.
Section 2006(a)(2) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 607(a)(2)) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subparagraphs (E) through (I) as
subparagraphs (F) through (J), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after subparagraph (D) the following:
``(E) training exercises to enhance preparedness for and
response to mass casualty and active shooter incidents and
security events at public locations, including airports and
mass transit systems;''.
SEC. 5034. ASSISTANCE TO AIRPORTS AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS.
Section 2008(a) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6
U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended--
(1) by redesigning paragraphs (9) through (13) as
paragraphs (10) through (14), respectively; and
(2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
``(9) enhancing the security and preparedness of secure and
non-secure areas of eligible airports and surface
transportation systems.''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, this amendment would strengthen U.S.
airport security, especially in nonsecure or soft-target areas of
airports--places such as check-in and baggage claim areas. It would
also update Federal security programs to provide active shooter
training for law enforcement and increase the presence of Federal
agents with bomb-sniffing canines at these nonsecure areas.
I thank the cosponsors of the amendment: Senator Manchin, Senator
Schumer, Senator Nelson, Senator Klobuchar, Senator Cantwell, Senator
Carper, Senator Baldwin, Senator Durbin, Senator Bennet, and Senator
Blumenthal.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the adoption of
this amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
[[Page S1780]]
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I wish to speak on the bill and ask consent
to do so.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague
from Pennsylvania Senator Toomey to talk about an issue we began to
discuss on the floor yesterday, but we have been working many months on
this issue.
It is a rather simple issue, but it is a matter that has some real
urgency connected to it because we are talking about a secondary
barrier on airplanes--meaning a barrier other than what we know now to
be a reinforced cockpit door--to prevent terrorists from getting into
the cockpit. What we need to do in addition to that, after Congress
mandated the installation of these reinforced cockpit doors, is add a
secondary barrier.
This is something that arises because we not only know from the
attack on
9/11 but thereafter, we know that, No. 1, this is still an intention
that terrorists have to take over an airplane. We know since 9/11, 51--
I will correct the record from yesterday, I think I said 15, I had
transposed the number--but it is 51 hijacking attempts around the world
since 9/11. This is not a problem that is going away, and we have to
deal with it.
This is the barrier we are talking about. So people understand the
nature of this barrier, this is a lightweight wire mesh gate that would
prevent a terrorist from getting into the cockpit or even getting to
the door of the cockpit, which, as we said, is already reinforced. What
it does fundamentally is block access to the flight deck. That is what
we are talking about. That is what our amendment does.
We know the substantial number of groups that support this. I will
just read the list for the record. And this actually is support for the
underlying bill that Senator Toomey and I and others have been working
on for a while. The underlying bill itself was S. 911. Also, the
amendment, amendment No. 3458, is endorsed by the following groups: the
Airline Pilots Association, the Allied Pilots Association, the
Association of Flight Attendants, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association, the US Airline Pilots Association, the Coalition of
Airline Pilots Association, the Port Authority of New York & New
Jersey, and Families of September 11.
There have been numerous studies done. I am holding a study--although
you can't see it from a distance--which was conducted by the Cato
Institute, among others, on terrorism risk and cost-benefit analysis of
aviation security.
So we not only have substantial support from virtually every group
you could point toward, but we have some expertise on how to protect
pilots in the cockpit, how to protect passengers on an airplane, and,
of course, how to do that by preventing terrorists from getting through
or near the cockpit because of a good secondary barrier.
This effort started literally from folks we now know in Pennsylvania.
It started with, among other people, the Saracini family, Ellen
Saracini, the wife of Captain Victor Saracini, who piloted United
Flight 175, which terrorists hijacked and flew into the World Trade
Center on 9/11. So in memory of Captain Saracini and inspired by the
great work of his wife Ellen Saracini, we offer this amendment.
Again, I am very pleased to be working on this with my colleague
Senator Toomey, and I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I would like to underscore the points made
by my colleague Senator Casey. I thank him for his leadership.
This is a very simple matter that is very straightforward and common
sense. We know there is a very real vulnerability in our commercial
aircraft. We know this. There is no mystery here. And we have a very
simple, affordable, reasonable solution that will provide the security
we need.
After September 11, 2001, Congress very rightly mandated that the
cockpit door be reinforced so that it is virtually impossible to
destroy that door, to knock down that door, to defeat the purpose of
that door when it is closed and latched. The problem is that when it is
open--which it must be open periodically during many flights--a very
strong door is useless. We know what happens now on airlines because we
have all witnessed it, right? When a pilot needs to come out or go in
or there is access to the cockpit when that door is open, the flight
attendant rolls a little serving cart in front of the door. I suppose
that is better than nothing, but it is not much better than nothing.
That cart can be rolled away.
We are not the only ones who have observed this. An FAA advisory has
observed this risk. The 9/11 Commission pointed out that the terrorists
were very focused on the opportunity created by the opening of the
cockpit door. As Senator Casey pointed out, there have been multiple
attempts to breach that door. Several have been successful. We have an
amendment that solves this problem in a very affordable, reasonable,
sensible way. It is a lightweight, collapsible barrier made of wire
mesh, and a flight attendant can simply draw it across the opening,
lock it, and then at that point the cockpit door can be opened and
there is no way someone would be able to rush through that wire mesh in
time to get to the cockpit during that moment when the door is open.
That is what our amendment does.
It passed the Transportation Committee in the House unanimously. As
Senator Casey pointed out, it has very broad support from many of the
stakeholders who care about the security of our commercial aviation.
It is our hope and understanding that we will be very soon
propounding a unanimous consent agreement which will allow this
amendment to be pending and that this will be one of the amendments
which will be on the docket for a subsequent vote. I hope we will get
to that momentarily. I hope we will get that locked in, and then I
would urge my colleagues to vote yes on our amendment and enhance
commercial aviation safety.
I yield the floor.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an important matter
before the Senate, the reauthorization of our Nation's Federal Aviation
Administration. The FAA is tasked with a critical mission to manage the
safety and the security of our Nation's airspace.
Our Nation's airspace is an incredible resource that fuels our
economy. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2015,
a record 896 million passengers traversed America's skies. Our aviation
system contributes $1.5 trillion to our Nation's economy and it
supports 11.8 million jobs for hard-working Americans, as noted by the
National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
The Senate's FAA reauthorization bill will make our aviation system
stronger for families, children, veterans, and the traveling public. It
will also benefit Nebraska's rural airports and local aviation
stakeholders. Notably, this carefully negotiated bill will strengthen
America's aviation system without raising fees or taxes on airline
passengers.
Our robust, bipartisan legislation includes several major priorities
I championed. I am proud of bipartisan language I worked to include in
the bill, along with Senators Booker, Cantwell, and Ayotte. Our
provision
would compel the FAA to work with the airline industry to
comprehensively assess and update guidelines for emergency medical kits
on commercial aircraft. These kits, which haven't been statutorily
updated since 1998, provide lifesaving resources for passengers. It is
well past time for the FAA to evaluate medications and equipment
included in these kits. Doing so will ensure all passengers,
[[Page S1781]]
particularly families with young infants facing unknown allergic
reactions, have access to the medical supplies they might need in an
emergency situation.
In addition, I worked with Senator McCaskill to include an amendment
that would make it easier for traveling mothers to care for their young
infants. Our amendment unanimously passed the Commerce Committee. We
worked closely with airport stakeholders, including Omaha's Eppley
Airfield, to establish reasonable minimum standards for both medium-
and large-hub airports to develop private rooms for nursing mothers in
future capital development plans. Traveling as a new mom can be
challenging and it can be stressful at times, but I believe this
important change will provide increased flexibility and also peace of
mind for mothers traveling through airports across our country.
I also joined Senator Hirono to include an amendment that would
ensure disabled veterans working at the FAA have access to service-
connected disability leave. The FAA was one of the few agencies not
included in the recently passed Wounded Warriors Federal Leave Act.
That bill required Federal agencies to ensure disabled vets have access
to service-connected disability leave. Our disabled veterans bravely
served our country, and they deserve access to benefits they have
earned. I am grateful for the achievements this bill will advance for
the flying public. At the same time, the bill is also a victory for
Nebraska's rural communities and airports.
The Small Airport Regulation Relief Act, which is included in the FAA
bill, would create a temporary exemption for small airports so they can
continue to receive airport improvement program funds--those AIP
funds--despite downturns in air service. The survival of smaller
airports, such as Scottsbluff's Western Nebraska Regional Airport,
depends on these crucial funds to provide service to local passengers
and businesses. Several of Nebraska's small and community airports,
such as Alliance, Chadron, Grand Island, McCook, North Platte, and
Scottsbluff, will also benefit from a continuation of the Essential Air
Service, or EAS, Program. The EAS Program incentivizes air carriers to
provide service to underserved and rural areas, and it is critical to
ensuring air service continues for Nebraska's rural communities.
Meanwhile, the Central Nebraska Regional Airport in Grand Island is
growing and hosts a privately operated Federal contract tower. I
encouraged the inclusion of provisions to compel the FAA to complete a
pending cost-benefit analysis for Federal contract tower airports. This
analysis would reflect the cost-share arrangement more accurately
between our local airports and the FAA for those contract towers.
Through this legislation, we can help to reduce the burden on local
airports such as Grand Island, NE.
One of the major challenges facing aviation manufacturers has been
the FAA's inconsistent and often unclear regulatory process. I
collaborated with Duncan Aviation of Lincoln, NE, the largest family-
owned maintenance, repair, and overhaul organization in the world, to
address this challenge. In fact, Chairman Thune toured the facilities
at Duncan Aviation with me in Lincoln last fall.
Our bill would provide clarity to aviation businesses like Duncan
Aviation by compelling the FAA to establish a centralized safety
guidance database. Moreover, the bill would require the FAA to
establish a Regulatory Consistency Communications Board. The Board
would set standards to ensure the consistent application of regulations
and guidance at regional offices throughout our country. Agricultural
aviators in Nebraska will also benefit from safety enhancements in this
bill. Far too many of our agricultural pilots have died in recent years
after collisions with unmarked utility towers.
This legislation would ensure that towers are marked to create safer
skies for our agriculture pilots. Passing our FAA bill will be a major
accomplishment for the Senate. I appreciate and commend the hard work
of Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and their committee staffers
on this meaningful FAA reauthorization bill. In the coming days, I look
forward to working together to help pass this critical legislation that
will benefit the flying public, our national aviation system, and
Nebraska's rural airports and aviation stakeholders.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment
numbered 3512 be modified with the changes at the desk and that at
12:05 p.m. today the Senate vote on the following amendments in the
order listed: Thune No. 3512, as modified; and Heinrich No. 3482, as
modified; further that at 1:45 p.m. today the Senate vote on the
Schumer amendment No. 3483 and that no second-degree amendments be in
order to any of the amendments prior to the vote and that there be 2
minutes equally divided prior to each vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment (No. 3512), as modified, is as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
TITLE ___--TRANSPORTATION SECURITY AND TERRORISM PREVENTION
Subtitle A--Airport Security Enhancement and Oversight Act
SEC. _101. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Airport Security
Enhancement and Oversight Act''.
SEC. _102. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) A number of recent airport security breaches in the
United States have involved the use of Secure Identification
Display Area (referred to in this section as ``SIDA'')
badges, the credentials used by airport and airline workers
to access the secure areas of an airport.
(2) In December 2014, a Delta ramp agent at Hartsfield-
Jackson Atlanta International Airport was charged with using
his SIDA badge to bypass airport security checkpoints and
facilitate an interstate gun smuggling operation over a
number of months via commercial aircraft.
(3) In January 2015, an Atlanta-based Aviation Safety
Inspector of the Federal Aviation Administration used his
SIDA badge to bypass airport security checkpoints and
transport a firearm in his carry-on luggage.
(4) In February 2015, a local news investigation found that
over 1,000 SIDA badges at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta
International Airport were lost or missing.
(5) In March 2015, and again in May 2015, Transportation
Security Administration contractors were indicted for
participating in a drug smuggling ring using luggage passed
through the secure area of the San Francisco International
Airport.
(6) The Administration has indicated that it does not
maintain a list of lost or missing SIDA badges, and instead
relies on airport operators to track airport worker
credentials.
(7) The Administration rarely uses its enforcement
authority to fine airport operators that reach a certain
threshold of missing SIDA badges.
(8) In April 2015, the Aviation Security Advisory Committee
issued 28 recommendations for improvements to airport access
control.
(9) In June 2015, the Inspector General of the Department
of Homeland Security reported that the Administration did not
have all relevant information regarding 73 airport workers
who had records in United States intelligence-related
databases because the Administration was not authorized to
receive all terrorism-related information under current
interagency watchlisting policy.
(10) The Inspector General also found that the
Administration did not have appropriate checks in place to
reject incomplete or inaccurate airport worker employment
investigations, including criminal history record checks and
work authorization verifications, and had limited oversight
over the airport operators that the Administration relies on
to perform criminal history and work authorization checks for
airport workers.
(11) There is growing concern about the potential insider
threat at airports in light of recent terrorist activities.
SEC. _103. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Administration.--The term ``Administration'' means the
Transportation Security Administration.
(2) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration.
(3) Appropriate committees of congress.--The term
``appropriate committees of Congress'' means--
(A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate;
[[Page S1782]]
(B) the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs of the Senate; and
(C) the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives.
(4) ASAC.--The term ``ASAC'' means the Aviation Security
Advisory Committee established under section 44946 of title
49, United States Code.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Homeland Security.
(6) SIDA.--The term ``SIDA'' means Secure Identification
Display Area as defined in section 1540.5 of title 49, Code
of Federal Regulations, or any successor regulation to such
section.
SEC. _104. THREAT ASSESSMENT.
(a) Insider Threats.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall conduct or
update an assessment to determine the level of risk posed to
the domestic air transportation system by individuals with
unescorted access to a secure area of an airport (as defined
in section 44903(j)(2)(H)) in light of recent international
terrorist activity.
(2) Considerations.--In conducting or updating the
assessment under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall
consider--
(A) domestic intelligence;
(B) international intelligence;
(C) the vulnerabilities associated with unescorted access
authority granted to domestic airport operators and air
carriers, and their employees;
(D) the vulnerabilities associated with unescorted access
authority granted to foreign airport operators and air
carriers, and their employees;
(E) the processes and practices designed to mitigate the
vulnerabilities associated with unescorted access privileges
granted to airport operators and air carriers, and their
employees;
(F) the recent security breaches at domestic and foreign
airports; and
(G) the recent security improvements at domestic airports,
including the implementation of recommendations made by
relevant advisory committees.
(b) Reports to Congress.--The Administrator shall submit to
the appropriate committees of Congress--
(1) a report on the results of the assessment under
subsection (a), including any recommendations for improving
aviation security;
(2) a report on the implementation status of any
recommendations made by the ASAC; and
(3) regular updates about the insider threat environment as
new information becomes available and as needed.
SEC. _105. OVERSIGHT.
(a) Enhanced Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Subject to public notice and comment, and
in consultation with airport operators, the Administrator
shall update the rules on access controls issued by the
Secretary under chapter 449 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) Considerations.--As part of the update under paragraph
(1), the Administrator shall consider--
(A) increased fines and advanced oversight for airport
operators that report missing more than 5 percent of
credentials for unescorted access to any SIDA of an airport;
(B) best practices for Category X airport operators that
report missing more than 3 percent of credentials for
unescorted access to any SIDA of an airport;
(C) additional audits and status checks for airport
operators that report missing more than 3 percent of
credentials for unescorted access to any SIDA of an airport;
(D) review and analysis of the prior 5 years of audits for
airport operators that report missing more than 3 percent of
credentials for unescorted access to any SIDA of an airport;
(E) increased fines and direct enforcement requirements for
both airport workers and their employers that fail to report
within 24 hours an employment termination or a missing
credential for unescorted access to any SIDA of an airport;
and
(F) a method for termination by the employer of any airport
worker that fails to report in a timely manner missing
credentials for unescorted access to any SIDA of an airport.
(b) Temporary Credentials.--The Administrator may encourage
the issuance by airport and aircraft operators of free one-
time, 24-hour temporary credentials for workers who have
reported their credentials missing, but not permanently lost,
stolen, or destroyed, in a timely manner, until replacement
of credentials under section 1542.211 of title 49 Code of
Federal Regulations is necessary.
(c) Notification and Report to Congress.--The Administrator
shall--
(1) notify the appropriate committees of Congress each time
an airport operator reports that more than 3 percent of
credentials for unescorted access to any SIDA at a Category X
airport are missing or more than 5 percent of credentials to
access any SIDA at any other airport are missing; and
(2) submit to the appropriate committees of Congress an
annual report on the number of violations and fines related
to unescorted access to the SIDA of an airport collected in
the preceding fiscal year.
SEC. _106. CREDENTIALS.
(a) Lawful Status.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall issue
guidance to airport operators regarding placement of an
expiration date on each airport credential issued to a non-
United States citizen no longer than the period of time
during which that non-United States citizen is lawfully
authorized to work in the United States.
(b) Review of Procedures.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall--
(A) issue guidance for transportation security inspectors
to annually review the procedures of airport operators and
air carriers for applicants seeking unescorted access to any
SIDA of an airport; and
(B) make available to airport operators and air carriers
information on identifying suspicious or fraudulent
identification materials.
(2) Inclusions.--The guidance shall require a comprehensive
review of background checks and employment authorization
documents issued by the Citizenship and Immigration Services
during the course of a review of procedures under paragraph
(1).
SEC. _107. VETTING.
(a) Eligibility Requirements.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and subject to public notice and
comment, the Administrator shall revise the regulations
issued under section 44936 of title 49, United States Code,
in accordance with this section and current knowledge of
insider threats and intelligence, to enhance the eligibility
requirements and disqualifying criminal offenses for
individuals seeking or having unescorted access to a SIDA of
an airport.
(2) Disqualifying criminal offenses.--In revising the
regulations under paragraph (1), the Administrator shall
consider adding to the list of disqualifying criminal
offenses and criteria the offenses and criteria listed in
section 122.183(a)(4) of title 19, Code of Federal
Regulations and section 1572.103 of title 49, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(3) Waiver process for denied credentials.--Notwithstanding
section 44936(b) of title 49, United States Code, in revising
the regulations under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the
Administrator shall--
(A) ensure there exists or is developed a waiver process
for approving the issuance of credentials for unescorted
access to the SIDA, for an individual found to be otherwise
ineligible for such credentials; and
(B) consider, as appropriate and practicable--
(i) the circumstances of any disqualifying act or offense,
restitution made by the individual, Federal and State
mitigation remedies, and other factors from which it may be
concluded that the individual does not pose a terrorism risk
or a risk to aviation security warranting denial of the
credential; and
(ii) the elements of the appeals and waiver process
established under section 70105(c) of title 46, United States
Code.
(4) Look back.--In revising the regulations under paragraph
(1), the Administrator shall propose that an individual be
disqualified if the individual was convicted, or found not
guilty by reason of insanity, of a disqualifying criminal
offense within 15 years before the date of an individual's
application, or if the individual was incarcerated for that
crime and released from incarceration within 5 years before
the date of the individual's application.
(5) Certifications.--The Administrator shall require an
airport or aircraft operator, as applicable, to certify for
each individual who receives unescorted access to any SIDA of
an airport that--
(A) a specific need exists for providing that individual
with unescorted access authority; and
(B) the individual has certified to the airport or aircraft
operator that the individual understands the requirements for
possessing a SIDA badge.
(6) Report to congress.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment, the Administrator shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report on the status of
the revision to the regulations issued under section 44936 of
title 49, United States Code, in accordance with this
section.
(7) Rule of construction.--Nothing in this subsection may
be construed to affect existing aviation worker vetting fees
imposed by the Administration.
(b) Recurrent Vetting.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator and the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall fully implement the
Rap Back service for recurrent vetting of eligible
Administration-regulated populations of individuals with
unescorted access to any SIDA of an airport.
(2) Requirements.--As part of the requirement in paragraph
(1), the Administrator shall ensure that--
(A) any status notifications the Administration receives
through the Rap Back service about criminal offenses be
limited to only disqualifying criminal offenses in accordance
with the regulations promulgated by the Administration under
section 44903 of title 49, United States Code, or other
Federal law; and
(B) any information received by the Administration through
the Rap Back service is provided directly and immediately to
the relevant airport and aircraft operators.
(3) Report to congress.--Not later than 60 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the
implementation status of the Rap Back service.
[[Page S1783]]
(c) Access to Terrorism-Related Data.--Not later than 30
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator and the Director of National Intelligence shall
coordinate to ensure that the Administrator is authorized to
receive automated, real-time access to additional Terrorist
Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) data and any other
terrorism related category codes to improve the effectiveness
of the Administration's credential vetting program for
individuals that are seeking or have unescorted access to a
SIDA of an airport.
(d) Access to E-Verify and SAVE Programs.--Not later than
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Secretary shall authorize each airport operator to have
direct access to the E-Verify program and the Systematic
Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) automated system
to determine the eligibility of individuals seeking
unescorted access to a SIDA of an airport.
SEC. _108. METRICS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop and
implement performance metrics to measure the effectiveness of
security for the SIDAs of airports.
(b) Considerations.--In developing the performance metrics
under subsection (a), the Administrator may consider--
(1) adherence to access point procedures;
(2) proper use of credentials;
(3) differences in access point requirements between
airport workers performing functions on the airside of an
airport and airport workers performing functions in other
areas of an airport;
(4) differences in access point characteristics and
requirements at airports; and
(5) any additional factors the Administrator considers
necessary to measure performance.
SEC. _109. INSPECTIONS AND ASSESSMENTS.
(a) Model and Best Practices.--Not later than 180 days
after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator,
in consultation with the ASAC, shall develop a model and best
practices for unescorted access security that--
(1) use intelligence, scientific algorithms, and risk-based
factors;
(2) ensure integrity, accountability, and control;
(3) subject airport workers to random physical security
inspections conducted by Administration representatives in
accordance with this section;
(4) appropriately manage the number of SIDA access points
to improve supervision of and reduce unauthorized access to
these areas; and
(5) include validation of identification materials, such as
with biometrics.
(b) Inspections.--Consistent with a risk-based security
approach, the Administrator shall expand the use of
transportation security officers and inspectors to conduct
enhanced, random and unpredictable, data-driven, and
operationally dynamic physical inspections of airport workers
in each SIDA of an airport and at each SIDA access point--
(1) to verify the credentials of airport workers;
(2) to determine whether airport workers possess prohibited
items, except for those that may be necessary for the
performance of their duties, as appropriate, in any SIDA of
an airport; and
(3) to verify whether airport workers are following
appropriate procedures to access a SIDA of an airport.
(c) Screening Review.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall conduct a review
of airports that have implemented additional airport worker
screening or perimeter security to improve airport security,
including--
(A) comprehensive airport worker screening at access points
to secure areas;
(B) comprehensive perimeter screening, including vehicles;
(C) enhanced fencing or perimeter sensors; and
(D) any additional airport worker screening or perimeter
security measures the Administrator identifies.
(2) Best practices.--After completing the review under
paragraph (1), the Administrator shall--
(A) identify best practices for additional access control
and airport worker security at airports; and
(B) disseminate the best practices identified under
subparagraph (A) to airport operators.
(3) Pilot program.--The Administrator may conduct a pilot
program at 1 or more airports to test and validate best
practices for comprehensive airport worker screening or
perimeter security under paragraph (2).
SEC. _110. COVERT TESTING.
(a) In General.--The Administrator shall increase the use
of red-team, covert testing of access controls to any secure
areas of an airport.
(b) Additional Covert Testing.--The Inspector General of
the Department of Homeland Security shall conduct red-team,
covert testing of airport access controls to the SIDA of
airports.
(c) Reports to Congress.--
(1) Administrator report.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit
to the appropriate committee of Congress a report on the
progress to expand the use of inspections and of red-team,
covert testing under subsection (a).
(2) Inspector general report.--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 appropriate committee of Congress a report on the
effectiveness of airport access controls to the SIDA of
airports based on red-team, covert testing under subsection
(b).
SEC. _111. SECURITY DIRECTIVES.
(a) Review.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the
Administrator, in consultation with the appropriate regulated
entities, shall conduct a comprehensive review of every
current security directive addressed to any regulated
entity--
(1) to determine whether the security directive continues
to be relevant;
(2) to determine whether the security directives should be
streamlined or consolidated to most efficiently maximize risk
reduction; and
(3) to update, consolidate, or revoke any security
directive as necessary.
(b) Notice.--For each security directive that the
Administrator issues, the Administrator shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress notice of--
(1) the extent to which the security directive responds to
a specific threat, security threat assessment, or emergency
situation against civil aviation; and
(2) when it is anticipated that the security directive will
expire.
SEC. _112. IMPLEMENTATION REPORT.
Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Comptroller General of the United States shall--
(1) assess the progress made by the Administration and the
effect on aviation security of implementing the requirements
under sections _104 through _111 of this Act; and
(2) report to the appropriate committees of Congress on the
results of the assessment under paragraph (1), including any
recommendations.
SEC. _113. MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS.
(a) ASAC Terms of Office.--Section 44946(c)(2)(A) is
amended to read as follows:
``(A) Terms.--The term of each member of the Advisory
Committee shall be 2 years, but a member may continue to
serve until the Assistant Secretary appoints a successor. A
member of the Advisory Committee may be reappointed.''.
(b) Feedback.--Section 44946(b)(5) is amended to read as
follows:
``(5) Feedback.--Not later than 90 days after receiving
recommendations transmitted by the Advisory Committee under
paragraph (2) or paragraph (4), the Assistant Secretary shall
respond in writing to the Advisory Committee with feedback on
each of the recommendations, an action plan to implement any
of the recommendations with which the Assistant Secretary
concurs, and a justification for why any of the
recommendations have been rejected.''.
Subtitle B--TSA PreCheck Expansion Act
SEC. _201. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``TSA PreCheck Expansion
Act''.
SEC. _202. DEFINITIONS.
In this subtitle:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration.
(2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Homeland Security.
(3) Precheck program.--The term ``PreCheck Program'' means
the trusted traveler program implemented by the
Transportation Security Administration under section
109(a)(3) of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (49
U.S.C. 114).
(4) TSA.--The term ``TSA'' means the Transportation
Security Administration.
SEC. _203. PRECHECK PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION.
The Administrator shall continue to administer the PreCheck
Program established under the authority of the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71; 115 Stat.
597).
SEC. _204. PRECHECK PROGRAM ENROLLMENT EXPANSION.
(a) In General.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall publish
PreCheck Program enrollment standards that add multiple
private sector application capabilities for the PreCheck
Program to increase the public's enrollment access to the
program, including standards that allow the use of secure
technologies, including online enrollment, kiosks, tablets,
or staffed laptop stations at which individuals can apply for
entry into the program.
(b) Requirements.--Upon publication of the PreCheck Program
enrollment standards under subsection (a), the Administrator
shall--
(1) coordinate with interested parties--
(A) to deploy TSA-approved ready-to-market private sector
solutions that meet the PreCheck Program enrollment standards
under subsection (a);
(B) to make available additional PreCheck Program
enrollment capabilities; and
(C) to offer secure online and mobile enrollment
opportunities;
(2) partner with the private sector to collect biographic
and biometric identification information via kiosks, mobile
devices, or other mobile enrollment platforms to increase
enrollment flexibility and minimize the amount of travel to
enrollment centers for applicants;
[[Page S1784]]
(3) ensure that any information, including biographic
information, is collected in a manner that--
(A) is comparable with the appropriate and applicable
standards developed by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology; and
(B) protects privacy and data security, including that any
personally identifiable information is collected, retained,
used, and shared in a manner consistent with section 552a of
title 5, United States Code (commonly known as ``Privacy Act
of 1974''), and with agency regulations;
(4) ensure that the enrollment process is streamlined and
flexible to allow an individual to provide additional
information to complete enrollment and verify identity; and
(5) ensure that any enrollment expansion using a private
sector risk assessment instead of a fingerprint-based
criminal history records check is evaluated and certified by
the Secretary of Homeland Security, and verified by the
Government Accountability Office or a federally funded
research and development center after award to be equivalent
to a fingerprint-based criminal history records check
conducted through the Federal Bureau of Investigation, with
respect to the effectiveness in identifying individuals who
are not qualified to participate in the Pre-Check Program due
to disqualifying criminal history; and
(6) ensure that the Secretary has certified that reasonable
procedures are in place with regard to the accuracy,
relevancy, and proper utilization of information employed in
private sector risk assessments.
(c) Marketing of PreCheck Program.--Upon publication of
PreCheck Program enrollment standards under subsection (a),
the Administrator shall--
(1) in accordance with those standards, develop and
implement--
(A) a continual process, including an associated timeframe,
for approving private sector marketing of the PreCheck
Program; and
(B) a long-term strategy for partnering with the private
sector to encourage enrollment in such program;
(2) submit to Congress, at the end of each fiscal year, a
report on any PreCheck Program application fees collected in
excess of the costs of administering the program, including
to access the feasibility of the program, for the preceding
fiscal year; and
(3) include in the report under paragraph (2)
recommendations for using such amounts to support marketing
of the program under this subsection.
(d) Identity Verification Enhancement.--Not later than 120
days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall--
(1) coordinate with the heads of appropriate components of
the Department to leverage department-held data and
technologies to verify the citizenship of individuals
enrolling in the PreCheck Program;
(2) partner with the private sector to use biometrics and
authentication standards, such as relevant standards
developed by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, to facilitate enrollment in the program; and
(3) consider leveraging the existing resources and
abilities of airports to conduct fingerprint and background
checks to expedite identity verification.
(e) PreCheck Program Lanes Operation.--The Administrator
shall--
(1) ensure that PreCheck Program screening lanes are open
and available during peak and high-volume travel times at
appropriate airports to individuals enrolled in the PreCheck
Program; and
(2) make every practicable effort to provide expedited
screening at standard screening lanes during times when
PreCheck Program screening lanes are closed to individuals
enrolled in the program in order to maintain operational
efficiency.
(f) Vetting for PreCheck Program Participants.--Not later
than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
Administrator shall initiate an assessment to identify any
security vulnerabilities in the vetting process for the
PreCheck Program, including determining whether subjecting
PreCheck Program participants to recurrent fingerprint-based
criminal history records checks, in addition to recurrent
checks against the terrorist watchlist, could be done in a
cost-effective manner to strengthen the security of the
PreCheck Program.
Subtitle C--Securing Aviation From Foreign Entry Points and Guarding
Airports Through Enhanced Security Act of 2016
SEC. _301. SHORT TITLE.
This subtitle may be cited as the ``Securing Aviation from
Foreign Entry Points and Guarding Airports Through Enhanced
Security Act of 2016''.
SEC. _302. LAST POINT OF DEPARTURE AIRPORT SECURITY
ASSESSMENT.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration shall conduct a
comprehensive security risk assessment of all last point of
departure airports with nonstop flights to the United States.
(b) Contents.--The security risk assessment required under
subsection (a) shall include consideration of the following:
(1) The level of coordination and cooperation between the
Transportation Security Administration and the foreign
government of the country in which the last point of
departure airport with nonstop flights to the United States
is located.
(2) The intelligence and threat mitigation capabilities of
the country in which such airport is located.
(3) The number of known or suspected terrorists annually
transiting through such airport.
(4) The degree to which the foreign government of the
country in which such airport is located mandates, encourages
or prohibits the collection, analysis, and sharing of
passenger name records.
(5) The passenger security screening practices,
capabilities, and capacity of such airport.
(6) The security vetting undergone by aviation workers at
such airport.
(7) The access controls utilized by such airport to limit
to authorized personnel access to secure and sterile areas of
such airports.
SEC. _303. SECURITY COORDINATION ENHANCEMENT PLAN.
(a) In General.--Not later than 240 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration shall submit to
Congress and the Government Accountability Office a plan--
(1) to enhance and bolster security collaboration,
coordination, and information sharing relating to securing
international-inbound aviation between the United States and
domestic and foreign partners, including U.S. Customs and
Border Protection, foreign government entities, passenger air
carriers, cargo air carriers, and United States Government
entities, in order to enhance security capabilities at
foreign airports, including airports that may not have
nonstop flights to the United States but are nonetheless
determined by the Administrator to be high risk; and
(2) that includes an assessment of the ability of the
Administration to enter into a mutual agreement with a
foreign government entity that permits Administration
representatives to conduct without prior notice inspections
of foreign airports.
(b) GAO Review.--Not later than 180 days after the
submission of the plan required under subsection (a), the
Comptroller General of the United States shall review the
efforts, capabilities, and effectiveness of the
Transportation Security Administration to enhance security
capabilities at foreign airports and determine if the
implementation of such efforts and capabilities effectively
secures international-inbound aviation.
SEC. _304. WORKFORCE ASSESSMENT.
Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Transportation Security
Administration shall submit to Congress a comprehensive
workforce assessment of all Administration personnel within
the Office of Global Strategies of the Administration or
whose primary professional duties contribute to the
Administration's global efforts to secure transportation
security, including a review of whether such personnel are
assigned in a risk-based, intelligence-driven manner.
SEC. _305. DONATION OF SCREENING EQUIPMENT TO PROTECT THE
UNITED STATES.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration is authorized to donate security
screening equipment to a foreign last point of departure
airport operator if such equipment can be reasonably expected
to mitigate a specific vulnerability to the security of the
United States or United States citizens.
(b) Report.--Not later than 30 days before any donation of
security screening equipment pursuant to subsection (a), the
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration
shall provide to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs and the Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Homeland Security of the House of Representatives a detailed
written explanation of the following:
(1) The specific vulnerability to the United States or
United States citizens that will be mitigated by such
donation.
(2) An explanation as to why the recipient of such donation
is unable or unwilling to purchase security screening
equipment to mitigate such vulnerability.
(3) An evacuation plan for sensitive technologies in case
of emergency or instability in the country to which such
donation is being made.
(4) How the Administrator will ensure the security
screening equipment that is being donated is used and
maintained over the course of its life by the recipient.
(5) The total dollar value of such donation.
SEC. _306. NATIONAL CARGO SECURITY PROGRAM.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration may evaluate foreign countries' air
cargo security programs to determine whether such programs
provide a level of security commensurate with the level of
security required by United States air cargo security
programs.
(b) Approval and Recognition.--
(1) In general.--If the Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration determines that a foreign country's
air cargo security program evaluated under subsection (a)
provides a level of security commensurate with the level of
security required by United States air cargo security
programs, the Administrator shall approve and officially
recognize such foreign country's air cargo security program.
(2) Effect of approval and recognition.--If the
Administrator of the Transportation
[[Page S1785]]
Security Administration approves and officially recognizes
pursuant to paragraph (1) a foreign country's air cargo
security program, cargo aircraft of such foreign country
shall not be required to adhere to United States air cargo
security programs that would otherwise be applicable.
(c) Revocation and Suspension.--
(1) In general.--If the Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration determines at any time that a foreign
country's air cargo security program approved and officially
recognized under subsection (b) no longer provides a level of
security commensurate with the level of security required by
United States air cargo security programs, the Administrator
may revoke or temporarily suspend such approval and official
recognition until such time as the Administrator determines
that such foreign country's cargo security programs provide a
level of security commensurate with the level of security
required by such United States air cargo security programs.
(2) Notification.--If the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration revokes or suspends
pursuant to paragraph (1) a foreign country's air cargo
security program, the Administrator shall notify the
Committee on Homeland Security of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate not later than 30 days after
such revocation or suspension.
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous
SEC. _401. INTERNATIONAL TRAINING AND CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT.
(a) In General.--In accordance with section 114 of title
49, United States Code, the Administrator of the
Transportation Security Administration shall establish an
international training and capacity development program to
train the appropriate authorities of foreign governments in
air transportation security.
(b) Contents of Training.--If the Administrator determines
that a foreign government would benefit from training and
capacity development assistance, the Administrator may
provide to the appropriate authorities of that foreign
government technical assistance and training programs to
strengthen aviation security in managerial, operational, and
technical areas, including--
(1) active shooter scenarios;
(2) incident response;
(3) use of canines;
(4) mitigation of insider threats;
(5) perimeter security;
(6) operation and maintenance of security screening
technology; and
(7) recurrent related training and exercises.
SEC. _402. CHECKPOINTS OF THE FUTURE.
(a) In General.--The Administrator of the Transportation
Security Administration, in accordance with chapter 449 of
title 49, United States Code, shall request the Aviation
Security Advisory Committee to develop recommendations for
more efficient and effective passenger screening processes.
(b) Considerations.--In making recommendations to improve
existing passenger screening processes, the Aviation Security
Advisory Committee shall consider--
(1) the configuration of a checkpoint;
(2) technology innovation;
(3) ways to address any vulnerabilities identified in
audits of checkpoint operations;
(4) ways to prevent security breaches at airports where
Federal security screening is provided;
(5) best practices in aviation security;
(6) recommendations from airport and aircraft operators,
and any relevant advisory committees; and
(7) ``curb to curb'' processes and procedures.
(c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report on the results of
the Aviation Security Advisory Committee review, including
any recommendations for improving screening processes.
Amendments Nos. 3458, as Modified; 3495; and 3524 En Bloc to Amendment
No. 3464
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, finally, I ask unanimous consent to set
aside the pending amendment in order to call up the following
amendments: Casey-Toomey No. 3458, as modified; Heller No. 3495; and
Bennet No. 3524.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I obviously support the agreement. This is
a good first step in moving this FAA bill along.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments en bloc.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Thune], for others,
proposes amendments numbered 3458, as modified; and 3495 en
bloc to amendment No. 3464.
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for Mr. Bennet,
proposes an amendment numbered 3524 to amendment No. 3464.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 3458, as modified
(Purpose: To protect passengers in air transportation, pilots, and
flight attendants from terrorists and mentally unstable individuals by
requiring the installation of secondary barriers to prevent cockpit
intrusions)
Strike section 5010 and insert the following:
SEC. 5010. SECONDARY COCKPIT BARRIERS.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Saracini Aviation Safety Act of 2016''.
(b) Requirement.--Not later than one year after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall issue an order requiring
installation of a secondary cockpit barrier on each new
aircraft that is manufactured for delivery to a passenger air
carrier in the United States operating under the provisions
of part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
amendment no. 3495
(Purpose: To improve employment opportunities for veterans by requiring
the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to determine
whether occupations at the Administration relating to unmanned aircrat
systems technology and regulations can be incorporated into the
Veterans Employment Program of the Administration)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ___. INCORPORATION OF FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
OCCUPATIONS RELATING TO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT INTO
VETERANS EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS OF THE
ADMINISTRATION.
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration, in consultation with the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary
of Labor, shall determine whether occupations of the
Administration relating to unmanned aircraft systems
technology and regulations can be incorporated into the
Veterans Employment Program of the Administration,
particularly in the interaction between such program and the
New Sights Work Experience Program and the Vet-Link
Cooperative Education Program.
Amendment No. 3524
(Purpose: To improve air service for families and pregnant women)
Strike section 3113 and insert the following:
SEC. 3113. LASTING IMPROVEMENTS TO FAMILY TRAVEL.
(a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the
``Lasting Improvements to Family Travel Act'' or the ``LIFT
Act''.
(b) Accompanying Minors for Security Screening.--The
Administrator of the Transportation Security Administration
shall formalize security screening procedures that allow for
one adult family caregiver to accompany a minor child
throughout the entirety of the security screening process.
(c) Special Accommodations for Pregnant Women.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
the Secretary of Transportation shall prescribe regulations
under section 41705 of title 49, United States Code, that
direct all air carriers to include pregnant women in their
nondiscrimination policies, including policies with respect
to preboarding or advance boarding of aircraft.
(d) Family Seating.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prescribe
regulations directing each air carrier to establish a policy
that ensures that, if a family is traveling on a reservation
with a child under the age of 13, that child is able to sit
in a seat adjacent to the seat of an accompanying family
member over the age of 13 at no additional cost.
Amendment No. 3512, as Modified
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if I might just speak to amendment No.
3512, which we will be voting on momentarily, I know Senator Nelson has
already spoken on this issue. We worked very hard on a series of
security bills that we could bring to the floor. We are trying to move
them separately, but I think they fit nicely into the debate we are
having on the FAA reauthorization.
Senators Nelson, Ayotte, Cantwell, and I have been leading oversight
of airport and airline workers abusing their secure area access badges.
This oversight led our committee to approve bipartisan legislation--S.
2361, Airport Security Enhancement and Oversight Act--to tighten the
vetting of airport workers with ties to terrorists and serious criminal
behavior that should disqualify them from accessing sensitive airport
areas.
Just in the past few weeks, a number of badged aviation industry
workers have been caught in the act of helping criminal organizations.
On March 18, a flight attendant abandoned a suitcase with 68 pounds of
cocaine after being confronted by transportation security officers in
California. On March 26 in Florida, an airline gate agent was arrested
with a backpack containing $282,400 in cash that he intended to hand
off to an associate.
As we work to address the threat of an aviation insider helping
terrorists,
[[Page S1786]]
criminals who break laws for financial gain and those with a history of
violence are a really good place to start. It is high time that we
start cracking down on these types of offenses for people who are
working in sensitive areas of our airports.
U.S. terrorism experts believe that ISIS is recruiting criminals to
join its ranks in Europe, and some of the perpetrators in the deadly
attacks in Brussels were previously known to authorities as criminals.
Ensuring that airport workers with security credentials are trustworthy
is especially important, considering that experts believe an ISIS
affiliate may have planted a bomb on a Russian Metrojet flight leaving
Egypt with the help of an airport employee, which killed 224 people on
board. The recent attacks by ISIS in the unsecured area of the Brussels
Airport also underscore the vulnerability of airport areas outside of
TSA security screening checkpoints.
The House of Representatives and the Commerce Committee also approved
legislation--H.R. 2843, the PreCheck Expansion Act--in December of 2015
to expand the PreCheck program by developing private sector
partnerships and capabilities to vet and enroll more individuals. These
private sector partners would be required to use an assessment
equivalent to a fingerprint-based criminal history record check
conducted through the FBI. These changes would increase the number of
passengers who are vetted before they get to the airport. As a result,
more passengers would receive expedited airport screening and get
through security checkpoints more quickly, ensuring they don't pose the
kind of easy target that the ISIS suicide bombers exploited at the
Brussels Airport.
In addition to the bills approved by our committee on March 23, the
House Homeland Security Committee approved H.R. 4698, the SAFE GATES
Act of 2016, which would strengthen security at international airports
with direct flights to the United States. Specifically, the bill would
require TSA to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of all last-
point-of-departure airports, a security coordination enhancement plan,
and a workforce assessment. It would authorize the TSA to donate
security screening equipment to foreign last-point-of-departure
airports and to evaluate foreign countries' air cargo security programs
to prevent any shipment of nefarious materials via air cargo.
I believe these bills will help make air travel more secure, and they
should advance in the full Senate in this amendment to the FAA bill. I
encourage my colleagues to support the Thune-Nelson amendment and then
also follow-on with the Heinrich amendment, which will come up shortly
after a vote on that amendment. I think the Heinrich amendment also
makes a number of important security improvements that will also
strengthen airport security.
There has been a discussion about whether there ought to be more VIPR
teams. I think there are 30 or so at this point, and the amendment
would allow that number to go up to 60. Yesterday we had the
opportunity to question the TSA Administrator, Admiral Neffenger, about
whether additional VIPR teams would be useful. He said they could put
to use anything they were given in terms of additional units that might
be deployed to places around the country where they think there is a
need. So that is the principal component of the Heinrich amendment,
which also addresses some of the security issues.
I don't think we can understate how important security is in light of
everything that is going on in the world today. We have people who want
to harm Americans, and it is our job to make sure we are giving those
authorities who are there to prevent those types of attacks against
Americans all the tools they need in order to do their jobs
effectively.
I encourage our colleagues here in the Senate--when we have an
opportunity to vote here momentarily on both of these security
amendments--to support those amendments. They improve and strengthen
security at our airports around this country, and I think they fit
nicely within the context of the FAA reauthorization bill and the
debate we are currently having on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Florida.
Amendment No. 3483 to Amendment No. 3464
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Schumer
amendment No. 3483 and ask that the Schumer and Bennet amendments be
Nelson for Schumer and Bennet.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson], for Mr. Schumer,
proposes an amendment numbered 3483 to amendment No. 3464.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the Federal Aviation Administration to establish
minimum standards for space for passengers on passenger aircraft)
At the end of subtitle A of title III, add the following:
SEC. 3124. REGULATIONS RELATING TO SPACE FOR PASSENGERS ON
AIRCRAFT.
(a) Moratorium on Reductions to Aircraft Seat Size.--Not
later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration
shall prohibit any air carrier from reducing the size, width,
padding, or pitch of seats on passenger aircraft operated by
the air carrier, the amount of leg room per seat on such
aircraft, or the width of aisles on such aircraft.
(b) Regulations Relating to Space for Passengers on
Aircraft.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall prescribe
regulations--
(1) establishing minimum standards for space for passengers
on passenger aircraft, including the size, width, padding,
and pitch of seats, the amount of leg room per seat, and the
width of aisles on such aircraft for the safety, health, and
comfort of passengers; and
(2) requiring each air carrier to prominently display on
the website of the air carrier the amount of space available
for each passenger on passenger aircraft operated by the air
carrier, including the size, width, padding, and pitch of
seats, the amount of leg room per seat, and the width of
aisles on such aircraft.
(c) Consultations.--In prescribing the regulations required
by subsection (b), the Administrator shall consult with the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, passenger advocacy
organizations, physicians, and ergonomic engineers.
(d) Air Carrier Defined.--In this section, the term ``air
carrier'' means an air carrier (as defined in section 40102
of title 49, United States Code) that transports passengers
by aircraft as a common carrier for compensation.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, in just 5 minutes we will have our first
series of votes on amendments on this bill. This is a good start to the
FAA bill. It is improving the underlying bill that has a lot of
attention to security already in it. But these are clearly amendments
that will improve the bill.
I spoke about it earlier today. I certainly commend these amendments
to the Senate.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Vote on Amendment No. 3512, as modified.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No.
3512, as modified, offered by the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I yield back whatever time remains.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment,
as modified.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
Further, if present and voting the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn)
would have voted ``yea.''
[[Page S1787]]
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the
Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the Senator from New Mexico
(Mr. Udall) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 85, nays 10, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 41 Leg.]
YEAS--85
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Boozman
Boxer
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Flake
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Nelson
Paul
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Whitehouse
Wicker
NAYS--10
Booker
Brown
Casey
Hirono
Leahy
Markey
Merkley
Murray
Warren
Wyden
NOT VOTING--5
Cornyn
Cruz
Durbin
Sanders
Udall
The amendment (No. 3512), as modified, was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3482, as Modified
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote on amendment No.
3482, as modified, offered by the Senator from New Mexico.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, airports, bus depots, and train
stations are things that we all rely on every day to have the freedom
of movement we enjoy in this country.
In the wake of the recent terror attacks in the Brussels Airport and
Metro, Americans are worried about their security, and they want to
feel safe when traveling with their loved ones.
While we relentlessly target terrorists overseas, we must also do all
we can to intelligently protect Americans here at home. My amendment
would increase the number of TSA VIPR teams, who provide a visible
deterrent to terrorist threats in high-priority locations. These teams
are recognizable as they often have bomb-sniffing canines. My amendment
would also provide active shooter training for law enforcement and
strengthen security in nonsecure so-called soft-target areas, such as
check-in and baggage claim areas.
By employing these additional commonsense safeguards, we will
intelligently respond to these threats. Most importantly, by preserving
our freedom to go about our daily lives, we will ensure that the
terrorists have failed to change how we live and who we are.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support the
Heinrich amendment.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No.
3482, as modified.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz). Further,
if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have
voted ``yea.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rounds). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 5, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 42 Leg.]
YEAS--91
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Boxer
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Donnelly
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gardner
Gillibrand
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hirono
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lee
Manchin
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
NAYS--5
Barrasso
Enzi
Flake
Paul
Scott
NOT VOTING--4
Cornyn
Cruz
Durbin
Sanders
The amendment (No. 3482), as modified, was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Iranian Access to U.S. Financial System
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, when Obama administration officials sold
the President's nuclear deal last summer to the American people, they
were clearly sensitive to charges that they gave too much away. They
knew that giving Iran $100 billion that we could never get back in
exchange for a mere temporary deal that expired in 10 to 15 years would
be viewed with deep skepticism.
They knew that an inspection system that gives the ayatollahs a 24-
day heads-up before an inspection would not pass the laugh test. They
knew that granting the ayatollahs massive sanctions relief while still
allowing them to develop an industrial-scale nuclear enrichment program
would invite accusations that the President was, to put it frankly,
swindled.
So in their sales pitch, these administration officials sought to
blunt these expected criticisms. They repeatedly stated that the United
States would maintain certain tough sanctions, even after the deal
became effective. They said the United States would hold the line on
measures that punish and suppress Iran's nonnuclear malign activities.
They emphatically stated that in no way would the U.S. economy be
allowed to bolster an Iranian economy that is significantly controlled
by the Iranian regime, tainted by illicit financing of terrorism, and
used by the ayatollahs to fund domestic oppression and international
aggression--including blowing up hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq
with roadside bombs.
In particular, these administration officials were emphatic that the
United States would never, ever, ever grant Iran access to the U.S.
financial system and U.S. dollars to facilitate Iran's trade in oil and
other goods.
For instance, when testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in July, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew stated:
Iranian banks will not be able to clear U.S. dollars
through New York, hold correspondent account relationships
with U.S. financial institutions, or enter into financing
arrangements with U.S. banks. Iran, in other words, will
continue to be denied access to the world's largest financial
and commercial market.
Likewise, Adam Szubin, the Acting Under Secretary for Terrorism and
Financial Intelligence, echoed that sentiment and was even more
precise. In September he stated:
Iran will not be able to open bank accounts with U.S.
banks, nor will Iran be able to access the U.S. banking
sector, even for that momentary transaction to, what we call,
dollarize a foreign payment. . . . That is not in the cards.
That is not part of the relief offered under the JCPOA. So,
the U.S. sanctions on Iran, which, of course, had their
origins long before Iran had a nuclear program, will remain
in place.
[[Page S1788]]
It is difficult to overstate the importance of these statements
uttered just a few months ago. The U.S. dollar is the standard currency
in which international trade is conducted. Because the ayatollahs can't
deal in dollars, they haven't fully opened their economy to the world--
thankfully. In addition, the U.S. financial system hasn't yet been
tainted by Iran's terror financing, its international aggression, and
its crackdown on domestic democratic dissent.
But now, a mere 7 months into a 15-year agreement, the Obama
administration is shedding the resolve its officials tried to so hard
to display before Congress. According to numerous reports, the
administration intends to backtrack on the statements of Secretary Lew
and Adam Szubin. It is looking for some way, somehow to give Iran
access to U.S. dollars to boost Iranian trade and investment.
I want to be very clear. If the President moves to grant Iran access
to the U.S. dollar--whether directly or indirectly--there will be
consequences. If there is any statement, guidance, regulation, or
Executive action that opens the U.S. banking sector to Iran even a
crack, the Senate will hold hearings with each official who assured the
American people last summer that the ayatollahs would never access the
dollar. We will explore whether they lied back then or whether they
intend to resign in protest now.
If this policy change moves forward, I will dedicate myself to
working with my colleagues to pass legislation blocking the change. If
the Obama administration proceeds with this massive concession to the
ayatollahs, every Member of the Senate who voted to accept the Iranian
deal will have to go home and explain why the U.S. economy is now
complicit in Iran's financing of terrorist attacks against Americans
and American allies.
That the Obama administration would even consider allowing Iran
access to the U.S. banking sector is extremely disconcerting, but it is
not surprising. It follows a steady pattern that has become
increasingly clear since the conclusion of the nuclear deal. Time and
again, Iran provokes the United States, commits brazen acts to
destabilize its neighbors, and threatens to undo the Iran deal. In
response, the United States rushes to grant the ayatollahs more
concessions in order to placate them.
Iran has tested ballistic missiles, captured U.S. sailors, and fueled
conflicts in Syria and Yemen with fresh arms and troops--all while
employing ``Death to America'' as a rallying cry.
But in the face of Iran's continued aggression, the President has
displayed only weakness. Instead of steeling himself for a fight with
the ayatollahs, he has laid down and rolled over for them.
He has repeatedly refused to designate Iran's tests of ballistic
missiles as the violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions they so
clearly are.
The President also agreed to send an additional $1.7 billion to the
ayatollahs, ostensibly to settle outstanding claims. For good measure,
that $1.7 billion includes $1.3 billion in gratuitous interest
payments.
The President granted clemency to seven convicted Iranian criminals
and dismissed arrest warrants for 14 Iranian fugitives who faced
charges for sanctions violations. Now the President may be on the verge
of granting the largest concession yet--dollarizing Iran's
international trade and declaring Iran truly open for business.
We should call this for what it is--concession creep. In the same
manner that no Member of the Senate should trust Iran to abide by its
commitments made in the Iranian nuclear deal, we can no longer trust
the administration to hold fast to the specific concessions contained
in the four corners of that deal. The ink is hardly dry on the deal,
and the President has already shown himself all too susceptible to the
temptations of appeasement.
The ayatollahs reportedly have complained to U.S. officials that it
is too hard to transact business without access to U.S. dollars. The
answer to that should be ``too bad.''
It should not be easy for the world's worst sponsor of terrorism to
do business with the global economy. It should not be easy for
industries dominated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to trade
in financial markets. International business leaders, directors, CEOs,
and general counsels should not rush into Iran for fear of the grave
reputational, financial, political, and legal consequences of doing
business with this outlaw regime.
The Iranians know the Obama administration is desperate to preserve
the nuclear deal. They hold the possibility of walking away from the
agreement as a sword of Damocles over the President's head in order to
extract concession after concession. They lord it over him in order to
forestall any U.S. action that would meaningfully stop their regional
aggression and campaign of terror. So intense is President Obama's fear
that the Ayatollah will rip up the nuclear agreement, he has completely
upended U.S. strategy in the Middle East to the point where adversaries
are allies and allies are becoming adversaries.
This parade of concessions must stop, and it must stop now. The
administration must fully implement all new sanctions passed by
Congress to punish Iran's development of ballistic missiles, its
sponsorship of terrorism, and its human rights abuses. It must work
with our traditional allies in the Middle East to neutralize Iran's
attempt to foment instability throughout the region. The President
should issue a very clear order that Iran will not be granted any
direct or indirect access to the U.S. banking system and the dollar.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
(The remarks of Mr. Merkley pertaining to the introduction of S. 2760
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Amendment No. 3490 to Amendment No. 3464
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3490.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Ms. Cantwell] proposes an
amendment numbered 3490 to amendment No. 3464.
Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To extend protections against physical assault to air carrier
customer service representatives)
Strike section 5009 and insert the following:
SEC. 5009. INTERFERENCE WITH AIR CARRIER EMPLOYEES.
(a) In General.--Section 46503 is amended by inserting
after ``to perform those duties'' the following ``, or who
assaults an air carrier customer representative in an
airport, including a gate or ticket agent, who is performing
the duties of the representative or agent,''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 46503 is amended in the
section heading by inserting ``or air carrier customer
representatives'' after ``screening personnel''.
(c) Clerical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 465 is
amended by striking the item relating to section 46503 and
inserting the following:
``46503. Interference with security screening personnel or air carrier
customer representatives.''.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up this amendment and offer it
because the issue is making sure that those who work in the air
transportation system are safe and secure. This is an important issue
to the men and women who work at Sea-Tac and at other airports and are
part of the delivery system of making sure air transportation is safe.
They are an integral part of air transportation at every airport in the
United States of America.
This issue is something that has been considered in the House of
Representatives as part of the transportation package as well, and it
is part of what we think should be in this package in the Senate; that
is, making sure that those who are part of the delivery system--ticket
counter agents, agents who are aiding and assisting in getting
passengers through the terminals and onto planes at the gate,
assisting, as many of the challenging days go by, in delivering good
air transportation service. What has happened is that these individuals
have become victims--the victims of physical, violent abuse; that is,
the public has taken to bodily harm against these individuals. So this
amendment puts in similar safeguards
[[Page S1789]]
that are in line with other transportation officials who are protected
from this kind of physical abuse.
I will have more to say on it, but I know my colleague is trying to
get to the floor to speak as well. I will put into the Record examples
of individuals who are ticketing agents, baggage agents, air
transportation delivery system workers who have been hurt, and they
deserve to have protection.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 3483
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to urge a ``yes'' vote on
the upcoming amendment to require the FAA to set a minimum standard
seat size.
This amendment would ensure that airlines can't keep chopping down on
seat size and legroom until consumers are packed in like sardines in a
can on every flight.
Over the last few decades, between the size of the seat and the
distance between the seats, the flying public has lost half a foot of
their space. Flying is not pleasant anymore. You are crammed in. I am
not that tall--a little under 6-foot-1. What I do when I fly is I take
out the magazine and the air-sickness bag and the little folder that
shows you where the exits are to gain one-sixteenth of an inch more
legroom. Moms with kids have a lot of trouble in those very narrow
seats. Have you ever been in the situation where you are in the middle
and there are two sort of large people on either side of you? It is not
the most pleasant flying experience.
We don't have too much competition anymore. We have very few
airlines. This is a place where the public is clamoring for change.
When I said I was going to offer this amendment, I got more feedback on
it than most other things. And you don't have to be 6-foot-4 to
understand the problem.
You would think that by cramming in more and more passengers on each
flight, the airlines could lower their prices. Instead, several major
airlines went in the other direction: They started charging for the
extra inches and legroom that were once considered standard. So it
practically costs you an arm and a leg just to have space for your arms
and legs.
At a time when airlines are making record profits, at a time when
fuel costs are extremely low, we need this amendment to protect
consumers' safety and comfort.
This amendment would do three things. It doesn't set a standard seat
size; it freezes the current seat size in place so they can't shrink it
any further. It directs the FAA to set minimum standard seat size and
pitch for all commercial flights. And some of this involves comfort,
but some of it involves safety. God forbid there is something terrible
happening on a plane--the seats are so narrow, it is harder for people
to get out. Finally, we focus on transparency. We require airlines to
post their seat sizes on their Web sites, providing at least a
commercial incentive for airlines to offer more comfortable seat
arrangements.
Most folks travel under the expectation that the airlines are going
to set the guidelines and that is that; there is nothing they can do
about it. We actually had to put in the underlying bill that airlines
should refund bag fees charged to consumers if the airline lost their
bags. And I would say to my good friends on the other side, if we can
mandate that bag fees be returned--not leave it up to the free market--
we can mandate that the FAA at least set a proper seat size. They can't
say: Well, leave it up to the free market on one but not on the other.
It is not a little fair.
Now we see why we need these amendments. The bag fee--and I agree
that if they lose your bags or delay your bags, they shouldn't keep the
extra bag fee. It should be refunded. In most industries, that would be
a standard practice. If you fail to deliver a service somebody paid
for, they should get their money back. But sometimes in the airline
industry you have to require basic courtesy.
In conclusion, the great Abraham Lincoln was once asked how long a
man's legs should be, and he famously answered: Long enough to reach
from the body to the ground. If you asked a major airline today how
long a man's legs should be, they would say: Short enough to miss the
tray table. That is no way to fly.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and move this bill in
a more consumer-friendly direction.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, some of my colleagues have to catch
planes, and it takes extra time for them to squeeze into those small
seats with no legroom. So I yield back my time, and I ask unanimous
consent that we move the vote up to right now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3483.
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn)
would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) and
the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hoeven). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 54, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 43 Leg.]
YEAS--42
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Casey
Collins
Coons
Donnelly
Feinstein
Franken
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Hirono
Kaine
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murphy
Murray
Nelson
Peters
Reed
Reid
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Stabenow
Udall
Warner
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--54
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Blunt
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Carper
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Corker
Cotton
Crapo
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Flake
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kirk
Lankford
Lee
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Moran
Murkowski
Paul
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott
Sessions
Shelby
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Wicker
NOT VOTING--4
Cornyn
Cruz
Durbin
Sanders
The amendment (No. 3483) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Bill
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues in the
House of Representatives to pass the legislation we passed here in the
Senate a few weeks ago called the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery
Act, or CARA. We passed it on March 10, which was 27 days ago--almost a
month. It is estimated that we lose about 120 Americans every day to
drug overdoses. That means that during that time period--those 27
days--we lost about 3,240 additional Americans who we represent to
substance abuse and death from heroin and prescription drug overdoses.
Since 2007, drug overdoses have killed more people in Ohio than any
other cause of accidental death, even surpassing car accidents. It is
probably
[[Page S1790]]
true nationally now as well. Addiction is treatable, but 9 out of 10
people who need treatment aren't getting it. That is a tragedy. It
shows that the system we have right now just isn't working, and that is
what our legislation addresses, among other things. In one 5-day span
since we passed CARA, just in the last month, we had five people die
from heroin and Fentanyl overdoses in one of the cities I represent--
Cleveland, OH.
I was in Athens, OH, more than 2 weeks after we passed CARA, and
received a tour of the Rural Women's Addiction Recovery Bassett House
facility. Dr. Joe Gay and Ruth Tarter took me around so I could meet
some of the brave women who stepped forward to treat their addiction
issues. Some of them were there with their kids. They have an amazing
success rate.
I will tell you that 3 days after I left Athens, OH, $40,000 of
heroin was seized at a traffic stop very close to this treatment
facility. It is everywhere. It knows no ZIP code. It is in rural areas,
suburban areas, and inner cities. States are starting to take action.
Ohio is taking action, your States are taking action, and communities
are taking action. Local leaders know this is a problem, but they want
the Federal Government to be a better partner. That is what CARA
provides. It provides best practices from around the country. It
provides more funding for some critical elements that are evidence-
based--based on research and what actually works. Our States and local
communities are desperate for this right now.
By the way, this legislation is not just bipartisan. It is also
bicameral. In other words, not only have Republicans and Democrats
worked across the aisle here in the Senate over the last 3 years
putting this bill together, but our colleagues in the House have worked
together as well. I am encouraged by the fact that the CARA legislation
in the House has 113 cosponsors. It is bipartisan. It is based on good
evidence. It is based on a lot of work and effort. Today I heard
through a media account that one of the House leaders said there is
interest in moving something even this month. That is great. But he
also talked about hearings and markups and so on. Let's be sure the
hearings and markups don't delay what we know we should do, which is to
pass the CARA legislation. It has been bicameral and bipartisan. It
passed the Senate with a 94-to-1 vote. That never happens around here--
94 to 1. This is legislation which we know will make a difference right
now in our communities that are dealing with a crisis we all face.
Let's move this legislation.
I say to my friends in the House with all due respect, this
legislation has been carefully crafted and we have done the hard work.
I mentioned that we spent 3 years of factfinding on this bill. We
didn't think we had all the right answers, so we went out to experts
all over the country. We took time to listen. We consulted with them.
We listened to experts, doctors, law enforcement, and patients in
recovery. We listened to the drug experts in the Obama administration,
such as the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, ONDCP.
They have been very helpful. We brought in people from Health and Human
Services and listened to them. We brought in people from my home State
of Ohio and other States around the country.
We heard from family members, many of whom have channelled their
grief at losing a loved one into advocacy for the CARA legislation
because they know it is going to help. One testified in the Judiciary
Committee when we marked up the legislation. Tonda DaRe from
Carrollton, OH, talked about having lost her daughter, who was a very
successful high school student and engaged to be married. Everything
was going great. When she turned 21, she made a mistake: She tried
heroin. She went into recovery. She relapsed. She ended up dying of an
overdose.
Unfortunately, this is a story that is retold all over our country.
There are moms, there are dads, there are aunts and uncles and brothers
and sisters who come forward to tell us these tragic stories about
losing a loved one. They want this legislation to pass because they
know it is going to help another family member or a friend or a
coworker or someone whom they have never met but whom they want to help
so they don't have to go through the grief they have gone through.
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse--a Democrat--and I have worked on this
legislation together, along with many other people in this Chamber. We
have also worked, as I said, with many on the House side. We worked
with folks on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol
because this has become an issue that affects us all. It is a
nonpartisan issue. We have to move it forward.
We held five forums here in Washington, DC, and brought in experts to
get counsel and advice. They helped us develop a legislative proposal
that was thoughtful because it actually addressed the real problem.
In April 2014, we had a forum on the criminal justice system which
included alternatives to incarceration, and you will see that in our
legislation. The notion is, for users who get arrested for possession,
let's not just throw them in jail because that hasn't worked. Let's get
them into treatment and get them into a recovery program that works.
In July 2014, we held a forum on how women are impacted by this drug
epidemic, looking particularly at addiction and treatment responses.
Some new data that is out there now shows that most of the people who
are suffering from heroin and prescription drug addiction are women.
In December 2014, we held a forum on the science of addiction--how we
could get at this from a medical point of view, how we could come up
with better medical approaches to this to be able to stop the craving,
to deal with the addiction problem, to get people through withdrawal.
We also talked about how to address some of the collateral consequences
of addiction.
In April of 2015, we held a forum on our youth and how we can better
promote drug prevention. After all, keeping people from getting into
the funnel of addiction in the first place has to be a priority. To
help people avoid going down that funnel of addiction, we need better
prevention, better education. That is part of our legislation. We also
had input about what is working in recovery and what is not working in
recovery.
We held a forum in July of 2015 to talk about our veterans, to talk
about the very sad situation with veterans who are coming back to our
shores who have PTSD--post-traumatic stress disorder--and who have
brain injuries. Some recent data shows that about 20 percent of
returning veterans with those issues are becoming addicted to
prescription drugs or heroin; therefore, veterans courts are a major
part of our legislation. These are drug courts that are focused on
mental health and addiction specifically for our veterans. I have seen
them in Ohio. They are working great. It is unbelievable.
I talked to a guy who has been in and out of the system his whole
life. He is about 45 years old now. He finally found this court that
was going to help him--took him out of jail and got him into treatment.
Hanging over his head was the possibility of incarceration if he didn't
do the right thing and stay clean. He is now a senior at Ohio State
University and is about to get his degree, and he reunited with his
family for the first time in many years. He is clean. It can work.
The final result was the legislative text that reflected this open
and deliberative process I am talking about. This bill--just like the
research it supports--is evidence-based. We didn't ask who had the
idea; we just asked whether it was a good idea.
It is no wonder that CARA now has support from 130 national groups,
from the Fraternal Order of Police, to stakeholders in public health--
doctors and nurses, those in recovery, experts in the field, people who
actually know what is going on because they are in the trenches working
on this. They want this bill passed. They know it will help them and
help them now.
As I said, that vote was 94 to 1, which means 94 Senators say this
bill is ready to go. These are Senators from every State in the Union
who support this legislation, therefore representing every
congressional district in the United States of America. It makes sense.
It expands prevention and educational efforts to prevent opiate abuse,
the use of heroin and prescription drugs.
It increases drug-disposal sites to get medications out of people's
hands and get it into the right hands. It takes
[[Page S1791]]
this medication off the bathroom shelves.
It has a drug-monitoring program to get at the overprescribing issue.
So many people who are currently addicted to heroin started with
prescription drugs. In fact, the majority did. There is different data
out there, but it is very clear that prescription drugs are a huge part
of heroin addiction.
It also authorizes law enforcement task forces to combat heroin and
meth. Law enforcement has an important role to play here. It expands
training and the availability of naloxone, or Narcan, to law
enforcement. This is for our firefighters. When you go to a firehouse
in your State--for those listening in the House, in your district--ask
them: Are you going on more fire runs or are you going on more runs to
help people with overdoses? They will tell you what they tell me:
overdoses. That is what it has come to. That is happening in your fire
department in your community.
By the way, to tell you how much this law can make a difference--
because we do help get the training for them to be able to use Narcan
and get the Narcan or naloxone into the right hands--Ohio public safety
officials have administered naloxone over 16,000 times since 2015--
16,000 overdoses that might otherwise have resulted in death. For the
most part, this miracle drug works. First responders know how important
it is. That is why the Fraternal Order of Police supports this bill.
They want to equip their officers, but so do the firefighters.
CARA also supports recovery programs, including those focused on
youth and building communities of recovery. To avoid people getting
into addiction in the first place, it also creates a national task
force on recovery because there is a lot of information out there we
need to bring together to find out what works and what doesn't work
precisely in terms of dealing with the collateral consequences imposed
by addiction.
CARA expands treatment for pregnant women who struggle with addiction
and provides support for babies who suffer from what is called neonatal
abstinence syndrome. What does that mean? That means babies who are
born addicted. In Ohio, tragically, we had a 750-percent increase in
the number of babies born with addiction in the last 12 years. I have
been to the hospitals. I have been to St. Rita's in Lima. I have been
to Rainbow Babies in Cleveland. I have been to Cincinnati Children's
Hospital. I have seen these babies. These are tiny babies who are
addicted, and they have to be taken through withdrawal.
The compassionate nurses and doctors who are doing it--God bless
them--I asked them: What is going to happen to these babies?
They told me: Rob, we don't know. We don't know the long-term
consequences because it is so new.
But it is dramatic and it is happening in all of your hospitals.
These neonatal units are now taking on a whole other task, which is
helping babies through withdrawal.
I visited folks who are not only pregnant but are addicted, and I
talked to them about what they are going through and what the
consequences are going to be, and it is sad. Many say: Rob, the grip of
addiction is so great. I am now in treatment, but I worry about what is
going to happen to my baby.
We also expand treatment for expectant and postpartum women for that
reason. And these expectant and postpartum women who need this help can
make the right decision with more help from us. It expands residential
treatment programs for pregnant women who are struggling with
addiction. It creates a pilot program to provide family-based services
to women who are addicted to opiates.
CARA also helps veterans, as I said. It allows those veterans to get
into a veterans court, where they can get help to walk through how they
get out of this addiction, how they get into recovery. They can get
support from other veterans around them to provide the kind of help
they need to get out of this cycle of incarceration and addiction.
What do we say to the 40 million Americans who are struggling with
addiction when they ask ``Why don't you guys act?'' The Senate acted 94
to 1. Why can't we get this done? It is time to move. They shouldn't
have to wait. We shouldn't have to wait.
To those 40 million who struggle, to those who think they can't
overcome this addiction, to those who believe there is no one out there
to help them, the message is, you are not alone. There is hope. You can
beat this. I have seen it. There are people who care and want to help.
There are so many heartbreaking stories of addiction, but there are
also so many stories of hope. I think about Vanessa Perkins from
Nelsonville, OH. Vanessa became addicted to heroin. Once she became
addicted, she also became a victim of sex trafficking.
Those two are related. In Ohio, they tell me that most sex
trafficking has now to do with heroin addiction. In other words, the
trafficker gets these women--usually women--addicted to heroin, and
that is one way they become dependent on their trafficker.
What Vanessa tells me is that it took her a long time to turn her
life around, but she was courageous and brave enough to seek treatment,
and she is now back on track. For the last 6 years she has been helping
others, taking her experience and using it to help others deal with
their addiction. She is on the board of a group called Freedom a la
Cart, which is a company in Columbus, OH, that I visited last month
that provides job opportunities for trafficking victims. They do a heck
of a job and teach these women a trade, too--culinary arts. Now so many
of these women who had been trafficked, who had been heroin addicts,
are back on their feet, reunited with their families, and know the
dignity and self-respect that come from the work they are doing and
from helping others.
There is hope. Treatment can work.
Mr. President, leaders in the House say they want to move anti-heroin
legislation through regular order. Again, I heard today that one of the
leaders said they are planning to take action. I had conversations with
Speaker Ryan on this issue. I had conversations with other leaders in
the House on it. I take them at their word. I am hopeful we will see
the House begin to act next week when that Chamber returns, but I will
say this: The House must act, and they must act soon. I am not going to
be patient on this. This is urgent, and people's lives are at stake.
The House must pass this bill so the President can sign it and so it
can begin to make a real difference in the lives of the people we
represent. This is our responsibility. We need to take advantage of
this opportunity that the Senate has given us by this huge vote--94 to
1--to get this legislation to the President and get it enacted into
law.
Mr. President, I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
FLINT, MICHIGAN, WATER CRISIS
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, today I would like to speak about two
different subjects. Both are connected in the sense that they involve
lack of action and people counting on us to act as a Senate.
The first involves the fact that today in the city of Flint, MI, we
still have people who can't drink the water coming out of the tap. I
think any one of us would have trouble if that happened for 1 day, but
we are talking about months and months--going on 2 years now--that we
have seen a system completely broken down because of decisions, because
of lack of treating the water, a whole range of things.
From my perspective, the most important thing is the fact that people
still don't have access to clean, safe water. They can't bathe their
babies. They can't take a shower themselves. I can't imagine what it
must be like for families in Flint who are waiting and waiting for
help.
I want to thank President Obama for doing what he can do through the
administration to help from the standpoint of health and nutrition and
education, but the fundamental problem is replacing the damaged pipes.
As my colleagues know, we have been working very hard and we have
developed a bipartisan proposal. I wish to thank the chair and ranking
member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Murkowski
and Senator Cantwell, for working with us, and so many colleagues who
are now bipartisan cosponsors on a bill with myself and Senator Peters.
I wish to thank Senator Inhofe as chair of EPW and ranking member
Senator Boxer and so many people who have
[[Page S1792]]
come together to support this effort, not only for Flint, but we now
are seeing headlines across the country about other areas where lead
poisoning in water is a serious issue and where we have all kinds of
communities with water infrastructure needs.
We have put together a proposal. We have a bipartisan proposal. We
are ready to move forward. We need a vote on this proposal. As people
in this building know, the junior Senator from Utah is holding us up
from being able to get that vote. We have spent weeks now--weeks--
trying to find a way to get beyond this objection. We thought we had an
agreement, and then the bar just keeps changing.
This is not a game. These are real people, and we are trying to solve
a real problem. We have put forward a proposal fully paid for that
actually reduces the deficit, paid for out of a program that I care
deeply about because I authored it in 2007, and prior to Senator Peters
being a Senator, when he was in the House, he was the champion of the
program that we are offering to use as a payfor.
So I just want to remind everyone--and I am going to continue to come
to the floor and remind colleagues every day--that a group of Americans
in a city of 100,000 where there has been a Federal emergency declared
are still waiting for us to act to help them--not to do the whole
thing, not to pay for all of what needs to be done in terms of water
infrastructure, but to do our part as a Federal Government, as we have
done in communities across the country for other kinds of emergencies.
We need to help the children of Flint. Nine thousand children under
the age of six are being exposed to lead poisoning; some homes have
exposure higher than a toxic waste dump. I can tell my colleagues as a
mother and now as a grandmother, I would never tolerate something like
that. I can't imagine what is happening for families.
We have the opportunity to do something. It is easy. It is fully paid
for. It is fully paid for by something that colleagues on the other
side of the aisle have wanted to eliminate--fully paid for. It helps
communities across the country. Now we have a situation where one
Member has indicated, well, it is not his problem. He doesn't care; it
is not his problem.
I hope as Americans we are willing to say that other people's
problems--I would think we care about them, whether it is our own
children, our own grandchildren, people we know or not. That is what we
expect when there are emergencies and disasters across the country. And
whether it is in the farm bill that I worked on with the distinguished
Presiding Officer where we strengthened livestock disaster assistance--
even though that is not a huge issue to me in the State of Michigan,
but I know it is for a lot of States and a lot of communities. That is
what we do as Americans. We care about people and communities.
We have a group of people right now who are not being seen. I want my
colleagues to see this baby and the picture this represents of a group
of people who are waiting for help and deserve help.
Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy
Mr. President, I wish to address something else now and turn to
history to talk about somebody else who is waiting. He can drink his
water and take a shower. That is a good thing. But we have a very
distinguished jurist, the Chief Judge of the DC Court of Appeals,
nominated by the President of the United States to be a Supreme Court
Justice, who is waiting for the opportunity to be heard, to have a
hearing, to meet with people, to have a vote, yes or no.
We have spoken a lot about the Constitution, about responsibilities,
about debates. Our three branches of government are sworn to uphold
both the written word of the Constitution and the spirit of the
Constitution. This spirit was expressed in a series of articles
beginning in 1787. I wasn't there at the time. But in reading what our
Founding Fathers said--those who framed the Constitution--I think it is
important to look at what they intended through the Federalist Papers.
On April 1, 1788, Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist Paper No.
76, outlined two specific roles for Supreme Court nominees: that the
President nominate Justices and the Senate provide advice and consent.
Hamilton explained how the Senate held the power to reject a nominee,
to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from family connection,
from personal attachment, or from other biases.
As my colleagues know, Senators can investigate the character of a
nominee by meeting the nominee in person, by holding hearings, and by
looking at their writings. At the Senate Judiciary Committee they can
ask the nominee questions in full view of the public. Based on
responses, if they believe a nominee does not have the appropriate
character, they can reject the nomination. They can vote no. That is
our right as Senators.
But Senators in the current Republican majority are refusing to do
any of that. They have said they will not hold hearings. Most of them
will not even meet with the nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. I want to
commend Republican Senators who are, in fact, meeting with Judge
Garland. This is their job. This is our job--the job established for us
by America's Founding Fathers--and a majority of the majority is
refusing to do it.
Now, according to the average time for moving a Supreme Court nominee
through the process, if the Republican majority did their job, as
previous Senates did, then there would be a hearing of the Judiciary
Committee by April 27, but there is none scheduled. The Judiciary
Committee would hold a vote by May 12, but there is no vote coming. And
based on historical precedent, the Supreme Court nominee would then
come to the floor for a vote on confirmation before Memorial Day. But
because my colleagues across the aisle are refusing to do their job,
that vote will not happen.
My Republican colleagues like to say that the Senate does not confirm
Supreme Court nominees during a Presidential year, but that doesn't
square with the facts. More than a dozen Supreme Court nominees have
been confirmed by the Senate in an election year. In 1988, also a
Presidential year, the Senate did its job by confirming President
Reagan's Supreme Court nominee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, with a
Democratically controlled Senate. In 1940, another Presidential
election year, the Senate did its job by confirming President Franklin
Roosevelt's nominee, Justice Frank Murphy. In 1932, the Senate did its
job by confirming President Hoover's Supreme Court nominee. In 1916,
the Senate did its job twice by confirming President Wilson's two
nominees for the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Constitution was ratified in June 1788, just a few months
after Hamilton published the Federalist Paper I mentioned a few minutes
ago. And for nearly 228 years--228 years--during times of war, times of
peace, periods of prosperity, and periods of economic hardship, America
has balanced the powers between the executive and the legislative
branches in selecting who would serve in the third branch of
government. We have done it during Democratic majorities and Republican
majorities for 228 years.
To those who are refusing to hold hearings on a nomination, my
question is this: What has changed? What has changed this year? What is
it about this President that causes him to be treated this way? What is
it that is leading my colleagues to question the judgment and the
wisdom of Alexander Hamilton and the rest of the Founding Fathers who
signed the Constitution and gave us the responsibility for advice and
consent?
In short, why now are you refusing to do your job? Just do your job.
Do what we are paid to do.
Last month, I went over in front of the Supreme Court on a beautiful,
sunny day when a lot of people were here visiting, and I talked to a
number of citizens and asked them what they thought about what was
happening, the debate going on about filling a vacancy on the Supreme
Court. I also asked them what would happen to you if during a year you
told your employer that a major part of your job--a very big
responsibility that you have in your job--you were going to refuse to
do for a year or so. What would happen? Well, the answer is pretty
easy. People said: I would be fired.
People say: Why aren't you doing your job? Why isn't the majority
doing its job? Because if you are not willing to do the work, why
should you have the job? Nobody else can do that in their job.
[[Page S1793]]
That is why the polls show overwhelmingly that the American people
side with those of us on the Democratic side, with all of us who stand
together as Democratic Senators to say: Do your job. We are willing to
do our job. People stand with the Constitution and with the
overwhelming history of our country.
It is very simple. It is a very simple idea. It is a phrase we say
all the time in all kinds of circumstances. We say to our children, we
say to people we work with: Just do your job. Well, this is our job.
Hold a hearing, meet with the nominee, have a vote. You can vote yes;
you can vote no. You could skip that day. But this judge deserves a
vote, and it is our responsibility to vote and to fill the vacancy on
the highest Court in the land. That is what the American people expect
us to do. That is what they deserve.
It is time that the Senate do its job.
Thank you, Mr. President.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASSIDY. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss several
provisions in an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill that is
currently before the Senate and that specifically benefits my home
State of Louisiana.
There are more than 253 air traffic control towers throughout the
country operating through a successful public-private partnership
called the Federal Contract Tower Program. This program is especially
critical to rural areas--as I have in Louisiana and as does the
Presiding Officer--to ensure that America's airspace and the traveling
public are safe. However, there are currently 30 towers awaiting the
FAA to finalize an internal agency formula called the benefit-cost
analysis, referred to as the BCA, which will allow eligible towers to
enter the Federal Contract Tower Program. One of these airports is the
Hammond Northshore Regional Airport in Hammond, LA.
The Federal Contract Tower Program has been in place for more than 30
years and is a prime example of an effective public-private partnership
between government and the private sector. Contract towers handle
approximately 28 percent of the Nation's air traffic control tower
operations but account for only 14 percent of the FAA's total tower
operations budget. Repeated studies by the U.S. Department of
Transportation inspector general have shown that the Contract Tower
Program increases aviation safety while reducing costs to taxpayers and
the Federal Government. It is also important to note that approximately
80 percent of the contract controller workforce are veterans.
Congress has demonstrated numerous times in bipartisan fashion the
merit and need for the Federal Contract Tower Program. Given the
success of the program and the increasing likelihood of further FAA
delays, I am pleased the Commerce Committee included language in the
FAA reauthorization bill to strengthen and improve the Federal Contract
Tower Program. Senators Cornyn, Vitter, Portman, and Wicker have been
leaders on this issue, and their work is greatly appreciated.
Currently, America's trade and economy are being hampered because
many cargo planes from other countries are prohibited from flying into
U.S. airports because they have not been upgraded to newer types of
technology. Some aircraft are what is called ``Stage 2 aircraft.''
These aircraft were phased out following the passage of the Airport
Noise and Capacity Act of 1990, which mandated the phaseout for Stage 2
aircraft over 75,000 pounds. I have introduced an amendment that would
permit flights to a small number of airports under limited
circumstances for revenue and nonrevenue flights of Stage 2 aircraft
over 75,000 pounds.
One of the airports that meets the criteria is the Acadiana Regional
Airport in New Iberia, LA. This airport is located in a heavy
industrial complex and surrounded by agricultural land. The Acadiana
Regional Airport has an advantage over other types of airports because
it is surrounded by land use compatible with airport operations.
Additionally, it is situated near the Port of Iberia, which is home to
more than 100 companies employing close to 5,000 people in industries
such as construction, energy, equipment rental, and trucking. This
would bolster Louisiana's economy, help working families, and improve
America's ability to trade with the world.
Louisiana's economy relies on the thriving maritime industry. In 2014
a study from the Transportation Institute showed that 54,850 maritime-
related jobs contribute more than $11 billion annually to Louisiana's
economy. One in every 83 Louisiana jobs is connected to the domestic
maritime industry, nearly twice that of any other State.
With ports along the Mississippi and Red Rivers, our State sees
vessels of varying sizes and types. While loading cargo, these ships
must drain ballast water that they have taken on to maintain the
balance of the ship. This can have varying degrees of environmental
effects, with costly and confusing State and Federal regulations making
compliance difficult.
Senator Rubio is sponsoring the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act,
which creates a uniform, enforceable, and scientifically based national
standard on ballast water discharges. This is needed in order to
simplify the highly complicated and overly burdensome patchwork of
State and Federal regulations that are in place today.
Everyone I talk to in Louisiana's maritime industry and also in the
inland marine, which would take the agriculture products from States
such as the State the Presiding Officer represents, says it is
necessary for these regulations to be harmonized, and they emphasize
the importance of passing this bill. I am a cosponsor of this bill, and
I am glad to see that Senator Rubio has filed the amendment to the bill
we are considering on the floor today.
The FAA Reauthorization Act contains many measures that will protect
Americans, improve our economy, and protect our environment. I urge all
my fellow Senators to support the bill and these amendments.
I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 3512, as Modified
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, Aviation safety, as much as all national
security, must be of paramount importance. I am increasingly concerned
with reports from across the country that Secure Identification Display
Area, SIDA, badges have gone missing, either through loss or theft.
These badges, which grant access to secure areas of airports, allow
employees to bypass traditional security checkpoints and, in the wrong
hands, can pose a considerable security threat.
An amendment considered and adopted earlier today by the Senate,
Thune amendment No. 3512, is aimed at addressing this problem and would
implement additional accountability and oversight methods to ensure
that these SIDA badges do not fall into the wrong hands. It would
provide for further employer accountability and allow for increased
fines and enforcement actions against workers that fail to report the
loss or theft of a badge. These are well-intentioned goals and ones
that I support.
I opposed this amendment, however, because extraneous provisions
included in the amendment directly contradict bipartisan efforts in
this Congress to reform our criminal justice system, including by
reducing unnecessary barriers to employment for people with criminal
records. The amendment will require the TSA Administrator to propose
increasing the lookback period from 10 years to 15 years for background
checks of airport and airline workers who have or are seeking SIDA
badges. Under current regulations, there are a number of offenses that
disqualify a potential employee, if the individual was convicted of the
offense during the 10-year lookback period.
The amendment would also require the TSA Administrator to consider
adding more offenses to the list of disqualifying crimes. Disqualifying
offenses already include a number of low-level offenses, such as felony
drug possession. These provisions would exacerbate barriers to reentry.
The scope of the changes will still exclude many potential employees
and lead to the firing of a number of current employees.
[[Page S1794]]
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion
of my remarks a letter from Transport Workers Union of America, the
AFL-CIO, the Association of Flight Attendants, CWA--the Communication
Workers of America, the International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, the Transportation Trades Department--AFL-CIO, the
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and the National
Employment Law Project in opposition to this amendment.
I am committed to working with Senator Thune to ensure greater
accountability for Secure Identification Display Area badges. It must
be a priority. I hope that he and others will work with me through the
conference of this bill to eliminate these barriers to employment for
individuals with certain criminal records.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
April 6, 2016.
Oppose the Airport Security Enhancement and Oversight Act (S. 2361) as
an Amendment to the FAA Reauthorization Act (H.R. 636)
Dear Senator: On behalf of the undersigned organizations,
we write to oppose any efforts to expand background checks on
aviation workers as proposed in the Airport Security
Enhancement and Oversight Act (S. 2361). In particular, we
are opposed to the inclusion of S. 2361 as an amendment to
H.R. 636, the FAA Reauthorization Act, which is currently
under consideration in the Senate. As drafted, S. 2361 would
undermine reforms around the nation that have reduced
barriers to employment of people with criminal records, thus
representing a serious setback for the bipartisan criminal
justice reform movement.
The Airport Security Enhancement and Oversight Act would
alter the requirements for airport workers to obtain Secure
Identification Display Area (SIDA) badges by instructing the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Administrator to
propose increasing the lookback period on many aviation
workers' employment background checks from 10 years to 15
years. This provision undermines the goal of promoting
rehabilitation, and it conflicts with the substantial
research documenting that criminal history lookback periods
should not extend back more than seven years.
The bill also instructs the TSA Administrator to consider
increasing disqualifying criminal offenses to include crimes
that do not appear to be related to transportation security.
These reforms would have far reaching impact and exacerbate
barriers to reentry. As many as one in three Americans have a
criminal record and nearly half of U.S. children have a
parent with a criminal record, creating life-long barriers to
opportunity, including employment, for entire families. This
change will also have an overwhelming discriminatory impact
on communities of color, who have been hardest hit by a
flawed criminal justice system. Moreover, this proposal does
not account for the compelling evidence documenting the
impact of gainful employment on those who have previously
been convicted of a crime. Full integration into society is
essential to successful anti-terror programs and efforts to
lower recidivism rates. By requiring the dismissal of many
current employees who have worked in a position for years,
the legislation ignores these widely accepted principles.
We do support some elements of this legislation. The bill
would create a waiver process for those who are denied
credentials. This would ensure the consideration of
circumstances from which it may be concluded that an
individual does not pose a risk of terrorism or to security.
The waiver process would consider the circumstances
surrounding an offense, restitution, mitigation remedies, and
other factors. This provision is modeled on a very successful
program in the Transportation Worker Identification
Credential (TWIC), a credential that is similar to a SIDA,
which is used at secure areas of port facilities.
We strongly encourage you oppose the inclusion of any
amendment providing blanket categorical exclusions that would
increase background checks on aviation workers and act as
additional barriers to the employment of people with criminal
records. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any
questions, please feel free to contact Brendan Danaher,
Director of Government Affairs at the Transport Workers
Union, or Greg Regan, Senior Legislative Representative at
the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO.
Sincerely,
Transport Workers Union of America.
AFL-CIO.
Association of Flight Attendants--CWA.
Communication Workers of America.
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
National Employment Law Project.
Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO.
VOTE EXPLANATION
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I was absent from today's votes on
three amendments to the pending business, H.R. 636, the vehicle for a
bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, due to events
I attended with President Obama in Illinois. Had I been present, my
votes would have been as follows.
On rollcall vote No. 41, Thune amendment No. 3512, as modified, I
would have voted against adoption. I am concerned about the impact that
a provision in this amendment will have on formerly incarcerated
individuals who have successfully reintegrated into society after
completing sentences for low-level crimes unrelated to transportation
security. The provision, which will make it more difficult for these
individuals to obtain certain aviation jobs years after a criminal
conviction, undermines efforts to reduce barriers to reentry, lower
recidivism rates, and reform our criminal justice system.
On rollcall vote No. 42, Heinrich amendment No. 3482, as modified, I
would have voted in favor of adoption. This amendment will further
strengthen the homeland by increasing security in soft targets at
airports, in areas like check-ins and baggage claims, where terrorists
recently carried out deadly attacks in Brussels. The amendment will
expand and enhance visible deterrents, create a new eligible use under
Homeland Security grants for training exercises to enhance preparedness
for active shooter incidents, and authorize and make explicit that
Homeland Security grants can be used for airport and surface
transportation in these nonsecure soft target areas. I am proud to have
cosponsored this amendment.
On rollcall vote No. 43, Schumer amendment No. 3483, I would have
voted in favor of adoption. This amendment would establish consumer
safeguards like minimum standards for space for passengers on
aircrafts, including the size and pitch of seats, the amount of leg
room, and the width of aisles.
As these votes demonstrate, after a series of temporary extensions,
the Senate is finally considering a long-term FAA reauthorization bill.
In light of recent threats both here and abroad, it is important that
we get this right. I look forward to continuing to work with my
colleagues on a bipartisan basis on these important security reforms,
consumer protections, and other pressing aviation-related issues in the
coming days and weeks.
Mr. CASSIDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that on Monday,
April 11, at 5 p.m., the Senate proceed to executive session to
consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 215; that there be 30
minutes for debate only on the nomination, equally divided in the usual
form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on
the nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed,
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table,
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the
Senate then resume legislative session without any intervening action
or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________