Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by Senator DeMint that would continue to deny basic employee rights and protections to Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

Yesterday, I chaired a hearing of the Senate Oversight of Government Management Subcommittee to review TSA's personnel system. Very quickly, the discussion turned to collective bargaining. Despite claims that collective bargaining would be a threat to national security, TSA Administrator Kip Hawley said that the San Francisco International Airport, which uses private sector screeners who engage in collective bargaining, is safe. In addition, Mr. Hawley cited the London bombing plot and how TSA needed the flexibility to move TSOs to respond to that situation. When asked, he also admitted that the airports in the United Kingdom, which have screeners who engage in collective bargaining, are also safe.

I, along with every other American, want TSA to have the flexibility to move staff and resources as necessary to keep air travel safe. However, I do not believe that this flexibility precludes workers from having basic rights and protections. In 2002, when Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, we debated this very issue. The President argued that he needed flexibility in the areas of pay, classification, labor relations, and appeals in order to prevent and respond to terrorist attacks. While the Homeland Security Act gave the President that flexibility, it also explicitly provided for full whistleblower protections, collective bargaining, and a fair appeals process. I fail to see why TSA employees should be denied these same protections.

Since 2001, TSA has faced high attrition rates, high numbers of workers compensation claims, and low employee morale which, in my opinion, are a direct result of a lack of employee rights and protections. Without collective bargaining, employees have no voice in their working conditions, which could drastically reduce attrition rates. Moreover, without a fair process to bring whistleblower complaints, employees are constrained in coming forward to disclose vulnerabilities to national security. At our hearing yesterday, Mr. Hawley said that he knew of only one TSO whistleblower case that was investigated by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in the past two years. For non-TSOs, the number of whistleblower cases is 12. However, OSC informs me that it has received 124 whistleblower complaints since OSC began investigating TSO whistleblower cases. This demonstrates to me that even without full rights and protections, employees are trying to come forward and disclose wrongdoing and threats to public health and safety. However, a lack of protections may keep others from coming forward when only one TSO has seen a positive resolution to their case.

Granted, TSA has made improvements in managing the screening workforce, but we must build upon these efforts and give employees a real place at the table. Protecting employees from retaliatory action complements efforts to secure our nation. Strong employee rights and protections ensures that we have a screener workforce focused on their mission and not preoccupied by fear of retaliatory treatment by management. As such, I urge my colleagues to ensure that TSOs, who work to provide safe air transportation for all Americans, receive basic worker rights and protections.

Mr. President, I have a letter from the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association which opposes the premise that collective bargaining could adversely affect national security. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be included in the Record following my remarks and that my remarks be placed in the appropriate place in the record prior to the vote on Senate Amendment 314.