I realize it's a long shot, but is there any chance that we could focus, at least in this thread, on the SAFE Ports Act, and the part, if any, that ALPA-PAC played in changing the language? There's lots of room in other threads (and you can even start new ones) to bash the other party or the other elected official or the other whatever.
ToiletDuck . . . good questions, but let's get back to the original post first.
Originally Posted by
WatchThis!
************************************************** *****
What has ALPA-PAC Done for ME?
Before Congress went into recess, language inserted in the Port Security Bill stated: (paraphrased) “…Any legal strike by transportation workers may be interpreted as an act of terrorism, and would allow the President of the US to mobilize the military”. The bill went on further to state (paraphrased) “…If any applicant to a transportation job has previously been a participant in a legal strike, that person can be denied employment because strikes by transportation workers can be interpreted as an act of terrorism”.
YES, READ IT AGAIN! This is just “a small part” of the continued attack on labor by this administration. Even though this was a Ports Bill, ask yourself; are WE transportation workers?
I am pleased to report that ALPA National Government Affairs, in concert with the Transportation Trades Department of the AFL-CIO, were able to get this language removed.This is what ALPA-PAC dollars do for us. They give us access to congressional leaders that are sympathetic to our issues. It may not be the best system, but it is what we have. We can either play the game, or sit on the bleachers and sightsee.
We're talking about ALPA-PAC here, not ALPA. It's an important distinction, and that was overlooked in titling this thread. ALPA-PAC is NOT funded by dues, but rather by voluntary contributions aside from dues.
OK, how about that bill?
I've done a little digging, and I think this is the one:
"Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006" or the "SAFE Port Act"
There are 6 versions of this bill:
Introduced in the House, it had this language:
SAFE Port Act (Introduced in House) HR 4954 . IH
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
- (19) TRANSPORTATION SECURITY INCIDENT- The term `transportation security incident' has the meaning given such term in section 70101(6) of title 46, United States Code.
Now, that doesn't mean much unless we know what Section 70101(6) of title 46, United States Code has to say about the matter, does it?
So, we look there and find:
Title 46 US Code Section 70101(6)
§ 70101. Definitions
For the purpose of this chapter:
(6) The term “transportation security incident” means a security incident resulting in a significant loss of life, environmental damage, transportation system disruption, or economic disruption in a particular area.
Now, I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert, but I read that to mean that a "transportation security incident" is a security incident . . . emphasis on security . . . incident. How someone could construe a legal withdrawal of services to be a security incident, I don't know. But, apparently someone did, because they attempted to introduce language to make sure there was no confusion.
Mind you, this is all about ports and maritime law and ships and . . . well, I'm not sure where they made the connection to airplane pilots, either, but . . . well, anyway, I digress.
The next version of the SAFE Port Act (by the way, does this use of SAFE ring a bell to anyone else? It's not really "safe," it's just an acronym for something else, but they don't seem to mind the fact that it's at least subliminally misleading?) . . . oh, back to the subject . . . next version is the one that was reported in house:
SAFE Port Act (Reported in House) HR 4954 . RH
SEC. 101. DEFINITION OF TRANSPORTATION SECURITY INCIDENT.
- Section 70101(6) of title 46, United States Code, is amended by inserting after `economic disruption' the following `(other than economic disruption caused by acts that are unrelated to terrorism and are committed during a labor strike, demonstration, or other type of labor unrest)'.
Now, that means, they want that definition up there to look like this:
"(6) The term “transportation security incident” means a security incident resulting in a significant loss of life, environmental damage, transportation system disruption, or economic disruption (other than economic disruption caused by acts that are unrelated to terrorism and are committed during a labor strike, demonstration, or other type of labor unrest) in a particular area."
Frankly, I think the additional language is unecessary, but, like I said -- I ain't no lawyer.
Anyway, then there's the version that passed the House:
SAFE Port Act (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed in House)HR 4954 . EH
It's got the same language as the previous version. So, it goes like that to the Senate, and they place it on the calendar:
SAFE Port Act (Placed on Calendar in Senate)HR 4954 . PCS
As you might expect, the "revised" definition of Transportation Security Incident remained intact.
Well, the Senate had their hack at it, and wouldn't you know, the definition of Transportation Security Incident was changed back to exactly the same language as the version introduced in the House, specifically, the definition already found in Title 46 Section 70101(6):
Port Security Improvement Act of 2006(Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate) HR 4954 . EAS
Done deal, right? Well, no, because now they have to come up with a way to resolve the differences between the House Version and the Senate Version... so, we get this version to send to the President:
SAFE Port Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) HR 4954 . ENR
The definition of Transportation Security Incident remained the same.
(I apologize in advance if the above links do not work -- they seem to be finicky, and are perhaps time-sensitive.)
Now, I may be missing something obvious, but I'm not seeing a huge deal. Anyway, there's the mention in the original post of a change being made prior to a break. The last break on the calendar was August 7 - September 4. Without going back through e-mails I've received from ALPA, I can't recall a specific mention of this bill. That's not to say it's not there, but I also looked through the ALPA website and couldn't find a mention of it.
It would take even more hours to go back through the Congressional Record to track who introduced what Amendments, who co-sponsored them, and who voted for them, but I think I can say without hesitation that the activity was done by Congressmen,
not the Administration. Perhaps the Administration had an opinion and even influence, but it wasn't the "evil President" inserting language changes to the bill.
About all I can say for certain at this point is I'm sure glad there are folks that do this stuff, because it makes a regular guy's (my head) head spin. I mean, I'm glad there are experts in this field looking out for the best interests of pilots. They keep track of what's going on in Congress, and how it affects our profession, and they speak up on our behalf. We NEED that.
So, what say you? Is it good to have a voice in Washington, D.C.?
.