[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 125 (Monday, September 24, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H5931-H5932]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            AIRLINE SECURITY

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, last Friday night, Congress rushed through 
a $15 billion airline bailout, and I am not going to revisit all of the 
problems with that legislation here this morning, with one exception. 
That legislation failed to allocate one cent toward additional airline 
security or mandate an iota of change in a system that we know has 
failed.
  Now, the failings of aviation security were well documented before 
the terrorist attack. I introduced my first bill to enhance screening 
at airports and checking of baggage in 1987. Many other Members of 
Congress have introduced legislation in those intervening 15 years and 
even before that, but they were always opposed by the Air Transport 
Association acting on behalf of a number of their member airlines 
successfully and even in those few cases where we were able to mandate 
enhanced measures such as credentialing and standards for training and 
background checks for the screening companies.
  The ATA and member airlines and the private security industry itself 
fought tooth and nail to delay the implementation of those regulations 
for 5 years. Amazingly, on the floor on Friday night, some of my 
colleagues on that side of the aisle said we need to privatize the 
system that failed us.
  It took them so long to get out these regulations. It took so long 
because the private industry, the private security companies fought it. 
There was not one single airline passenger in there objecting to these 
regulations, raising concerns, threatening to sue and making comments, 
except favorable comments, on these improvements.
  In 1996, Ms. Hallett, the head of the Air Transport Association, in 
testimony to the White House commission said it has been suggested by 
some that we must radically alter our Nation's air transportation 
system in order to make it secure from terrorism. Based upon our 
understanding of the threat presented, this is not the case. The 
measured and deliberate steps to enhance security which we have put 
forward are responsive to the need. They then began to fight the 
recommendations of that commission.
  It has always been driven by costs. We had the best system of 
security you could get by pinching pennies and always, always hiring 
the lowest bidder to provide the screening at the airports.
  A year and a half ago in a hearing I said, and this is what I think 
has prevailed among the American public for a long time, I have got to 
tell you, when I am flying, I doubt that I could ever find one person 
in the plane who would say, gee, I would be really upset if I had to 
pay one-half of 1 percent more for my ticket to know that the person 
who screened me was not convicted of various felonies and at high risk 
of allowing something to happen on this plane. It is just extraordinary 
to me that we would let this system continue in this way, the lowest 
bidder.
  Tragically, we have. In fact, last week, amazingly, after the 
tragedy, the CEO of Alaska Airlines told me directly in response to my 
suggestion that we levy a $3 surcharge on tickets for security, he said 
no one would ever fly again if I was successful in getting that $3 
security surcharge. He said there is only one thing people respond to, 
quote, ``people do not respond to anything other than total price.'' I 
guess he probably flew out here on his own executive jet, and he was 
not too worried about security. That is how out of touch this industry 
is.
  Then last week at Miami International, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco 
and Firearms agent acting on his own, having notified authorities, 
attempted to smuggle at one time on his person three knives through 
security. He was successful. He even stopped and said to the people, is 
there anything wrong here, did something go off? And they said, oh, go, 
go, go. So he had given them an extra chance to ask him some questions.
  Now, this same firm had been fined $110,000 in fines and restitution 
for failing to do background checks on at least 22 employees and then 
lying about it to Federal regulators, sentenced to 2 years' probation, 
but they are still providing security at that airport; and their 
manager was sentenced to 5 years in Federal prison, and they

[[Page H5932]]

are still providing security at MIA. This is the system we get with 
privatization.
  Security at airports needs to be and is a legitimate function of the 
Federal Government of the United States, a security function, a law 
enforcement function. We should no longer resist that on some sort of 
ideological bias or an attempt to buy security on the cheap. The 
administration has convened a task force on kind of a slow timeline; 
they are proposing to come forward on October 1.
  We know what we need to do. Let us not delay another day. I am amazed 
that this body rejected my motion last Friday night to begin the 
federalization process now to begin to put firms like this one in Miami 
International convicted of violating the law and leave them in charge. 
We need to take charge and make flying safer.

                          ____________________