Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 136 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 136 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6684-H6690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AIRLINE BAGGAGE SCREENING

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, several of us have come to the well of the
House to address what is the most pressing national issue of the moment
that unfortunately the U.S. Congress has not dealt with adequately, and
that is the security of our families and our communities.
We just heard the President of the United States talking about the
existence of threats in this regard, that it is appropriate to be on
high alert for these particular threats. We have come to the House
tonight with a message that basically the House needs to act and act
quickly on measures designed to enhance our national security in our
homeland.
Unfortunately, although we are now a month past this terrible attack,
this Chamber has not had a significant vote on bringing a security
package for adoption by the U.S. Congress. We are very disappointed by
that. We think that the threat is real, that we have the ability to
respond to these threats, but to date we have not had the House deal
with these issues in a satisfactory fashion. We would like to talk
about a few of those issues tonight.
First, an issue that was brought to my attention about a week and a
half ago, Americans realize the threat we are under with airlines. We
Americans have an expectation, for instance, that the luggage that goes
into airlines will be screened for explosive devices. We in America
have the technology, fortunately, and this is good news, we have very,
very good technology that is available to screen 100 percent of the
luggage that goes into the belly of our airplanes.
Unfortunately, that is not happening. In fact, the truth is the vast
majority of bags that go into the luggage compartment of jets is not
screened, is not screened by X-ray, CAT scan, sniffing, human eye or
otherwise. A small percentage is.

{time} 2045

Clearly, given the nature of the threat, this Chamber needs to adopt
a law that will require 100 percent screening of our baggage that goes
into the baggage compartment of airplanes. We do this now fortunately
for carry-on baggage and we do it relatively effectively. But we have
equipment that will screen very, very effectively for the baggage that
goes into our aircraft. We need to make sure those are used with 100
percent of the baggage that goes into the aircraft.
I have introduced the Baggage Screening Act, with others, some of
whom are here tonight to address this issue. Unfortunately, we have not
had a vote on this. We have had votes on birth control issues, we have
had votes on gay partners' rights, but we have not had a vote on
security issues. We have come here tonight to urge the leadership of
the House to bring to the floor, amongst others, the Baggage Screening
Act so hopefully we can increase the security.
With that, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland), a cosponsor of the Baggage Screening Act who has been very
active in this regard.
Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank my friend from Washington for yielding. I
think most Americans believe that when they go to an airport and they
check their luggage, that that luggage will be screened for explosives
before it is loaded on the plane that they are going to be flying on,
with their families perhaps. I thought that was the case until a couple
of years ago when one of my constituents, a young woman, went to
Jamaica with two friends for a week's vacation. On the way back as they
were screening her luggage in Jamaica, they discovered a handgun in
that luggage and she was thrown in jail and remained in a Jamaican jail
for several days. It cost her family a lot of money for legal help and
so on to get her back to this country. As I was discussing this with
her, I said, ``Why did you take a gun with you to Jamaica?'' She said,
``I had no idea the gun was in the luggage. I borrowed the luggage from
my mother,'' her mother who had gone on a camping trip the summer
before. And I wondered how did this luggage get out of the airport in
Columbus, Ohio with a handgun without that being recognized, and that
is when I first discovered that luggage is not routinely examined for
contraband and weapons and explosives when you check it.
As you know, only about, I think, 5 percent of the luggage is even
checked today. The theory has always been, well, if someone checks
luggage and then gets on the plane and is a passenger, that they
certainly would not have put an explosive on the plane, otherwise they
would end up killing themselves. We now know after September 11 that
there are people who are willing to kill themselves in order to kill
Americans. But even the theory that if you check your luggage and you
are getting on the plane that it is not likely to have an explosive
does not hold up because we do not even follow that procedure well.
Two weeks ago in Denver, I had some friends who were flying from
Denver to Columbus, Ohio, a young man and his wife and a young child.
They went to the Denver airport and they checked their luggage, and
they waited to get on their plane. As they were waiting to get on the
plane, they became increasingly nervous about flying. At the last
minute they decided not to fly but to drive to Columbus, Ohio. But
their luggage remained on that plane and a relative picked it up in
Columbus, Ohio.
So even the procedures that we are supposed to have in place now are
not

[[Page H6685]]

being adequately followed through with. It is a serious thing. I think
the American public, the traveling public, will demand that this
luggage be screened, because I think that most people assume that it
already is.
I am glad you are bringing this to our attention and I am really
very, very pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation with the
gentleman from Washington.
Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentleman from Ohio. The good news here is
that Americans have the expectation that these bags will be screened
for explosives. They have the current expectation. And the good news is
we have very good technology to accomplish that. There are several
machines, several new generations of technology which have a very, very
high probability of finding an explosive device, any explosive
material; in fact, it can distinguish the density essentially of
explosive material and with a high degree of success they find if there
is a bomb in the luggage.
The problem is that we do not have enough of those machines deployed
in airports today and the ones that are deployed have not even been
used fully. They have only been used in a very small percentage of
passengers.
So we believe it is incumbent on the U.S. Congress to pass a
requirement that 100 percent of these bags be screened, and it is also
appropriate for the Federal Government to assist the airports in which
these will be located with the significant costs of these machines.
They are not cheap, but it is my belief that the airline flying public
believes this is a very worthwhile investment that ought to be made and
if it is a dollar or two on tickets, we believe it ought to be paid and
we think it ought to be part of our security package.
I would now like to yield to another cosponsor of the Baggage
Screening Act, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Let me begin by thanking and congratulating
the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for this very timely special
order. I cannot think of an issue that is more pertinent and more
relevant that the Congress of the United States should be addressing
than airline and aviation security.
I came to Congress fighting for aviation issues when I was first
elected in 1995. We have been fighting to expand capacity before the
events of September 11. I used to always joke whenever I would fly with
my brother Jonathan about flying coach. Jonathan would always argue
that flying coach was so much cheaper than flying first class, and he
would almost always quip, ``The coach section of the aircraft gets
there at the same time that the first class section does.''
So now we have 100 percent security from the first class section to
coach. That is looking at the aircraft from the nose of the aircraft to
its tail section. But underneath the aircraft, while every American is
now being subjected to an unusual and necessary amount of security and
screening, the gentleman from Ohio indicated that only about 5 percent
of baggage underneath the aircraft is being presently inspected. Not
only do we support in this critical piece of legislation the 100
percent screening of all baggage on aircraft, in the interim we should
allow manual inspection of all baggage on aircraft. If it requires more
National Guardsmen, more national U.S. Marshals, more Air Marshals, the
failure to inspect from one end of the aircraft to the other, including
those bags up underneath the aircraft, at a 100 percent rate is the
false illusion of security while we fly in our country.
To not inspect baggage, to give the illusion of security in the cabin
but not underneath the aircraft is called Pan Am 103, and we are
supposed to learn from our mistakes, having witnessed the tragic events
of Pan Am 103.
So in the interim, I would argue that yes, we must pass this piece of
critical legislation immediately. I talked with the ranking member of
the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), who
indicated that we may be 3 to 4 years away from being able to fully
inspect every bag underneath the aircraft. But we are in a war against
terrorism at this hour, with almost guaranteed reprisals. Even the FBI
Director at 4:30 this afternoon said we can expect some reprisals from
the al Qaeda organization in the not so distant future. But we need not
repeat the mistakes of the past.
I would go one step further, because I fly like all Members of this
institution. The Congress of the United States should not only be
responsible for security above the aircraft but also security beneath
the aircraft. The airline industry does not believe that it is feasible
to inspect all aircraft, all baggage underneath the aircraft, except
for here is the problem: If there is one domestic incident on an
aircraft as a result of a device making it past our security screening
measures, we are going to stop flying the planes anyway. They are going
to bring them all to a halt again, with further erosion of confidence
by the American people in the aviation system, and that is ultimately
what this Congress must seek to avoid. We must save the lives of
Americans by ensuring that from the nose of this aircraft to the rear
of this aircraft, there is a complete inspection of that vehicle and
all baggage that is allowed on it.

Presently the only inspection devices that we have are above the
ground, that is, through the cabin security. I would make the argument
that until we are able to provide 100 percent inspection and security
for all aircraft in this Nation that the baggage compartment of these
aircraft ought to be sealed and no baggage should be allowed on these
aircraft unless it is physically inspected by marshals. That means that
only baggage that we can carry above the aircraft must be carried on
board and inspected at the point of entry of the aircraft, which we
presently do. And until the Federal Government can guarantee that every
bag on that aircraft is inspected, we should not allow baggage in those
compartments whatsoever, regardless of what the airline industry says,
regardless of what the airlines themselves are saying, until there is
100 percent inspection of this baggage. If it is 3 to 4 years away from
the technology because we cannot produce the machines fast enough, then
we are 3 to 4 years away from being able to have two bags per customer
on these airplanes. I am for the traveling public, but I am also for
the public interest above private interest. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentleman from Illinois. It is a very
important point, it seems to me, that I think we are going to be
successful without too much debate improving cockpit security in
response to the last tragedy. There seems to be momentum here in
Congress to do that. But we cannot just fight the last battle, the last
act of terrorism. We have got to be thinking ahead of the terrorists.
We have got to be ahead of the wave of terrorism. We have got to think
about the next potential act. And if we are going to take away nail
clippers from passengers, we certainly ought to be getting the bombs
out of the baggage in the belly of the jets. That is what this bill
will do. I really appreciate the gentleman from Illinois joining us
tonight.
I now want to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). I want
to note something before the Representative speaks. We did a $15
billion assistance, or bailout, depending on your perspective, of the
airline industry a couple of weeks ago, and the gentleman from Texas
asked some very, very good, salient questions about the use of that
taxpayer money. It concerned many of us, because in that assistance
package to the airline industry, and I believed some was appropriate
given the nature of the need for this infrastructure, critical
infrastructure, we did not require the airlines to do anything, to
provide additional security. So now we are 30 days past this terrible
attack on America, we are almost 2 weeks past a $15 billion package of
taxpayer money to the airlines and we have not required one single
additional security measure for the airlines yet. This Congress, this
House, they have not allowed us a vote, the leadership, who schedules
the agenda, unfortunately we are not setting the agenda at the moment,
have not allowed a vote on these security measures.
I really appreciate the gentleman from Texas' leadership on this to
insist that the Congress act for safety when the airlines will not,
because the airlines have not because they have not wanted to spend a
buck to do this. That has been a big, big mistake. It is penny-wise and
pound foolish.

[[Page H6686]]

Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this
legislation, which is a very important part of the answer to the
security concerns that millions of Americans have tonight, and for
organizing this discussion for us to come together after hours and talk
about this problem, because this is really the only forum we have to
discuss this matter.
I reflect back, as I am sure my colleagues do, on the fact that only
today they had a major memorial service at the Pentagon. I am sure
there were similar ceremonies up in New York City. Thirty days has gone
by. Across America at various times, I am sure, at events in your
State, out in Illinois and Ohio, we have taken time from something we
might be doing to have a moment of silence because of the tragedy that
our country has endured. In this Congress, in this House of
Representatives in particular, we have had not just a moment of
silence, we have had a month of silence and inaction on the security
concerns that are at the heart of this tragedy.
We know that somehow, and we do not have all the details yet, that
some thugs with box cutters and other kinds of devices got past the
minimum wage workers at the airports, at some of these airports being
paid less to assure the security of hand baggage and the passengers
going through, being paid less to do that job than the people that
clean the bathroom at the same airport, that those folks, without the
training and without the pay that they need, because they have
tremendous turnover in those positions, that we have not dealt with
that problem, we have not dealt with the screening of baggage which the
gentleman seeks to do, and the Congress, it is not that we have not had
enough time, we could be here doing this tonight in regular order.
We have taken up everything from the farm bill to a debate about an
issue in the District of Columbia that was a family court, to this
afternoon having a debate about whether there should be additional
millions spent on abstinence. I think we need abstinence from terror.
Unless we adopt some of the constructive measures like you have
suggested, like some of our other colleagues have advanced and get out
here and debate them here on the floor of this House, the people of
America are not going to have the confidence, with good reason, they
need to have in our air security, in our defenses against bioterrorism,
in knowing that a bag is going through and does not have something in
it that it should not have that could be an explosive.

{time} 2100

It is with some irony, I heard our colleague from Illinois a few
minutes ago point to the recent alert from the FBI, that we could face
another threat within days, that almost at the same time that that
report came out I received another report that afternoon here in
Washington that our colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay),
one of those who was eager to shovel that taxpayer money out to
Continental Airlines almost before they asked for it, within hours of
this tragedy, that he says that even if Senator McCain, who called this
situation quite properly a farce that the Congress would sit here for
30 days and not act on this, he said that even if Senator McCain and
the bipartisan majority over in the United States Senate send over a
bill to take action to protect the American people at the airports and
ensure that some of those folks that are out there doing these jobs
have the training and the pay and the status really as a part of
Federal law enforcement at O'Hare, at Dallas-Ft. Worth, in Cleveland
and Cincinnati and Columbus and across the country, he says even if
they do that, and they have a strong bipartisan majority for it, he is
going to stop it here, because they have some kind of rigid, backward,
old thinking before September 11, maybe before the 21st century, that
if you add another worker to the Federal workforce, that that is an
evil, even if that is a worker that is going to be there to protect
your family and your family and mine and ensure that we can feel safe
getting on and off a plane and that somebody is not going to be on
there with some device that is going to cause another tragedy that has
torn asunder thousands of families across this country.
So I think that we have our work cut out for us because we have not
been given the opportunity to debate my colleague's, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee), very appropriate measure, ideas that the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland), and our colleagues, Republican and Democrat alike, could
offer, could work together in a bipartisan way, trying to cooperate and
say what is the most effective way to work with our President and
address this issue of security.
The baggage screen is important. The people that are out there, that
are a part of Federal law enforcement, the cockpit doors, so many other
ideas that we may have on not only airline safety but on dealing with
the threat of bioterrorism and the other possible challenges we might
have. But so long as we have a bunch of ideologues here who are more
concerned in presenting some kind of ideological purity than dealing
with whether someone's family is going to get home safe next weekend,
we are not going to be able to do that.
I thank my colleague for his leadership on this.
Mr. INSLEE. I will yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson)
in one second.
One comment following up on that. There is some good news here. We
have bipartisan support for this bill for the Baggage Screening Act,
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), who has been a great leader
for some great reform efforts, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella). We are going to pass this bill if we get a vote. We are going
to have tons of Republicans vote for it if we can get a vote, because
we have a bipartisan belief we do not want to be on airplanes with
bombs in the baggage compartment. We feel very confident we are going
to succeed on this if we can simply ask the leadership of the House to
schedule a vote.
I will now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding.
I just want to respond to the ideological point raised by my good
friend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). One of the beautiful
things about this period in American history is we have beyond our
State flags, beyond our corporate banners, beyond where we work, where
we were elected, where we are from and the tragedy of September 11 for
this moment in American history has forced all of us to seek security
in that which makes us one, the ideals that we believe in fundamentally
as Americans.
We have turned to our national flag. We have turned to our national
government, and even our President is experiencing unparalleled
approval ratings because the American people are rallying behind the
concept that we can defend ourselves as a Nation from these attacks.
So when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) raises the questions
about petty ideology keeping us from moving forward on some of these
critical issues, that is no small claim that the Member is advancing.
In order to provide inspection of every bag, in order to provide
security of equal high quality at every airport, in order to ensure
that there is an armed marshal on every flight, we would have to expand
the Federal Government on the issue of security so that every single
American can have some security, but no one in this Congress wants to
be accused of being part of any effort that would expand the Federal
Government. All of the American people at this hour on their cars,
hanging out of their windows, hanging out of their buildings are waving
the American flag because they expect their Federal Government for
which they pay enormous taxes to be able to provide a response that
provides ultimately then the kind of security they seek.

For ideological reasons, we want the airlines to be responsible for
security. We want the local States to be responsible for airports. We
want the local National Guard to be responsible. We do not want to
support a big Federal Government aviation bill that might force every
bag to be inspected on an aircraft because that would be a Federal
mandate. And who is going to pay for it?

[[Page H6687]]

We are caught up in an ideological argument at the moment. The
American people are expecting us as their Congress and as their
representatives to do something about that.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. INSLEE. I will yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Just one comment first.
This should not be a theoretical or a rhetorical argument. We had an
experiment with private enterprise in the airlines making decisions
about airline security. We had our experiment. It ended unsuccessfully
on September 11, and there really should not be a debate here. We have
had our test, and it failed.
The Federal Government needs to now mandate safety, and I will tell
my colleagues some good news. I think we can get a 100 percent
inspection a lot quicker than I think one of our fellows indicated. I
will tell my colleagues why. We have already been talking to some of
the manufacturers, and they can ramp up dramatically their production
rate above what we have had when we put out a Federal contract to buy
these machines, give them a guarantee.
We produced what, I do not know, 5,000 P51s in a year and a half in
World War II. That is the same type of mobilization we need now. We
need to mobilize the industrial resources in this country to build
these machines and other things. I am very confident we can do it.
I now yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think what we
are dealing with here is a matter of honesty, honesty with the American
people. I just heard the President in a press conference a few minutes
ago urge the American people to go back to normal lives. And I want the
American people to go back to normal living as well, but we also need
to be honest. And we need to say to the flying public, when you get on
a plane and the bags that are on that plane have not been screened for
explosives, that plane is in danger. The people who travel and who fly
need to know that information.
This argument about the training of those who do the inspection, I
would like to share an incident that I had at Dulles airport last
Saturday morning that I think my colleagues may find surprising.
Saturday morning at 20 minutes after 6 I went to the ticket counter at
Dulles airport to catch a flight from Dulles to Columbus, Ohio. I had
one bag with me, and I put it there. And I said to the woman behind the
counter I would like to check this bag.
She fixes my ticket and she gives me the seat assignment, and then
she says, sir, your bag has been chosen at random to be further
screened, certainly to be screened for explosives. She says this is
what I would like you to do. I would like you to get your bag, and if
you walk down this corridor about, I do not know, 40 feet, you turn to
your left and then you come to the next corridor and you turn to your
left, you will find the machine where they are doing the additional
screening over to your right. I said to her, ma'am, with all due
respect to whoever may have devised this system, what makes you think
that if I have got an explosive device in that bag that I will
willingly and voluntarily pick it up and carry it out of your sight to
a place and have it screened? I would simply take that bag perhaps and
leave the airport and come back another time and hope that it was not
selected at random for further screening.
So even what we are doing now at least on my experience does not make
sense. That is why we need, I think, a federalization of this effort.
We need standards for training. We need to pay people a decent wage,
and we need to hold them accountable as a Federal Government for
providing this kind of safety and security to the traveling public.
It is just beyond belief that on the one hand we would be saying we
want the traveling public to fly, we want to rescue the airline
industry from the slump that it is in, we want to restore confidence to
the American people. Well, we can do all of these things that we are
talking about in terms of stronger cockpit doors, better screening
devices for carry-on luggage, we can do all of that, but unless we deal
with this giant loophole, unless we screen the baggage that is put into
the bellies of these planes, we can never tell the traveling public
that they are safe.

Just this week, my colleague and I and some others met with two
fathers who lost their young sons in the flight that crashed at
Lockerbie, Scotland. One father lost a 20-year-old son; one father lost
a 24-year-old son. Those two fathers shared with us that for the last
many years they have been trying to get this done, and they have just
constantly been running up against roadblocks and brick walls.
The airline industry does not want to do this, but as was said in our
press conference earlier this week, if there is another plane that is
blown out of the sky, then the airline industry will suffer perhaps
unimaginable devastation because if this happens again, and it is
something that could have been prevented, people will give up flying.
They will use the train, they will drive, or they will just simply not
travel.
So, in the long run, it is in the best interest of the airline
industries themselves to come on board and say we are going to do this.
It is something that makes so much sense. It can be done
technologically. It will cost some money, but I fly sometimes twice a
week. I am willing to pay a little more if that is what it takes to
make sure that when I get on that airplane it is safe, and it will
never be safe to fly as long as the bags that are placed in the bellies
of these planes are not checked and checked thoroughly.
I agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson). A person may
choose to do it, they may choose to fly today, even though those bags
are not being checked, but they deserve the truth and they deserve to
know that those bags are not being checked. And until we check them, we
will never be safe as this government is capable of making us.
Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I want to tell my
colleagues I particularly appreciate his comment about maintaining the
confidence in this industry. I represent thousands of Boeing workers,
and let me tell my colleagues that if we do not act in this Chamber and
if the majority leadership does not allow us to act in this Chamber for
airline security and another plane goes down, I have got Boeing workers
by the thousands that are going to be out of work more than already.
This is an economic issue, in addition to a safety issue, but I want
to know what the coming debate will be in the next week in this House;
and which I am, frankly, concerned about, one of the reasons I came
here tonight.
The only reason that has been advanced not to give Americans this
peace of mind when they ride in an airplane is some dollars. That is
the only reason. There is no technical reason. There is no value
reason. There is no constitutional issue. It is simply some dollars.
We are going to have a debate in this Chamber in this week because
one side, predominantly the aisle, is going to want to take the dollars
from a Federal Treasury, do about 60 to 120 billion dollar tax cut,
most of which for large corporations, capital gains or something, and
many of us believe the first dollar that is spent ought to be on
security because security is the biggest demand for this Nation right
now. We believe the money that it is going to take to mobilize the
industrial base to build these machines, which are already designed,
and there are four of them already at Seattle International Airport, I
saw them in operation the other day, they are good machines that I know
work, that ought to be the first dollar that we spend in this stimulus
package that is going to come up.
If we are going to stimulate something, we should stimulate airline
security because it creates jobs, it creates wealth, and it creates
safety. With a known threat that we have right now, we are going to
have debate with some of the Members across the aisle who want to give
that money away in capital gains tax.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. I serve on the Committee on Ways and Means, and we
already have scheduled tomorrow morning bright and early an attempt to
do just that. And I think our colleagues are aware that none of those
people who suffered the loss of life in New York or out here at the
Pentagon were

[[Page H6688]]

killed because their taxes were too high. Rather, they were killed
because one of the reasons was, immediate reason, we did not have the
kind of security in our airline industry that we needed to have.
Instead of dealing with that airline security, it is amazing but the
same old agenda that our Republican colleagues were advancing the
morning of September 10, they are back with it again and talking about
capital gains cuts. They are talking about cutting the tax for the
biggest corporations in the country, cutting the taxes for the most
wealthy people in America.

{time} 2115

That is something we have already done at least once this year, I
believe. And instead of dealing with security, they want to talk about
those old ideas. It is not going to help us get this job done of
assuring the safety of this industry to cut taxes. There may be some
legitimate changes in the Tax Code, but we ought to focus on the
stimulative effect of raising the wages of the workers that are charged
with the responsibility of protecting our lives on these airplanes and
getting them the skills that they need to do the job effectively.
Putting those machines on the line and hiring the workers that will
build the machines to scan the baggage, as the gentleman proposed;
doing the other kinds of upgrades on security at our water systems, at
our utilities, at our other places that could be endangered by a
terrorist attack, those are stimulative effects that will cause people
to be hired in good-paying jobs and help our economy move along and, at
the same time, will give us the peace of mind that when we get on an
airplane or when we get a drink of water, it is going to be safe from
terrorists.
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue
to yield, the operative word here is ``confidence,'' and the American
people have to have confidence in our security; they must have
confidence in our economy.
At the end of every aviation disaster, the National Transportation
Safety Board starts looking for the black box. Let me show my
colleagues just how irrational the present approach to security is. We
are going to end up with a National Transportation Safety Board looking
for a black box and a strong door, because that is going to be all that
is left is a black box and a strong door if we do not pass the
gentleman from Washington's bill in the event that a device, a foreign
device is allowed to get into the cargo area of these aircraft. That is
a fact.
What does the gentleman's legislation have to do with the economic
stimulus? It has a lot to do with the economic stimulus. Because
confidence in the aviation industry, which is confidence in tourism,
which is confidence in the ability to stay in a hotel, which every cab
driver in America needs, which every tourism board needs, which every
convention center needs, is a factor in why the economy needs to be
stimulated in the first place, because four aircraft were slammed,
essentially, into buildings, and one in Pennsylvania.
So unless we are prepared to provide the American people with the
security that they want, after this Congress votes and passes the
stimulus package, if there is another disaster in the aviation
industry, the Congress will have wasted the economic stimulus package,
because the American people are not going to leave their homes, they
are not going to travel, they are not going to go on vacations because
of the failure to provide security.
So the gentleman's bill is the centerpiece of any economic security
package or stimulus package for our Nation's economy.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I was just
listening to the gentleman here, and I thought of something that
happened on the day of September 11 in the afternoon in Columbus, Ohio.
There were gas stations that started charging $5 for a gallon of
gasoline on that day. These were individuals who were obviously using
what had been a national tragedy in order to enrich themselves.
Now, I have been watching what has happened around here over the last
couple of weeks; and I have become concerned that there are those who
are using the national tragedy that we have all experienced as a way of
enacting a preexisting agenda. When the gentleman talked about people
thinking on September 12 the way they did on September 10, I think that
is exactly the case. What we are seeing here with some of these tax
programs is an attempt to get these tax bills passed now when they
could not have been passed before this tragedy and, somehow, tying the
need for these tax breaks to what happened on September 11.
There is much we need to do as a result of the tragedy that has
befallen us, and we may need to cut some taxes in a way that gets money
to the consumer so that they can spend and get this economy jump-
started, but to use this tragedy to advance tax benefits for
corporations while leaving out the little guy and the working person
and those who have lost their jobs as a result of what happened; we
have yet to do anything for the airline workers who lost their jobs. We
took care of the airline companies with a $15 billion bailout; but we
have yet to step up to the plate and say, the individual men and women
who lost their jobs as a result of what happened on September 11, they
need our help too.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back to the gentleman from
Washington, because the gentlewoman from Texas has come; but I want to
yield back with his words, because so much of what the gentleman just
said, and he said it in words that are going to be long remembered in
this body, when he posed the question during the airline bailout, ``Why
is it that in the Congress the big dogs always eat first?''
That is what has happened here and that is what is about to happen
tomorrow. Because there are those, as the gentleman from Ohio just
said, who want to exploit this tragedy for their own agendas and they
are doing that instead of dealing with important legislation, like the
gentleman has advanced tonight, to assure the safety of families across
America who do not care whether we have a Republican or Democrat or
right or left or upside down kind of solution. They just want to be
sure their families are safe, and that is why we are here tonight
demanding that this be made the top priority of this House.
I think it may come to a point where we have to say, until the House
addresses this issue, we are going to see it addresses none other.
Because unless we can get the kind of bipartisanship that has been
occurring in the Senate and get people to come together to address the
security concern, we are going to have to take additional steps to
force that action on to the agenda of the House. I thank the gentleman
for his leadership.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the aggressive advocacy of the
gentleman from Texas in the Committee on Ways and Means, and we are
going to need that. Because, unfortunately, the proposals we have seen
are $60 to $120 billion worth of tax cuts, largely for corporate
interests, and not a dollar to screen luggage from bombs in aircraft.
So we need this message, and I appreciate the gentleman coming this
evening to do that.
One other note and then I will yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
It is important that when we talk about security that we say we are not
blaming the airlines for this tragedy. These evil, rank, low-lifes with
no respect for human life are responsible for this tragedy. But it is
incumbent on us to act reasonably as stewards for the safety of our
people. Right now, until we get votes on these bills, we are not able
to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman
from Washington for the vision, and I thank my colleagues, because I
cannot think of a more important discussion than what has been engaged
in this evening.
Let me simply say to my colleagues that there were several memorials
today. There was one in New York; there was one at the Pentagon led by
the President. Many of my colleagues may not have been aware that there
was one at the Lincoln Memorial, the U.S. Coalition for Child Survival.
Its focus was ``remember the children.''
The gentleman is aware that I chair the Congressional Children's
Caucus. The idea was, in this time, our children, some who have lost
parents,

[[Page H6689]]

guardians; as far as we know, we do not even have a count between the
airplanes and the tragedies in Washington, New York and Somerset,
Pennsylvania of how many children are impacted.
Now, this may seem that I am deviating from security issues, but I am
not. The focus is on the people. The fact that people were the ones
impacted on September 11, 2001, it is the people of America that we
must say to them that we have your interests at heart. We want you to
be secure in the highways and byways and the airways of America; we
want you to be secure that we are taking care of the children who may
have lost their parents, guardians. We do not even know if some are
being taken care of by neighbors. We know that there were a lot of
single parents that worked in those buildings. We know how the living
structures in New York are apartment buildings; we do not know if some
children are with neighbors or with relatives.
What should we be doing in this stimulus package? I think certainly
we should be giving the extended benefits on health and unemployment
benefits. I met with airline stewardesses on Monday, or whenever I was
in the district, I guess on Monday, and tears were in their eyes, the
fear, the need for security and those who were laid off, in addition to
other employees. I would say to the gentleman that part of the
legislation is, let us put the people first. Let us secure the airways
of America.
I believe that in fact we can do some partnerships. I believe we can
do some partnerships with the airlines maybe at the checkpoints. But I
am familiar with the technology that the gentleman is talking about. I
am familiar with the checking of what we call interline bags or check
bags. That is a key element to the comprehensive approach to safety.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to be the Department of Justice and put
on the Web page fearful comments that I understand have been put on the
Web page across the Nation. I am very disappointed in that, because I
believe we have the responsibility that if we have something to say to
the American people, let us make it a public announcement about the
seriousness of their condition. I am concerned about that. That is
another issue that we have to address. I am shocked that we are finding
messages on the Web page telling Americans about possible incidences.
We should be here telling America how we are going to secure them. So
I believe that legislation and emphasis on securing them economically,
and tomorrow I will be in caucus to speak and raise the question of
these tax cuts, not because I do not believe in business success as
well, but because I believe that we do not have the focus.
I support the gentleman's legislation. I believe we should have this
equipment. I heard the cost of it. It does not overwhelm me. We can
begin step by step moving across the country with this equipment that
requires the intensive checking or the technological X-ray type
checking that is necessary to check these bags. I do not want to be a
nay-sayer here, but I am familiar with Pan Am 103. How many of us are?
I am very closely familiar with it. I am intimately familiar with it. I
represented an individual tragically impacted by Pan Am 103. We know
the story of what happened with that, an unaccompanied bag.
I do not want to leave this floor to the distinguished gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Inslee) with fear in our hearts and the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois and
the distinguished gentleman from Texas. I do not think we are here
trying to create hysteria. But what we are saying is, I want to work
through the weekend, through October, through November, whatever it
takes, to look the terrorists in the eye and tell them, no, we are not
on the run; but we are the most powerful Nation in the world. We
believe in our values, we believe in democracy; and what we are here to
tell you is we are going to take care of our people.
The children who do not have parents at this point and need our
assistance, nobody has been on the floor debating what do we do about
children who have lost their parents. By the way, as I close, let me
say we will be having a briefing tomorrow, if I may just add this, on
the children who have lost their parents. We will have a family come in
from New York, a man who lost his wife who had to leave his job and he
has three children. We know these stories are all over the country, but
this is a particularly unique situation. Has the Congress even dealt
with his case, his mental anguish, the funding we need to support him?
No. We need to put people first.
Mr. Speaker, I am gratified for the opportunity to join the gentleman
from Washington, to applaud him for this initiative, and to be able to
say to him that we have to roll up our sleeves and, as I have heard us
say on some occasions in the past, work, work, work. I guess I am
animated about this because I want to be able to say to the American
people, I am concerned and I am leading. And how am I leading? I am
putting you first, your security and your families and your children
and your ability to be able to provide for your families.
I appreciate the gentleman's leadership, and I hope he will join me
on my children's efforts as we work toward doing the people's work.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the gentlewoman's
comments, because our message tonight is not one of fear, but of
confidence and of belief in ourselves. We believe we can screen 100
percent of these bags and the cost is about 1 percent of the stimulus
package that we are going to adopt, about 1 percent, that is all we are
talking about, about the billions of dollars that will be invested in
this stimulus package. We are talking about 1 percent to make sure a
plane does not get blown out of the sky.

{time} 2130

We do not think that is unreasonable.
The good news, the confident news, the positive news is we can do
this. We have the technology and ability to do it. We just have to get
the vote.
We have to get some of the bipartisan spirit that we have seen over
in the Senate, where John McCain has agreed to this airline security
bill, not this specific one but another one. But that has been blocked
here in the House. We need some of that bipartisanship here, because
Republicans and Democrats are going to vote for this, if we get a vote
on this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson).
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I thank the gentleman from Washington for
yielding, and I thank the gentlewoman for her critical and important
comments.
We think there is a lot of hysteria out here. The hysteria is the
illusion of security without ensuring that 100 percent of the bags
underneath these aircraft have been inspected.
But the gentleman raised the question also about the stimulus package
and what a real stimulus package in light of today's threats should be.
Why not critical investments in the real needs of the American people?
Before the events of September 11, Jane Garvey, the head of the
Federal Aviation Commission, said that we needed 10 new airports the
size of O'Hare Airport. That is 10 new airports that could be in every
region in the country.
The construction of these 10 new facilities alone would put hundreds
of thousands of Americans back to work, regardless of the next series
of events that this war might bring, even to our own shores.
How about high-speed rail? Every State in the Union could benefit
from a stimulus package that included high-speed rail, including the
steel industry, including the locomotive industry, including Amtrak,
including putting millions of Americans to work laying the track for
high-speed rail?
Regardless of the next series of events that this war might bring to
our own shores, high-speed rail is a project that would continue, and
is not subject to the fear factor associated with these events.
Before the events of September 11, we needed $322 billion to repair
the critical infrastructure of our schools. How many carpenters and how
many painters and how many teachers would we put to work if we had an
economic stimulus package that was a downpayment on rebuilding the
critical infrastructure for the 53 million kids in the 85,000 public
schools in the 15,000 school districts across our country?

[[Page H6690]]

Health care for all Americans: Economic stimulus. But beyond aviation
security, I know there are people in the country who think Congress is
obsessed with airplanes these days, we need train security. We need
security in our subways. The economic stimulus package must make every
American feel more secure in going about their daily lives.
So I thank the gentleman for beginning this process by arguing about
aviation security. But the broader economic stimulus should not be
something that, because of fear, the Congress comes back in several
more weeks or several more months needing an additional economic
stimulus package, simply because we did not invest in the critical
needs of the American people, which would be a long-term investment and
stimulus package that would keep millions of Americans working even
through this great war on terrorism.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.
I hope people understand, this is not the only security issue that we
are concerned about; it is one of many. Perhaps it is the most glaring
omission in our entire security system, but there are many that we need
to make sure of. That is a package that we should have been voting on
tonight. Instead of just talking about it, we should have been talking
about a security package to increase security at our borders.
We have had a porous border, both north and south. We now are trying
to improve it, and as a result, we have lines that are 5 hours long for
honest citizens to try to get across the Canadian border. This is
killing the economics both of Canada and the State of Washington.
Instead of putting on additional security personnel and funding that
out of our general funds, we are arguing about all these other things
here instead of security. We need to talk about border security. It
should be part of our stimulus package; not just $60 billion as a tax
cut for corporations, but let us talk about security.
Public health. We know, and this is hardly a secret, that we are not
where we should be and can be in dealing with biological and chemical
threats in the United States. Our people are concerned about that. We
do not want to be overly concerned. We want to respond in a rational,
confident way of developing a public health system that can give
Americans confidence that we can deal with this type of threat. We are
not there yet.
But instead of proposing and giving us a vote on a security measure
that will significantly increase our ability to respond to bioterrorism
and chemical threats, we are going to see a stimulus package with $60
to $120 billion more tax cuts.
I have to tell the Members, when I go home to Edmonds and Bainbridge,
Washington, people are coming up to me and saying, ``Jay, what are you
going to do about bioterrorism and making sure my airplane does not get
blown out of the sky?'' That is what they are asking me to do. That is
what we should be doing.
We have been here for 30 days since this terrible attack and we have
not had a chance to vote. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) and
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and myself, we have not had a
chance to vote. This is our job.
The Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who has done
I think a great job trying to help us find unity in the first several
weeks since this tragedy, I think he has been very sincere in trying to
find bipartisan consensus, and we have had other Republicans support us
on this security effort.
But somewhere in there somebody is blocking bipartisanship here. We
are very hopeful that the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert)
will be successful in an effort to free these security measures for a
vote on this floor. We need to have a bipartisan vote, because I think
we are going to pass these things.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I think
many of the security issues perhaps will be addressed in the bill. The
one aspect of security that I am fearful will not be included is what
we are talking about tonight specifically. That is the screening of all
the luggage that is placed in an airplane.
For some reason, this has been something that the airlines have
objected to for a long, long time. After we introduced the bill this
past week, I got a call from a young man in New York City. He said that
he had heard about the bill. He said, ``I am outraged because I am
going on a vacation in a few weeks with my wife and child, and I
thought the plane I was flying on would have the luggage screened.'' He
said, ``What can I do to help get this bill passed?''
I said, ``Well, the best thing you can do is contact your Senators
and your Congressperson and urge them to sign on to this bill. I think
the American people want this.''
I have not talked to a single person in the last few weeks about this
bill without encountering enthusiastic support for it. When people buy
a ticket and they get on an airplane, they want to be sure that that
airplane is not going to explode. It did over Lockerbie, Scotland.
There was a suitcase bomb. That plane exploded and killed a lot of
young people.
One of the fathers this week said that plane that exploded was like a
traveling schoolbus, because so many of the people on that plane were
very young, in their early twenties, most of them.
The fact is that the American public will never be able to feel as
safe as they have a right to feel if we do not pass this bill. I have
said something that I do not think is an extreme statement. I have said
that if we pass this legislation, lives will be saved. If we fail to
pass this legislation, it is inevitable, in my judgment, that lives
will be lost.
What we are talking about tonight is something that is of critical
importance to the American people.
Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate the gentleman's statement. His sentiment is
shared in a lot of different places.
In my flight back to Seattle, a flight attendant came up and said,
``Are you Congressman Inslee?'' And you never know when people ask you,
you think they might bite your head off when they ask this question.
But she said, ``I just kind of bless your efforts, because we have
got to have this. We just have to have this.'' This is an expert
talking. This is a person who spends her working life in the air. I am
hearing that sentiment all across America.
I appreciate the support of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson)
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for this bill.
I want to leave this discussion on an upbeat and confident note. I
believe if we get this word out to Americans and Americans contact
their Representatives and their Senators, justice is going to prevail
here. We are going to adopt or we are going to use these technologies,
we are going to fund them so airports do not go bankrupt in doing it,
we are going to have the Federal Government help local airports do
this, and we are going to use the industrial and technological might of
this country to put these machines in.
We are going to hire qualified, certified, well-trained, stable
employees to make sure they are operated right. I believe this is in
our ability to do, and I believe we are going to do it, and this is
going to help us, that the American people know what is at stake here.
So I am very appreciative. Did the gentleman have a final comment?
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I just want to congratulate the
gentleman for his noble efforts on behalf of the American people. My
wife and my 18-month old daughter are enormously grateful for the
gentleman's efforts, and I am sure all of us who have family members,
as much as Members of Congress travel, are very greatful for the
gentleman's efforts.
But for the millions of Americans whom many of us have never met and
still do not know, in the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) they
have the kind of leadership on the floor of the Congress that is
thinking about them and that is going to make a significant difference.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Let me give a note, too,
to thank the two gentlemen, for the families of the Lockerbie tragedy,
that have helped us so much. The families of the Lockerbie tragedy for
13 years have been asking Members of the U.S. Congress to act. Tonight
we are adding our voices to the effort. Let us make sure this happens
for the flying public.

____________________