[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 16, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H6878-H6884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICA'S SECURITY IN THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY
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, this evening several of us have come to the
floor to talk about what many of us believe is the most pressing
responsibility of the U.S. Congress right now; that is, our security,
and particularly our security in our airline industry.
We believe that Congress should act very promptly; in fact, the other
Chamber has passed a bill. But to date, although we are 30 days past
September 11-plus, we still have not had a vote in this Chamber to
increase how we deal with safety in our airlines. That is extremely
disappointing, because we have had a lot of other votes here in the
House in the last month, but we still have not dealt with some very,
very huge holes in our airline security provisions.
Tonight, we are going to start by talking about perhaps one of the
most glaring loopholes in our airline security system, and that is the
loophole that unfortunately allows bags with explosive devices to go
into the luggage compartments of airplanes.
The sad fact is that Congress needs to act and act promptly and
aggressively to make sure that baggage that goes into the belly of an
airplane is screened for explosive devices. The reason we need to act
is that the airlines themselves have not provided a comprehensive 100
percent screening by any measure, any technology, even a visual
inspection of the bags that go into the luggage compartment of our
airlines. It is a glaring omission, and Congress needs to act.
We believe that we ought to this week include in our airline security
package a provision that, by law, requires 100 percent of the bags, not
just the carry-on bags, which are currently screened, but in fact the
bags that go down the conveyer belt and go into the belly of our
aircraft, to be screened. Right now only a small percentage, only a
small percentage of those bags are screened by x-ray or other
technology for explosive devices.
Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the Members, it is clear to me that the
American public has an expectation that bombs are going to be kept out
of the baggage that goes on the airplanes with them. That is a
reasonable expectation, it is a commonsense expectation, but it is not
being met by the airline industry. So the U.S. House of Representatives
this week needs to pass a bill and a statute that will require that we
use the technology to in fact do that screening.
The good news is that we have excellent technology that can do this.
We have several types of machines that, with a very high degree of
confidence, can determine whether there is an explosive device in the
baggage before it gets on the airplane. We simply need a law that will
in fact require that those machines be used universally. We have 100
percent coverage in this regard.
We have introduced or the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Strickland) and about 30 others of us have introduced a bill, the
Baggage Screening Act, which will accomplish that. We hope that this
bill, or the fundamentals of it, will be included in the airline
security bill when it comes to the floor this week.
But there are a host of airline security issues, and I would like to
yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), who has been
showing leadership on this issue, for his comments.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
I, too, would like to join with my colleagues, and many other
colleagues, in calling for greater security at our airlines.
September 11 was a tragic day in this Nation's history. Let us take a
strong lesson that we need to join together and focus attention on the
problem of airline security to reinstill confidence in our travelers,
in the knowledge that when they board an aircraft they do so in safety,
and that they will arrive safely to their destination.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things that we can do to improve
airline security, the most important of which, I think, as a first
step, is that we federalize airline screeners.
We want people there who are totally focused on ensuring the utmost
safety for those who are entering the airports and who are entering our
airlines, who will be boarding our planes. We want people there that
are motivated not by a company that is only motivated by profits, but
are there, again, totally focused on security. Federalizing those
employees is the best way to get us there.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues stated, we have dealt with a number of
bills since September 11. We need now to take up this issue in
legislation in improving our airline security.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sharing those
ideas.
[[Page H6879]]
If people heard the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) talking
about the tragedy and some of the folks lost September 11, it seems to
me that it is incumbent on us to get ahead of the wave of terrorism to
prevent this from occurring.
We are confident that in the airline security bill that the House
will pass we are going to deal effectively with the manner of this
horrendous attack; namely, someone getting into the cockpit.
We have already started to introduce into the industry some measures
to keep people out of the cockpit. On the flight I was on from Seattle
to Dulles yesterday, there was a bar, a new bar that they have put
across the door that United is putting on to keep people from bashing
down the door.
{time} 2030
So we think we are going to be successful in preventing people from
intruding in the cockpit, getting ahold of these planes and turning
them into missiles, but what we are concerned about, we are concerned
if the U.S. House does not act about the next type of strategy and
tactic that the terrorists could use, which potentially could be to put
a bomb in an airplane, and unless we have a hundred percent screening
of baggage that goes into the luggage compartment, we are not going to
have a degree of confidence that we need to make sure that airlines are
safe.
So we need to get ahead of the terrorists, not be one step behind
them. We need to be one step ahead of them, and we have certainly
learned since the Lockerbie bombing that this is a necessary step.
I would like to yield to the cosponsor of the Baggage Screening Act
and leader on this issue, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from
Washington State for yielding.
The fact is that we believe the American traveling public has a right
to be fully informed about the safety and security measures that are
available to them, as well as those that are not in place, as they make
decisions regarding whether they want to fly on an airplane. The fact
is that today flying is somewhat safer than it was prior to September
11, but there is so much more that we need to do that we have not yet
done.
Every flight should have a marshal on that flight that is trained and
armed and fully prepared to protect the passengers and the pilots. That
is basic.
Every flight should be a flight where the baggage that is carried on
board has been thoroughly screened so that we know that knives or guns
or other weapons have not been taken aboard that airplane.
Another thing that needs to be done, and quite frankly where there is
great resistance, is making sure that all the luggage that is placed in
the belly of that plane, in the cargo space, is thoroughly inspected
before it is placed on that plane.
Last week, when we discussed this matter in this Chamber, we talked
about the fact that we are currently inspecting approximately 5 percent
of the luggage that is being placed in the cargo sections of airplanes.
And the next day, I got a call from a young man from the State of New
York; and he said, Congressman, I am outraged, because I am planning a
vacation in November. And I plan to take my family on an airplane. I
had no idea that the luggage that is placed on the airlines is not
currently checked.
The fact is that most of it is not checked, and we will never be as
safe and secure as we can be and should be until we address this gaping
hole in our security system.
I would like to share with my friend from Washington State an
editorial that was in today's Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch newspaper. They
asked the question, ``What security?'' And I would read just a few
paragraphs from this editorial.
The editorial begins: ``Last week, Americans learned about
corporations engaging in what has to be the most outrageous disregard
for public safety displayed by any business in years. As Americans now
know, travelers who believe that baggage was routinely X-rayed were
enjoying a false sense of security.''
The fact is that most Americans, I think, believe that when they go
to an airport and they check their baggage they assume that before that
baggage is placed on that airplane that it will be screened; and it is
not. What happened over Lockerbie, Scotland, which cost so many young
lives, was a suitcase bomb that had been placed in the cargo of that
airplane. And last week we met with two fathers who lost sons in that
terrible tragedy. One lost a 20-year-old son and one lost a 24-year-old
son. These two fathers stood outside this Capitol building and shared
with us the fact that they had worked for the last 13 years trying to
get this changed so that other parents would not have to face the kind
of sadness and tragedy that they faced.
Yet the airlines have consistently fought this commonsense procedure.
We need to do this, and we need to make this a part of the airline
security bill that this House passes.
Before I yield back to my friend, I would just like to say this. We
have done a lot in this Chamber since September 11. We have dealt with
a lot of things. We passed a $15 billion bailout for the airline
industry. We have attended to some other national needs, but the
American people want to feel they are safe. And people who fly on our
airlines want to feel that we have done everything that we can
practically do to make sure they are safe.
Yet there is great resistance in this Chamber, and I am sad to say
that most of that resistance is coming from the leadership on the other
side of the aisle. They do not want to federalize this security force.
They do not want to pass this legislation that will guarantee that all
luggage is screened.
I would just like to share one other paragraph from the Columbus
Dispatch editorial before I yield my time back.
The editorial ends this way: ``Will there be no end to the
revelations of how poorly the Federal Government, airport security
workers, and airlines have handled the job of protecting passengers?
How many other rules are not being enforced? How much evidence do House
Republicans need to convince them that only a top-notch security force,
paid by the taxpayers and not hired by the low-bid contractors, will
make the airlines as safe as possible? A bill passed by the Senate and
pending in the House would federalize airport security. The House
should stop playing politics with this essential legislation and pass
it.''
I say amen to what the Columbus Dispatch has written in their
editorial. This is something we need to do, and we need to do it
expeditiously. And lives can be saved if we act; and I believe if we
fail to act, American lives will be lost.
I yield back to my friend from Washington State.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland), always a good voice for common sense; and this is
basically common sense. When I have talked to people about this, they
say, of course they should be screened, there is absolutely no reason
not to screen this; and I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
I just want to share one piece of good news on this issue.
The good news is that through American genius of developing
technology, we have machines that work tremendously. They can screen
somewhere between 500 and 800 bags an hour. They have an extremely high
rate of success in finding explosive materials. All we have to do is
make sure they are in the airports and they are turned on.
Several years ago, the Federal Government gave the airlines about
$400 million worth of these machines, about 100 plus of these machines.
Unfortunately, many of them sat there and have not been used. So
incredibly, the Federal Government has given the airlines these
machines and they have sat there in a corner and people are not using
them.
The good news is that the FAA has ordered people to start using those
as close to 100 percent as they can now, but we need to get more of
these wonderful machines. Put American technology to work. There is
good news here if we will do our jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I want to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Larson). I want to note too that Connecticut is the home of our
insurance industry.
There is an aspect of the economic security for the whole country in
making sure we do not let bombs get into
[[Page H6880]]
baggage, that is, if another plane or two goes down, not only will we
have insurance claims, we will have a loss of the whole airline
industry. We need the airline industry to get behind this bill to say
that all of us should be participating in the screening. A man from the
insurance industry I know understands that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for his outstanding leadership
on this issue. I rise to associate myself with the comments of him and
the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee),
and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Shows), which follow in what
the gentleman has rightly put forward is a very commonsense approach.
Since September 11, clearly the world as we have known previously has
changed in dramatic fashion. Thomas Friedman wrote in The New York
Times that if we are to point fingers and look for blame, one of the
areas we ought to look to is failure of imagination, failure to think
through the potential of what could happen.
This very commonsense proposal does not require an awful lot of
imagination. What it requires is the will to step forward and recognize
in a very pragmatic fashion what needs to be done in the country
immediately. And as we take up the issue of airport security, whether
it be marshals on planes, whether it be cockpit security, whether it be
the use of greater technology, this is something that the American
public is insisting upon.
We cannot expect to go forward and have tourism continue at its pace
previously or commerce and business to travel across this Nation if we
are not willing in this body to put forward legislation that as the
gentleman has put forward, would provide us with the most up-to-date
technological ability of screening and also federalizing our airports
in such a manner that we know we are getting the kind of scrutiny and
security that the American public demands.
Why do they demand it? Because our televisions, our cable TV
broadcasts are replete with what has happened since September 11. And
the concerns have been put out there. They were eloquently stated by
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), and these need to be
addressed in a very commonsense manner. To move away from an important
security issue at a time when we are focusing on homeland defense just
makes no sense whatsoever.
I conduct hearings back in my district and have met with local
municipal officials. Truly this is another area of frontline defense.
And if we are not taking every precaution necessary at our airports to
make sure that people are safe and secure while traveling, then who but
to blame then the United States Congress for not taking the appropriate
action.
I commend the gentleman for his persistency in this issue. For more
often than not in a legislative body it is persistency that counts. It
is making sure that the public understands that this issue is not going
to go away, and it is incumbent upon the public to contact their local
Congressman.
So for those of you who are listening tonight and are interested in
this subject matter, do not write the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee). He is a supporter of this. Write your local Congressman. Talk
about this importance too with them. Send them a letter. Call them on
the telephone. The pressure has to come from the bottom up in order for
us to move legislation in this body.
If there is one lesson that we have learned, the silver lining in
September 11, is a renewed interest on the part of the public, an
understanding that we no longer can be passive participants and defer
responsibility to someone else, but have to take the steps ourselves to
get involved in our community, to get involved in our State, to get
involved in our Nation. We can do that very easily by picking up the
phone, by writing a letter, by sending an e-mail and supporting this
key piece of legislation.
Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee)
for his outstanding work in this area and his persistency.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for that
eloquent comment. I agree, we have no genius here. This is a
commonsense idea, and we will try to be persistent.
I have got to note, I think the question if the House fails in this
charge to do this, people are going to ask why are we spending millions
of dollars to make sure people have the nail clippers taken away from
them when they go through the passenger screening system. And then we
have a big barn door that is open that allows people to put 40 pounds
of C4 explosive in their bags and take down the plane. The does not
make any sense whatsoever.
The reason the people need to know this sort of dirty little secret
here, the reason this has not happened to date is the airlines have not
wanted to spend a buck to do this. We are talking about maybe $2 a
passenger to do this. That security is worth $2 a passenger. Believe
me, I think I can state that I have 600,000 constituents, and I think
every one of them agrees with this proposition. We need to make sure
that voice is heard.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. INSLEE. I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. It has not been missed on a number of us
as well that since September 11, we have spent an awful lot of time
focusing on homeland defense and first responders and appropriately so.
It was not the FBI, the CIA, the FAA, or the Armed Services that
responded first in the New York, in the fields of Pennsylvania, or the
Pentagon. It was our frontline individuals. I have met with them. If we
talk to people back in our home district, and they will quote us. Take
a look at the budget as it exists today in the Federal Government as it
relates to terrorism and how we are prepared, we have appropriated
about $8.9 billion, only $300 million of which gets outside of the
Beltway.
To the gentleman's point about the reluctance of the airlines and the
need for the Federal Government to step forward here, is that this
truly is a frontline initiative that is going to need the funding. Now,
if that requires, as the gentleman rightly points out, $2 or $3 more to
make sure the cockpit is secure, to make sure we have the kind of
technology available at our airports so the people feel safe and
secure, I think the American public needs to hear that debate and that
dialogue.
{time} 2045
I believe they are ready to step forward and make sure we embrace
safety and security. That is what September 11 has done, it has gelled
us together as a Nation in patriotic fervor, yes, but also with the
notion of what to do beyond this; to make sure in that time-honored
tradition of the Boy Scouts that we are prepared, and the gentleman's
bill prepares us for that future. And, again, I want to commend the
gentleman.
Mr. INSLEE. I may note, too, that we hope, particularly for smaller
airports, that there is Federal assistance in financing this thing.
These machines are not inexpensive. They are extremely effective, but
they are not inexpensive. And particularly for our airports that have
limited revenues, we hope the Federal Government will help in the
acquisition.
We are going to have a stimulus bill to help stimulate the economy.
We need to stimulate some safety and create some jobs building these
machines. And to those people in the airline industry that say it will
take too long to build these, we built 12,000 B-24s in 3\1/2\ to 4
years during World War II. We can build a few hundred of these machines
in the next several months to a year, and we ought to be doing that
right away.
I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), and I
now want to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for
her comments.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would almost say that I am
sorry I had to meet my colleague this way, this week, this time; but I
am certainly pleased to join my colleagues for what I consider to be a
very, very important challenge that we have to face.
There have been some different discussions and different challenges
since September 11; and if my colleagues will bear with me for a
moment, they will
[[Page H6881]]
understand the thrust of my remarks about why we have to be here today
to talk about the federalization of the security systems at our
airports and for our airlines.
Since September 11, we have confronted the new question of how do we
secure the American people, the American people who trust us and who
have confidence in us and who entrust us with the responsibilities of
government. No one could have predicted, at least we are not casting
any accusations on the terrible and heinous acts of September 11, but
what the American people can ask us for today is that we act today with
deliberateness and factualness and we act to do the right thing.
Yesterday, in my district, after hearing of the terrible incident
with Senator Daschle, interestingly enough I was meeting with my
emergency personnel, with physicians, talking about anthrax. And as we
were sitting in a meeting, several incidents occurred in our own
meeting. A woman got a substance in the mail; the 911 operator said go
straight to the hospital. She takes the envelope and winds up shutting
down the hospital and having to decontaminate the patients. So new
decisions have to be made, quick decisions have to be made. And later
on tonight we will be discussing this whole issue of dealing with the
Afghan women and children and trying to nurture them. That means that
we are looking at the world through different glasses.
I cannot understand for the life of me, as so many of us get called
and interviewed, I got a news reporter calling me about what am I doing
about security in my office, how are my employees handling anthrax; and
I said I want them to be safe and secure, we are following the
instructions, but most of all I want them not to panic, to be calm. But
no one is asking about why the Senate voted 100 to one to pass a bill
providing a safe pathway for the thousands and thousands and millions
and millions of passengers, men, women and children, families being
united with grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts and uncles, going to
colleges and visiting their young people at colleges, college people
coming home for holidays; and yet we cannot take this bill up in the
House of Representatives. No one seems to think that that is an
important enough headline to ask the question.
My good friend from Ohio mentioned something, and probably someone is
out whispering why did he say that, friends on the other side of the
aisle; but there comes a time when you must stand up for the American
people. I believe that we have been most gracious and most committed
and most patriotic working with the President, working with our
colleagues on the other side, saying that we are going to face
terrorism and we are going to look it in the eye and they are not going
to intimidate us. But I am sorry, I am overwhelmed; and that is not a
good word, because it means you are not acting.
But I think we are acting tonight, and the gentleman is acting; and
we are going to get this bill heard. That we could have a vote so
strong in the United States Senate, here we are talking about bicameral
and working together, and yet we come to the House of Representatives,
435 Members in the people's House, who do not even get a chance to
debate this issue, to be able to stand up for the American people and
tell them we are going to check those airline bags, those bags going
into the airplane.
I came in from Dulles, and I was looking at the Japanese airline
counter; and if I am not mistaken, I saw an X-ray machine outside that
counter. I did not see it outside our counters, but I saw an X-ray
machine and it had Japanese language on it, so it means people getting
on that plane, their bags were going through an additional X-ray
machine. This is unseemly. And I believe it is time now that we get the
headlines of the Nation's newspapers. I know the gentleman just read an
op-ed piece from the Columbus Dispatch, but I believe it is time for
our newspapers from Houston to Seattle to San Francisco to New York to
begin to look at the real issues that are confronting the American
public.
People are still not getting on the planes. And I am the first one to
say I do not want to create panic or hysteria. I want my constituents
to fly. I am getting on a plane every day. But there must be this sense
of obligation and responsibility that we have.
New language on the floor of the House today. We are talking about
helping the Afghan women and children and talking about the terrible
Taliban and how we want to make sure they are no longer in charge. But
as we do those things and talk about anthrax and safety and postal
rules and regulations, I think it is important that we bring this bill
to the floor of the House.
Let me just simply yield to the gentleman for a question, but first I
want to make a point about this bipartisanship. I am as committed as
anyone. I think we are going to have a debate on the economic stimulus
package. There are some disagreements there. And I think the American
people need to understand that this is in keeping with democracy and
what is the right thing to do; legislation that we worked on totally
different, but I am bringing in on a bipartisan point, H. Con. Res.
228, dealing with prioritizing the children who lost parents on that
day, trying to get them the Federal benefits. That bill is languishing
here in the House; we cannot seem to get that to the forefront and to
the attention thereof.
Here we are with the bill of the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee), and I want to ask, because I think I have the right numbers
correct, I know there was a bill we passed 96 to one in the Senate; but
I believe the bill on security was 100 to one, and the gentleman can
correct me, but what has been the response and where are we in moving
this bill through the House? Will Members of the House have the
opportunity to work on behalf of their constituents to answer the
concerns. As we are stopped at airports all the time, the
concessionaires are telling me get more people flying, and I am trying
to do that; but what is the status of the legislation that we are
trying to do here in the House?
Mr. INSLEE. Well, the gentlewoman is correct. It was 100 to zero,
unanimous, in the Senate; yet we still have not had a chance to vote on
a security bill. And that is incredible, because if this bill was
brought to the floor, we are confident it would pass with overwhelming
bipartisan support. This bill has bipartisan support, the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs.
Morella), who is a leader on this subject, has supported this concept.
We will pass this bill with bipartisan support. The problem is that,
unfortunately, some of the leadership in this Chamber, in the majority
party, does not want this bill and the potential federalization of this
issue to occur, to even have a vote on it. And I think that is most
unfortunate because we would pass this bill if we had a chance to do
it.
I have to tell my colleagues that the people I talk to want to see
the Federal Government assure the flying public that they have
security. And just like we have Federal employees running the FBI, just
like we have Federal employees running the FDA, we ought to have
Federal assurance and Federal officers who are certified and trained
and paid so that they do not have a 400 percent turnover, like the
people do now running the airports, so they have a high level of
security.
We have police officers work for us that work for the city, we have
fire department people that work for the city, and these people ought
to work for us so that we do not have this private enterprise in the
mix. Now, there is nothing wrong with private enterprise; but when it
comes to security, this is not a theoretical experiment. We had an
experiment and it ended on September 11. It failed that model.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Would the gentleman yield for just a moment?
Mr. INSLEE. Certainly.
Mr. STRICKLAND. The fact is the American people want us to do this.
The American people want to be safe when they fly. Most American
citizens that I have talked to, who have flown, some of them for many
years, have operated under the belief that when they took a bag and
they checked it in at the airport that it was screened for explosives
before it was placed aboard that airplane.
I think this is something that members of both parties want. And as
the gentleman said, if we had a chance to vote, I am absolutely
confident that we
[[Page H6882]]
would pass this bill overwhelmingly. But the fact is that a very small
minority of the majority, those in positions of leadership, are
preventing this legislation from coming to the floor for a thorough
debate and a vote. It just simply is wrong.
I believe as the American people find out what is happening they will
become enraged and they will start expressing themselves, so that
eventually we will get this bill passed; but we need to do it sooner
rather than later.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. INSLEE. Yes.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I want to follow through on the gentleman's
point. We have had some success with airports opening; but I am told
even today, in visiting National Airport, the Nation's jewel as it
relates to air travel, and certainly the recognition that we are
looking terrorists in the eye and we are not going to be intimidated,
that it is practically empty. A part of the reason, of course, is it
deals with rules they are trying to construct, but also the desire to
fly and coming into this area. I am almost sure that with the headline
banner of the new federalizing of the security, it would make a world
of difference.
I do want to just note that none of us are condemning the hardworking
individuals who are doing that job now. We appreciate the work they are
doing, with the training they had, many of them coming from our
respective communities. I want them to know I appreciate them and
respect them. I would hope some of them would be put in a position to
be trained, elevated, promoted, and given career opportunities. This is
not an argument about those people who are acting and performing at the
level of their training.
In fact, this morning, coming up here, I saw that they were putting
people off the counter because they need so many people. I recognized
people from the counter who were just standing trying to be security.
That is not fair to them. And they are doing that because there is so
much load.
So what I would simply say, this is an effort not to in any way
denigrate anyone who is doing the job within the realm of their
capacity and training. This is to say that we now speak a different
language, we have a better way to do it, and the way to do it is to
provide the federalization. And it really is shameful that we would use
the issue of working people and that we do not want more Federal
employees as an issue to prevent safety here in the United States.
I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. INSLEE. I will yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr.
Shows) in a second, but that is a very important point. Basically, what
we have seen is what happens when you try to do security on the cheap.
And we have had this porous system, and I want to tell my colleagues
how porous it is. I will read one thing, and perhaps the gentleman from
Mississippi will want to comment on it.
This is from the New York Times of October 12, a month after the
tragedy. It says, ``The security company that was fined $1.2 million
last year and put on probation for hiring convicted felons to screen
passengers at Philadelphia National Airport has continued to hire
screeners without checking whether they have criminal records, the
United States attorney says. Prosecutors also said the company,'' and I
will leave out its name just for the moment, ``had failed to fire the
felons it had already hired and lied to the government about the
background checks it was supposed to be conducting.''
That is an experiment that we had when we did not have a federalized
system of dealing with airline security. That has failed and we need to
move forward. It is regrettable that the leadership of this Chamber has
not allowed the majority will to fix this problem.
With that I wish to yield to a great leader both on this issue and
others, and the star of our class in 1998, the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Shows).
{time} 2100
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I agree with what the gentleman from
Washington is talking about. Being a highway commissioner from the
State of Mississippi, we used to accept the lowest bids on contract
work for our highway department, the lowest bidder getting the job.
Basically what has happened in the airline industry, they are
competing against each other. They know if they pay the screeners more
money than others are paying, guess who is not going to get the job. We
need to work out some kind of mechanism to make sure that the best
qualified people get the job.
People have to feel safe to fly. It is ridiculous to think we can
give billions of dollars to the airline industry, which I voted for
because I want to help the airlines. I know what it means to our
country and our commerce in this country, but for us to do that and not
do the things that we need to do to make the people feel safe to fly,
and I can tell my colleagues what we can do. We can take a lot less
money and put that money into making people feel safe when they get on
the plane, and we will see the airline industry come back. People will
adjust to what it takes to get prepared to get on an airplane. Once
they know that they have to have their bags packed a certain way, they
have to get there early enough, people will adjust because they like
the convenience and speed of flying. They can get to their destination
in a day or half a day.
But it is like walking in a neighborhood that one does not feel safe
in, people are going to go around that neighborhood. Until the people
feel safe on these airlines, and it is just the bill that the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is talking about. And I wish the media
would get onto this. The media is telling bin Laden and the Taliban
more things than I want them to know. Why is the media not talking
about this?
Mr. Speaker, I have asked the media to get involved and help promote,
and ``promote'' may be the wrong word, but what is wrong with helping
the American people feel safe on the plane? What is wrong with having
Federal employees doing so many other jobs, and we are not talking
about a huge number that is going to be added. We just added billions
to what we are talking about. We want to improve the airlines, and we
do not want to see National desolate, we do not want to see Orlando
desolate, and we want to see Mississippi and Florida tourism growing,
and the only way to do that is to make people feel safe. If they feel
safe, they will fly.
Also what country or what state lives in the most dangerous part of
the world, and that is Israel. How many planes have they lost or been
hijacked in the last 10-12 years?
We are the only country that does not pay our screeners and have them
as State or Federal employees. Are we so much smarter than everybody
else that we do something that nobody else does. I admit that the
United States of America is the best country in the world, but we do
not have to reinvent the wheel. We can look at what works for Israel
and Europe and see what has happened to them and what has happened to
us.
In closing, I would like to say that we need to promote the well-
being of our people traveling for the good of this country, for the
good of airlines. I was in the airport this morning flying out of
Jackson, Mississippi. An employee, this is one of the people that
actually worked there, I know who he is, he said, please ask them to
federalize these jobs so we can recruit. And I am not saying that the
ones that are there are not good people, but they are paid the minimum
wage. How much interest can they have in their job if they are being
paid minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, we have a lot of things that we need to correct, and one
of them is what the gentleman is discussing, inspecting every bag. A
lot of people think every bag is being screened right now, and they are
not. If every bag is not screened, this is going to make travelers even
more wary of getting on a plane. Let us screen every bag and put the
equipment in there. Let us get the employees that screen the bags
federalized and get them to where they can make a decent living and we
will not have to make another bailout because people will fly again.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, the low pay and lack of training has
resulted in 300 and 400 percent turnover in the folks that do the job.
What expectation can one have when the business has 400 percent
turnover of its employees.
[[Page H6883]]
I was talking to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott). He
said when he got on the plane yesterday, he took his metallic objects,
his phone and watch, and he tried to put them in a little cup while he
walked through the Magnometer, but there was no cup. So he walked
through holding his metallic objects. Of course the Magnometer went off
like it is supposed to do. The gentleman from Washington went back to
go through the Magnometer again and the person said, go ahead, I
see that you are holding the metal, and that is what set it off. But
the fellow who was doing the screening did not realize that he could
have had a grenade and a .45 caliber Smith & Wesson, and he did not
send this passenger back through the Magnometer. That is the lack of
attention, precision, acuity that makes this a poor system at the front
end much less at the back end.
And the gentleman mentioned that not all of the bags are screened.
Almost 90 percent of the bags are not screened. This is a huge, huge
failure. Right now we are paying attention to the front door where the
passengers walk on, and we have a back door that is totally open in the
baggage hold.
Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I think personally 6
months from now if we do not do something to give the flying public
confidence, we are going to be looking at another bailout. I do not
believe that airlines can survive under the environment that is
happening now. People are still not flying.
I do not want to come back 6 to 8 months from now and have airline
after airline going out of business, and we have States' revenue
dropping, and us not have done our job. We ought to have the
opportunity to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for organizing this special order.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I believe most Americans have thought
that when they go to an airport and they check their luggage, that it
is screened before it is put on that airplane. I think it is a surprise
to a lot of American travelers when they find that those bags have not
been screened.
I would like to share one other paragraph from this Columbus Dispatch
editorial on airline safety.
This is in today's Columbus Dispatch. They say ``The U.S.
Transportation Department's Inspector General reported just last
Thursday that observations at seven of the Nation's 20 highest risk
airports found nearly no screening of checked bags.'' Now, some time
ago, $441 million in tax money was used to buy 164 high tech bomb
detection machines for about 50 airports and 20 airlines. These largely
have been gathering dust or sitting in warehouses. That is why we need
a law. We need to make this mandatory so that when we go to the airport
and get on an airplane with our families, the people we care about, for
vacation or business or for whatever reason, that we can believe that
our government has taken those steps that are essentially necessary for
us to be as safe as possible.
Until we do this, I believe the American public needs to know and to
understand that there is a possibility that when they get on that
airplane, it may have an explosive device in its cargo hold. The
American people deserve that information. I do not want to scare people
either. I want people to feel like they can fly and fly safely; but
neither do I want to deceive or keep information from the public. The
public needs to know that when they get on an airplane today, that it
is likely that at least 95 percent of the luggage that is in the belly
of that plane has not been screened for explosives.
I go back to what I have said before. If we pass this legislation, I
believe American lives will be saved. If we neglect to do this, if we
play politics with this issue, if we put it off and put it off, if we
argue about whether or not we are going to pass a bill or have Federal
employees and this matter is continually pushed aside, I believe the
lives of American citizens will be lost. What we are dealing with here
is a very serious matter.
Much of what we talk about in this Chamber and what we vote about
does not have life or death implications, but this matter has life and
death implications. That is why we should take it seriously. That is
why I feel strongly that we should keep at this and every chance we
have to come to the floor and talk about this issue, that we do it
until the leadership on the other side of the aisle is willing to bring
this bill to this floor so that we can have a vote.
We are the representatives of the American people. We have a
responsibility to do all that we can to protect them. We deserve the
right to have this legislation brought to this floor for a vote. It is
unconscionable that the leadership on the other side of the aisle would
prevent us from bringing this vital legislation before this Chamber.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, that is what is disappointing about the
current state of affairs. The House has been remarkably united. The
Speaker has done a good job in trying to find a unified position in
dealing with the international conflict.
Now we are in a situation where some of the folks in the majority
leadership know we are going to pass this bill if it comes to a vote;
and for that reason they will not allow a vote on it. There is no other
reason to bring this for a vote. Certainly the American people's
attention is focused on the issue of security. The only reason to not
bring it to a vote is we are going to pass it on a bipartisan basis.
Unfortunately, folks have let ideology stand in the way of common
sense. There is an ideology in some parts of this Chamber that says the
Federal Government is evil and should not assume more responsibility.
This is a responsibility that the Federal Government needs to assume
for the benefit of its citizens. The failure of the current model,
which is the airlines running the system, speaks volumes.
The other thing that I want to say is that we have to have Federal
decisionmaking on this because if we are going to have a system that
does not delay passengers, we have to have a consistent system. We
cannot have one airline doing it one way, and a second airline doing it
a different way. When we have connections, we have to have a consistent
system. We cannot have a balkanized system.
The airlines do some things good, but they do not get together and
decide things very well. They cannot even decide, after 10 years, what
size of carry-on should be the maximum side. That is why the Federal
Government needs to act.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, we do not want our police officers to be
privatized. We do not want our CIA or our FBI to be privatized. We do
not want our firefighters to be privatized. We are talking about
security here. Our airport security personnel should be professional.
They should be accountable. They should be highly trained, and they
should be government employees. The government should be responsible
for their performance.
I think this is what the American people want. The Senate voted 100
to nothing. Every Republican and every Democrat in the Senate of this
country voted to federalize this security force. Yet we are not getting
an opportunity in this House Chamber even to bring the bill to the
floor for a debate and vote. I do not believe that we will get that
opportunity until the American people express themselves, until the
American people let the leadership in this Chamber know how deeply and
how strongly they feel about this issue.
Mr. INSLEE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the
languishing of these large machines that are in a number of airports
around the country. What a terrible tragedy. I happen to know firsthand
of these particular machines.
One of the reasons given by some of the individuals I spoke to is we
do not have a physical area large enough for the machine. That is a
definitive and defined need for the Federal Government to step in and
to indicate you do not have one, you make one because it all plays into
securing the American skies, if you will.
I think the next point that I want to make is what have we been
covering and hearing about over the last couple of days? Anthrax.
[[Page H6884]]
{time} 2115
We have not been hearing about how do we prevent tragedies with
anthrax, or measures that would have prevented what is occurring now.
We are hearing of the number of incidences where people are bringing to
the attention of the law enforcement authorities about this kind of
powder and that kind of powder.
Part of it, of course, is misinformation. Part of it is not
understanding what anthrax is, what it is and what it is not. Part of
it is not having the information that the American people need to have,
and this is what we are facing right now with federalizing the
security. The American people are not hearing what the truth is about
what is happening in the United States Congress.
And though I do not expect for our media, both electronic and print,
to be our advertisers, if this is not a time for civic duty, to be able
to make headlines across the Nation, when are we going to vote on a
bill passed by the Senate 100-0? When are we going to accept the
responsibility, or the Federal Government or the Congress, to do what
they are supposed to do and to help move this forward?
That is the point I think should be made tonight. I hope someone is
listening. Because tomorrow we should wake up and we should see these
kinds of headlines, because maybe if we had seen headlines explaining
anthrax 4 weeks ago or being able to explain that you do not take an
envelope and go to a hospital, what you do is you leave it contained,
you call 911 or you call the authorities, you do not move this around,
maybe some of the tragedies that have occurred, we might have avoided.
We want to, of course, secure all these things that are happening,
but now we have a time or a chance to get in front of this issue of
security for our airlines. How can we get in front of it? How can we be
preventative? How can we be futuristic? We can pass this legislation,
have it in place and secure the American people and secure the airways
for the American people. I hope we have glaring headlines demanding a
vote in the United States House of Representatives.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. INSLEE. We should assure the American people, too, that we can
give 100 percent screening to make sure bombs are not in the belly of
our airplanes and not increase the time it takes to get on an airplane.
The reason I know that is when you think about this, we screen carry-
on baggage already. When you go through your little arched magnometer,
you put your briefcase or your purse or whatever on the machine, it
goes through; and it is x-rayed. That screens, it depends on what
airport you are in, maybe 400, 600 passengers an hour. We x-ray hand-
carried baggage already. What we need to do is to have screening for
the baggage at the same rate, the same number of passengers per hour;
and if we build that capacity, we are not going to slow down people
getting on planes for 5 minutes.
Americans have an expectation of security and convenience. In this
case, we can have those both as long as we can compel the Federal
Government to take over decision-making about these systems to assure
100 percent screening. It takes this House to act; because,
unfortunately, the airline industry for one reason or another has been
incapable of that.
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. STRICKLAND. I would like to comment on my friend from Texas and
her comment regarding the media and the need for public exposure. I
believe it is beginning to happen. I go back to what I have said before
here. I think one of the reasons we have not heard more about this is
there has been an assumption, a belief, a false belief, that bags are
currently being screened. I just point to this editorial in the
Columbus, Ohio Dispatch of today, calling attention to this matter.
Last evening in Columbus, Channel 10 television had a program where
they discussed this need for increased security and bags being checked.
So I believe people are starting to understand that what they have
assumed for a long time is not necessarily what is happening. And when
you consider the fact that probably no more than 5 percent of the
luggage that is placed in the belly of a plane is checked, that is
alarming.
I have shared with my colleagues in the past the fact that I am not
even certain that the current screening that is taking place is at all
meaningful, because at Dulles International Airport last week, I
checked in and put my bag down, and I was informed that my luggage had
been randomly selected for further screening for explosives. And then I
was asked to voluntarily take my bag down the corridor, go down another
hallway, turn down another corridor, and there I would find the
machine. I said to the person who gave me those instructions, what
makes you think that I would voluntarily if I had an explosive in that
luggage, voluntarily, without being escorted, with no one observing me,
walk down the corridor and around and in back of this wall here to
voluntarily have my bag screened if, in fact, it had explosives in it?
Why would I not just decide to leave the airport and maybe come back in
the afternoon when my bag may not be chosen at random for further
screening for explosives?
So what we are doing now, at least certainly at Dulles International
Airport, is meaningless in my judgment. We need a law, we need
procedures, we need standards, we need training, we need decent pay for
these people, and they need to be Federal employees. In that way, the
traveling public can have a high level of security and a sense that we
have done all that we can do to make sure that they are safe when they
fly.
Mr. INSLEE. I want to thank my colleagues for this safety hour. We
hope that the U.S. House listens to the American people and give them
what they want, which is 100 percent screening. It will be a good day
for the House if we do that.
____________________