[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.

                          ____________________