[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 140 (Wednesday, October 17, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10802-S10803]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            AIRPORT SECURITY

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this morning, October 17, the Washington 
Post reported that investigators from the Inspector General's Office of 
the Transportation Department and of the Federal Aviation 
Administration went to 14 airports over the past few days to test the 
``improved'' safety standards at our nation's airports.
  What these Federal investigators found is unacceptable.
  At Dulles International Airport--where one of the planes involved in 
the September 11 terrorist attacks took off--seven baggage screeners 
failed a surprise written skills test. The screeners are supposed to 
pass such a test after completing the 12 hours of training that are a 
condition of employment.
  On a check at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport the same day, 
seven screeners were arrested by the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service when they were found to be working illegally in the United 
States.
  The Transportation Department said an unspecified number of screeners 
at some airports were found to have criminal records that should have 
disqualified them from their jobs. The Washington Post cited an example 
of a screener at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport who was removed 
from his post and lost his security badge after investigators learned 
that he had been convicted as a felon in possession of a handgun.
  During the check at Dulles, Federal investigators arrested a man who 
they said was able to walk through a security checkpoint with a 
concealed pocketknife--a felony.
  Such a report underscores the need for tighter security at our 
airports, and the American people are no doubt looking to Congress for 
the tougher airline security they were promised in the aftermath of the 
September 11 attacks.
  The Senate did its part. Last week, on October 11, we unanimously 
passed legislation to increase security at our airports. The Senate-
passed bill would create a Federal force of 28,000 screeners and armed 
security guards to check passengers and baggage.
  According to media reports, however, that legislation has stalled in 
the House of Representatives because of a partisan dispute about 
whether airline screeners should be Federal employees or hired by 
private contractors.
  We have tried that. We tried the hiring of screeners by private 
contractors. That is what has given the American people the heebie-
jeebies. The Nation is jittery after having tried that. So what are we 
arguing about? What are we waiting on now?
  Privatizing the Federal workforce is an issue that often surfaces in 
Congress. It is part of a 200-year-old debate about the proper size of 
the Federal Government. But that debate could not be more misplaced in 
today's post-September 11 environment.
  In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center 
and the Pentagon, with air traffic at 40 to 50 percent below last 
year's level, we should be focusing our energies on ensuring that the 
American people feel as safe as we can reasonably make them when they 
fly. I think we can say with some confidence that the public has reason 
to be less than comfortable with the effectiveness of our airline 
security system as it currently exists.
  It seems petty to derail the whole airline security package over the 
issue of federalization. This is not a new idea. Federal employees 
already perform key functions at U.S. airports, such as inspections by 
the Customs Service, the Agriculture Department, and the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service. There has been no call to contract these 
services to the private sector.
  All sides on this debate realize that there has to be a larger 
Federal role in

[[Page S10803]]

protecting our airlines and airports. And only by federalizing those 
screeners can the American public be assured that ``cost-cutting'' will 
not occur to the detriment of their safety.
  There is more at stake here than scoring political points about 
whether the size of the Federal Government is growing or shrinking. The 
American people are looking to the Congress to reassure them about the 
safety of their airlines. Restoring the confidence of the American 
people in airline travel is essential to getting the U.S. economy back 
on track.
  For all of the big talk and for all of the gas that has been emitted 
from the larynxes of politicians, the one that would seem to help the 
economy most is the passage of an airline security bill.
  We have done our part.
  I hope that the House leadership can settle what is a misplaced, 
partisan dispute, and address quickly the more pressing needs of the 
American people whom we serve.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________