[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 30, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7393-H7397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            AIRLINE SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Platts). 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, some of us have come to the House floor 
tonight on the subject we have been speaking on for several weeks now, 
which is the importance of passing not just a sham airline security 
bill but a real solid, responsible, certain airline security bill that 
will accomplish what the American people need, which is to have full 
confidence that their airlines are safe.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the bill that is going to be introduced 
tomorrow or the next day falls short in several very, very important 
respects. We have had a long history in the last several decades of 
having failures in airline security which manifested themselves on 
September 11. We think the U.S. House cannot miss this opportunity 
tomorrow or Thursday to in fact plug not just some, and not just the 
easy holes to plug in airline security, but the ones that are 
meaningful, and to, in fact, plug all the holes in the net we have in 
order to catch terrorist activity. And we want to talk about some of 
those tonight.
  Let me start with one that in my view is the most glaring hole in our 
airline security system today, and that is the stunning fact that I 
learned about 3 weeks ago. When I heard this I just about fell out of 
my chair. I was receiving a security briefing at a major airport in the 
western United States and we were talking about all the recent efforts 
and changes to try to make sure passengers do not bring sharp objects 
into the passenger compartment of the airplanes. I started asking 
questions about the checked baggage that goes into the belly of an 
airplane, and I asked where the equipment was to screen the baggage 
that goes into the belly of an airplane to make sure nobody put a bomb 
on it. The people I was talking to had this kind of sheepish look on 
their faces and they said, well, we do not do that all the time. I 
thought they were sort of joking. But it turns out they were not.
  What I came to find out is that in airports across this country 90 to 
95 percent of all the bags that go into the belly of an airplane have 
zero screening for explosive devices, and I mean zero screening. So 
nine out of 10 bags that go in the belly of an airplane that we are 
flying on with our loved ones are not screened for any explosive 
devices. That is a sad, pathetic state of affairs that this House needs 
to change this week with no ifs, ands or buts.
  Now, the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that although we have technology to 
do this, and the good news is we have technology that screens for 
explosive devices very thoroughly, the fact of the matter is that the 
bill that the majority party is proposing for this week does not have a 
certain requirement in it that these bags be checked by a certain date. 
That is sad, and that needs to change.
  We believe that the U.S. House needs to pass a law that requires 100 
percent of all the bags that go into the belly of an airplane be 
screened for an explosive device with the best technology that we have. 
And we have some darned good technology. We have machines today that 
have been in use for several years, if the airline companies will turn 
them on anyway, that can find explosives with a high degree of 
probability. We need to make sure more of those machines are purchased. 
We need to require those to be turned on and put them in series so we 
can get in our airplanes in a timely fashion without bombs being in the 
baggage compartments.
  Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will be offering amendments, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), myself, and the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays), a Republican, who has been working on legislation to 
require that 100 percent of these bags be screened. We are very hopeful 
that the majority party will allow our amendment to be considered on 
the floor of the House. It would be a shame if politics keeps this 
amendment from being considered. We are very hopeful that we can have a 
solid bipartisan vote in this Chamber to make sure all these bags get 
checked.

  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland), who has been a great leader in advancing this issue.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentleman from Washington State for 
yielding to me.
  I think it is important for people to understand why we have not been 
able to bring a bill to the floor thus far, and why it may be that our 
amendment to require that all bags be checked will not even get a vote 
on this floor. I think the American people sometimes do not fully 
understand that there are certain rules and procedures that govern what 
happens in this House, and those rules and procedures are dominated by 
the majority party. And especially in terms of the amendment that we 
are trying to get brought to this floor, that is determined really by 
the Committee on Rules.
  We were just upstairs not more than 10 minutes ago asking the 
Committee on Rules if we could bring our amendment to the floor so that 
here in this Chamber, comprised of all the representatives of the 
people, 435 of us from across this great United States, that at least 
we would have an opportunity to cast a vote and to make a decision 
regarding this vital public safety matter.
  It is, I think, true that most Americans, in the past at least, when 
they have gone and purchased a ticket for air travel and placed 
themselves and perhaps their families, their children even on an 
airplane were assuming that all the luggage that went into the belly of 
that plane had been properly screened for explosives. We now know that 
that just simply does not happen.
  We found out many years ago, about 13 years ago, when the plane 
exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, that a simple explosive device, 
perhaps placed in a suitcase, if it is loaded into the belly of an 
airplane, can literally destroy that airplane. So many lives were lost 
there. And the gentleman and I had an opportunity just 2 or 3 weeks ago 
to meet with two fathers who lost sons in that Lockerbie explosion. So 
this is something that is a matter of life and death.
  As I just said to the Committee on Rules, what we decide on this 
issue may determine whether or not at some point in the future 
Americans will lose their lives. The American traveling public has a 
right to travel in conditions that are as safe as we can make them. And 
if we pass an airline security bill this week that omits this vital 
loophole, then the American public will not be as safe as they have a 
right to be.
  I would like to share just a few words from an editorial that 
appeared in the Columbus Dispatch, the major newspaper in Columbus, 
Ohio, which is the capital of the great State of Ohio, and this 
editorial pointed out the fact that the Department of Transportation's 
Inspector General recently reported that at 7 of the Nation's 20 
highest risk airports there was no scanning of checked baggage.
  The editorial goes ahead to point out that some time ago $441 million 
were used to buy 164 of these high-tech bomb detection machines that 
were to be used in 50 of the most busy airports in our country. The 
editorial then points out that after this huge expenditure of millions 
and millions of dollars, and the actual purchasing of these machines, 
that they were not used. They were just left in warehouses gathering 
dust.
  So what our amendment does, it has a specific time line that will 
require that this be done. And unless there is a legislative 
requirement that it be done in a reasonable period of time, a date 
certain, I fear that it will never happen, and that at some point in 
the future we will lose an airplane needlessly because we have failed 
to take this action.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is a necessity of the U.S. 
House

[[Page H7394]]

of Representatives to have a date certain to do this by. It is made 
obvious by a couple of facts. The gentleman made reference to the 
Lockerbie bombing where there were hundreds of young people who were on 
that plane, and their families have now been working for 13 years to 
get the Federal Aviation Administration to move to require screening of 
checked baggage. Despite 13 years of advocacy with this agency, this 
agency has done nothing except give wish lists which they may do some 
day. Some day is just not good enough.
  It would be a sad failure if this House passed something without some 
time-line when we have this kind of experience of agency failure over 
this long period of time.
  Another example, the majority party's bill has language, and it is 
good rhetoric that rhetorically says these bags will be screened, I 
guess someday, we do not know when. But look what happened when we did 
similar language in 1995 when this House essentially directed the FAA 
to adopt regulations that would improve the screening and certification 
of the people who do the passenger screening. Six years later, the FAA 
had still not improved the certification and training of the folks who 
are supposed to keep weapons off airplanes.
  If the FAA takes 6 years to try to figure out a regulation to try to 
figure how to keep people from bringing knives or box cutters on 
airplanes, do we think that this language in this bill is going to get 
them to get these machines in airports? We do not think so. I do not 
have confidence in that. The American people will not have confidence 
in that.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, there are those who say we cannot do 
that in a timely manner. But the fact is that we can do what we choose 
to do. If we think that it is important enough to do, we will see that 
it is done. This country is a technological giant. There is practically 
nothing we cannot do once we set our minds to it. To imply that we 
cannot build machines fast enough or modify the airports in a timely 
manner is simply underestimating the ability of the American people.
  This is a puzzling issue because it is something that nearly everyone 
says we need to do. Yet there is a lack of will to actually proceed to 
do it.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I disagree a little bit 
with the gentleman who says we are technological giants. I have a door 
knob on my house that I cannot get to work; but there are others who 
have developed this equipment which is incredibly accurate. We do not 
have a war mobilization plan from the U.S. Congress. When the Japanese 
bombed Pearl Harbor and President Roosevelt gave his speech from this 
Chamber, we immediately went on a wartime industrial mobilization 
process. Nobody said we cannot build the Pentagon in 12 months, we 
cannot do that. The Pentagon was built from conception to completion in 
12 months.
  When they needed big bombers, they built 12,000, maybe 14,000, I 
would need to check the numbers, B-24 complex bombers, 4-engine 
bombers, because they said we are going to do it.
  Now the House has to get up on its hind legs and say we are going to 
build 2,000 of those machines by a time certain. If we give an agency 
language as soon as we get around to it, I am not sure that it is going 
to be in this millennium.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we are 
going to pass a bill this week, and it is going to have this fairly 
meaningless language in it; and then we are going to tell people that 
we have solved the problem. The American people are going to be led to 
believe that we have done everything we can to make their traveling on 
airplanes as safe as possible, and it simply will not be true. We need 
to be specific. We need to have a mandate and a time certain.
  If I can share a few other thoughts from this Columbus Dispatch 
editorial, it points out that the security procedures commonly in place 
have focused nearly entirely on the contents of carry-on baggage, and 
the screening for checked luggage is through a series of questions 
designed to reveal whether people had packed their own bags and kept 
them in sight and planned to board the plane for which they were 
ticketed.
  These measures were imposed after the Lockerbie explosion, and they 
were based on the theory that no one would board a plane that was going 
to blow up because the theory was a person would be highly unlikely to 
blow up a plane and kill themselves. But on September 11 we learned 
something. We learned that there are terrorists, fanatical terrorists, 
who not only are willing to die, but seemingly are anxious to die for 
what they believe in.
  We can no longer use this casual method of asking have you packed 
your own bag and has it been in your sight. We need to have the 
technology that will make it possible to screen for explosives. Some of 
these explosives are so powerful that a portion the size of a bar of 
soap can do incredible damage. We cannot afford to allow this to 
continue as it has.

  As I said to my colleague from Washington State, we are going to be 
debating these matters here in the House of Representatives, and there 
are going to be some who are going to contend that this language, 
almost meaningless language, is going to provide protection to the 
American people. If that is all we get in this bill, it is going to be 
a real failure, in my judgment.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the majority party does not allow a vote 
on this amendment, we will have spent all of this energy debating who 
the employees will be doing the screening, and there will be 
substantial debate. There is a difference between the parties largely 
on that issue. Democrats believe there should be Federal responsibility 
like border guards, FBI agents, marshals, that these ought to be 
Federal employees because that is the safest way to go.
  The majority has an ideological hang-up, and there will be debate. To 
not have a debate on who will take nail clippers away from passengers, 
and not have a specific promise to the American people that by a date 
certain the bags are screened to determine that the bags are not packed 
with 30 pounds of C-4 high explosives, would be a criminally negligent 
act by this House.
  We are concerned and do not think that this ideological inhibition 
that my friends in the majority leadership have against Federal 
employees should stymie our ability to make a commitment to the 
American people that their bags are not going to have bombs in them.
  I have good friends on the Republican side of the aisle who back this 
provision. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has been a leader 
on campaign reform issues and has supported this. We have quite a 
number of other Republicans who are supporting this. We believe if we 
have a vote on this floor, we will have good bipartisan support for 
this provision.
  Mr. Speaker, the problem is if the majority leadership has a 
stranglehold on the rules and does not allow a vote, we are not going 
to have this bipartisan solution adopted. We urge all Members to see 
that the majority party allows this to the floor for a vote. Then we 
can have the other vote about who these parties should be.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I was in Athens, Ohio, this past 
weekend; and I had a discussion with a young man who told me he had 
planned a trip to Florida for himself, his wife and children; and he 
said I am not flying. I have gone to the airlines and asked for my 
ticket money back. They will not return my ticket money, but they have 
told him that he can use his ticket during the next 12 months. He said, 
I hope after a few months I will feel safe enough to use those tickets.
  We want the airlines to survive and prosper, and we hear talk 
encouraging the American people to go back to normal living and carry 
on their lives as they did prior to September 11, to buy goods, to 
enjoy themselves in social settings and the like. We also want them to 
fly.
  Congress gave the airline industry a $15 billion bailout less than a 
month ago because we were afraid the airline industry would not survive 
in this country without that kind of governmental assistance. I opposed 
that bill at the time; but many, many of my friends in this Chamber 
thought it was the right thing to do and voted for it.
  My feeling is the best way to get airlines healthy in an economic 
sense is

[[Page H7395]]

to encourage people to fly. How can we encourage people to fly if 
flying is not as safe as it ought to be or could be? I want to be able 
to say to that young man in Athens, Ohio, and to all of my 
constituents, we have taken action in the House of Representatives that 
will keep you as safe as it is possible for you to be when you choose 
to use air travel.
  Once we do that, then I think the American people will return to the 
airports and they will take their vacations and business trips.
  I talked to another individual today who was in Florida, and he was 
coming back to Washington and I asked him how he was getting back here 
and he said, I am driving. Ordinarily this individual would fly, but he 
still does not feel comfortable in flying. We need to take this action. 
If we do, I believe the American people will return to life as they 
normally lived it prior to September 11.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment about confidence in 
the American people. The reason this has not happened to date is some 
folks have not wanted to make the investment to buy these machines or 
to take the trouble to install them. I cannot think of a more penny-
wise and pound-foolish approach when it comes to safety. If we lose 
another plane, nobody is going to be getting on these airplanes. We are 
already down significantly.
  As a person who represents thousands of Boeing workers in the Seattle 
area, we have had 12,000 people laid off this year because of the drop 
of people getting on airplanes. The U.S. economy cannot withstand the 
devastation that will occur if we lose another airplane. As far as the 
expenses, it will cost about $2 billion to install these measures. If 
we put it in context, it is $2 per ticket for 1 year. I am convinced 
that people think it is worth $2 a ticket to make sure there is not a 
bomb in the airplane. That is for 1 year. It is a one-time investment.
  Our proposal has suggested that we simply appropriate funds from the 
general fund to make this investment. The other Chamber has made a 
proposal with a surcharge of $2 per ticket to assist in security. We 
think that it is just as well to take it out of the general fund. 
However it is financed, people who get on airplanes, if we poll them, 
do passengers want this $2 spent by somebody, they are going to say 
``yes'' even if it is them. It is worth $2 to get over this known 
threat.
  I am hopeful that the majority party will hear our request to allow a 
bipartisan consensus to develop; but I think we need to describe why 
this has not happened to date. The reason it has not happened to date 
is that there has been this ideological resistance to the idea of 
having the Federal Government act to take care of the citizens it is 
supposed to protect.
  The first duty of government is to protect the physical security and 
safety of its citizens. That is the first duty of government. Frankly, 
government has not done as good a job as it should in this regard. Our 
government has engaged in an experiment in airline safety in the last 
10 years. That experiment involved letting out to the low bidder the 
contracting out of the employees to screen passengers before they get 
on airplanes.

                              {time}  1945

  We had that experiment and it was a grand failure on September 11, 
because we had multiple known failures of that system. We had these 
companies hiring ex-felons. We had these companies hiring people that 
had been fired at other places. We would have companies that did not 
screen their own employees for who their identity is. We have had test 
after test after test where we had these employees that were so poorly 
paid and so poorly trained and totally noncertified that at Dulles 
International Airport when they tried to get 20 weapons through out of 
20, they got seven weapons through this alleged screening-porous 
system. So that was an experiment that failed.
  We should not be having this theoretical argument because that 
experiment failed. Having private contractors with government 
supervision is a known recipe for disaster. We need to have a 
federalized system of Federal employees who the Federal Government 
certifies, trains and employs to give passengers what they deserve 
which is a high level of confidence. To me, I have to tell you, if you 
ask people who is more important to your personal security, whose eyes 
and ears and judgment is more important to your personal security, a 
border guard or a screener at an airport check-in counter, I have got 
to believe the check-in counter is at least and I think more important 
to our physical personal safety. We make sure that the people who do 
the border guards are Federal employees so we can make sure that they 
hew to the standards that we set. But we do not do that for the people 
who your personal safety is in their hands when you get onto an 
airplane.
  I heard a flight attendant sort of ask a good question. She says 
Members of Congress have Federal employees protect their personal 
security, our police force here in the U.S. Capitol. We insist that we 
have government employees protect our personal security. But for the 
flying public, we let the lowest-priced, minimum wage, untrained, 
uncertified ex-felon get that job as long as a contractor can swing 
some low-ball deal. That is not the way we can do business anymore. So 
we are going to insist on having Federal employees do this work.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I would like to share an incident that happened with 
me at Dulles International Airport just within the last 2 weeks. I 
think it illustrates the fact that our current procedures are woefully 
inadequate and even dangerous. I went to the airport early one morning, 
I had a 7:20 flight so I arrived well before that time. I asked to have 
my bag checked. The person there at the ticket counter gave me my seat 
assignment and handed the ticket back to me. Then she said, Sir, you've 
been selected at random to have your bags further screened. They were 
screening them for possible explosive devices. Then she said to me, I 
would like for you to take your bag, walk down the corridor here until 
you come to the crossover, turn to the left, go to the next major 
corridor, turn to the left and you will see the machine where they are 
doing the screening over at your right.
  I said to her, With all due respect to whoever is responsible for 
this process, what makes you think that if I've got an explosive device 
in that bag that I am going to voluntarily, without being escorted or 
without being observed, carry it over there and ask someone to screen 
it for explosives? It just does not make sense.
  The fact is that if I had had an explosive device in that bag, I 
could have just simply left the airport and come back later in the day 
at a time when it was highly unlikely that I would be selected a second 
time at random to have that bag checked. But I think it points out a 
larger problem. I have been told that at Dulles, for example, 80 
percent of the people who provide the screening are low-paid 
individuals with minimal training and some 80 percent are noncitizens. 
It is difficult to do adequate background checks and the like when you 
have those circumstances prevail.
  I would like to share something that was written in the Dallas 
Morning News just a few days ago regarding this matter. I quote from 
this Dallas Morning News story:

       We normally favor private sector responses, but it was 
     troubling to hear from the Justice Department last week that 
     a major handler of security in the U.S. airports had hired 
     screeners who had criminal backgrounds and drug problems and 
     who had lied about their histories. That record does not bode 
     well for a dual system of private employees and Federal 
     standards. It's better to think of airline screeners as 
     important as border guards or custom agents, all of whom work 
     for the government. There is a time for ideological 
     arguments, but there is also a time when legislators need to 
     compromise. We have reached that moment. The Nation needs 
     better airport security and the House should not stand in its 
     way.

  That, I think, is a very powerful statement from the Dallas 
newspaper, indicating that we need to move to have a system of 
screeners and employees that are answerable to Uncle Sam. My friend 
from Washington State said that we would not tolerate private employees 
guarding this wonderful Capitol building or providing security for 
those of us who are Members of the House of Representatives or the 
Senate of the United States. We want professional law enforcement, 
public law enforcement officials doing that. There should be no less 
concern for the traveling American public. They also deserve to have 
security personnel who

[[Page H7396]]

are answerable to Uncle Sam, who are sworn, who are well-trained, who 
are dedicated to the public protection. Anything less than that will 
continue to put the traveling public at risk.

  Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate that. I think you have to ask why there is 
such resistance to this idea. It is actually surprising to me. You have 
to ask, do the folks in the majority party who refuse to accept this 
idea, is it because they distrust the Capitol Police because they are 
employees of Uncle Sam? Is it because they distrust our border guards 
because they are employees of Uncle Sam rather than working for a 
private contractor? Do they distrust firefighters because they are 
governmental employees rather than working for private enterprise? I 
think the answer is no. My friends in the majority party would say, No, 
we trust firefighters. We trust our border guards. We trust our FBI 
agents. We trust our Capitol Police who work for Uncle Sam. It is not a 
lack of trust. And if you ask them what is it, then, they would say, I 
believe, in all sincerity, we just don't like government doing things. 
I think that is the bottom line. There is an ideological inhibition of 
some of our friends across the aisle who have refused to accept the 
proposition that there are times when Uncle Sam has to come to the aid 
of its citizens. And when you are under a threat from terrorists who 
are running airplanes into large buildings and somebody who is putting 
anthrax in our mail, it is time to accept the proposition that Uncle 
Sam needs to come to the physical assistance of its citizens. We hope 
that enough of our friends across the aisle forget the ideological 
debating points. This is not a Harvard debate. This is an issue of life 
and death, whether we are going to save people or not. And so we hope 
that this practical, common-sense attitude allows us to develop a 
bipartisan consensus here and for a moment we can put away these 
ideological, theoretical things, arguments we used to have in college 
at midnight. This is real life.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I have heard some of the leaders on the other side of 
the aisle say that they did not want the federalization of these 
employees because they would join unions. But I think it is appropriate 
for us to recall that the young firefighters who gave their lives in 
the trade towers in New York City were, by and large, members of a 
union, that the police officers that sacrificed their lives in service 
on that terrible day of September 11, they were members of unions. I do 
not think we should fight this battle on the basis of whether or not 
the employees would be able to join a union or not join a union. What 
we want are people who are responsible to the government, to the 
Federal Government, to provide the kind of protection that the American 
people need and deserve. I doubt very seriously that if the firemen and 
the police officers in New York City were paid little more than minimum 
wage, were private contractors, that they would have been willing to do 
what those brave men and women did on September 11 in New York City. We 
do not privatize our FBI, we do not privatize our customs agents, we do 
not privatize our border patrol folks. We do not privatize the Capitol 
Police that protect this wonderful Capitol and provide protections for 
Members of the U.S. Senate and Members of the United States House of 
Representatives. They are not privatized. Why should the people who 
provide the protection for our citizens who go to airports and get on 
airplanes have to suffer under the protection of lowly paid individuals 
who are poorly trained and who cannot, even though they try, under 
those circumstances, they cannot provide the depth and the quality of 
protection that the traveling public deserves?
  Mr. INSLEE. I think that is a very good point, that the people who 
are working at these gates now, we are not blaming them. They are 
working hard. But they are given maybe minimum wage. They are given 
maybe a few hours of instruction. As a result of their poor treatment, 
some of these airports have a 300 to 400 percent turnover rate. And as 
long as you are having a low bid situation, you can expect those 
conditions to prevail.
  Now, I think we should talk a little bit about why this system has 
failed. Why has this experiment of having private contractors provide 
this service failed? We had FAA supervision of them. This is what our 
friends across the aisle are proposing. Private contractors hire the 
people, the FAA has supervision. That is exactly what we had in the 
last 10 years. The FAA has drawn up these rules for these contractors 
to follow. So you have to ask yourself, why has this been such a 
miserable failure? The sad fact is, because the contractors and the 
airlines they serve have been successful with their armies of lobbyists 
who do a good job who have come up here and have blocked, in Congress 
and in the FAA, any rules or statutes to significantly increase the 
professionalism of this workforce, because it would cost another 
dollar. And they have been successful in strangling any progress in our 
political system to do this. It is clear to me that until that 
stranglehold is broken, we are not going to get to a professional law 
enforcement oriented screening system in this country. That is why it 
is important to us to move in this direction.

  I would like to now yield if I could to my good friend the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the great prosecutor who knows 
something about law enforcement.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I would like to thank my colleague the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), 
and I see seated here with me also the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the federalization of airline 
security personnel. Yesterday in the City of Cleveland, I joined with 
many other unions who represent the workers at the airport in support 
of airline security and a safety net for the workers of the airlines. I 
have a personal interest in this in light of the fact that my father, 
Andrew Tubbs, worked for United Airlines some 38 years as a sky cap. My 
sister, Mattie Still, worked for United Airlines some 30 years as a CTR 
operator. My brother-in-law, Robert Still, worked as a sky cap in 
California for some 30 years. And currently my niece, Lorri Still, is a 
flight attendant with United Airlines. So the workers of the airlines 
industry are very, very important and personal to me.
  Yesterday, in the City of Cleveland we stood and said to the 
Congress, hurry up. Time is a-wasting. We need to enact legislation 
that will federalize the airline security personnel. We need to elevate 
the position of airline security to the level of those of law 
enforcement, to the firefighters, to the Cleveland police officers, 
police officers across this country, to the Federal marshals, to the 
Capitol Hill police. That way they will get the type of training and 
professionalism that they need in the job.
  I want to say to the American public, get back on the airplanes like 
we are required to do. I want to say, have trust in what happens. But 
until we federalize airline security, that in fact is not going to 
happen.

                              {time}  2000

  I heard others say that they are worried about people joining unions. 
I wish my father had had a union. He used to tell me stories about the 
skycaps: no unions, no dollars for health care, no dollars for sick 
leave. And what they used to do, these guys used to pass the hat, so 
when they got tips on any evening, they used to divide those tips up 
among the folks that were there and put money in for those who were not 
there, so that those guys still had tips, as though they were working 
every day.
  Why should workers have to do that? The company should provide that 
type of security. Why should we think that this job is any less 
honorable than any other job?
  As I go back through the airport every weekend into the city of 
Cleveland, those skycaps walk up and say, ``Stephanie, are you trying 
to get money for me?'' The people working at the desk say, ``Stephanie, 
are you trying to get money for us? Are you trying to secure and make 
sure the jobs we do on a daily basis are secure?''
  I have friends, and I think about these guys. My father is 81 years 
old, and I think about all the guys that used to work with him who are 
still around and they say, ``What a great group of men we had.'' So if 
skycaps right now make $2.88 an hour, imagine what they made back in 
the 1940s per hour to work and do the job.
  So I am just standing here with my colleagues, the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentlewoman

[[Page H7397]]

 from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), and 
all of us who believe in the importance of airline security, that it is 
time out to the Congress. Step up to the plate. Say to the American 
public that we are going to secure you. We are going to make sure when 
you get on that plane, things are safe. Maybe even in the legislation 
that we pass, we will require that every piece of luggage that gets on 
a plane has been screened in some fashion.
  But if we can elevate the position of airline security to an 
honorable position, a professional position, all of us will be better 
off. I am so happy to join the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 
and all of the Members this evening as we talk about this important 
issue that is important to the security and safety of all of us here in 
the United States and those traveling through the United States.
  Mr. INSLEE. I hope the gentlewoman will report to your former skycap 
father that he has got something to be proud about, sending you to us.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I called him up and said, ``Dad, turn it on. I am 
talking about you tonight.''
  Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentlewoman very much.
  I want to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for some 
closing comments. I intend to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur) to finish the hour.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would just like to close my remarks this evening by once again 
referring to the editorial in the Columbus Dispatch of October 16. The 
editorial ends with this question: 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, and 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 airways 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 would just like to point out in closing that in the Senate, they 
voted 100 to zero to pass this vital legislation. We need to bring it 
to this floor, and we need to pass it this week. If we do not, the 
American people should hold us accountable.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I would like to yield to a person who is always a voice for common 
sense, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) 
for bringing up this very important subject at a time when the American 
people are expecting to hear from us, their representatives, and also 
our beloved colleague, the gentlewoman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mrs. 
Jones), whose family obviously has enormous experience in this area, 
merely to say thank you to all of you for highlighting this important 
issue to the American public, the issue of safety in the airline 
industry and how important it is and what common sense it makes to have 
a Federal position at our various airports around the country, Federal 
positions, Federal responsibilities, Federal training and a program of 
instruction and of career advancement, so we can get the very best type 
of training and trained individuals to serve in these critical 
positions now and into the future.
  It would be so very easy for us to merely take the Senate bill and to 
pass it here; yet it has been held in abeyance now for several weeks. 
So there is not a commitment by the leadership of this institution to 
federalize these security positions.
  All of us flew back here over the last 2 days. We know the people out 
there at the airports are doing the very best that they can. But, 
honestly, we need to have the same kind of professionalism that we have 
in our security services around this country at different levels.
  I just wanted to thank these gentlemen for telling the American 
people that it is high time we took up the Senate bill and passed it 
here.
  I know that the gentleman has time remaining, and I want to give him 
a chance to close.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, just to make a closing comment, then I am 
going to yield to the Chair so the Chair can yield back to the 
gentlewoman for another subject. I wanted to thank the Members who have 
joined me this evening. This is the crunch time for the U.S. House. It 
has a duty. I certainly hope that we do our duty, which is to set a 
time-line to get every bag checked for explosive devices, that we have 
a professional force to do it. Heaven help us if we do not discharge 
that duty. I hope bipartisanship will actually blossom this week to get 
this job done.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the Chair.

                          ____________________