[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 31, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7560-H7561]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            AIRLINE SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it has been 7 weeks and 1 day since the 
horrific attacks by the terrorists using our commercial airlines and 
innocent civilians and passengers and crew as weapons in attacks on the 
World Trade Towers, the Pentagon and the other plane which crashed in 
Pennsylvania.
  It has been more than 2 weeks since the United States Senate voted 
100 to 0 on a comprehensive bill to improve aviation security. Now what 
has gone on in the House so far in these issues? Nothing.
  We had the airline bailout bill, $16 billion. There was not a penny 
in it for aviation security. I tried to amend in at the end of the 
consideration of the bill a provision for aviation security, but lost 
that vote.
  Now, I think there is pretty broad agreement on both sides of the 
aisle that the current system is failing. The FAA testers, the 
regulators who oversee the system find it failing frequently. Their 
testers are able to smuggle through fake hand grenades, weapons, bombs 
with great regularity. It is failing us.
  Then we have the issue of a number of large private security firms, 
most notably Argenbright, largest in the United States, subsidiary of 
one of the largest in the world, the three major private security firms 
which provide security at airports, are foreign owned. They have a 
problem. They were criminally convicted last year of hiring known 
felons, maintaining known felons on staff, lying to the Federal 
regulators, falsifying documents to Federal regulators. They were fined 
$1.1 million and put on probation.
  Well, here we are a year later and guess what? They are in court 
again. They are under indictment for hiring known felons, maintaining 
known felons on staff, falsifying documents to Federal regulators. So 
although there may be agreement here that we need to do something, 
unfortunately the majority, particularly a couple of leaders on the 
majority side, want to perpetuate that system. They said, all we have 
to do is take the Argenbright Company, known felons, the company 
itself, in for its second felony trial and supervise them more. How 
much more supervision can you provide than probation?
  They are on probation. They are violating their probation. Maybe if 
we put the CEO in jail that will get their attention, but I cannot see 
that this new system of supervision they are talking about is going to 
shape these people up. They have got problems over in Europe at 
Heathrow. They have 38 people working in critical positions allowing 
access to secure parts of the airport who had not had background 
checks. Same problem they got here in the United States.
  Some members of the leadership of the majority on that side want to 
perpetuate this failing $800 million a year security on the cheap 
bureaucracy because it is immensely profitable to those companies 
employing minimum wage, undertrained and abused employees. That has got 
to change.
  We just cannot fix it. We cannot bring in the same firms, the same 
firms that have committed felonies and make them better with new 
regulations. They are saying, well, this is

[[Page H7561]]

what we will do, we will set the wage; we will set the benefit package. 
This is the Federal Government. We will set the training, we will 
supervise the training, we will do the background checks and we will 
supervise the workers, but they will not be Federal employees.
  What sense does that make? If we are going to do all that, why not 
make them into Federal law enforcement personnel, just like we have 
right out here at the doors of the capitol. We do not have private 
security out there because I do not think most Members of Congress 
would feel safe. We have armed Federal law enforcement agents.
  Should we do any less for the traveling American public when it comes 
to aviation safety? Should they go into the airports and have these 
companies that have committed felonies and perpetuated in those crimes 
or should they have a Federal law enforcement workforce, just like when 
they confront the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs 
Service. The Department of Agriculture checks bags in Hawaii and at 
other times people coming into the United States. They are all sworn 
Federal law enforcement officers, but somehow they are telling us 
either we cannot afford that.
  I mean one very candid member of the Republican leadership said these 
people could join unions if they become Federal employees. Well, guess 
what? They can join unions if they are private employees. In fact, this 
legislation is being opposed by a private union because they have 
unionized some of these folks. They can be unionized one way or 
another.
  There is another concern I have about that. Most of the people who 
were working and died, other than those innocently at work, on the day 
of this tragedy, the firefighters, the medics, the police, the pilots 
and the flight attendants, they were all members of unions. What is 
wrong with unions?

                          ____________________