[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 31, 2001)]
[House]
[Page H7565]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               NO RED LINE THAT TERRORISTS WILL NOT CROSS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the Cold War is over, and the world is a more 
dangerous place. September 11 and the carnage that followed proved to 
us that there is no red line. There is no line that terrorists will not 
cross. There is no limit to what they might and in fact will do.
  We are in a race with terrorists to prevent them from getting a 
better delivery system for chemical and biological agents, to get 
nuclear waste material to explode in a bomb, a conventional bomb, or 
even to get a nuclear weapon. They will use all of those weapons 
because there is no red line to them.
  It is not a question of if we will face a chemical or biological 
attack. As we are finding out, it is a question of when, where and of 
what magnitude. Not every attack will be the thousand-year storm or the 
hundred-year storm, and we are not going to wait on our roofs with an 
umbrella over our heads in anticipation of that. We are going to get on 
with our lives, but we need to know that we are truly in a race.
  We are at war. This war requires us to do what three commissions have 
told us: The Gilmore Commission, the Bremer Commission, and the Hart-
Rudman Commission. They said we need to have a proper assessment of the 
terrorist threat, we need to have a strategy to face this terrorist 
threat, and we need to organize our government to be more effective.
  Tom Ridge and his Office of Homeland Security is going to have to 
work overtime in understanding what we face, making the assessment of 
the terrorist threat with others who will be helping him, and develop 
that strategy and then organize the government to respond.
  One of the issues that we will be debating tomorrow is airport 
security. I am amazed with the amount of time and effort that is being 
spent discussing whether they be Federal employees or not Federal 
employees. That is not the issue. The issue is safety. They could be 
Federal employees and provide very good service to the country, and 
they could not be and provide very good service to the country. The key 
is that they be professionals, that they view this as a job that they 
want to develop an expertise in, and that they gain knowledge and 
provide tremendous energy in carrying out their duties.
  My biggest concern with airport security is obviously safety. It is 
safety in making sure that we do not have bombs in the belly of 
aircraft. As things stand now, we do not check the luggage when it is 
put in the plane, and I am grateful that the majority party has looked 
to address this issue, that they are putting in the manager's amendment 
an amendment that will require that by the end of the year 2003, that 
all baggage will be checked that goes in the belly of an airplane to 
make sure that we do not have Pan Am 103 and others like it in the 
years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the Special Order by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) about the Lutjens and its 
respect for our American sailors touched my heart as well, and I am 
happy the gentleman talked about it today.

                          ____________________