[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 31, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7565-H7573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            AIRLINE SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, the topic I want to talk about tonight, and 
I am pleased very much to be joined by several of my colleagues, 
including the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the gentleman 
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), 
and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), is the topic that we 
will be debating on the floor tomorrow, and it is a topic of great 
concern for every single American, and that is the security of our 
airline system and our air travel system here in this country.
  Tomorrow we will debate airline security legislation, and it is very 
important that we do that because we are

[[Page H7566]]

being urged by some to rush to judgment and pass the bill that the 
Senate has already passed.

                              {time}  1830

  I do not think it is appropriate to ever rush to judgment when you 
are legislating. Legislation becomes permanent, it becomes the law of 
the land, and it is binding and cannot be changed until the Congress 
meets again to change it. And so I think we have a duty to do that 
conscientiously and thoughtfully.
  I want to begin by talking about what this debate is really about and 
what it is not about. First of all and most importantly, for the people 
of America, for American families who vacation by taking an airplane 
someplace and for American businesswomen and businessmen who have to 
travel on our Nation's airlines to do the business of this Nation, the 
issue is, how do we create the absolute safest, most secure airline 
system and air passenger system in the world?
  As is sadly often the case in these debates on the floor, a lot of 
people try to hide the ball and not focus on what really is the issue. 
I think it is very, very important to understand that both sides in 
this debate believe passionately that we need to create the safest 
system. One side says, the Senate bill has already done that; the other 
side is saying, ``No, wait a minute, let's take a look at that 
legislation.''
  But I want it understood that, although people may have heard that 
this is a partisan debate, I and my colleagues who will speak tonight 
on this issue do not believe that this is a partisan issue. We believe 
that this is an issue solely about the safety of our airline system, 
aviation safety in America and how to create the best possible system 
and the safest possible system. There is not a Republican way to do 
that or a Democrat way to do that, and this is not about somebody's 
motives. This is about how do we do it best, how do we create the best 
and the safest system.
  Those of us who will be arguing for the House bill tomorrow and 
arguing it for tonight genuinely believe that it is a better piece of 
legislation, that it will go further and do more to protect the 
American people, and that there are serious problems with the Senate 
bill. I do not question the motives of the Senators who wrote the 
Senate bill. I do not question that they intended to make some mistakes 
in that bill; they did not intend to make mistakes. But as this 
discussion tonight, I think, will illustrate, there are some serious 
flaws in that legislation that deserve to be debated and scrutinized 
and analyzed; and if, in fact, they are flaws, then they ought to be 
corrected in the process. That is what we are trying to do.
  Secondly, having said that this is about creating the safest aviation 
system in the world, I want to make it very, very clear that this is 
not about the current system. I want to put up a chart here that shows 
that system.
  A few moments ago on this floor, one of my colleagues stood up and 
said that the proponents of the House bill want to, and this is a 
direct quote, he said, perpetuate that system, referring to the current 
system of aviation security; and he said they wanted to do that because 
it is profitable for the companies, and he said we want to keep the 
same companies that are currently doing the job.
  I want it understood in the clearest possible terms that every one of 
my colleagues in this Congress and every American can download the 
House bill and can discover for themselves what I am about to tell you, 
and that is that those statements that the House bill perpetuate the 
current system, that we are doing so because it is profitable for those 
companies and that we would keep the same companies are absolutely, 
totally, abjectly false and no honest debate can go forward on 
untruthful information.
  The current system in America which that Member of Congress was 
referring to requires the airlines of America, American Airlines in my 
home State, America West, United, you pick it, to hire the guards that 
perform the screening of passengers as they board airplanes. They are 
hired by the airlines and they are private companies. I want to refer 
to this chart over here. Under the current system, the airlines hire 
private companies and there is absolutely no Federal supervision, no 
Federal law enforcement supervision of the personnel that do those 
jobs.
  Let me make this point clear; I want to drive it home over and over 
again in this debate. No one is proposing that we keep that system. No 
one is proposing that we continue to rely on the existing airlines to 
hire the current private companies. So all the anecdotal information 
that you heard here on the floor about those companies are being 
indicted, those companies have hired felons, those companies underpay, 
those companies have perhaps even lied or perjured themselves, none of 
that is relevant to this debate because the current system is gone. It 
is absolutely, totally gone.
  The airlines, following the effective date of this legislation, will 
not hire or be responsible for hiring or paying for the individuals who 
do the screening. Under the House committee bill, the Transportation 
Committee bill, the bill that I believe is a more thoughtful and better 
product, responsibility for airline security, aviation security, is 
handed over to the Federal Government and it is performed by Federal 
law enforcement personnel at every single site. Let me just put up a 
little chart that shows that.
  This is a schematic of the system that would be in existence 
following the passage of this legislation. If you see this little green 
man down here, he is a passenger. When they come on board, that 
passenger's baggage, carry-on baggage is screened, right here. Federal 
personnel are at that gate, are at that checkpoint to screen that 
carry-on baggage. His checked baggage goes through, and as the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) was just explaining, that 
checked baggage will be screened by personnel who are either Federal 
employees or who are being currently supervised at that site, at that 
moment, by Federal employees.
  You go on through the system and there are other personnel, there is 
camera surveillance, there are Federal marshals. Every little blue man 
that you see on this screen is Federal Government law enforcement 
personnel or is somebody trained and currently being supervised right 
on site, at that location, by a Federal Government employee who is a 
law enforcement officer.
  The difference, and we will go into this in greater detail as we 
continue this discussion, between the House bill and the Senate bill, 
which I believe is flawed, and we will walk through the flaws in the 
Senate bill, is that they say in the Senate bill, every single employee 
on this screen, indeed perhaps the food handlers, perhaps the people 
who clean the planes, perhaps the mechanics, would have to be a Federal 
employee or at least they would have to be screened by a Federal 
employee; and we say it can be a mix. We support that mix because that 
is in fact the system that is used throughout Europe and in Israel by 
El Al, the airline that is the most targeted of any airline in the 
world.
  I just want to make this point one more time. You are going to hear 
all day tomorrow that this is terrible. I just want to read these 
points again because they are so important. The gentleman actually 
accused Members on this side of the aisle and some of the leadership on 
this side of the aisle of wanting to perpetuate the current system 
because it is profitable to the current companies, and they want to 
keep those same companies.
  That is abjectly false. The current system is gone. No longer will 
airlines hire the screening personnel, no longer will they be the 
employees of Argenbright or the other companies, they will in fact be 
private contractors, contracted to the Federal Government and overseen 
by Federal Government employees on site, law enforcement personnel.
  I want to turn to one more point before I defer to some of my 
colleagues. We talked a little bit about the Senate bill, and I want to 
just lay the groundwork for the key problems with that Senate bill 
which we are being urged to just adopt, go ahead and adopt it, and 
tomorrow it will be here on the floor as either a substitute or it will 
be here on the floor as a motion to recommit. Let us talk about some of 
the problems with that Senate bill just in outline form before I turn 
to some of my colleagues.

[[Page H7567]]

  Number one, one of the most critical problems on September 11 was 
that some of the terrorists penetrated our system, although there is no 
evidence that there was a failure by the screening personnel at any 
airport because the weapons they carried on board were legal at the 
time, but they penetrated the system by going to small airports and 
flying from those small airports to bigger airports. At least it is 
clear they tried to do it in that fashion.
  One of the incredible things about the Senate bill is, it treats 
small airports and big airports differently. It assigns the 
responsibility for large airports to the Attorney General and says that 
will be Federal. But it says, on the other hand, if it is a small 
airport, well, he, the Attorney General, can decide to hand that 
responsibility over to local law enforcement.
  I would suggest that if local law enforcement is good enough for 
small airports, it is good enough for large airports, and if it is not 
good enough for large airports, it is not good enough for small 
airports. We cannot have a separate standard.
  In my State of Arizona, we have a couple of very, very large 
airports. If you go through those, you would go through one standard. 
But if you get on at one of the smaller airports in a small town like 
Yuma or Flagstaff or Prescott or Page, when you land in Phoenix, you 
are inside the security perimeter. You do not get checked again.
  Why in the world would we have an unequal standard, an unequal set of 
responsibilities, for those different size airports under this 
legislation? I think it is a serious flaw. I do not think the drafters 
of the Senate bill intended it, but it is there.
  There is another problem with regard to that, and that is the 
fairness of the fees. The Senate legislation says, if you are lucky 
enough to fly from a big airport to another big airport, you are going 
to pay one fee. If you are not lucky enough to do that, because you 
live in a small State or in a small town and you have to fly a small 
commuter plane from your small town to a big city, you pay at least 
double the fee of anyone who lives in a large city. That seems to me to 
be unfair.
  Another issue in the Senate bill, and I just want to touch on these 
briefly in outline form and we can go into greater detail later, there 
is a clear question about the accountability of the Federal employees 
that are mandated in this Senate bill, which creates a straitjacket and 
says every single employee must be a Federal employee because by 
getting their paycheck from the Federal Government, somehow that would 
make the airlines safe.
  The problem with that language is detailed, and I will go into it 
later, but fundamentally it is not clear that those employees do not 
have civil service protection. Nowhere in the bill does it say that 
they do not have the civil service protection created by title 5. It 
does not say that they are at-will employees, though I know that some 
of the sponsors of the Senate bill believe they are at-will employees, 
and it does not exempt them from civil service in the same fashion as 
we have done in the past.
  I want to touch briefly on the House bill, just to make sure that 
everybody understands that legislation and understands it clearly, as 
contrasted with the current system which is a flawed system and which, 
although my colleague attacked it earlier and said that is what we were 
trying to have, that is not at all what we are trying to have.
  The current House bill, created by the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, the bill of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) says, number one, there will 
be Federal supervision of screening personnel at every single security 
gate, at every single baggage check location. You will all be screened 
at a location where there are federally trained people present, 
including law enforcement officers or military personnel, with the 
capability and the ability to question someone trying to board a plane 
and, if necessary, to make an arrest of that person.
  Second, it says that there will be Federal personnel at every 
checkpoint.
  Third, it sets Federal standards.
  And, fourth, it requires that they be either Federal law enforcement 
personnel or, as is happening in the case right now, military 
personnel. I could go on talking about these issues, but I know there 
are many of my colleagues that would like to get in on this discussion.
  Let me first start with the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. BASS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I was glad to 
yield to my friend from New York to make it possible to bring this 
important piece of legislation to the floor tomorrow. It is important. 
It is important because Americans demand, expect and will get aviation 
safety with the passage of the bill we are going to consider tomorrow.
  My good friend from Arizona has talked at some length about the 
differences between the Senate and the House bill, and they are 
significant, and they are important, and it is critical that this body 
adopt the Mica-Young version of the bill, because it does what it needs 
to do, it does it quickly, and it does it effectively.
  There are four aspects of this bill that are important to understand.
  Number one, the Republican bill provides for real safety. It has 
enhanced security screening by creating Federal standards, Federal 
control, Federal supervision, but it does it quickly and it does it 
without months and possibly years of training that it would take to get 
personnel in place under the bill passed by the Senate.
  It also provides for accountability. It provides for a zero tolerance 
policy for every federally certified baggage screener.
  It provides for quality, incorporating the very best manager 
practices by hiring qualified baggage screeners and going through 
thorough background checks and investigation. We have heard a lot of 
rhetoric about how the status quo will continue under the Republican 
plan. Well, my friend from Arizona from the very beginning has pointed 
out the system will be different, the system will be reliable, and the 
system we are proposing will work.
  Let me give Members some observations about where I see airport 
security at this point. As one who myself, and I think almost everybody 
else in this body, we are frequent fliers and we fly back and forth to 
our districts every week. The reality of it is that airport security 
today, in my opinion, is dysfunctional. You have huge lines for 
checking bags, and little or no baggage screening. You have enormous 
lines in some concourses for security screening.
  I was up at an airport in the area the other day, I paced it off, 
there was a 1,000-foot line to get through two security screening 
areas. There were three available, but only two were running.
  The airlines need to get the business customer back. Otherwise, this 
body and this government is going to be subsidizing the airline 
industry indefinitely. If we want exactly what we have to do, 1,000-
foot lines, dysfunctional airports, vote for the substitute motion, 
vote for the Senate bill, because what it does is it institutes a 
system which is totally federally employed that will not be flexible, 
will not be able to reflect the realities of having to provide 
efficient, quick, but effective safety procedures at airports, and we 
will have what we have today indefinitely. We will wait for 4 or 5 
years for new rules to come to make minor changes that will make 
airline systems run better.
  Under the Republican plan, or under the plan that I support, there is 
Federal supervision, Federal rule making, Federal standards, but the 
airport authorities can adjust the system to reflect for the size of 
the airport or the type of system or the way the building is 
constructed. The employees can be trained where they qualify from the 
existing workforce, and it happens quickly.
  But what is most important about this is that the airlines will have 
some input in being able to attract the business customer back by 
offering innovative ways for frequent fliers to get from one side of 
the airport to the other.
  Let me give an example. If you fly two or three times a week and you 
are willing to undergo a complete background check, maybe a retinal 
scan and other things, maybe you can get to your gate more quickly than 
somebody who does not fly very much at all or somebody that does not 
want to divulge any personal information.

[[Page H7568]]

  This kind of a concept, which could easily be implemented under the 
Republican plan, is unlikely to be practical under the Senate plan 
because the Senate plan is a one-size-fits-all approach to a problem 
that differs in every single airport.
  I hope that Americans understand that Democrats, Republicans, the 
Senate, the House, liberals, conservatives, we all share the same 
objective, and that objective is moving forward in a productive manner 
to provide real, serious, effective and quick airport safety. I would 
suggest to my friend from Arizona and to the Speaker that our plan will 
do it, and it will do it right.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for his participation. I know he 
has thoughtfully studied this legislation and cares very much, as we 
all do, about airline security, about making sure we have the safest 
system, and not about doing a quick and easy fix of just saying well, 
if we make them Federal employees, that will solve the problem.
  There are serious problems with the Senate bill, beginning with this 
issue of should we have a different set of responsibilities for small 
airports and should people who live in small towns pay a different 
price?
  The gentleman is from New Hampshire. I wonder if he has given the 
question any thought of why should we have different responsibility at 
those smaller airports than we have at the larger airports and how fair 
is it to say to people who live in small towns, you are going to pay 
more than people who live in large towns?
  Mr. BASS. If the gentleman will yield further briefly, when you have 
a system that applies a block standard at this point and a block 
standard at that point, you tend to get situations that do not work in 
some instances.
  Let me give one example. I note with some dismay that airport parking 
lots now that are within 300 yards, I believe, of the terminal, are 
blocked off. In some instances, in the Manchester Airport in New 
Hampshire, that means that two-thirds of the entire parking area is 
blocked off and cannot be used and you cannot go around. I can go 
through the details.

  But the fact is that if we continue with the system that has been 
implemented now, these airports are going to continue to be 
dysfunctional. We need to have a system that applies the same standards 
to all the airports, big or small, so we do not have the situation 
discussed earlier where we do not have people properly checked getting 
into a properly screened area, but, secondly, these airport authorities 
need to get waivers and be able to make the airports work.
  Mr. SHADEGG. We are joined by my colleague the gentleman from South 
Dakota (Mr. Thune). I know he has concerns about this disparate 
treatment of small versus large airports.
  Mr. THUNE. I thank the gentleman from Arizona for yielding, and I 
would simply echo some of what my colleague from New Hampshire said, 
that those of us who represent more rural areas of the country, this 
creates enormous problems.
  I again would harken back to what the gentleman from Arizona said in 
his opening remarks, and that is the overriding concern here ought to 
be safety. We have got a lot of discussion and debate that will go on 
the floor tomorrow, there already has been in the buildup to this 
debate, and there has been a lot of talk about who ought to do this 
checking, and there has been some argument whether it ought to be 
Federal employees, whether it ought to be private contractors.
  I think the bottom line is, it ought to be the best system put in 
place that will enable us to provide the highest level of security and 
safety for people who travel.
  Frankly, the bill that we will debate tomorrow, the Mica-Young bill 
that came out of the committee, and I serve on the Subcommittee on 
Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, does 
not in fact preclude the use of Federal employees. In fact, it steps up 
Federal standards, Federal supervision, Federal enforcement, and in 
many cases there will be Federal employees who are employed for the 
specific purpose of providing security and safety to air travelers as 
they travel through the airports in this country and get from their 
origin to their destination.
  But the bottom line, again, Mr. Speaker, and I would say harkening 
back to what the gentleman said earlier, is this really is about 
safety. What is the best system? How do we achieve the objective of 
making sure that people in this country who travel are protected and 
are safe and secure until they get to their destination, without 
respect to the argument about whether or not they should be or should 
not be Federal employees. That is an issue which, frankly, the 
discretion is provided to the administration. The President has asked 
for this authority in this particular legislation for him to decide, 
for the FAA, the DOT, the Justice Department, to decide if in fact 
these ought to be Federal employees.
  Now, there are circumstances in which it might make sense to come up 
with another practice which would achieve the same level of safety, be 
more efficient and more cost-effective, and that is a decision that, 
frankly, our legislation allows, that basically puts it under the 
auspices of the administration. That is what the President has 
requested, and it gives him the flexibility and the discretion, and I 
think that is an approach that makes a lot of sense.
  Now, let me speak specifically, if I might, again, to the points 
raised earlier about the impact of the Senate legislation, if it 
becomes the final law of the land, on smaller, more rural airports.
  I come from a state that has 77,000 square miles and 730,000 people. 
Under the Senate legislation, as I read it, as I understand it, there 
is only one airport of the seven in my State of South Dakota that would 
be covered under the 142 airport standard in the Senate bill, which 
essentially relegates the other six airports in South Dakota to the 
status of second class airports.
  We are going to have different standards of safety and security for 
people who travel and board airplanes in Watertown and Aberdeen and 
Huron and Pierre and Rapid City than those who board planes in L.A. and 
San Francisco and Chicago and Boston and places like that.
  So I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that that makes a lot of sense. I do 
not think we want to create a two-tiered system, a two-class system, in 
effect, which will essentially treat travelers in rural areas of the 
country better than those who board airplanes at the more populated 
areas in the urban areas of this country.
  The second thing that has already been noted is not only does it 
provide or apply a different level of safety and security to people who 
board at rural airports, it also assesses them a higher fee. They are 
going to in effect subsidize people who fly from larger airports for 
levels of safety and security that they are not going to have the same 
level set for rural airports.
  So I think for a lot of reasons, one, it applies a different level, a 
different standard, to people who board at airports in smaller rural 
airports in this country, and secondly, it charges passengers a higher 
fee, because it imposes the fee on each leg of the flight.

  I can tell you, there are no places in South Dakota that get direct 
service. There are no direct flights from Washington, D.C. to any 
destinations in South Dakota. We always connect through Minneapolis, 
through Chicago or St. Louis, and we think we are fortunate to have the 
air service that we have in my area of the country. But, nevertheless, 
we do not believe we ought to pay more for that service than people in 
other parts of the country, and that is in effect what the Senate bill 
does.
  For that reason, it is inherently unfair. I think if one looks at the 
legislation that we are going to consider tomorrow and how that treats 
people all around the country, again, it emphasizes and puts in 
specific priority on making sure that we have a new system in place.
  I think the gentleman from Arizona noted in his opening remarks as 
well that there is not anything about this legislation that accepts as 
a premise that anything in the current system will stay in place. It is 
just flatly not true.
  We have had our colleagues on the other side of the aisle get up and 
say that the Republicans want to lock in and their leadership wants to 
lock in the failed system that we have today. That is patently, flatly 
untrue, because

[[Page H7569]]

the system we have today, as the gentleman from Arizona noted, is the 
airlines who hire those companies. This requires new Federal standards, 
new Federal supervision, new enforcement. It creates a new, entirely 
new, system.
  So trying to make this a debate about whether we retain the old 
system is irrelevant. It is not a valid part of this debate. It ought 
to be discarded. People who are listening to this debate should just 
tune it out. But that is what we will hear tomorrow.
  I also think that the whole issue of whether or not it ought to be 
Federal employees or not Federal employees, as politically 
controversial as that may be in the course of the debate, is not the 
fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is how can we put the safest 
system in place in the most efficient and cost-effective way that 
serves the traveling public in this country and treats passengers all 
across the United States in an equal and fair way?
  My concern, as I come to this debate and I look at the legislation 
that came out of the Senate, is it does create a two-class system. It 
does create a system that treats unequally people who board from 
airports in more rural areas of this country, smaller airports, and 
those in the more populated urban areas, and it also penalizes them by 
forcing them to pay a higher fee. I find that to be incredibly unfair. 
I do not think it makes sense.
  I think, frankly, that the legislation that we will act on here 
tomorrow, that the Young-Mica bill puts those safeguards in place, air 
marshals, strengthens our cockpits, makes sure we have highly screened 
carry-on and checked baggage through the highest of inspection 
equipment, well-positioned, multilayered security forces at all the 
points throughout the airport, and again we are not excluding or saying 
that they these should not be Federal employees. We are simply saying 
that the experts who understand this ought to be making the decisions 
and that they have a different idea about what works in Rapid City, 
South Dakota, than what works in Buffalo New York, and that that ought 
to be a decision they have the flexibility to make.
  That is what the President has requested, I think it makes sense, and 
as we are going to have this discussion tomorrow, it is important that 
we debunk all the myths that will be put out by the other side who 
really want to convert this into a political debate rather than a 
debate about the safety of the traveling public.
  So I appreciate the gentleman taking time this evening to discuss 
this issue. I yield back to him.
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman. Let me comment. I want to thank 
the gentleman for bringing out some of the points that I think are so 
important to this debate.
  As the chart here shows, the current system, which is what was 
attacked by our colleagues on the other side yesterday and today, just 
before we started, no doubt if there is an hour special order after 
ours it will be attacked later, that the current system does not work 
and that the companies operating it are corrupt.
  That system is gone, and I appreciate the gentleman pointing out that 
the House bill is very, very difficult different from that.
  I also think it is important that the gentleman has brought out the 
fine point, and it is an important distinction, that the House bill, 
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure bill that some 
of us believe is the more thoughtful legislation, is being supported by 
editorials by the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the L.A. 
Times, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Times, the 
Arizona Republic and USA Today. That legislation importantly does not 
say that they cannot be Federal employees or that they must be Federal 
employees.

                              {time}  1900

  What it says, as the gentleman accurately points out, is that that is 
the kind of technical decision on the implementation of the legislation 
that should not be made by Federal mandate, should not be proscribed 
and commanded by the Congress as saying, we want the safest skies, but 
the only way to get there is this way.
  I think the gentleman made an excellent point in saying that the 
Secretary of Transportation under the House bill could, in fact, choose 
to make them all Federal employees, make some of them Federal 
employees. Many of them will be Federal employees, but the discretion 
is left there.
  I would quote from the Washington Post in its editorial. They said, 
referring to this issue of all-Federal or a mix of Federal and private 
that ``Security could work either way, as long as there is a government 
agency in charge dedicated to safety only and insisting on overseeing 
high standards in hiring and training.'' That is in the House bill. 
That is what we have. It goes on to point out that a number of European 
countries and Israel use a mix of private and public.
  But I think the gentleman dealt very well with this issue in pointing 
out that in the House bill, we simply choose not to create a 
straightjacket saying we want a safe air system and oh, by the way, we, 
the Congress, know how to do that. Rather, we just say, we want a safe 
air system; you figure out the right mix and the right way to do that.
  I thank the gentleman for his comments. I particularly appreciate his 
comments about the idiocy of charging people in small towns who have to 
fly multiple segments more money for the system and having, quite 
frankly, a different set of responsibilities for those.
  If the gentleman wants to add anything further, please do.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. I think the gentleman 
is exactly right in his assessment in how this impacts different people 
in different parts of the country. Again, the debate will be shifted 
tomorrow, as the gentleman has noted, by the other side to try and make 
this about somehow codifying a failed system that is currently in 
place. That is absolutely untrue.
  This is a system which creates the strongest standards, but I do not 
think, again, the gentleman made the point, that we as a Congress ought 
to be making that determination. Frankly, there are people who are a 
lot better equipped to make those decisions than we are.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me yield to the 
gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman has a lot of 
transportation experts here, and unfortunately, I have an engagement I 
want to go to. But one of the central questions here is, do we want to 
support the President of the United States or not. It is that basic.
  It amazes me, as I watch television on Sundays, that every week 
across the aisle, there is a new Senator born who is an expert on 
security. Yet, I do not recall them being named to any key security 
committee. They are not in charge on the homeland security. They have 
not been the foremost experts on terrorism. Yet, suddenly, there are 
100 experts on terrorism in the United States Senate, and they want to 
second-guess the President's team.
  I think at this time it is important for us to be supportive of the 
President and his team of experts, and nonpartisan because this is a 
nonpartisan issue. I am just appalled that every week there is a new 
Senator who seems to think he has a lock on all of the intelligence 
that we need to fight terrorism.
  I feel real strongly that this House bill gives the President and 
future presidents, Democrat or Republican, the flexibility they need to 
secure not just the airways, but all modes of transportation in 
America. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for participating. I 
think he makes an excellent point.
  The President has said that the Senate bill has problems in it, and 
we have been talking about some of those problems. One of the problems 
is, it says there is just one way to do this. The President has said, 
no, he thinks there are multiple ways to do it. No less than the 
Washington Post, not exactly an arch right-wing organization, has said, 
yes, the House bill is a reasonable bill and it would do the job. We 
just need to get it passed.
  I also commend the gentleman for pointing out that as sad as the 
debate tomorrow will be on the issue of partisanship and one side 
attacking the other side, saying that because we do not support the 
Senate bill it is because we are partisan or we are Republican or we 
love the companies that are

[[Page H7570]]

currently doing the job, which is rather ridiculous, this really is not 
a partisan issue. This is about how we make our skies as safe as 
possible.
  On that point, one of the arguments that has been made over here is 
that we really cannot ever delegate this kind of responsibility to 
anything other than Federal law enforcement personnel. Well, I came to 
the United States Congress having in a past life been a member of the 
Arizona attorney general's office. I spent my life in law enforcement, 
and my dad was a deputy sheriff before that.

  I will tell my colleagues that I do not know many law enforcement 
personnel who believe standing in front of a screen looking at whether 
the image inside there reflects a knife or a gun or something is 
necessarily a law enforcement function, and certainly they do not think 
that as law enforcement officers, they want to spend their days saying, 
would you please empty your pockets of change and will you take your 
laptop out of your briefcase and put it on the shelf, the notion that 
every person at a checkpoint who says to you, will you please take out 
your laptop or the change out of your pockets has to be a law 
enforcement officer.
  But on this point of whether or not some of these functions could be 
performed by a mix of law enforcement personnel and contract personnel 
who are not Federal law enforcement personnel, I think there is some 
precedence. I am glad we are joined by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kirk), and I would like to yield to him to address that specific issue.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would also like to 
thank the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) for pointing out the 
difference between the House bill and the Senate bill in treating 
airports differently.
  I represent a district which largely uses O'Hare. We are going to 
have the highest technical level of security. But we are a feeder 
airport, and if passengers arriving at O'Hare are coming from rural 
airports that are not protected, then we are not protected. So his 
point is exactly right, that the Senate bill does not offer the level 
of protection that the House bill does.
  We want to federalize airport security, but not rigidly nationalize 
the system. I must note that all 19 hijackers of the September 11 
attack were admitted to the United States by Federal workers. While 
most Federal workers are hard-working, idealistic Americans, their 
status as civil servants does not guarantee safety in our skies. We 
must do better. We need an airport security bill in this Congress; we 
cannot accept the current status quo.
  I would note that 90 percent of the screeners at Dulles Airport were 
not American citizens. Some of the screeners in our country who let 
terrorists aboard were illegal aliens.
  Our bill would replace those screeners with American citizens, and we 
stand for the basic principle that U.S. citizens should protect U.S. 
citizens at U.S. airports.
  Our bill also requires that all screeners be deputized, Federal 
transportation security agents. They will have a common uniform, badge, 
and arrest powers. Their mission will be clear: As Federal 
transportation security agents, they will ensure that when we fly, we 
fly safe.
  We want these agents to have arrest powers under rules in which they 
are highly paid and trained. Our models for such security arrangements 
are two: Israel's El Al Airlines and the U.S. Marshals' Court Security 
Officer Program.
  With regard to El Al, El Al Airlines has operated under a 30-year 
threat from terrorism. The combined El Al team has defeated attempts by 
the PLO, the PFLB, Black September and Hezbollah to hijack Israeli 
airlines. El Al has evolved into a public-private partnership, and its 
partners in the Israeli Government, as well as its contractors, Israeli 
Security Agency and Mossad, have formed a team that has defeated all 
terrorist attacks in the past. I will note that Mossad regularly tries 
to screen weapons and explosives aboard Israeli aircraft to test the 
screeners, and if those screeners fail, they are discharged.

  Similarly, let us look at a U.S. program, the U.S. Marshals' Court 
Security Officer Program. This program started in 1983 and currently 
employs over 3,000 court security officers. They are privately 
contracted employees, but they are recruited exclusively with 3 years' 
minimum police experience. Unlike the current airport screeners that 
failed us, these court security officers are paid $16 to $24 an hour. 
Their mission is to protect judges, witnesses, juries, prosecutors, and 
courthouses.
  In the courtrooms they face a daunting security threat, a much higher 
threat, I would note, than what screeners face at airports, and we can 
think of who would come to a Federal courtroom: mobsters, terrorists, 
drug gangs, mass murderers. But these court security officers perform 
their function and perform it well with one key difference between them 
and civil servants. Court security officers can be discharged 
immediately for allowing weapons and explosives into a courtroom.
  We provide for all screeners in our bill to be U.S. citizens and to 
be deputized Federal transportation security agents. We give them 
standards, supervision, and training, but we do not protect them from 
their own criminal activity or incompetence. Worse than having no 
screener is a screener who has job protection that would allow him to 
permit weapons to kill more Americans aboard an aircraft.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I wanted to 
insert into his remarks actually a direct quote from Frank Durinckx, 
the director of the Belgium Aviation Inspec- torate, and he is the guy 
in Belgium who oversees their security. He says, ``It is harder to do 
quality control on our own government people.'' And the reason he said 
that is, government agencies do not like to criticize themselves or one 
another, and civil servants are hard to get rid of if they are not 
performing.
  He goes on to say, ``If we give the work to a private contractor, we 
have control over them. If we are not pleased with the screener, we can 
withdraw his license. If we are not pleased with a company, we can get 
rid of a company.''
  That is exactly what the gentleman is saying. It gives the United 
States far more flexibility, and this is security we are talking about. 
This is not politics, this is not creating jobs; this is a security 
program.
  So I appreciate the gentleman for letting me stick that into his 
comments, but I thought it was very relevant.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  I will note that European security officials have started out 
exclusively with public employees, but they have modified their 
structure into a public-private partnership, so that now 31 of 35 
European airports are this public-private partnership, to ensure the 
quality of the screening personnel. This was a mixture that allowed 
them to defeat terrorist threats from the Bader-Meinhof Gang, the Red 
Brigades, the ELP and the IRA, and it has been a very effective tool 
used by both our European and Israeli allies.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, what 
is so relevant to this is that we are not alone in this. We do not have 
to go out and invent something, we just need to follow the model in 
Europe and in Israel and in Ireland, because they have been living with 
terrorist threats for 20, maybe, years, or even 30 years. So we have a 
tried and true method. It is not speculation. They do know because they 
have experimented.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I will note that it has 
been 25 years since an Israeli aircraft has been successfully attacked.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time just a moment, if I 
might, maybe the gentleman would want to refer to these charts, because 
they make the point he is making.
  This is the private-public partnership that is in place in Europe. If 
we look at this chart, we will see that it shows the countries that 
have switched to, instead of a 100 percent government employee 
operation, to a mix of government supervision and training, but with 
some private-sector employees actually doing some of the work. It began 
in, I believe, 1982, and if we look at the dates on here, it shows the 
dates on which all of these countries switched to that private-public 
partnership.
  This is a second chart that kind of follows on to that, and it shows 
the

[[Page H7571]]

mix of what we have. That is, for example, this is the number of 
private-sector employees and the number of public-sector employees in 
each of those locations. So we look at this and we see that in Norway 
necessity has 150 private-sector employees supervised by 20 public-
sector employees, and in various other countries, across the map we can 
look at that in Brussels, it is 700 private-sector employees supervised 
by 50 public-sector employees. It illustrates precisely the points that 
the gentleman has been making.
  Then I think he was just about to talk about what the effect of that 
was going to be. This shows the trend beginning in 1982 of how they 
went to this private mix, and I think the last point, maybe I will let 
the gentleman discuss this chart, which I hope he has seen, which shows 
what is happening. The gentleman was about to say it has been quite 
some time since there has been a hijacking in Israel which uses this 
kind of mix.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, it is. I was very honored to be able to 
contact Israel's Ambassador David Ivry who dispatched a team from 
Israel to brief the Congress and the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure in particular on this.

                              {time}  1915

  We had six to nine Members there, about 70 staffers. We looked at not 
just the screening problem, but they took the airport security problem 
as layers of an onion. Each layer had to work. Transportation security, 
El Al, had to be able to task Mossad with tasks to collect foreign 
intelligence. We had to take care of the tarmac, the ramp, the gates, 
and then the aircraft itself.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a life or death function. We need to be able to 
discharge screeners who allow weapons aboard the aircraft. We have the 
models. We have looked at El Al. We looked at the Marshal Court 
Security Officer Program, and we have learned the lessons of security 
that have worked well against Hezbollah, the PFLP, the El Rukin drug 
gangs and the Mafia.
  Our bill ensures highly trained professionals with a badge will 
protect us, but also that their supervisor will have the power to be 
able to replace screeners who fail us in this life or death mission.
  I will also note that our bill makes one other change. In the 
chairman's amendment we have a deadline that by December, 2003, all 
baggage will be screened. The Secretary of Transportation has focused 
particular attention on the government's deployment of the CTx 550 
machines that will enable us to reach our goal of having all the 
baggage entering not just the passenger compartment but also the cargo 
hold to be screened for weapons and explosives. That gives us the 
critical edge in security that this bill would provide.
  I thank the gentleman for organizing this special order.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, let me just ask the gentleman a couple 
different points to make sure I understand this.
  This screening requirement for baggage says all baggage must be 
screened by December 2003. That is currently not being done. I heard 
our colleagues on the other side railing about the fact that that is 
not currently being done, but if I am not correct, and I would yield to 
the gentleman to answer this, that requirement that 100 percent be 
screened by December 2003 is nowhere in the Senate bill whatsoever, is 
it?
  Mr. KIRK. Correct. In fact, this bill will give us a security system 
that is even stronger than Israel's. Even El Al at this time does not 
screen all baggage that enters the cargo hold for weapons and 
explosives. But under the House Republican bill, we have a deadline of 
December 2003 that, when using the CTx 550 and other technologies, all 
bags will be screened. That will give us the world's highest level of 
security standard.
  Mr. SHADEGG. That requirement is not in the Senate bill, which we are 
going to be urged to pass?
  Mr. KIRK. It is not.
  Mr. SHADEGG. The gentleman referred to the requirement that all 
screeners be U.S. citizens. Is that in the Senate bill we are going to 
be asked to pass tomorrow?
  Mr. KIRK. That is, but that is a critical difference from the current 
status quo, which we are against. Over half of all the screeners in the 
United States are not American citizens. Over 90 percent of the 
screeners at Dulles were not American citizens. In fact, prior to the 
September 11 attack, the Department of Transportation Inspector General 
was leading an investigation of illegal aliens who were serving as 
airport screeners.
  All of this will come to a stop under our bill.
  Mr. SHADEGG. So when somebody attacks the current system in the 
debate later tonight or tomorrow and says, well, the other side, our 
side, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure majority 
side wants to retain the current system, on that point they would 
be dead wrong and that argument would be unfair, would it not?

  Mr. KIRK. No. Well over half of the 20,000 screeners, by the terms of 
our bill, would automatically be discharged from their duties because 
they are not American citizens. We would have to upgrade to the new 
system under regulations and supervision by the Department of 
Transportation under the Secretary for Security, and these people would 
be badged Federal transportation security officers with full arrest 
powers at the screening site.
  Mr. SHADEGG. My understanding is that also there is no requirement in 
the Senate bill that they have to speak English. Is that correct?
  Mr. KIRK. That is correct, as well. We stand for a key principle: 
that U.S. citizens should protect U.S. citizens at U.S. airports.
  There is a critical danger here in the war on terrorism which will 
take quite some time. The al-Qaeda organization, with its vast network 
and resources, is able to put sleeper agents into countries who could 
then take jobs as airport security agents. But I will note of the 
hijackers, none were American citizens. We would give the flying public 
that extra level of security by making sure that only people with a 
U.S. passport can even apply for these jobs.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman made an interesting point. He 
said none of the hijackers were U.S. citizens. That means that all of 
the people who got here made it through some government employee, 
through some government process to get here in the first place. And if 
mistakes were made, those mistakes were made by government employees.
  Now I am a fan of government employees. I have a lot of great 
government employees who are personal friends. I do not think because 
one works for the government one is better or worse. I do not think if 
one's paycheck comes from the government, as mine does, one is somehow 
bestowed with special powers or less than special powers. I think we 
are all human beings.
  But the notion that government employees cannot make mistakes is kind 
of belied by the fact that a number of the hijackers were here in 
violation of their visas or had obtained visas falsely, or had 
otherwise slipped through a system run by government employees already.
  Everybody makes mistakes; I certainly do. That is why I think the 
requirement that we just say, oh, well, everything must be done by a 
government employee and that is the sine qua non really kind of misses 
the boat.
  To that point, I just want to reemphasize something the gentleman 
said. This Marshals Court Service or Court Security Program, those 
individuals are in fact private sector employees; is that what I 
understand the gentleman to say?
  Mr. KIRK. Yes. They are badged, uniformed, armed deputized U.S. 
Marshals.
  Mr. SHADEGG. So the notion that we have never delegated this kind of 
authority to anyone other than a Federal employee is simply wrong?
  Mr. KIRK. Correct. And there is another thing. In the current airport 
security program, turnover can reach 400 percent, but in the U.S. 
Marshal Court Security Officer Program, turnover is less than any 
normal civilian, 4 percent. So we have a stable, highly-trained force 
with law enforcement experience that protects that critical Federal 
courtroom where many criminals are asked to come. That is delegated to 
deputized Federal agents.
  Mr. SHADEGG. An even perhaps more dangerous environment than 
otherwise.
  We are joined by our colleague, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms.

[[Page H7572]]

Hart). I would hope she would join in this debate and express her 
concerns on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It is an honor to 
be here.
  I want to add something that the gentleman from Illinois had said 
regarding the issue of technology. The fact that currently not all 
baggage is screened is a serious problem, but it is the way it is now. 
The fact that the House bill would require all baggage to be screened 
by a date certain is extremely important.
  But beyond that, one of the reasons that I think it is important that 
we maintain this mix of public and private involvement in the actual 
security is that we will encourage competition among those firms that 
wish to participate.
  I had a discussion in my district just last week with a gentleman who 
is the chairman of a company that produces high-technology optical 
devices and x-ray devices. I had spoken with him about what they use 
those x-ray devices for now. He said that some of it is comparable to 
the kinds of things we will need in baggage screening down the road.
  The more advanced optics of a company like this, every time we have 
competition and opportunity for a better product, it is going to only 
make us safer and everyone who flies safer.
  So I am pleased to join in the discussion with my colleagues, and I 
am pleased that the gentleman allowed me some time.
  I did want to shed some light on some of the issue of really why we 
are here in the first place. I am from Pittsburgh. The area that I 
represent is a hub. We have a lot of people who not only work for the 
airlines, but who live there because they fly often as a matter of 
their daily life, for their living, to support their families.
  This issue is, yes, about the things we have been discussing tonight. 
It is about why our plan is better. But the ultimate concern and what 
we are looking to address is the safety of the American public.
  Our interest, and the reason that we have spent this hour with 
America tonight, is to explain why what we are doing is better. It 
would certainly be much easier for us to take the path of least 
resistance and to support the bill that passed the Senate, but we know 
it is not the best we can do.
  That is why we are here. It has to do with safety, it has to do with 
concern for those people who fly every day as a matter of their living, 
for their families; and those people who want to take a vacation and 
fly on a plane; and also those on the ground who, as we saw on 
September 11, could all too easily be harmed or killed as a result of 
bad screening and bad safety precautions.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the things I want to talk about regarding that 
that is so much superior in the bill that the House has produced is the 
mobilization of the new security system. We all know as Federal 
Government employees how long it takes to get a new system up and 
running. If the Federal Government wants to start a new system that is 
completely federalized, it will take a while.
  Our goal is efficiency. Our goal is delivering that safety, conveying 
that safety to the public as soon as possible and have it be as safe as 
possible.
  Having a new Federal bureaucracy put into place and forcing that 
whole thing, with every employee to be a Federal employee, will take 
much longer than mobilizing a brand new system, yes, a brand new 
system, but with people who are highly trained, a combination of 
Federal, law enforcement people, Federal security people, and people in 
the private sector who do this, who compete with each other to do the 
best job. Otherwise they will not get the contract. That can be put 
into place much more quickly.

  In my opinion, the mobilization of the system is paramount, and we 
need to support the House bill, because it will get us there sooner.
  The House bill is also very organized. The way the system will work 
is so much better. It creates a new Transportation Security 
Administration within the Department of Transportation, because this is 
all about transportation. It is not just airplanes, it is also trains, 
it is other public modes of transportation that we need to keep safe.
  So there will be within the Federal Government under our bill, but 
not under the Senate bill, this center, this brain center of security. 
It is important for us to have that, because that will provide for us 
someone to go to, the accountability that we need to be secure that we 
will be safe.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time for just a moment on that point, Mr. 
Speaker, as I am sure the gentlewoman is aware, the Senate bill is very 
confusing on that issue. It says that overall transportation safety 
goes to a Deputy Secretary of Transportation, but says that airline 
safety or airline security goes to the Attorney General, and it fails 
to sort out who has the ultimate authority.
  It seems to me that is a serious problem with the Senate bill, and I 
think the gentlewoman has said it quite well, that the Senate bill, 
although a good bill and well-intended with some good provisions, is 
not the best we can do. We can improve upon it in this body.
  I would be happy to continue to yield.
  Ms. HART. I think that is why we have a bicameral legislature. The 
Senate did a very good job and did it first, and usually, doing it 
first, you take a risk that someone will look at the bill and find 
things that can be done better. That is what we have done.
  The gentleman's point about the Department of Justice having some 
authority and the Department of Transportation having some authority is 
actually extremely important, because if we do not know who to go to to 
be ultimately accountable for the security on our transportation 
system, on our planes, on our trains, then we will not be able to 
enforce it, and enforcement is going to be extremely important.
  The other issue I wanted to touch on quickly was that we do get the 
best of both worlds by having a system. I mentioned earlier about 
competition. When we have the opportunity to bring in specialists from 
the private sector and have them offer their professionalism to us as a 
Federal agency, I think we will get the best of both worlds.
  Again, as I said, our concern is ultimately the safety of every 
passenger. In order to get that, I think we need to bring in a mix of 
the finest we have to offer: Federal agents and private specialists.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for 
participating. We are about down to the last minute-and-a-half. I would 
kind of like to summarize.
  I think she makes the point very, very well. The reality, as the 
gentlewoman said, is that at the end of the day this is not a partisan 
debate. This is not Republican and it is not Democrat. There is not a 
Republican or Democrat way to make our skies safe.
  But it is a very, very serious debate. I think the gentlewoman has 
said it well, and I appreciate her and all of my other colleagues who 
have joined us tonight. Our number one concern and the challenge before 
us in this debate is to create the safest and most secure aviation 
system in the world, and we can do that.
  There are many, many good things in the Senate bill. It has many good 
pieces, and I commend the people who wrote it. I think they did a great 
job, and much of it is in the House bill. If we go to conference, much 
of it can be put into the House bill.
  But the question tomorrow is, should we just pass the Senate bill, or 
should we look at where it is flawed? And sadly, I am afraid that the 
debate tomorrow is going to sink into some partisanship, with some 
people saying, well, it is just House leaders that do not want a new 
system.
  As we said earlier, and we began this debate and I want to end this 
debate by making this point, the demagoguery and the rhetoric we will 
hear on this debate on the floor here tomorrow saying that the current 
system is what we are trying to perpetuate could not be further from 
wrong. It is absolutely wrong.
  Under that current system, airlines hire private companies to do the 
job. Under the House bill, the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure bill, that authority is given to the Federal Government, 
to Federal law enforcement officials who are at every single gate and 
every single checkpoint and who have total responsibility.

[[Page H7573]]

                              {time}  1930

  But there are serious, very, very serious flaws in the Senate bill. 
It gives different responsibilities to two different airports and says 
we are going to treat the big and the small differently. It has vague 
language on accountability.
  We owe it to the American people to conscientiously legislate and to 
create the best possible legislation. That is what we will be arguing 
for here tomorrow.

                          ____________________