[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 148 (Wednesday, October 31, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7574-H7579]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           AVIATION SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I may be joined by other colleagues. I am 
not sure at this point. This evening I wanted to talk about the issue 
of aviation security in the aftermath of the tragedies of September 11, 
and I must say that in many ways I would like to start out by 
responding to the special order given by some of my Republican 
colleagues just a few minutes ago.
  I want to express my disappointment in what they said, and basically 
almost emotionally if I could explain why I am so disappointed in the 
statements that were made by some of my Republican colleagues just a 
few minutes ago.
  In my district in New Jersey, I represent right now two counties. We 
had about 150 victims of the World Trade Center who died. We have been 
to a lot of funerals. We have been to a lot of vigils. We have been to 
a lot of services over the last 2 months or so. I have to say my 
constituents really have lost patience. They no longer believe that 
this House of Representatives is going to do anything effectively on 
the issue of airport security. They wonder why we are even debating 
this issue tonight and why this issue was not disposed of within a week 
or two of those tragedies.
  It is now October 31, about a month and a half since September 11. In 
fact, it is about 2 or 3 weeks I believe since the Senate took action 
on the bill that my Republican colleagues have been criticizing, and I 
would ask initially this evening as I begin, why have we waited? If 
they do not like the Senate bill, why did not they bring up a bill in 
the House the next day, 2 or 3 weeks ago, to address this problem? Why 
have they waited for a month and a half to even address the issue? I 
sincerely doubt their willingness to address the issue of airport 
security.
  I believe that what they are doing now, what the House Republican 
leadership is doing now in bringing up this bill tomorrow is nothing 
but a ruse. I do not think that they want to change the status quo at 
all. I believe that they like the status quo, and I believe that the 
reason they are not bringing up the Senate bill tomorrow and they are 
bringing up a new House Republican bill is because they hope that they 
can pass that bill on a partisan vote, send it to conference, and 
because it disagrees significantly from the Senate bill, they will 
simply kill any legislative initiative to try to address the airport 
security issue, and as a consequence, those corporate interests, those 
airline interests that do not want to see any changes in the status quo 
will triumph. That is what is going on here.
  No one can tell me that this House of Representatives cannot act 
quickly in the aftermath of the type of tragedy that we had on 
September 11. No one can tell me that if the Senate bill passed 2 or 3 
weeks ago that we could not have passed a bill within a few days of 
that.
  What is happening now is that the momentum is building in my State 
and around the country where people are outraged over the fact that we 
have not taken action on this measure, and the Republican leadership 
knows that the public wants something like what passed in the other 
body, like the Senate bill, and that they want a Federal workforce and 
that they do not like the status quo.
  So now the Republican leadership in the House feels that they have to 
bring up something, even a fig leaf. So they will schedule a vote 
tomorrow and they will start a debate, knowing full well that once that 
bill passes, it will go to conference and nothing will happen and the 
status quo will continue.
  I heard some of my Republican colleagues talk about the fact that 
they do not like Federal workforces. I do not really care whether they 
like or do not like Federal workforces. I mean they can stand up here 
and they can talk about whether they like the Postal Service or they 
think it should be privatized, whether they like the Border Patrol or 
they think it should be privatized, whether they like the Customs 
Service or they think it should be privatized. The bottom line is that 
we know that whatever system, and in this case a private corporate 
system that was in place on September 11, failed, and it failed 
miserably.
  The fact of the matter is that it has not changed. I have my 
constituents come to my town meetings. Because I am not very far from 
Newark airport, we are maybe half an hour away, if not maybe less, and 
they tell me when they go to the airport nothing really has changed. 
Their baggage is not being screened. They are able to get through with 
devices to bypass the screening machines, and they are very, very 
disappointed in the quality of the workforce.
  I heard my colleagues say that they do not like the existing 
workforce. Well, the existing workforce is a private workforce that is 
put in place by the airlines, and there is no way in the world that we 
are going to create competition and create some sort of private 
enterprise system that is going to correct it. There is no money 
available.
  I heard one of my colleagues say, well, maybe they should be paid $16 
an hour, they are only being paid minimum wage, maybe they should be 
paid $16 an hour. Is he going to mandate in the legislation that they 
get paid $16 an hour? The problem we have now is that the airlines, 
many of them, are bankrupt. Many are in very bad shape. They have no 
incentive to go out and hire people and pay them a living wage. They 
have no incentive to do the type of training that would be effective.

                              {time}  1945

  And the people who are manning these screening devices do not have 
any esprit de corps. They do not have pride in what they do.
  If my colleagues were to go to Newark Airport, they could go to the 
screening device and look a few feet away and see some of the fast food 
restaurants. Some of the people working in the fast food restaurants 
are being paid more than the people manning the screening devices. Why 
should they have any more pride in what they do if they are not getting 
properly paid and they have no benefits? They are not going to have 
pride in what they do.
  One of my Republican colleagues said, well, 80 or 90 percent of them 
are not even U.S. citizens. What do my colleagues expect? Should we 
expect that U.S. citizens are going to take minimum wage jobs under the 
conditions they have to work with these screening machines? Of course 
not.
  The only way that we can do anything is if we make a radical change. 
And I say ``radical'' because I understand that putting together a 
Federal work force something like the Customs Service or the Post 
Office or the Border Patrol, I understand that is a radical change from 
what we have now, but I do not have a problem with it. Not because 
ideologically I think a Federal work force is superior, but just 
because I know the current system does not work and we cannot just 
tweak it.
  One of my Republican colleagues said, well, we will make sure that at 
every entrance to the airport there is a Federal employee, but I do not 
want the people manning the screening devices to be Federal employees. 
What are we afraid of? Is it some sort of ideological nonsense or 
something in my colleagues' minds that somehow this is socialism or 
communism or something? I just do not understand it. I just think that 
this is a practical problem that needs a practical solution and that we 
cannot wait for some tweaking of the system when we know that we have 
to do something dramatic to change it because the status quo is 
currently not working.
  I just wanted to mention, if I could, a few talking points about the 
Senate bill. I call it the House Democratic Aviation Security Bill, 
which I understand will be the alternative tomorrow, the substitute, 
that hopefully we will be allowed to vote on in lieu of this House 
Republican bill.
  If I could just talk about this bill, first of all, understand that 
this passed the Senate, the other body, 100 to nothing. In the other 
body they were not being partisan. There were a lot of people in the 
other body, in the Senate, who are very right-wing ideologically, but 
they were willing to join together,

[[Page H7575]]

Democrat and Republican, 100 to nothing, unanimously, to say that we 
need to make some major changes, we need to have a Federal work force, 
we need to create a new body of people that are going to screen and do 
the security and who will take pride in what they do.
  I do not understand why if the other body, the Senate, could 
eliminate all the ideology and do something on a bipartisan basis, why 
the House Republican leadership cannot do the same here.
  The Senate bill, and now the House Democratic alternative, ensures 
that Federal security personnel screen and check all individuals and 
baggage before boarding a plane. Specifically, the bill federalizes all 
security screening functions at the 140 busiest airports to ensure a 
professional, well-trained and well-qualified air security law 
enforcement force.
  Now, some of my Republican colleagues said, well, why are we only 
dealing with 140 of the busiest airports? For over 250 smaller airports 
the legislation would allow the Justice Department the flexibility to 
use Federal law enforcement personnel or State and local law 
enforcement under strict Federal oversight as screeners. My colleagues 
said, that is not fair, we have different systems, different standards 
for the larger airports than the smaller airports. I think the reason 
is basically recognizing the fact that the smaller airports do not 
have, maybe, the same responsibilities.
  But if my colleagues on the Republican side do not like the two-
tiered system, then let us federalize everyone. Let us not say that 
because the Senate bill does not allow the smaller airports to have a 
Federal corps of employees that we should not have them for any of 
them. I think the answer is, if there is strong objection to a two-
tiered system, make them have Federal law enforcement officers at all 
of the airports, small and large combined.
  What we are trying to do, and I want everyone to understand this, 
what we are trying to do with this Federal security screening work 
force is to ensure that the security screeners are more highly paid, 
rather than continuing the practice of private contractors hiring 
personnel at minimum wage basically. Experts, including the General 
Accounting Office, the Federal Aviation Administration, the 
Transportation Department have all indicated that low wages and high 
turnover are the major problems in aviation security.

  Under the bill, under the Democratic alternative, the Senate bill, 
screener applicants would be required to pass a rigorous selection 
examination and complete classroom and on-the-job training. It also 
gives the government flexibility to suspend or terminate 
underperforming employees.
  Under the Democratic alternative, there is a mandate that all checked 
baggage be screened by explosive detection equipment. We require 
screening of all persons, vehicles and other equipment entering secure 
areas, including catering and other companies with access to secure 
areas. All current air carrier, airport and screening personnel have to 
submit to background checks and criminal history record checks.
  There are many other things that we do, and I would like to go into 
some of them, but I see that one of my colleagues is here, and I know 
that he is very interested and has been involved in this issue, so I 
would like to yield now to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I thank my colleague for yielding to me and for being 
here tonight. I know it is late tonight and the gentleman is working 
out here making things happen for our communities, and I know this 
issue is a key issue.
  Aviation security is a national security issue, and it is something 
that we need to take a look at from that perspective. The current 
system is broken, and we do have a lot of problems with it and we need 
to begin to do a lot of things. This bill brings it in that direction, 
begins to open it up, begins to look at one of the key problems that we 
have, and that is that we have in the past privatized some of the 
inspection efforts.
  As the gentleman well knows, some of the companies have not done a 
good job of hiring people. They have not been doing background checks, 
and their turnover rates in some cases are over 400 percent because of 
the fact that they pay very low wages. So there is a real need for us 
to get professionals there. Just like in law enforcement, we want 
people that are well-educated, that are professionals, and we should 
have nothing less to make sure that we secure the airports.
  When we look at the security of our President and the security of our 
Nation, we would not even consider privatizing that. So when we look at 
securing our airports and the public, we should consider nothing less 
than the most important thing, and that is to make sure we provide the 
best in security.
  When we talk about privatization, yes, sometimes things are improved 
upon. Private companies might do a lot of things a lot better. But with 
time, one of the basic principles about that system is that it is a 
for-profit system, so sometimes they will start cutting corners to make 
a profit. So when we look at that issue, I think it is important that 
we federalize our screeners and we make them part of the system.
  We have great professionals at Customs; these people check baggage, 
and I can share a couple of incidents. We caught a terrorist on the 
Mexican border because, as they were crossing back into Mexico, one of 
the persons was just asked where he was headed, and the individual 
hesitated in terms of responding. That was a clue that there was 
something wrong. These people that are professionals are able to catch 
them, and that is what we need to do.
  We are hoping that we do not politicize this bill, that we do the 
right thing on behalf of all the people in America, which would be to 
federalize those workers. I know that the Senate, 100 percent of them, 
voted for it. I know Senator Hutchinson, Senator Gramm from Texas, both 
Republicans, supported it, and I am hoping that we can pass it out of 
the House.
  It has been almost 7 weeks since September 11. We need to move 
forward on this and hopefully make this happen, because we have a lot 
of work, as the gentleman well knows, that we still need to do in a lot 
of other areas where we still feel very uncomfortable.
  And I just want to thank the entire Nation as a whole, because I know 
we have come together after this incident. This is a war that we have 
to win and this is a war that we have no other choice but to go forward 
with and make sure that we pull it off. I know that we can, but we have 
to continue to work together; and one of the first things we have to 
do, as we all know, is secure our borders. We need to secure our 
borders. Airport security is part of that effort.
  There still are a lot of other efforts. I know we filed, as 
Democrats, other pieces of legislation on bioterrorism that talk about 
making sure that we have those first response teams also. That is also 
extremely critical. Throughout this country a lot of our towns and 
cities and communities are having a lot of difficulty. Some might not 
have as many qualified as they should to do that first response, but 
that will be very important, that we provide those resources.
  So we need to look at that piece of legislation that is very 
comprehensive, that looks at our borders and at a lot of our agencies.
  As we move forward, there will be a variety of other pieces of 
legislation, and I want to thank the constituents out there because 
they have been providing us with ideas as to what we need to do and not 
do. Most of these ideas have come from back home, our constituents, who 
have the answers to a lot of these questions.
  As we move forward, we are hoping that we can come to grips with 
this. Yes, a lot of it is trial and error. We have never been in this 
kind of situation before. But I know that we can begin to solve these 
problems and, working together, we can make some good things happen.
  I am looking forward to pushing forward on this particular piece of 
legislation on aviation, on national security at our airports, because 
this will be one bill that would allow that sense of security. We still 
have a lot more, but it is definitely going to be helpful in moving in 
that direction.
  We also need to do a lot when it comes to our infrastructure. I know 
the GAO just came out with a major report talking about our bases 
throughout this country and the fact that a lot of them are vulnerable. 
We

[[Page H7576]]

have started in that area. We need a lot of resources to make sure from 
an infrastructure perspective there are safeguards at all our bases, 
not to mention our facilities and where people meet.
  There have been a lot of comments from people as to, what can I do, 
what is the best thing that we can do; and I would just say, educate 
yourself. Let us continue to move forward. It has been an educational 
process for all of us. I think that we need to learn how to act and be 
able to react appropriately to certain crises and certain things that 
occur. Part of that is doing the right thing, and the right thing is 
making sure that we have good, qualified people and that we just do not 
go to the lowest bid when it comes to our security people in the 
airports. So I am hoping that we will be able to pass that legislation.
  And once again I want to thank the gentleman for allowing me to be 
here with him tonight.
  Mr. PALLONE. I thank my colleague from Texas.
  When the gentleman started off and he was talking about the 
federalization of the work force, he made me think about my Republican 
colleagues that were here for the first hour tonight. I was wondering, 
if we proposed that the Capitol Police, for example, if they should be 
privatized, whether they would support that.
  It is sort of ironic, because here we are and we are protected by a 
Capitol Police force. They are not contracted out. We know that there 
is a certain pride that we see with the Capitol Police officers. My 
colleagues have no problem with the force here that is federalized, but 
they do not want to see it for the average person at the airports.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I apologize for interrupting, but our leadership here 
is also protected by Federal workers. Our President is protected by the 
Secret Service that are Federal workers. We should not expect any less 
when it comes to our airports. It is a national security issue. It 
should require Federal workers that are well-trained, well-equipped and 
well-paid to make sure they do the right thing.
  And I was told, well, what about if they make a mistake; we are not 
going to fire them. We have made some stipulations on that. If they are 
not doing their work, they are going to get fired. So it is important 
for us to move forward on that versus what we have right now, which is 
a shambles, a 400 percent turnover.
  And by the way, 82 percent of the people, based on what the 
Washington Post says, say that they want Federal workers there making 
sure they check our baggage and making sure they check on people as 
they move forward.
  So I think if we expect that for our President, and we should expect 
the best, then we should expect it for our public and for our airports 
throughout this country. So I am hoping we can make that happen. And I 
am optimistic that we will get a lot of Republicans like we have on the 
Senate side where we got over 49 Republicans to vote with us.
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentleman again for his comments, 
and I want to now yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. First of all, I want to commend the gentleman 
for his leadership on this matter. I really stand with my colleague and 
all of the people from his area, all those families, who after 9-11 
their lives will never be the same.
  I hope the gentleman will take a look that I have on black and orange 
for Halloween. This is October 31. But, my colleague, we might be in 
for another trick tomorrow. Tomorrow, the House leadership may not 
bring up the aviation security bill after all.

                              {time}  2000

  Would that not be a horrible trick on the people of the United 
States?
  After September 11 we all pulled together to stand by this country 
and to make sure that we moved forward together with one voice. I 
cannot believe that 7 weeks after September 11 we have not had an 
opportunity to vote on an aviation bill. When we were passing the 
airline bailout bill, I told my colleagues then that we should have 
included airline security in that bill. We should have made sure, as 
the airlines were getting $15 billion and not a dime for the workers, 
and to this date not a dime for the workers.
  In addition to that, I have not heard anything about those schools 
that train pilots. As we speak here on the floor, there are aviation 
schools training pilots today, terrorists, today. Mr. Speaker, I cannot 
believe that people can walk into a school and give $25,000 cash, and 
they will train pilots; for what? It is ironic that one of the planes 
that went down in Pennsylvania on September 11, that the people on that 
plane pulled together. They took a vote and they voted that they were 
going to stop this plane and those people. They are heroes.
  Here we are in the House of Representatives, the people's House, 7 
weeks after September 11, and we have not had a vote. We have not had a 
discussion on the floor. The Senate on a bipartisan vote of 100 to zero 
passed the bill. We need to take up that bill and pass that bill. By 
tomorrow afternoon that bill can be on the President's desk. He can 
sign it and we can move on to other things.
  Aviation security is just one area that we need to work on. We also 
need to work on port security, rail security, bus security. We need to 
change the way we do business in this country. The economic stimulus 
package which passed this House, the same old big dogs were eating. 
Nothing in there for all of the areas of security that we need to 
address, like the United States Coast Guard, giving them additional 
monies to patrol our ports. The list goes on and on.
  A lot of people during election times say it does not matter who is 
in charge. It does matter because if the Democrats were in charge, we 
would have had an aviation security bill on this floor, and not one 
person would be delaying and delaying and delaying that bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that on October 31 we have not yet 
discussed or debated an aviation security bill and what should be 
included in the bill. One of the things that should be included is 
cockpit security. The pilot and the flight attendants all agree that is 
one of the things that should be included, one of the things. In 
addition, marshals, U.S. Marshals on all of the planes.
  The only question it seems is whether or not the people that screen 
the luggage should be Federal employees. We have Members here who say 
they do not like Federal employees; but more than that, they might join 
the union. They might join the union.
  I have something to say, Mr. Speaker. We have been honoring some 
great Americans, the pilots that went down on September 11, the flight 
attendants, the police and firefighters, every single one of them were 
union men and women who were fighting and died for this country on 
September 11. We have not done one single thing to make sure that does 
not happen again. I am very disappointed in the leadership of this 
House. This is the people's House. We should have been first in 
addressing the needs of the American people.
  One of my colleagues said that the big dogs always eat first. A lot 
of people want to know what do we mean by the big dogs. I am talking 
about the lobbyists with the money. That is what is driving it. There 
are some people that want to make sure that the companies that really 
failed us on September 11, those are the ones that are going to 
continue to have the business and pay minimum wage. Minimum wage with 
no training, what do Members expect. America is better than that.
  I am hoping tomorrow we will pass an aviation security bill, and that 
tomorrow evening at this time that bill will be on the way to the 
President's desk and that we can move forward and look at other 
security needs in this country. It may not be a perfect bill. I have 
been here for almost 10 years, and we have never passed a perfect bill; 
but it is a perfect beginning. Let us pass that Senate bill tomorrow 
and move forward for the American people.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, and if I can 
comment on a few things she said.
  I am embarrassed when I have town meetings, and I have had a town 
meeting almost every weekend, and my district is about a half hour from 
Newark airport. I talk about aviation security, and they do not want to 
laugh, but some literally laugh when I talk about what we are going to 
do. They go to the airport and they witness the same

[[Page H7577]]

problems that existed before September 11. They cannot imagine how the 
tragedy of September 11 does not spur us to action.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, some of the changes are just 
cosmetic. Unless we agree to screen all of the luggage, have background 
checks and communication between the FBI and CIA and the airport 
security, it does not work. We need to put a system in place that 
protects the American people. This is not a game. We talk about 
bipartisanship. I am for it. I am for it as far as it goes, but that is 
not what we have. It is my way or nothing at all. That is the rule of 
the House of Representatives. It matters who is in charge of the House 
of Representatives. This is the people's House. The people should have 
an opportunity to put their issues on the floor and have an up-or-down 
vote.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman points out so well that if 
this Senate bill was taken up here tomorrow, if it passed, if the 
Republican leadership did not do whatever they could to try to prevent 
it from passing, it would immediately be signed by the President. There 
is no question about it. Our colleagues this evening were talking about 
the conference.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it was disgusting. They were 
talking about why were we rushing. I would have passed the bill on 
September 12. Here we are 7 weeks later and we are rushing? I am on the 
House Committee on Transportation and the Infrastructure. We have not 
had a discussion, a debate. What we passed out should have been on the 
floor. But we have the leadership refusing to take up a bill. The 
Senate passed a bill on October 11, I think.
  Mr. PALLONE. It has been several weeks.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Yes.
  Mr. PALLONE. And our Republican colleagues were talking about the 
conference. It was a foregone conclusion that they were going to 
conference, which the gentlewoman knows can take weeks.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. We understand who runs the House. People talk 
about we are working together, but the proof is in the pudding. Let us 
pass an aviation security bill for the people of the United States.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor tonight because we 
are in the cusp of a pivotal vote tomorrow. The vote will decide 
whether to make a full commitment of the United States to a secure and 
meaningful airline security bill or, at the bidding of some very well-
paid lobbyists for some companies who have a large financial stake in 
this, will adopt a half-baked half-measure, a low-bid proposal that 
will continue the loophole driven, Swiss cheese, alleged security 
system we have at the gates of our airports.
  I think the choice is that stark. In the last decade the United 
States has engaged in an experiment. That experiment involved having 
private companies who sent in their low bids to airlines that were 
routinely accepted, that as a result got the cheapest employees with 
the least training, with zero certification under FAA supervision, 
under the supervision of the Federal Government. That was the 
experimental system that we have had for the last 10 years.
  That experimental system failed on September 11 big time, as someone 
said. Yet some of our colleagues, the leadership in the Republican 
Party, because of this fixation of anti-union sentiment, want to 
continue that failed experiment because the meat and bones of their 
proposal is this: Let us continue to have private companies with low-
bid contracts supervised by the FAA handle security at airports.
  Members have to understand that they have dressed this up with a few 
ribbons, but the proposal is to continue this failed relationship. The 
reason it is a failed relationship is because of something that is 
happening tonight as we speak.
  The reason that this system has not worked is that every single time 
the FAA and the U.S. Congress has even talked about having meaningful 
training and standards for these employees, these employees with 
million dollar contracts, and to some degree the airlines, have gotten 
on the phone to the lobbyists and instructed them to go to Capitol Hill 
and tell Members to lay off. We do not want to spend another dollar on 
safety. It is going to cut into our profits.
  As a result, Congress has not acted. The FAA has not acted, and we 
have had low bid, no certification, no training, no citizens, no 
speaking English, felons hired to do this job.
  Our friends across the aisle, at least the leadership, want to 
continue this failed experiment. We are going to get the same result. 
If we do the same thing time after time, there is no reason to expect 
anything to change. Tonight we are seeing that same thing happen.
  On Halloween, Members are going to hear the kinds of things that one 
hears on Halloween, but we are also going to hear the sound of arms 
breaking, because some arm breaking is going on by the Republican 
leadership. We have Federal employees who are our border guards and our 
Capitol Hill police, and there is no reason these airport security 
screeners are not Federal employees. Lobbyists for these low-bid 
companies are so afraid they are going to lose their contracts they 
want Members to back off and adopt this half-a-loaf approach.
  These companies and their lobbyists who are asking our friends on the 
other side of the aisle to vote to continue their failure, they are 
afraid that they are going to lose their contracts, and they should be. 
They should lose their contracts and should be out of business. They 
should be seen as failures. We should not allow the Republican Party, 
at the largess and the request of their favorite lobbyist, to allow 
that continued failure.

                              {time}  2015

  We should go in there and do what we ought to do.
  I have heard that they have said that some of the European countries, 
that there are some other countries that have some other systems, that 
have some private employees doing their work. I always kind of thought 
America was supposed to lead the parade, not follow it. If they pull 
this off in Lithuania or Germany, fine, but in Germany, apparently the 
companies cannot come in and tell the government not to enforce safety 
rules. They have been effective in doing that here, in part because of 
the effectiveness of their lobby. That is why in this country we need 
the same kind of safety we have with our border guards, to have 
government employees to be certified to do this job.
  I will mention one other thing before I defer. We have been working, 
many of us have been working for the last weeks, to try to convince the 
majority party to have an insistence that the baggage that goes into 
the belly of an airplane is screened for bombs, because as you know, 
90, 95 percent of it is not screened today. Why is it not screened? It 
is the same thing we talked about. They send the lobbyists down to the 
FAA and say, we don't want to spend a buck to do this and the FAA has 
backed off and they have had some of their friends on the other side of 
the aisle back off. The same thing has happened.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, is the technology 
available to screen the luggage?
  Mr. INSLEE. Yes. The good news is that these machines are built, many 
of them are in airports today, but unfortunately the airlines have not 
turned them on. They stick them in a corner. The U.S. Government spent 
$400 million 5 years ago for a technology called CTX-5000s; they are 
machines with a very good success rate of finding explosive devices. 
Many of the airlines took them, put them in a corner and did not even 
turn them on, literally. We have finally got them to turn them on, but 
the problem is, we do not have enough of those machines yet; we need to 
buy some more and we need to get them into these airports.
  We have finally prevailed on the majority party to put some at least 
sugar-coating language to say they are going to do this to get these 
machines into airports. That is great. We have finally got them to put 
some language in there like that. But if you have people falling asleep 
working for these low-bid contractors at the machine, it does not 
matter how good your machine is if you have still got incompetent ex-
felons who cannot read directions on the machines, how to run them.

[[Page H7578]]

  So if we are going to do this, we need certified people to do it. We 
also need a way to pay for it. The Senate bill, which we are proposing, 
specifically allows the Airport Improvement Trust Fund to be used by 
airports to bring these airports up to speed. They do not have any way 
to pay for it.
  I have proposed an appropriation that was rejected by the 
Republicans. The Senate bill allows the Airport Trust Fund to be used 
to help airports. We have got to find a way to pay for this. So what I 
am saying is, if we are going to have a real screening of bags to keep 
bombs out of the belly of airplanes, we have got to pass the Senate 
bill.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. I agree with the gentleman 100 percent. 
Following that up, I am just concerned that the Europeans, he mentioned 
them, they talked about their system. But I want to be clear. Those 
jobs in Europe and other places are not minimum wage jobs.
  Mr. INSLEE. That is right. As the gentlewoman knows, that is exactly 
what we have ended up with. And as has been pointed out, with a 400 
percent turnover rate.
  Mr. PALLONE. If I could just mention one thing, one of the things 
that really irked me tonight was when we had the conversation among 
some of our Republican colleagues about the value of competition. They 
were talking about how, if we have a Federal work force, we are going 
to eliminate competition. All I kept thinking in my mind is, how can it 
be competition when you are paying people minimum wage, you are not 
providing them any benefits, they have no pride in the work force, you 
are going to create competition?
  Half of these airlines are bankrupt or near bankruptcy. There is no 
incentive in a competitive process to do any better. The whole notion 
of competition in this atmosphere where there is not the money and they 
are not paying the wages is just nonsense.
  Mr. INSLEE. To me, this is a relatively easy question. We can have 
arguments about what goes on in Europe and everything else, but the 
question is, are there certain functions that are so important to 
Americans' lives, the issue is if this job is done well, people live 
and if it is done poorly, they die; and are there certain functions 
that are so pivotally important to the continuation of human life that 
you make sure you have the government do it.
  We do that in certain cases. Firefighters, we do not privatize 
firefighters because people die if it is not done well. Police 
officers, we do not privatize police officers; people die if it is not 
done well. Capitol Police, the same thing. Border Patrol, the same 
thing.
  FBI agents, the nature of this function is a law enforcement 
function. It is not an administrative, baggage handling function; it is 
a law enforcement function. These people should be treated as law 
enforcement officers.
  I will just leave by saying one thing. It is a well-established 
American value that our law enforcement people ought to work for Uncle 
Sam. I think that is the right thing to do. I hope the House votes in 
that way.
  I thank the gentleman for letting me join him this evening.
  Mr. PALLONE. I appreciate his comments.
  I do not like to sound morbid, but as I started out tonight, people 
have died. We had 6,000 people die at the World Trade Center, many of 
them my constituents. It is just incredible to me to think that with 
all of that happening that we have not moved on this and that that does 
not move the House Republican leadership to take up this bill that was 
adopted unanimously, 100-to-nothing.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Many of us went to Ground Zero a couple of 
weeks ago, over 100 Members of Congress, and everyone talked about the 
physical devastation. What stands out most in my mind was the number of 
people that lost their lives. We cannot put that back together. How 
many families got destroyed? We can rebuild the buildings, but we need 
to do what we can in this House to make sure that that never happens 
again.
  That was my commitment. I wish it was everybody's commitment, in 
particular the people on the other side of the aisle. I do think it is 
not most of them; it is just a few people that are holding up our 
passing a meaningful aviation security bill. Shame on them. Shame on 
them.
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank the gentlewoman. She expresses better 
than I do how I feel about this right now. I really appreciate what you 
have said.
  I want to yield to my other colleague from California and stress that 
this evening part of the argument that I have been trying to make is 
not only that the Republican House leadership has refused to bring up 
an aviation security bill, but by contrast, they have instead last week 
brought up this so-called economic stimulus package with all these tax 
cuts that go primarily to corporate interests and wealthy people.
  I think we estimate that of the money that is given back in tax 
breaks in that Republican economic stimulus package that was passed 
last week, very narrowly, by two votes, I think, of $100 billion in tax 
cuts in the next year, 2002, $70.8 billion benefits corporations and 
$14.8 billion benefits affluent individuals.
  So here we have where two-thirds, I guess, of the money that they 
would like to allocate with these tax breaks is going to corporate 
interests, and then at the same time they will not pass a bill on 
aviation security because those same corporate interests refuse to 
spend the money or make a commitment to do the aviation security. It is 
part and parcel of the same thing. Where are the priorities? The 
priorities for the Republicans in trying to get the economy going again 
are to give money to the corporate interests.
  I do not see how in the world that stimulates the economy in the way 
that they hope it to be stimulated. I think just the opposite occurs. 
Of course, the Democrats had an alternative last week, which did not 
pass because we are not in the majority, that does the opposite. It 
gives money back to the displaced workers, it gives unemployment 
compensation, it gives health benefits, it provides for a major 
component of funding for security not only for airlines, but for all 
other means of transportation as the gentlewoman from Florida said. 
That is the kind of thing that would create the economic stimulus and 
create the jobs and get people back to work, and they are not willing 
to do it.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Just one last point. Recently, for the past 
couple of weeks I have been flying into Orlando. Orlando aviation has 
over 30 million people flying through there. It was very disturbing 
that nobody was there. Why? Because if you want to stimulate the 
economy, pass aviation safety so people will feel confident and secure 
in traveling again, so we can get the economy moving. Let us put the 
money, the economic stimulus, into security.
  In closing, one of my favorite scriptures is ``To whom God has given 
much, much is expected.'' The people of this country are expecting a 
lot from the Members of the House of Representatives. They are 
expecting us to put aside partisan bickering and do the people's 
business in the People's House.
  Mr. PALLONE. Well said.
  I yield to my colleague from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my continuing concern over the 
economic stimulus package passed in the House and to urge my colleagues 
in the Senate to put forth a more balanced, effective stimulus that 
will stimulate our economy in the short and long term and provide help 
to those who have been most affected by the events of September 11. We 
need a smaller, more targeted, more temporary and more bipartisan 
stimulus package.
  Congress should act to restore consumer and investor confidence in 
the safety, security and solvency of America. We cannot use the 
economic predicament or the war as an opportunity to merely revisit 
priorities and agendas we advocated before September 11, thus spiraling 
Congress into budget-busting deficit spending. This would threaten the 
fiscal discipline that prompted much of the 1990s' economic boom. 
Already, long-term interest rates remain high despite the Federal 
Reserve's cut in short-term rates because of market concerns that 
deficit spending is making a comeback.
  We must concentrate on boosting the economy by doing everything 
possible

[[Page H7579]]

to restore confidence in the management of our government, in the 
prosecution of the war, and in the development of a stronger and more 
secure nation. We should not be providing more of a tax cut for the 
wealthiest Americans, who have already enjoyed their fair share of tax 
cuts this year or for the Nation's most powerful corporations. Renewed 
fiscal discipline is important because we must maintain our standing in 
the world financial markets and ensure the solvency of the stock 
market.
  Further, we do not know yet how much this war on terrorism will cost. 
We must make sure that our military personnel are well-equipped and 
well-trained and, as Secretary Rumsfeld has stated, this is a marathon, 
not a sprint. We need to be prepared to support the cost of a long war 
without spending erroneously at the outset.
  But perhaps most importantly, we need to stimulate the economy by 
putting money in the hands of people who will spend it immediately. 
This is the true meaning of an economic stimulus.
  We need to focus on ensuring unemployment relief, training and 
reemployment opportunities for workers laid off as a result of the 
terrorist attacks. We also need to help the unemployed maintain their 
health insurance and provide relief for laid-off workers who would 
otherwise slip through the cracks in the current unemployment insurance 
system. By providing unemployment benefits and health care coverage to 
those laid-off workers, we will be targeting those who are most likely 
to spend and, thus, most likely to help in reviving the economy.
  If you give financial assistance, whether it is tax cuts or 
unemployment insurance, to people who can put the money in savings, 
they are not going to spend it; it is not going to stimulate the 
economy. If you provide unemployment or health benefits to a laid-off 
worker, they are going to spend it immediately. The rent is not 
discretionary. Food is not discretionary. Medicine is not 
discretionary. This is an effective economic stimulus.
  I have introduced legislation that I believe can be an essential 
component of these efforts to help those affected by September 11. My 
bill, the COBRA Coverage Act of 2001, would provide a 50 percent tax 
credit toward COBRA coverage for laid-off workers. We simply cannot 
allow so many hard-working Americans and their families to go 
uninsured. We must find a way to make COBRA coverage more affordable 
for the thousands of laid-off workers trying to recover from the 
September 11 attacks.
  This bill does exactly that. The COBRA Coverage Act of 2001 provides 
continuing health care coverage for laid-off workers at half the price. 
Under this legislation, laid-off workers would be eligible for a tax 
credit of 50 percent towards the COBRA coverage premium, receiving an 
immediate benefit, not having to wait till the end of the year to claim 
the tax credit. Nearly identical legislation has been introduced in the 
Senate by Senators Jeffords, Lincoln, Chafee, Bayh and Snowe. Our 
bipartisan effort will ensure that American families can afford to 
remain insured in case of sickness or injury.
  We must take the lead in ensuring that the thousands of hardworking 
Americans who have fallen victim to the effects of September 11 are not 
further set back by a lack of health insurance. We must remain diligent 
in our efforts to protect the American people, and that starts right 
here in the U.S. Congress.

                              {time}  2030

  Our commitment to sound, effective government must be reflected in 
our ability to provide relief to laid off workers and jump start the 
economy during our war on terrorism.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort to make COBRA coverage 
more affordable for laid off workers and to offer the people of this 
country an economic stimulus package that actually works.
  Mr. PALLONE. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff). I do not think there is any questions that 
what is happening with the Republican leadership in terms of this 
economic stimulus package is very similar to what is happening on the 
aviation security issue. And that is, nothing is happening.
  We know that last week when the Republican leadership put forward 
this so-called economic stimulus package, they knew full well it was 
not going to go anywhere. They were barely able to get the votes. I 
remember at one point at the end of votes there were more votes against 
it than for it. And we saw some of the Republican leaders going around 
and strong arming their colleagues so they could turn around a few 
votes. I think it ultimately passed by one or two votes maybe at the 
end.
  We know the way the procedure works around here. If a bill passes on 
strictly a partisan vote and then it goes to the other body, the 
Senate, where the Democrats are in majority and totally disagree with 
this bill because of the way that is structured, that nothing is going 
to happen. There either never is a conference where the two Houses get 
together or if a conference occurs, there is no meeting of the minds.
  So once again, just like with the issue of aviation security, my 
major criticism of the House Republican leadership and my colleagues 
who spoke earlier on the Republican side tonight is that they keep 
talking about the need to go to conference, which really means the need 
to delay, delay on aviation security, delay on economic stimulus. 
Meanwhile, the economy does not get any better and the problems with 
aviation security at the various airports continue.
  I just think it is very sad. People want action. Regardless of 
whether we agree or disagree they want action and we are not getting 
it. We are certainly not getting it on the part of this leadership on 
the Republican side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I know there is only a few minutes left, but I just want 
to point out the contrast which you did so well on what the Republicans 
had in mind with this economic stimulus package. I mentioned of the 
$99.5 billion in tax cuts proposed for the next year, 2002, $70.8 
billion benefits corporation, $14.8 billion benefits affluent 
individuals, and only $1.37 billion goes to workers with lower incomes 
who did not get the previous rebate. A lot of it is even going to 
finance multi-nationals so the money would not even be spent here, 
which is incredible to me. How can you have an economic stimulus 
package when you have a provision that allows multi-national 
corporations to defer U.S. income taxes on profits from certain 
offshore activities so long as they are kept outside of the country. 
That is $260 million next year, $21.3 billion over 10 years.
  Now, by contrast what we did, as was pointed out with our Democratic 
substitute, is provide rebates or tax breaks or unemployment 
compensation for displaced workers or money for aviation security and 
other investments in public infrastructure. That would be mean dollars 
immediately going into the economy either because the person who gets 
the unemployment compensation would spend it or because we would be 
hiring people for these various public infrastructure necessities such 
as the security that we talked about earlier this evening.
  I do not understand. I do not know an economist on the face of the 
Earth who would suggest that what the Republicans tried to pass last 
week would do anything significant to benefit the economy. And I do not 
know what we do. I think the only thing we can do is to simply come 
here every night as we are, as Democrats, and demand action, demand 
that whether it is a security issue or an economic issue that the 
Republican leadership take some action, work in a bipartisan way so we 
can actually accomplish something. Nothing is being accomplished here. 
We just have to continue to demand that something be accomplished in a 
bipartisan way that can achieve some progress in these areas. But so 
far we are not getting it.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Schiff).

                          ____________________