[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 149 (Thursday, November 1, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7617-H7622]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1315
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3150, SECURE TRANSPORTATION FOR 
                          AMERICA ACT OF 2001

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 274 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 274

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3150) to improve aviation security, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may

[[Page H7618]]

     have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 274 is a structured rule that provides 
for the consideration of H.R. 3150, the Secure Transportation for 
America Act. This is a fair rule, allowing ample time for free-flowing 
discussion on both the base text and the Democratic substitute. The 
rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided 
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule makes in order only 
those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying 
the resolution. These amendments may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report and may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report. They shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or 
in the Committee of the Whole. Further, the rule waives all points of 
order against such amendments. Finally, the rule provides one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to announce that at the 
conclusion of the debate on this resolution, it is my intention to 
offer an amendment to the rule that simply replaces the manager's 
amendment currently made in order under the rule with a new manager's 
amendment. This manager's amendment eliminates a provision dealing with 
preferred compensation for airline employees and adds airport parking 
lots to a provision that requires airports receiving financial aid to 
work with airport restaurants, shops and other concessionaires on rent 
adjustments to account for their loss of revenue. The new manager's 
amendment also adds language that establishes a preference for the 
hiring of laid-off airline workers as screeners and a provision that 
states that, where possible, airline security companies should be 
American companies.
  Mr. Speaker, as our Nation searches for answers in the wake of the 
September 11 tragedy, we find ourselves in unfamiliar territory. Our 
personal freedoms and liberties are so rooted in the fabric of American 
society that we almost take them for granted. But now that those 
freedoms have been attacked in the most despicable and cowardly manner, 
we are all keenly aware of just how precious they are. As we strive to 
maintain a sense of normalcy and familiarity, we also struggle to 
reconcile our fears and apprehensions in a new and uncertain global 
atmosphere. Enhancing our Nation's air travel by making it as safe and 
secure as possible is critical in easing those fears among our 
citizens.
  The comprehensive legislation before us today focuses on our Nation's 
aviation security system. This security plan establishes a new 
transportation security administration within the Department of 
Transportation that will be responsible for the security of all forms 
of transportation, not just air travel. This legislation not only 
expands law enforcement on aircraft by placing Federal marshals on 
commercial airlines, but it also positions law enforcement personnel at 
every airport screening location, because safety must include defenses 
on both the ground and in the air.
  Additional ground safety measures incorporate strict new standards 
for screening, including certification and uniformed personnel. Federal 
supervision will oversee the screening process, background checks and 
testing. Baggage screeners will have to undergo more extensive 
training, adhere to tougher performance requirements, be U.S. citizens, 
and be deputized with law enforcement powers.
  As the holiday season fast approaches, it is more important than ever 
that Americans are free to spend time with their families and their 
loved ones and it is incumbent upon us to do everything in our power to 
make sure that their travel, by any means, but especially by air, is as 
safe and as secure as possible. A stronger infrastructure means a 
stronger economy, and a stronger economy means a stronger America. By 
passing this rule and its underlying legislation, we can move quickly 
move forward with the important business of making our airports and 
airplanes safe and secure for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, as I conclude, I would like to commend the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, for his hard work and the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica), chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, for 
his hard work.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. First, Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from New 
York for yielding me the time.
  After September 11, it is patently clear that we need to make travel 
on our airlines as safe as possible. Leaving aside for the time being 
the fact that we have not done anything for the safety of passengers on 
our buses, trains or ships, what we are trying to do for the flying 
public is as important as anything we can do to help this economy.
  First, Mr. Speaker, let me speak to the rule itself.
  Mr. Speaker, there were 20 Members of the House that asked that the 
Committee on Rules allow their amendments to be made in order. These 
were Members of both parties who have some thoughtful and substantive 
suggestions as to how to make this legislation stronger. Of those 20 
Members, exactly two of them will have their amendments heard and 
debated by the House. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is permitted to 
offer an amendment, and, of course, the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), will be allowed to offer his amendment. 
Other than the two most senior members of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, not one other Member of the House of 
Representatives is permitted to offer an amendment.
  Candidly, Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed. While I very much 
appreciate the fact that this rule makes in order the gentleman from 
Minnesota's substitute, the Committee on Rules spent hours this week 
listening to Members testify on behalf of their amendments. 
Unfortunately, the House at large will not have this same opportunity.
  What I heard at the Committee on Rules this week was interesting, 
provocative, insightful and worthy of consideration by this House. The 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) made excellent points at the 
Committee on Rules which we will not consider today because of this 
closed rule. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Jackson), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) are all some of the other Members who will 
not have their amendments heard under this closed rule.
  Why is the majority limiting debate on such an important issue? I 
have yet to hear one Member satisfactorily explain that to me. Worse, 
Mr. Speaker, the lengthy amendment from the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure chairman constantly being amended, even here in the 
last 30 minutes, will only be debated for 20 minutes. This is a 16-page 
amendment which makes significant changes to the underlying bill. So 
each side will have 10 minutes to debate this. I find that incredible.
  Moving beyond this restrictive rule, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
touch briefly on the serious deficiencies of

[[Page H7619]]

the underlying bill. During the minimal time allowed to debate this 
bill, we will hear much about who and what is screening the people and 
baggage on our airlines. The seminal question in my view is this: Will 
we have Federal law enforcement personnel screen passengers and luggage 
before entering airplanes or will this be left to private sector 
contract employees?
  Before answering that question, let me ask my colleagues related 
questions about public safety and security, their own safety and 
security and their constituents'. My colleagues, do we not feel safer 
every morning that we enter the Capitol because we are protected by the 
United States Capitol Police? Do we not feel safer that our borders are 
protected by the United States Border Patrol and United States Customs 
Service? Do we not feel safer that our brave men and women in uniform 
and members of the United States Armed Services presently pursuing our 
interests in Afghanistan and elsewhere are members of the Armed Forces?
  So what is my point? The point is we do not contract out our own 
security in the Capitol building, we do not contract out our security 
at our borders, and we certainly do not contract out for our military. 
However, the leadership of this House is comfortable contracting out 
the security of the flying public. Again I say, incredible.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember several weeks ago after my leader the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) came out of a White House 
meeting with the President and said, ``This is a unity government 
now.'' It seems that all 100 United States Senators understood what 
that meant. That means we should stop dickering around and pass a 
serious bill. The bill must include federalized passenger screeners at 
our airports. And in case it was not just made clear, the other Chamber 
passed their bill with federalized screeners by a recorded vote of 100-
to-nothing. Certainly if the United States Senate can pass such a bill 
with unanimity, the House should do no less.
  Another issue that really incenses me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that 
our checked baggage is not screened as it should be. According to an 
article that appeared in yesterday's Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, only 
5 to 10 percent of checked bags are examined for explosives. The 
underlying bill would require examination of all checked bags by 
December 2003. Are we clear on this? So in 2 years and 2 months, our 
bags will be adequately screened.
  Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable, irresponsible and inexcusable. 
There is simply no reason why Congress cannot mandate the Department of 
Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration to issue 
regulations immediately to require screening of checked baggage. I need 
not remind my colleagues that as the holiday season approaches, it is 
more critical than ever that our flying public not only feels safe but 
that they are safe.

                              {time}  1330

  That is the critical difference between the House bill and the 
unanimously passed Senate bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if I had more time, I would discuss the fact that while 
this House has already bailed out the airline industry, provided 
enormous tax breaks to the largest corporations in America, and is now 
set to attempt to make our skies safer, we still have not lifted a 
single finger to help displaced workers.
  I introduced a bill more than 5 weeks ago to help those hardworking 
Americans who have lost their jobs because of the tragedy on September 
11. My bill, cosponsored by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Hart) and 140 other bipartisan cosponsors, needs to be considered 
forthwith.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule; and that amendment would provide that 
immediately after the House passes the airline safety bill it will take 
up H.R. 2955, the Displaced Workers Assistance Act introduced by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and myself and others. My 
amendment provides that the bill will be considered under an open 
amendment process so that all Members will be able to fully express 
their views and offer amendments that they think are important to this 
critical bill.
  Mr. Speaker, more than 7 weeks have passed since the tragic events of 
September 11. Since that time, thousands and thousands of workers in 
the airline and related industries have lost their jobs. These people 
need relief immediately. When we passed the airline bailout the week 
after the terrorist attacks, promises were made at that time by the 
Republican leadership that a worker-relief package would soon follow. I 
do not have to say again that it has not happened yet, and I do not see 
any indication that it is on the schedule in the immediate future. It 
is time for the House to do its work and pass legislation to help these 
people.
  Let me make clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will 
not stop consideration of the airline safety bill. A ``no'' vote will 
allow the House to get on with the much-delayed airline industry 
worker-aid bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will 
prevent the House from taking up the airline worker relief bill.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment 
be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, over the past 2 months, this 
Congress has been working with unusual dispatch with an unusual degree 
of bipartisanship. The consideration of this bill could have been 
another example of this. I am disappointed, as are many Members, that 
the leadership chose instead to have a closed, restrictive rule this 
afternoon and not allow Members to offer legitimate substantive and 
meaningful amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), commented on the length of debate, it is apparent that we 
will also add 60 minutes for the rule for additional debate on this 
subject as we continue through the time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would only advise my 
distinguished colleague and friend that last night we asked for more 
time on the manager's amendment so we could have more time on this 
matter.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I remind the gentleman 
that the all-powerful Committee on Rules had the tremendous opportunity 
to have an hour and a half on the witness stand of the inquiries that 
were made by both Democrat and Republican Members as to the 
legislation, the manager's amendment opinions expressed by the members 
of the Committee on Rules on various aspects of that legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Mica).
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that this is an abundantly 
fair rule. It does give the minority two shots at the proposal. It does 
give them the opportunity to bring up in toto the Senate-passed 
language, as they requested.
  The legislation that we have proposed on the House side, the majority 
side, in comments that were made by the previous speaker on the other 
side that it is important that we protect trains and planes and other 
modes of transportation, in fact the legislation that we are presenting 
here today is the most comprehensive security package, not only giving 
responsibility, which is so important, but, unlike the Senate proposal, 
it also gives the authority to deal with some of the problems.
  In fact, today's newspaper points out one of the problems we have had 
in the past with security or even dealing with defects of aviation, and 
this is in today's Washington Post. This talks about the Value Jet 
crash which took place in 1996. It says: ``In fact, Federal regulations 
were later strengthened to crack down on passenger flights carrying 
hazardous waste.''
  Why am I pointing this out? Because the Senate bill, the bill 
proposed by the other side, does nothing to deal with giving authority 
to deal with regulations relating to security. That is the

[[Page H7620]]

major flaw in this proposed piece of legislation.
  The other side has said some 20 Members presented before the 
Committee on Rules. I participated in the Committee on Rules 
procedures. I will say many of the proposals from the other side have 
been incorporated into the manager's amendment. We have tried to 
accommodate those requests, including probably one of the strongest 
provisions for checked baggage, which was also pointed out by the other 
side that baggage is not checked.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) on the other side, who has 
done such a good job in promoting this strong provision, certainly 
would prefer our legislative proposal, which is the strongest ever 
proposed anywhere in Congress and contained in our manager's amendment, 
and we modeled it partly after his recommendation.
  So, no, good ideas have not been left out. This process has not been 
a partisan issue. I have worked with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the gentleman on the other side, the ranking member, and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski). We have worked together in a 
bipartisan fashion; and they know in their heart of hearts that the 
bill proposed by the majority, they agree with 100 percent, with the 
exception of one part, and that is, shall all of the employees who are 
baggage screeners be Federal employees.
  What is sad about the proposal on the other side is, not only will 
this create a disjointed and dysfunctional security mechanism for 
airports, a lack of authority to deal specifically with other modes of 
transportation, which is so important in this time of crisis, but I 
have a letter from the Department of Justice, and the legislation from 
the other side actually will inhibit their ability to function.
  The Department of Justice, let me read from their letter to the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), our chairman: ``Unlike the 
Department of Justice, DOT has both the broad transportation-related 
statutory mandate and nearly 35 years of significant operational 
experience with transportation regulation, infrastructure, security and 
enforcement. Further, DOT's two components of law enforcement 
authority, the United States Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation 
Administration, possess a unique infrastructure of law enforcement 
personnel and expertise with broad domestic enforcement authority upon 
which the Congress can build and enhance DOT's law enforcement 
authority and responsibility.''
  Listen to this. They say: ``In light of DOT's strong capabilities and 
DOJ's many responsibilities in fighting the war on terrorism, we feel 
that our resources would be better spent in carrying out our current 
mission than developing a new transportation infrastructure and 
expertise.''
  So here we have the proposal from the other side, which actually will 
impede the Department of Justice mission which they have, and it will 
not do it in a small way, it will do it in an incredible way.
  The Congressional Budget Office submitted to me today the proposal 
that it is not 28,000 additional employees; it is some 31,000 
additional Federal employees. So you can go home and tell your 
constituents what we did is created the biggest bureaucracy in the 
history of a generation, the biggest bureaucracy, 31,000 Federal 
employees, as a cure-all, and the Department of Justice has said in 
fact that you are interfering with our mission and they have no 
expertise to deal with this. We have created a two-tier system, which 
is the most disjointed approach to security that we could possibly have 
to guarantee the safety of the flying public.
  So I urge my colleagues to pass the rule and to consider very 
carefully what legislation is before them. When all else fails, my 
colleagues, read the bill. This is one of the worst pieces of 
legislation I have seen in 20 years in working on Capitol Hill. It was 
sent here in a hurry, almost immediately, so we could correct it. Now 
we need to do that. We cannot pass this failed piece of legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just remind my distinguished colleague from Florida 
that the Senate bill has been at the desk for an entire week, and I 
would also remind the gentleman that the vote in the United States 
Senate was 100 to nothing, and that included Trent Lott and John McCain 
and all of the other Republican Senators who still stand by their bill.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that it 
is inappropriate to state how specific Senators voted on a particular 
measure.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes 
to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, we will hear a lot of rhetoric today; but the issue 
before this House is a very simple one: Do you support the current 
system in which low-bid private security companies are responsible for 
airline safety? If so, then vote for the Republican leadership's bill. 
Or do you feel that the current system has failed the American people 
and should be replaced with Federal law enforcement professionals 
protecting our airports, just as they protect the Capitol, the White 
House, and America's borders? If so, then vote for the bipartisan 
substitute.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is an easy choice. Replacing the current 
failed system is simple. The White House said today that the President 
is eager to sign an aviation security bill into law. Three weeks ago, 
the Senate unanimously passed on a vote of 100 to zero a strong 
bipartisan aviation security bill that we will offer as a substitute 
today.
  This House can send that bipartisan bill to the President's desk 
tonight. Then we can immediately start putting more sky marshals on 
planes, strengthen more cockpit doors, and start protecting our 
airports with Federal law enforcement professionals.
  On the other hand, the Republican leaders today are offering the 
flying public nothing more than a fig leaf that will protect the same 
old failed private airport security system. Even worse, Mr. Speaker, 
Republican leaders are offering a manager's amendment that would not 
just keep private security companies in charge of airport security, it 
would virtually exonerate them from the September 11 failures. The 
Republican manager's amendment would provide the private security 
companies with liability protection, preventing the victims of 
September 11 from holding them accountable for allowing terrorists to 
get on planes with box cutters. This is nothing less than shameful, Mr. 
Speaker; and I am stunned that Republican leaders are trying to slip it 
through the House.
  Mr. Speaker, while the rest of this country pulls together to win the 
war on terrorism, the Republican leadership is playing politics as 
usual. I urge my colleagues to reject partisanship and special interest 
politics and to pass the bipartisan substitute so the President can 
immediately sign this aviation security bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, bipartisanship comes from bringing two points of view 
together. That is going to happen if this rule is passed when the 
debate will go on the merit of the legislation of the underlying bill. 
It will happen when a vote occurs on the manager's amendment, whether 
it occurs or not with passage; and it will happen with the complete 
Democratic substitute written by Democrats in a partisan fashion to be 
brought before the House in a bipartisan vote, up or down.
  So we are going to have a lot of bipartisanship or nonpartisanship 
today, once this rule is passed. It is going to be the opportunity for 
those who support the President's plan to have that vote. For those who 
want to look at liability provisions and other aspects contained in the 
manager's amendment, that will be an opportunity for a vote as well. 
Finally, a Democratic substitute written by the Democratic minority of 
this House will have an up or down vote as well.
  So we are going to have a lot of bipartisanship, led by the 
leadership in this House, let alone rank and file Members, as we pass 
this rule and move toward consideration of those prospects within the 
bill that will be before the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa.

[[Page H7621]]

  (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, about a week after September 11, I stood at 
ground zero with my colleague from New Jersey looking at that six-story 
pile of rubble and smoke rising from it that was a mass grave of 5,000 
of our American citizens, and I could see superimposed over that the 
handwriting from a victim's relief center of a little girl, written on 
the wall underneath the picture of her daddy, and it said, ``Daddy, I 
miss you. I will love you always.''

                              {time}  1345

  We need to get past partisanship.
  There will be those on the floor today who will rant and rail against 
putting airport safety in the hands of government employees, as if that 
were an evil thing. Well, here is the real story. All those brave 
firefighters and policemen in New York City who lost their lives were 
government employees. All those courageous Capitol Hill policemen who 
lost their lives defending our offices 2 years ago were government 
employees. All those men and women in the armed services who are 
fighting in Afghanistan right at this moment are government employees. 
And the FBI agents who put their lives on the line are government 
employees. Those postal workers who lost their lives are government 
employees.
  Mr. Speaker, the Oberstar-Ganske substitute is the bipartisan bill. 
It passed the Senate 100 to zero. Such well-known conservatives as 
Trent Lott, Don Nickles, Chuck Grassley, all voted for that bill. They 
all voted for that bill.
  The Senate bill puts the safety of our citizens ahead of special 
interests. The companies who are bankrolling the effort to kill the 
Senate bill are foreign-owned corporations.
  So that is the question: Are we going to take common sense, practical 
steps to improve the safety, or are we going to entrust our lives to 
foreign corporations who pay minimum wage and are already threatening 
to sue the Government? The Ganske-Oberstar amendment empowers Attorney 
General John Ashcroft to set the terms and conditions of hiring and 
firing of those screeners, and there could be no strikes. The House 
leadership bill will produce gridlock. The manager's amendment is even 
worse. The voters have elected us to solve problems, not just to talk 
about them. Let us put this bill where it belongs: on the President's 
desk. He has already said he would sign it, and the sooner the better.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not want to see again a message like another one I 
saw at that Victims' Family Relief Center written by a mother. 
Underneath the picture of her husband, it said, ``Dan we will love you 
always,'' signed, ``Christan and your son, Justin.''
  It is time to pass the true bipartisan bill, get it to the 
President's desk, and get it signed into law before hundreds of 
thousands of our citizens are flying on Thanksgiving.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I really wish to remind the gentleman from New York that when he said 
that this Oberstar measure that we will undertake was written in a 
partisan fashion, that the Oberstar substitute is the Senate bill that 
was passed 100 to nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Bonior), the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question, and 
I do so for a very simple reason that was eloquently brought to us on 
the floor by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Airline workers have been laid off across this country by the tens of 
thousands; and so far, we have done absolutely nothing. We were told 
when this Congress bailed out the airline industry to the tune of $15 
billion a few weeks ago that the workers would be next. On top of that, 
today they have something called uncapped compensation for some of 
these executives that would give them additional millions of dollars 
that was in the manager's amendment. I do not know if they are going to 
go forward with it and try to get it out of here today, but I tell my 
colleagues one thing, they had it in there originally. They are taking 
care of certain people and letting the others go.
  We decided that we were in this together as a country, workers, 
executives, Democrats, Republicans. Well, that has not been the case. 
After they did this bailout of the airline industry, the House passed 
this corporate welfare package under the guise of economic stimulus. 
Multinational corporations received tax breaks to the tune of billions 
of dollars, individual companies, $2 billion, $1.5 billion. Airline 
workers were given the pink slip.
  Mr. Speaker, 150,000 airline workers, baggage handlers, machinists, 
flight attendants, pilots, mechanics, are out of work. They need 
unemployment compensation. About 40 percent of people get it today if 
you are thrown out of work in this country. That is an outrage. They 
are not getting it. They need health care benefits to make sure that 
their families have health care, that they can feed their families, pay 
their mortgage with unemployment compensation benefits. All of that has 
run out or will run out without any help from this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to lend these workers a hand. How much time 
needs to go by? How many more bailouts and tax breaks will we need to 
consider before we help these 150,000 airline workers whose livelihoods 
have been most affected, and all of the other tens of thousands, if not 
hundreds of thousands who have been laid off as a result of their 
layoffs?
  Mr. Speaker, we need to pass an airline security bill identical to 
the Senate and send it to the President tonight. The American people 
have waited too long for airline security, and then come back and do 
the Hastings-Gephardt-Bonior bill that we need to deal with on 
unemployment compensation and health care.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute 
to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch), one of the newer 
Members of the House of Representatives, who replaced the ranking 
member, our dear departed friend Joe Moakley.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for his solid work on the 
substitute bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the privilege of my new office allows me the great honor 
of representing many of the neighborhoods and towns that surround Logan 
Airport in Boston. It just so happens that today I have the sad duty of 
meeting with many of the families from my district who lost loved ones 
aboard the flights which departed Logan Airport on September 11.
  Mr. Speaker, today is not the day to exempt security screening 
companies who failed to protect the public on September 11. I am 
heartsick that these families are families that we were charged and 
sworn to protect. They should not be overlooked by foreign security 
companies. We can fulfill our public duty by professionalizing and 
federalizing airport security personnel and by supporting the 
substitute bill.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a fair rule that 
will allow the people's representatives to consider federalizing the 
screeners in our Nation's airports. We cannot shortchange the public by 
continuing to contract out low-wage jobs and less-trained personnel. We 
need to federalize our airport security. We do not contract out our 
security for people who work for the INS or the military. Why then 
would we contract out for airline security?
  We have learned the hard way that an airplane can hit anywhere. 
Federalization means less employee turnover, more experience and 
accountability. According to GAO, in 1999, turnover averaged 126 
percent among screeners at 19 airports. No wonder, since the average 
pay that they receive is anywhere between $6 and $6.75 an hour.
  The Republican bill would eliminate the salary cap that we have 
placed on executive pay. These people earn hundreds of thousands of 
dollars. Why in

[[Page H7622]]

the world would we eliminate the cap instead of providing support for 
those who are on the frontline, those screeners?
  Since screening personnel check more than 2 million pieces of luggage 
and go through and see millions of people a day, we should upgrade 
their salaries and their skills.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), my good friend.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  When I fly to Washington from Lindberg Field in San Diego and I check 
in my bags, I see hardworking people trying to do their best for the 
American public. But they are paid the minimum wage. They get 2 days of 
training, and there is almost a 200 percent turnover per year at our 
airport in San Diego.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to professionalize, it is time to stabilize, 
it is time to federalize that first line of defense for the traveling 
public. We would not contract out the defense of our border to the 
private sector. We are not going to contract out our national security. 
Let us not contract out the airline public safety.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time stabilize, it is time to professionalize, it 
is time to federalize our airline security workforce. Let us pass the 
Oberstar-Ganske substitute.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my good friend.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Florida for the work that he has done on this and how he is handling 
it, which is always, his work always bears the mark of excellence.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long thought that our Nation's airports are part 
of our Nation's security. That was debated in the Congress for many 
years. September 11 changed that attitude in the country. I do not 
think there is a citizen in our Nation today that would question that 
our national airports are and should be part of our national security. 
That is why I rise in support of the Oberstar-Lipinski-DeFazio bill.
  Now, the Senate passed it 100 to nothing. For those that say this is 
partisan, it does not have to be. The Senate showed the way. They very 
seldom do. We know that our firefighters are part of public service. We 
do not go to the ABC Corporation to hire them. We do not hire our 
police officers that way.
  Today, we need Federal standards, Federal training, baggage checks; 
and our Nation's airports must, indeed, be part of our national 
security. We need to pass the bill.

                          ____________________