Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 149 (Thursday, November 1, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 149 (Thursday, November 1, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7631-H7649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page H7631]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

House of Representatives

SECURE TRANSPORTATION FOR AMERICA ACT OF 2001

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). Pursuant to House
Resolution 274 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, H.R. 3150.

{time} 1335

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3150) to improve aviation security, and for other purposes, with
Mr. Hastings of Washington in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a long prepared statement
which I will submit for the Record, but I would ask my colleagues today
to think about this legislation very strongly. I have talked privately
with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), and they say that the bill that they are
proposing does not do the job. That tells me one thing: the bill that
they are promoting does not do the job, and this bill does.
We worked very closely to get a bill and came very nearly to having a
bill. Some people did not see it that way. But my main goal was to have
the best security bill for our people. I believe my bill does that. It
is not perfect, but I can tell my colleagues the Senate bill is nowhere
as near as my bill.
If my colleagues vote for the substitute, which some of my colleagues
are planning on doing, they are not going to have a conference. That
has already been decided. It will be on the President's desk, and the
American people will be told by certain people that they will be secure
in their airports, but we will have the exact same system that is in
place right now, which has failed miserably. All of my colleagues know
that.
This has become a political football, and I stayed out of that,
because I want the best security for the people of America.
I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), who has done
an outstanding job, and the staff has done a good job on this issue
and, yes, the President of the United States. All he is asking us to do
and what my bill does is give him some flexibility. My bill does not
federalize, it does not nationalize, it is not a total requirement. But
it is a brand new era, a time where we need good security. In all good
conscience, there is no way that a substitute is going to be offered
that I could even vote for that legislation, because we are kidding the
American public.
The Senate keeps referring to a 100 to zero vote. I have had Senate
Democrats and Republicans come to me and say, my God, we have to go to
conference. And I have had a few people say to me, we will have to
straighten this out later on. That is not good legislation. This is the
House of the people, not the Senate. To have to accept a Senate bill to
me is deplorable. It is beneath us. It is the wrong thing to do.
I do not believe there is a fairer person in this Congress than
myself working with each individual. My heart is very deeply in the
idea of security. If we do not pass this bill today of mine and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), we are doing a great disservice to
the American people, because they will go to the airport and say, oh,
my God, we are now safe because we have passed a bill, and in reality
there is no safety in the substitute.
Mr. Chairman, it disturbs me how this thing got so far out of hand
that we cannot solve the problem correctly. We must go to conference.
We can solve it in conference where the problems are different, but if
we do not go to conference, we have nothing and we have kidded the
public. I am not about to, and I was accused today of not being a
statesman because I said I probably will not review this issue again
because my colleagues have made the decision if I lose that they have a
safe bill and the people of America are safe. I can tell my colleagues
from the bottom of my heart, my colleagues know they are not, and I
will not be a part of kidding the American public about how secure they
will be if we adopt the substitute. We have to accept the Young-Mica
bill for the best for the people of America.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3150, the Secure
Transportation for America Act of 2001.
H.R. 3150 is the result of a great deal of hard work by our aviation
subcommittee and its chairman, John Mica.
I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for his
efforts and the hard work of the aviation subcommittee on this issue.
Chairman Mica and the members of the aviation subcommittee held
hearings and conducted extensive research to find out which system of
security would work best for our aviation transportation needs.
The American people have every right to be concerned and worried
about the inadequate level of security provided at our airports.
This bill will dramatically increase the level of security and will
dramatically change the way the system has operated at our airports.

[[Page H7632]]

Under the current system, the airlines hire the security screeners at
the airports using low cost, low bid security companies.
The airlines in the past have worked to reduce their costs by driving
down the cost of airline security. Unfortunately, this has resulted in
a low paid, poorly trained and poorly motivated workforce.
I want to make it abundantly clear. This bill changes all of that.
Low paid, poorly trained and poorly motivated screeners in charge of
our nation's air security is simply unacceptable.
Under our bill, H.R. 3150, the federal government will take over the
job of screening passengers and their baggage at our airports.
It will become a federal government responsibility.
Where we differ with some of our colleagues is how do we best achieve
the goal of a truly secure federally controlled aviation screening
process.
We do it by insuring that it is the federal government that will set
the compensation for the screeners.
It is the federal government that mandates the level of competency
and training for the screeners.
It is the government that runs the background checks and works with
other agencies to insure that these screeners have a clean record.
And if the screeners don't do their job and perform well, under our
bill they can be removed, their certificates can be revoked, and the
entire company can be fired and fined for any violations of the rules
or regulations.
Our bill gives the President the tools he needs to insure the best
possible security for our country.
H.R. 3150 however, does more than just improve airport screening.
It establishes broad authority to deal with threats to all
transportation modes, by setting up a new Transportation Security
Administration within the Department of Transportation.
The new administration will be headed by an undersecretary whose only
job will be to protect our transportation system from terrorists
threats.
H.R. 3150 requires the undersecretary of the Transportation Security
Administration to assume all responsibility for aviation security
within 3 months of final passage of the bill.
Under our bill the undersecretary could assume responsibility even
earlier if the transition can be worked out with the airlines.
Unlike the Senate bill and the amendment to be offered, H.R. 3150
does not tie the President's hands by requiring that airport security
screeners be 100 percent federal employees.
However, let me make it clear.
Our bill federalizes the screening process.
However, the issue is not federal versus non-federal employees
conducting the screening of passengers and their bags.
The real issue is how to achieve the highest level of security for
the traveling public, particularly within the next few months while we
are at war against the terrorists who used our air transportation
system to attack us.
Locking in a system that prohibits the use of any private contract
workers at all leaves the air transportation system vulnerable to
disruption and reduced security.
There is no guarantee that federal employees will do a better job
than private employees, but that is not the real issue.
The real issue is giving the President the flexibility and the money
to get the job done.
I also want to make it clear that this issue is not about whether
screeners will be unionized.
They are unionized now and under my bill can continue to be members
of union and to bargain collectively. However, they cannot go on strike
under my bill.
H.R. 3150, the Secure Transportation for America Act, addresses all
these security issues to achieve a workable system that provides for
real security as quickly as possible.
I urge support of H.R. 3150, which is to bring real security to the
traveling public in as short a period of time as possible.

Section-by-Section Summary--Secure Transportation for America Act of
2001--H.R. 3150

Section 1 is the short title.

section 2--transportation security administration

Subsection (a) adds a new section 114 to Chapter 1 of title
49 of the U.S. Code creating the new Transportation Security
Administration (TSA).
Subsection (a) of this new section 114 states that the new
TSA shall be an Administration in the Department of
Transportation (DOT).
Subsection (b) creates the new position of Under Secretary
to head this new Administration.
Paragraph (1) states that this Under Secretary shall be
appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the
Senate.
Paragraph (2) states that the Under Secretary must be a
U.S. citizen and have had prior experience in transportation
or security.
Paragraph (3) gives the Under Secretary a 5-year term.
Subsection (c) prohibits the Under Secretary from having an
interest in a transportation or a security company or a
company that makes security equipment.
Subsection (d) describes the functions of the Under
Secretary.
Paragraph (1) states that the Under Secretary will be
responsible for security in all modes of transportation. This
involves the assumption of the powers now exercised by the
Associate FAA Administrator of Civil Aviation Security and
the DOT Director of Intelligence and Security as well as the
security functions of other Administrations within DOT. It
does not involve the Coast Guard. The bill does not
explicitly assign the hazmat function leaving that up to DOT
to decide whether to move that into the new Administration or
keep it in FAA.
Paragraph (2) requires a schedule to be developed for the
transfer of the security functions in consultation with the
affected carriers.
Paragraph (3), in the meantime, allows airlines to assign
their contracts with private security companies to the Under
Secretary.
Subsection (e) lists in more detail the duties and powers
of the Under Secretary. These duties and powers are--
(1) Receiving, assessing, and distributing intelligence
information to the appropriate people in the transportation
community.
(2) Assessing threats to transportation.
(3) Developing policies to deal with these threats.
(4) Coordinating with other agencies.
(5) Serve as the liaison with the intelligence community.
(6) Supervising airport security using Federal uniformed
personnel.
(7) Manage the Federal security personnel in the field.
(8) Enforce security regulations.
(9) Undertake research to improve security.
(10) Inspect, maintain, and test security equipment.
(11) Ensure that adequate security is provided for the
transportation of cargo, including cargo as defined in
section 40102(a)(12).
(12) Oversee the security at airports and other
transportation facilities.
(13) Perform background checks on screeners and those who
work at airports.
(14) Develop standards for the hiring and firing of
screeners.
(15) Train and test screeners.
(16) Carry out other duties and powers authorized by law.
Subsection (f) gives the Under Secretary the same powers to
acquire and maintain property as the FAA.
Subsection (g) allows the Under Secretary to accept
transfers of funds.
Subsection (h) allows the Under Secretary, if the situation
warrants, to issue a security rule on an expedited basis
without Secretarial or OMB review and without notice and
comment as would otherwise be required by the Administrative
Procedure Act. Such a rule would be in effect for 30 days and
would remain in effect unless disapproved by the Oversight
Board established in section 13.
Subsection (i) gives the Under Secretary the same authority
over personnel and services as the FAA. This includes the
authority to contract for services such as the screening
service.
Subsection (j) allows the new Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) to set up its own personnel system.
Subsection (k) allows the new TSA to set up its own
procurement system.
Subsection (l) makes clear that the DOT Inspector General
can investigate the TSA in the same way that he can
investigate other Administrations within DOT.
Subsection (c) establishes the compensation for the Under
Secretary.
Subsection (d) allows other agencies to provide personnel,
such as sky marshals, to the FAA and the TSA.
Subsection (e) transfers responsibility for security
research from the FAA to the TSA.
Subsection (f) changes statutory references from the FAA
and the Administrator to the TSA and the Under Secretary to
reflect the transfer of functions.

Section 3--Screening of passengers and property

This section requires the Federal government to take over
responsibility for the screening of passengers and property
(both checked and carry-on baggage) on passenger aircraft in
the United States. The Federal government could do this
either by hiring Federal employees to do the screening or by
contracting with a security company to perform this task with
Federal oversight. All screening must be supervised by
uniformed Federal employees of the TSA. A supervisor can
order the dismissal of a screener who is not performing
adequately. Screeners are prohibited from striking.

Section 4--Security programs

This section requires that there be a law enforcement or
military presence at each screening checkpoint, not merely at
each airport. The law enforcement presence could be either
Federal, State, or local officials.

Section 5--Employement standards and training

Strengthens the employment and training standards for those
who screen passengers and property.
Subsection (a) requires that screeners be U.S. citizens. It
permits the Under Secretary to establish minimum pay levels.
Veterans should be given preference in the hiring of

[[Page H7633]]

screeners. The veterans preference was a suggestion of
Congressman Duncan.
Subsection (b) requires the final rule of the certification
of screening companies to be issued within 6 months of the
date of enactment of this Act.
Subsection (c) establishes the training standards for
screeners and requires all screeners to be in uniform.
Subsection (d) establishes the minimum employment standards
for screeners (which were taken largely from the FAA's
proposed rule at 65 FR 560, January 5, 2000). These shall
remain in effect until the final rule for the certification
of screening companies is issued as required by subsection
(b).

section 6--deployment of federal air marshals

Requires the deployment, at no cost to the government, of
sky marshals on flights of U.S. airlines. This section is
based on H.R. 2906 introduced by Congressman Baker.

section 7--enhanced security measures

Subsection (a) requires the Under Secretary to address the
following issues:
(1) Develop procedures (such as barrel roles or
depressurizing the aircraft) and authorize equipment (such as
lethal or non-lethal weapons) to help the pilot defend the
aircraft against hijackers;
(2) After consultation with the FAA, find ways to--
(A) limit access to the cockpit;
(B) strengthen cockpit doors;
(C) use video cameras to alert pilots to problems in the
passenger cabin without having to open the cockpit door;
(D) ensure that the aircraft transponder cannot be turned
off in flight.
(3) Impose standards for the screening or inspection of
vehicles and employees of aircraft fuelers, caterers,
cleaners, and others who have access to aircraft and secure
areas of airports;
(4) Require airlines to provide emergency call capability
from aircraft and trains (This was suggested by Congressman
Kirk);
(5) Use various technologies, such as voice stress
analysis, to prevent a dangerous person from boarding a
plane;
(6) Develop certification standards for individual
screeners;
(7) Use Threat Image Projection (TIP) or similar devices to
test whether screeners are meeting those standards;
(8) Develop ways for airlines to have access to law
enforcement and immigration data bases to ensure that
dangerous people do not board their planes;
(9) Use the profiling system known as CAPS to not only give
special scrutiny to selected checked baggage but also to the
passengers who fit the profile and their carry-on baggage;
(10) Use technology to ensure that airport and airline
employees and law enforcement officers are who they claim to
be;
(11) Install switches in the passenger cabin so that flight
attendants can discreetly notify a pilot if there is a
problem;
(12) Change the training of airline personnel in light of
the change in the methods and goals of hijackers as evidenced
by the attack of September 11th;
(13) Provide for background checks for those seeking flying
lessons on large aircraft or flight simulators of such
aircraft.
(14) Enter into agreements allowing trained law enforcement
personnel of other agencies to travel with guns in order to
assist a sky marshal. (This was suggested by Congressman
Cooksey).
(15) Perform more thorough background checks of airport
screeners, student pilots, and others who have unescorted
access to secure areas of the airport. This should include
more than merely a fingerprint check. It should also include
examination of other agency databases to determine whether
the individual may be a terrorist or a threat to civil
aviation.
Subsection (b) prohibits the Under Secretary from taking
one of the actions listed above if the FAA believes it might
adversely affect the safety of the aircraft unless the
Secretary approves the action.
Subsection (c) requires the Under Secretary to consult with
the NTSB on safety issues.
Subsection (d) requires the Under Secretary to do bag
matching, screen 100% of checked bags, or take some other
action to minimize the risk of explosives in checked luggage.
Paragraph (2) requires the Under Secretary to ensure that
explosive detection equipment already at airports is fully
utilized.
Subseciton (e) requires the Secretary to permit pilots to
carry guns in the cockpit if the airline permits its pilots
to carry guns and the pilot has completed an appropriate
training program.
Subscetion (f) requires the Under Secretary to report 6
months after the date of enactment on the progress being made
in implementing the above items. A similar report would have
to be submitted each year thereafter until all the items had
either been implemented or rejected. An existing security
report is repealed.

section 8--criminal history record check for screeners and others

Authorizes airports to begin fingerprint checks before the
deadline now in the law.

section 9--passenger and baggage screening fee

Requires the imposition of a security fee on passengers to
pay up to 100 percent of the cost of the screening
passengers. These costs include the salaries and training
costs of screeners and the cost of the equipment they use.
The fee could not be used to defray the general operating
costs of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
The per passenger fee must be based on the cost of providing
the screening service but could not be more than $2.50 per
passenger. The fee that is set would be based on the total
costs of screening passengers and property, not on the
specific costs associated with each airport, and therefore
the fee would be the same for every passenger. The fee would
be assessed on a one-way flight rather than on an enplanement
as the one-way trip most closely related to the way screening
services are provided to passengers. Full year revenue for
fiscal year 2002 is estimated to amount to about $900 million
for domestic departures and about $100 million for
international departures. Future year revenue could be higher
when air travel reverts to the levels prior to September 11,
2001. Any additional money required to pay the costs of
screening not covered by the passenger fee may be raised by a
fee assessed directly on the airlines or could be
appropriated under the authority provided by section 10(a).
Passengers using airports in Alaska where screening is not
required could be exempted from the fee.
It is Congress' intent that the Undersecretary be able to
impose this fee as expeditiously as possible to begin to
recover the costs of the functions assumed by the Federal
government. To ensure that the Undersecretary is able to
begin collecting the fee within 60 days, the Undersecretary
is exempted from section 9701 of title 31, United States
Code, related to general requirements related to fees and
from section 553 of title 5, United States Code, related to
rulemaking. The Undersecretary is authorized to publish a
notice in the Federal Register to set and impose the fee. The
calculation of costs of the functions and the fees to be
imposed is left to be determined at the discretion of the
Undersecretary.

section 10--authorizations of appropriations

Subsection (a) authorizes appropriations to operate the new
TSA and to pay for any screening costs not covered by the
fee.
Subsection (b) authorizes the Secretary to utilize $500
million of the emergency supplemental (Public Law 107-38) to
make grants to U.S. airlines to help them strengthen their
cockpit doors, install video monitors, or modify their
aircraft transponders so that they cannot be turned off in
flight.
Subsection (c) authorizes $1.5 billion to help airports
defray the cost of new security requirements imposed after
September 11, 2001.

section 11--limitation on liability for acts to thwart criminal
violence or aircraft piracy

Protects passengers and crew from liability for any injury
they cause a person who they, in good faith, believe is
hijacking or about to hijack an aircraft.

section 12--passenger manifests

Requires U.S. and foreign airlines to provide information
to the U.S. government about their passengers and crew on
international flights before they land in the U.S.

section 13--transportation security oversight board

Creates the new Transportation Security Oversight Board. It
will be composed of the Secretaries of Transportation,
Treasury, and Defense (or their designees), the Attorney
General (or his designee), and a person appointed by the
President from either the National Security Council or the
new Office of Homeland Security. The DOT Secretary or his
designee will be the Chairman. The Board's duties include
reviewing the Under Secretary's emergency regulations and
other actions of the TSA. This section also creates an
advisory council composed of industry representatives to
advise the Under Secretary on transportation security
issues.

section 14--airport improvement program

Section 12 makes changes to the airport improvement program
(AIP) and the passenger facility charge (PFC) related to
security.
Subsection (a) excuses an airport from having to submit a
competition plan in fiscal year 2002 for AIP grants or PFC
approvals that will be used to improve security.
Subsection (b) allows AIP or PFC money to be used at small
airports to pay the cost of law enforcement personnel
required by section 4. It also allows AIP money to be used to
pay for any expense in fiscal year 2002 at a general aviation
airport that was effectively shut down as a result of the
restrictions on VFR flight in enhanced Class B airspace. It
also allows AIP and PFC money to be used for debt service in
order to prevent the airport from defaulting on a bond.
Subsection (c) allows AIP money to be used for the costs
described in subsection (b) even if that cost was incurred
before the grant was issued.
Subsection (d) waives the local share for the costs
described in subsection (b).

section 15--technical correction

Subsection (a) changes the due date of a report from
February 1 of this year to February 1 of next year.
Subsection (b) makes a change in the war risk improvement
program.
Subsection (c) corrects a misspelled word.

section 16--alcohol and controlled substance testing

Transfers responsibility for drug and alcohol testing of
security personnel from the

[[Page H7634]]

FAA to the new Transportation Security Administration.

Section 17--conforming amendments to subtitle vii

This section makes technical changes.
Subsection (a) retains responsibility for the Pilot Records
Improvements Act in the FAA.
Subsection (b) moves certain civil penalty responsibilities
to the new Administration.
Subsection (c) and (d) make similar administrative changes.

Section 18--Savings provision

This section ensures that there is a seamless transition of
responsibilities from the FAA to the new Transportation
Security Administration (TSA).

Section 19--Budget Submissions

Requires budget submissions to list the budget of the TSA
separately.

Section 20--Aircraft operations in Enhanced Class B airspace

Lists the restrictions on general aviation flights in
Enhanced Class B airspace (the airspace near major cities)
unless a notice is published in the Federal Register
explaining the rationale for those restrictions.

Section 21--waivers for certain isolated communities

Subsection (a) allows the Under Secretary to grant waivers
for certain essential flights to communities in Alaska,
Hawaii, and others far from a big city.
Subsection (b) allows the Transportation Security Oversight
Board to rescind these waivers.
Subsection (c) allows the Board to impose limitations on
the waivers.

Section 22--Assessments of Threats to Airports

This section allows airports to rescind the current
restriction that prohibits cars from parking within 300 feet
of an airport terminal if the airport and local law
enforcement certify that there are safeguards in place to
sufficiently protect public safety.
____

Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure,

Washington, DC, October 31, 2001.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Boehlert: Thank you for your letter of
October 31, 2001, regarding H.R. 3150, the ``Secure
Transportation for America Act of 2001'' and for your
willingness to waive consideration of provisions in the bill
under your Committee's jurisdiction. Regarding provisions in
the bill that are referenced in your letter, the bill
essentially ensures the orderly transfer of certain existing
functions within the Department of Transportation and assures
continuity of operations. However, I acknowledge the Science
Committee's jurisdiction under the House Rules over
provisions that may affect ``civil aviation research and
development.''
I agree that your waiving consideration of relevant
provisions of H.R. 3150 does not waive the Science
Committee's jurisdiction over those provisions. I also
acknowledge your right to seek conferees on any provisions
that are within the Science Committee's jurisdiction during
any House-Senate conference on H.R. 3150 or similar
legislation, and would support your request for conferees on
such provisions.
Your letter and this response will be included in the
record during floor consideration of the bill.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Young,
Chairman.
____

Committee on Science,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC, October 30, 2001.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Young: On October 17, 2001, you introduced
H.R. 3150, the ``Secure Transportation for America Act of
2001.'' Section 2(e)(9) of H.R. 3150 requires the newly
created Under Secretary of Transportation for Security to
``identify and undertake research and development activities
necessary to enhance transportation security.'' Additionally,
secs. 2(f)(1)(D) authorizes the Under Secretary ``to acquire
(by purchase, lease, condemnation, or otherwise) and to
construct, repair, operate, and maintain research and testing
sites and facilities; and (E) in cooperation with the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, to
utilize the research and development facilities of the
Federal Aviation Administration located in Atlantic City, New
Jersey.'' These three provisions contain subject matter that
has traditionally fallen under the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Science pursuant to House Rule X(n)(3), which
grants the Committee on Science jurisdiction over ``Civil
aviation and research.'' I ask for your assurance that the
creation of the new Under Secretary position and that the
duties and functions of his position do not alter in any way
the traditional jurisdiction of the Science Committee granted
pursuant to House Rule X(n)(3).
In deference to your desire to bring this legislation
before the House in an expeditious manner I will not exercise
this Committee's right to consider H.R. 3150. Despite waiving
its consideration of H.R. 3150, the Science Committee does
not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 3150. Additionally, the
Science Committee expressly reserves its authority to seek
conferees on any provisions that are within its jurisdiction
during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on
this or similar legislation which falls within the Science
Committee's jurisdiction. I ask for your commitment to
support any request by the Science Committee for conferees on
H.R. 3150 as well as any similar or related legislation.
I request that you include this letter as part of the
Record during consideration of the legislation on the House
floor. Thank you for your consideration and attention
regarding these matters.
Sincerely,
Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Mica), if I may have their attention, for the good faith efforts that
were made in our committee to reach a truly bipartisan bill. The
gentleman spoke with some feeling in the well just a moment ago, and I
speak with no less feeling. As the chairman knows and the chairman of
the subcommittee knows and many of the Members know, I served on the
Pan Am 103 Commission while I was chair of the Subcommittee on
Aviation. I wrote with our good friend Mr. Hammerschmidt, former
ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
then the Committee on Public Works, the Aviation Security Act of 1990.
We worked on a totally bipartisan basis with the House and the Senate
to write that legislation and subsequent amendments to it. We know that
aviation security is a revolving issue that we have to continually
revisit to update and strengthen.
We were at the point of reaching a good bipartisan agreement, but it
kept getting sidetracked, let me just say it bluntly, by the political
leadership in the gentleman's party. I just want to express my great
appreciation for the good faith and the good effort and the goodwill
that was extended and the regret that we could not come to an
agreement.
But the Achilles heel of aviation security is the screener checkpoint
at our airports, and the issue of whether this should be private or
public, as this chart shows, private security companies have not
provided good security. A man boards a plane with a pistol after
September 11. Airport security firm lied. Hired felons, Argenbright
fined $1,550,000 last year. And their parent corporation in Europe,
which has been held up as a paragon of good work in aviation security
privatization, the Sunday Telegraph in England: Shocking lapses in
security at British airports. The London Times: Security failures put
Heathrow at risk. The British Department of Transportation is
investigating Securicor, the parent corporation for Argenbright, the
premier domestic private security provider.
That is not the way we want to do security. We need to have the badge
of the Federal Government, persons sworn to uphold the Constitution and
the laws of the United States, trained to the highest possible level of
skill, paid a decent level, put in a security force separate from the
Federal Civil Service, to give assurance to the American public that
the bar on security has been raised.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1545

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill by
the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), and I want to commend him
and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) for their work on this
legislation.
This bill, the Airport Security Federalization Act, will do more to
enhance and improve aviation security than any bill in the history of
this Nation.
We need to tell the American people the true situation as it stands
today: that is, it is safer to fly now than ever before. This bill, the
bill of the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), will make it even
safer.

[[Page H7635]]

This bill provides the legal framework and funding for strengthening
cockpit doors; providing air marshals on flights where they might be
needed; cameras, so pilots can see what is going on in the cabin;
expanded background checks for all key personnel; and most importantly,
improve standards and training for airport screeners.
I had the privilege, Mr. Chairman, of chairing the Subcommittee on
Aviation for the past 6 years, and remain active on the subcommittee
today. Three years ago, I suggested establishing a school for
screeners, but there was almost no interest at the FAA in this
proposal.
In 1996, and again last year in FAA bills, we put in requirements for
certifying screeners and improving their training and other security
measures. As of September 11, the FAA still had not completed the work
required under these bills. This is another reason why we are so
concerned about turning this situation totally and completely over to
the Federal Government.
We did expand the list of crimes which would disqualify people from
jobs as screeners. To be fair, no one ever dreamed that anyone would be
mentally sick and warped and evil enough to use our commercial
airliners in kamikaze missions killing thousands. But now we know, and
this bill is the best response we can give to the situation we find
ourselves in.
The most controversial part of this legislation is whether to make
the screeners Federal employees. I suggest that the former chief of
security for El Al, the Israeli airline, was quoted in yesterday's
Washington Times as saying this would be a big mistake.
Unfortunately, we have a civil service system that does almost
nothing for good, dedicated employees, but it provides great and
undeserved protection for the worst employees. Everyone knows it is
almost impossible to fire a Federal civil servant and extremely hard
even to transfer one.
We need to increase the pay and training of screeners. We need to
have the best possible people in these positions. We can accomplish
this much faster and continue to improve this work force much easier by
having strict Federal oversight and requirements, but leaving these
employees in the much more efficient private sector. This is the
European model. Skyjackings in Europe went way down in the 1990s after
screeners were largely privatized.
The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that 85 to 90 percent of
the screeners around the world are private employees. Most of these are
at airports formerly totally government run until they found out that
the private free enterprise system works better.
Mr. Chairman, about three years ago, I was the guest of the British
Aviation Authority. They wanted to show me their airports and their
whole operation, but what they were most proud of was their security
provided by a private workforce. Their airport security and Israel's
are considered the best in the world.
I am especially pleased about a provision in this bill relieving
persons who assist in fighting air piracy from any potential liability
and also a provision I requested to give preference in hiring to
retired military personnel.
I urge all my colleagues to support Chairman Young's outstanding
aviation security bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Aviation.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Chairman, 6 weeks ago tomorrow the House passed, with the speed
of a rocket-boosted jet engine, the American aviation financial bailout
bill, a bill I voted against because it did nothing for the laid-off
aviation workers, and it did nothing to upgrade aviation security.
I said at the time that we can give the airlines all the money they
want and even more, but if we do not upgrade aviation security and show
the American flying public that our skies are once again safe and
secure, then the American aviation industry will continue to flounder
and shrink, because the American public will not go back to flying
until they believe that American aviation is as secure as possible.
In the past 6 weeks, we in the House have done nothing to upgrade
aviation security. Unless we pass the bipartisan substitute and it goes
directly to the President to be signed, and he will sign it, as he has
said on numerous occasions, we will pass H.R. 3150 and be forced to go
to conference.
The forces opposed to hiring fully-trained, well-paid, federally-
supervised professional Federal screeners to protect the American
flying public will delay the conference until long after Thanksgiving,
the Nation's greatest flying weekend.
Mr. Chairman, this is what has happened to American aviation since we
passed the bailout bill but did not strengthen security: There are more
than 2,000 fewer domestic and international flight departures each day
than last year at the same time, a reduction of over 20 percent. At the
same time, passenger emplanements are down 25 percent.
Since September 11 until now, scheduled domestic flights have dropped
by the following percentages at the following airports: Newark, Reagan
National, Houston, down over 35 percent; Kennedy, down 34 percent;
Seattle, Boston, LaGuardia, Portland, San Francisco, down over 25
percent. The Nation's top 31 airports are all down. Since September 11,
America West has dropped 12 percent of its scheduled flights; Delta, 15
percent; Northwest, 15 percent; United and American, 22 percent; US
Airways, 25 percent; Alaskan Airlines, 26 percent; and Continental, 44
percent.
Why? I believe because we have not passed an upgraded aviation
security bill into law to protect the American public. That is why we
must pass today a bill that the President will sign into law tomorrow.
American aviation is a matter of national security. Public safety is
threatened by an unprecedented war declared on the American people by
Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network. It is the Federal
Government's job to protect our country during time of war. Security at
our Nation's airports is no longer a private sector matter; it is the
last line of defense at our airports, and it is part of the front line
of our national defense.
Congress needs to treat this as a question of national security, and
put in place an effective Federal law enforcement system.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is to clarify an aspect of the legislation. One
idea to increase airplane safety would be to create separate entrances
for pilots on aircraft and eliminate access between the cabin and the
cockpit. This would make it impossible to take over an aircraft from
the cabin, reducing the risk of terrorism and the need for air marshals
and other precautions.
I would like to make sure there is nothing in this bill which
prevents the FAA from studying this idea or airlines pursuing this
implementation, should it prove feasible and effective.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, there are no provisions in this
bill that prevent the FAA from taking up the idea of separate entrances
for pilots in airliners. That idea could be a solution to some of our
air security problems, and deserves serious consideration and study at
the FAA.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Shuster), newly elected, and I hope he will be reelected.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3150. It is a superior
piece of legislation. What we do is federalize the airport security
system, which creates strict standards, control, and enforcement by the
Federal Government, and it is based on proven systems.
One thing I want to mention about H.R. 3150 is it specifically helps
small and rural airports. First, it allows the AIP funds to be used to
upgrade security, and waive rent for tenants, for those small
businesses to get through this tough time.

[[Page H7636]]

Additionally, the substitute bill has a two-tiered security approach,
and H.R. 3150 does not have that. One of the things it allows for is
the 30-foot distance you must stay away the terminal, to have the
safeguards put in place sufficiently to protect the public.
The problems with the substitute are many. One of the things I want
to point out specifically are the $2.50 security fee emplanement
charge. This is entirely unfair to rural travelers, for it doubles and
sometimes triples their fees.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), who has played a
courageous role in advocating this legislation.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, let us get into the nitty-gritty of
comparing some of the aspects of these bills.
Mr. Chairman, I would make a strong argument that the Senate bill has
stronger provisions in terms of requirements for screeners than the
Young bill. The Young bill requires that those screeners be citizens,
just citizens, period. That would mean that somebody could come here
from a foreign country, marry somebody, and then be qualified to be a
screener.
Our bill, the Senate bill, the bipartisan bill, requires that one be
a citizen for 5 years. That is a significant difference. I think our
bill, the Senate bill, is better on that point.
We will hear some charges about how the Young bill has a stronger
screening provision for bag supervision. Let me read from the Senate
bill. The Senate bill says: ``The Attorney General, in consultation
with the Secretary of Transportation, shall provide for the screening
of all passengers and property, including the United States mail,
cargo, carry-on, and checked baggage, and other articles that will be
carried aboard the airplane in air transportation.''
Mr. Chairman, I do not know how 100 percent can be improved on. When
we say ``all'' in legislative language, that is 100 percent.
Furthermore, we will hear from the proponents of the Young amendment
that our bill, the bipartisan Senate bill, could take longer to
implement. The only way the Young bill can be implemented quicker than
our bill is if they simply hire all of the screeners that are already
currently employed by those three foreign corporations.
For goodness sakes, we have heard from the Inspector General, we have
seen in newspaper reports, we have seen million dollar fines. We see,
as was demonstrated over here, reports that this is not just in the
United States, but these three foreign corporations are not getting the
job done overseas, either.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).
(Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, we just heard the gentleman from Iowa talk
about one phase of the bill that is being proposed today on the floor.
That is the passenger carry-on and baggage screening, as Members can
see on this chart. He totally ignored the rest of the chart because it
is not in the version that the Senate passed and that is being proposed
here.
They do have a study, and they ask six different government agencies
to start to study all of the other stuff, like perimeter security, like
bomb-sniffing dogs, camera surveillance, the employee screening. They
are going to study that. But what we are going to do is put it into
action.
If Members want to ignore all the rest of this airport security and
just focus on this one little phase right down here, then I suggest
Members support the Senate version. But we cannot go to conference, we
cannot fix the problem. We just have an inadequate bill that will not
solve the problem. We will end up with, maybe 5 years from now when the
studies come back, the potential for doing the right thing.
If Members vote for the Senate version, they are ignoring bomb-
sniffing dogs, they are ignoring terminal security, they are ignoring
tarmac security, ignoring it.
Why not do something to help the people in America know that they are
safe when they are traveling on airplanes? Why not put into action
these items on airport security that are covered in this complete
chart, instead of just focusing on a very little narrow part here in
the corner?
That is why the gentleman from Iowa focused right down here on
passenger and baggage screening. We are going to do something today. We
have the opportunity to do something for airport aviation security that
goes well beyond what the Senate did in their version of rushing
through legislation, inadequate legislation. Instead, we are going to
do the right thing to make people safe when they travel.
So I urge my colleagues to not vote for the Ganske bill, the Democrat
version, the Senate-passed version. Instead, do the right thing for
airport security, for aviation security, for airport travel, and vote
for the Young bill. Vote for the Secure Transportation for America Act.
It is the right thing to do.

{time} 1600

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind Members that in their remarks
they should not characterize the actions of the other body.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chair's admonition.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
In the interest of accuracy, the bill that we advocate here provides
for screening of passengers and baggage, checked baggage, perimeter
security, Federal air marshals, cockpit security, anti-hijack training
for flight crew, flight school training background checks and funding.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Lipinski) and others on both sides of the aisle who have worked so
hard to bring this bill to the floor and to do the right thing for the
American people.
Mr. Chairman, the horror of September 11 is forever imprinted in all
of our minds. Nineteen hijackers filled with hatred breached airport
security. They carried box cutters and knives in their bags. They
forced themselves into four cockpits. They rammed these planes into the
heart of America. They attacked the greatest military, and they
attacked the greatest commercial buildings in the history of the world;
and they killed thousands of people in the blink of an eye.
The system that allowed that to happen is still failing us today, 7
weeks after that happened. We hear stories about a man who just last
week boarded a plane with a gun in his bag. Screeners failed to stop
him. We hear stories about people who stuff box cutters into seats and
leave them in seats. Screeners fail to stop them. We hear stories about
people trying to bring pocketknives on planes and succeeding still
today because screeners fail to stop them. Two weeks ago the Federal
Aviation Administration gave 20 screeners in one airport a surprise
test. Seven failed the test last week.
This is police work. The companies that have been doing this have
failed the American people. They must, and I repeat, must be
accountable for their failure. It is time for them to be accountable.
It is time for them to be replaced.
The Young bill perpetuates the status quo. The Oberstar-Ganske bill
creates a better improved security system. We must put security in the
hands of the law enforcement officers. The American people, the brave,
decent, wonderful people of this country deserve law enforcement in the
airports. Federal law enforcement patrols the shores of the United
States. They guard our borders. They track terrorists down. They are
standing right now outside this Chamber protecting us and the people in
this building. They protect the symbol of democracy.
I ask all of you, do you want to contract out the Capitol Police? Do
you want to contract out the U.S. Marines? Do you want to contract out
the FBI and the Customs Service? I do not think so. If it is good
enough for us, it

[[Page H7637]]

is good enough for the American people. And today is the day to take
that stand.
We have a bill that passed the Senate 100 to nothing. Every Senator,
Republican and Democrat, voted for that bill; and we can pass that bill
tonight. We can put it on the President's desk later tonight. It can be
the law of the United States of America by tomorrow morning. We do not
have to have a conference on whether tubas should be considered carry-
on luggage. That is in the manager's amendment. We do not have to start
worrying about whether to end the liability on the companies that
failed us. We do not have to worry about whether the airline executives
can have increases in their compensation.
We can start buying machines tomorrow to check every bag, to start
reinforcing the cockpit doors, putting more marshals on the airplanes.
We can increase the competence of our X-ray scanners. This is a night
to act in the people's interest. This is not a time for politics as
usual. It is a time to do what is simply, obviously right for the
American people.
A lot of people have said to me, what is going on? Why can you not
get the bill done? Well, I think yesterday's Wall Street Journal tells
us what is happening. The companies that have the contracts, the lowest
bidders do not want to give up the contracts. So they have hired
Washington lobbyists to come and lobby the administration and lobby the
Congress to try to hold on to their contracts. I do not mind them
wanting to hold on to their contracts. But in the name of God, it is
time to end those contracts and to do what is right to make people
safe.
Finally, I urge Members to consider the people who are on the
frontlines. I have here a note, every time I have get on an airplane
now I get a note from the pilots. This is the note I got 2 weeks ago.
And the pilots said, Why can you not get something done to increase our
security? Why can you not get these simple, obvious provisions done so
that flight attendants and passengers and pilots are not responsible
for security?
This is the time to act in a totally bipartisan way.
I have been inspired by the American people in this crisis. I read a
story the other night in the New York Times, the city of Middletown,
New Jersey, where 250 or 300 people had been lost in September 11, in
the World Trade Center.
They quoted a woman who had lost her husband. She had three little
kids and she said, before this happened I did not even know my
neighbors' names; and she said in the last days, neighbors from all
over this region who I had never met and never knew came and brought
flowers and brought food and brought notes of sympathy and came and
hugged her and held her so she could get through the horror of what she
was facing. She said what most helped her was the sense that she, in
the end, was not alone.
This is a great country. We have great people, and we have to act in
their name tonight. We have to do what is right for them. Forget
politics, forget the lobbyists, forget contracts and simply stand
tonight in a bipartisan way to do what is right for the American
people. This is a great country. Let us make it safer than it has ever
been. Let us pass the bipartisan Senate bill. Let us make it the law of
this great country tonight.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
If I thought the gentleman's words were true in the sense that that
would happen, I would probably support the substitute. In the bottom of
my heart, I do not believe that will happen. We will be back here and
our people will not be safe. That is not the correct thing to do to the
American people. Let us not kid the American people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Vitter).
Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong support of the Young-Mica
bill, and it is for a very simple reason, because I get on an airplane
twice a week and my wife and my kids fly and friends and loved ones and
family fly all the time; and in my judgment, which is the best judgment
I have to determine my vote, I think this bill is the strongest
security measure available. So I just want to make that clear to all of
the Members, including the minority leader. It is not because I had
some meeting with a lobbyist. It is because I want to protect my
family, my friends, my loved ones, and my country.
Let me give my colleagues one specific example which I think is a
crucial security question that has not been focused on enough in this
debate and that is checked baggage. I was, quite frankly, shocked to
learn that the FAA, even after September 11, does not demand that
baggage of a passenger who does not show up at his gate and board his
airplane is removed before the plane takes off. That is the rule for
international flights. It is not the mandatory rule for domestic
flights, and I find that inexcusable after September 11.
Under the Democratic bill, it would still not be the rule. It would
not happen. It would never have to happen in every instance at all.
That is simply inexcusable.
Under the Young-Mica bill and under the manager's amendment, that
provision would go into effect the day after the bill was signed into
law, and every checked bag of a passenger who did not board his flight
would be pulled before the plane took off, and that could only change
after a 100 percent screening policy of the luggage was actually
implemented; and by the way, that is an absolutely crucial issue that
we must address forcefully.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), my very distinguished
colleague.
Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) for yielding the time.
Aviation security should be a law enforcement function, not a lowest-
bid function. That is the bottom line. When we cut to the chase, that
is really what this debate is all about. Baggage and passenger
screening is a matter of national security, and national security
should not be left to the lowest bidder.
How much more evidence than September 11 do we need that this
critical police work should be done by a highly trained Federal airport
security force?
Mr. Chairman, since September 11 I have talked with countless
Minneapolis-St. Paul airport police, Northwest Airlines pilots, flight
attendants, machinists, baggage handlers, gate agents, as well as many
other constituents who are frequent flyers; and to a person they have
all told me that baggage and passenger screeners should be law
enforcement agents, not private security guards. They want screening
done by law enforcement agents, not private security guards.
Mr. Chairman, the people I represent want us to move quickly to
protect air passengers and restore a sense of confidence. If we pass
the Oberstar-Ganske bill, we could have it on the President's desk
tonight and make flying safer tomorrow. The Oberstar-Ganske bill will
ensure the safety of air travel with armed sky marshals, secure
cockpits, and screening of all baggage and passengers by highly
trained, professional, law enforcement agents. Nothing less than law
enforcement professionals will provide the long-term security of our
aviation system that the American people want and deserve.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want the safety of the people of Minnesota put
out for bids. We should not compromise the safety of any of our
citizens. Let us do the right thing. Let us pass the substitute without
further delay.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I wish the gentleman would stay for a moment to understand one thing.
He is talking about yesterday, not today. Our bill changes all those
things, and by the way, the International Brotherhood of Police
Officers supports my bill. The best law force group in the country,
they support my bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, we have today, as we speak, more
government workers than factory workers in America. The House is
referred to as the microwave, quick and impulsive; the other body,
crock pot, slow, deliberative and wise. Quite frankly, I think it is
really reversed here.

[[Page H7638]]

I did not support the bill in its original form because of foreign
ownership of these screening companies. I want to thank the leadership
for including the Traficant language that requires American ownership
of these companies.

{time} 1615

And there will have to be developed companies that will bid for those
services.
But, my colleagues, the Marines in Beirut had no civilian security.
Terrorists are not easy to stop, and we are beating up on every
screening party in the country. Quite frankly, a free enterprise system
cannot survive with more and more employees. We right now have 50,000
American troops in Germany, and our borders are wide open. Is not the
Border Patrol Federal employees? Do we not have 300,000 illegal
immigrants in this country a year? Cannot a guerilla force of
terrorists come through here with a nuclear device?
I support the Young-Mica bill. More and more government? Bigger and
bigger government? That is not the answer. The Young-Mica bill
federalizes standards and supervision. And, by God, those companies
that bid should be owned by American citizens, and this requires it.
Right now there are not enough companies that do this. Under this bill,
it will encourage the American companies to do the screening.
My colleagues, we cannot micromanage all of it. And when our borders
are wide open, what do we expect? By God, bigger government is not the
answer, and the microwave is on the other side of the Capitol.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to point out to
the gentleman from Ohio, who is leaving the floor, that the manager's
amendment does not require. It says a preference for hiring former
employees. A requirement it be owned and controlled. It says to the
extent that the President determines that there are firms owned and
controlled by such citizens. They are all now owned, the major ones, by
a foreign company.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
DeFazio).
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there is one point of agreement, and that
is that the existing privatized airport security system is failing the
American traveling public.
Now, we have a choice. We can overhaul that system or we can continue
the status quo. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has chosen to
rename and dress up the existing failing system. They call it the
Airport Security Federalization Act. They are going to require the
private security firms to dress up their employees in Federal-looking
uniforms with Federal-looking badges. They even say that they will be
deputized, but given no law enforcement powers.
Now, how is that a change? The same companies that are failing us
today, and have failed us for 30 years, will still be running airport
security. Securicor in the United States is under indictment, criminal
indictment, for the second time in a year for hiring and maintaining
known felons on staff and lying to the Federal regulators. They are
going to have Federal regulators. What is a better Federal regulator
than parole? These people violated their parole. Do my colleagues think
the FAA bureaucrats can do better? I do not think so.
Their parent company is failing in Britain. In fact, one of the
employees of that company, senior employee, said he would not let his
family get on an airplane out of Heathrow Airport because he was so
worried about their lapse in security.
So we have a choice here. We can dress up and make us feel better to
have private security firms instead of armed Federal law enforcement
agents providing the security of the traveling public needs, or we can
have armed Federal law enforcement agents providing for the security of
the traveling public needs. I think the choice is clear.
This system has failed for 30 years, and passing this bill is going
to make it no better. There is only one option and one option that can
go into effect tomorrow, and that is to pass the Senate version of the
bill, which passed the Senate 100 to 0, and give the American traveling
public the peace of mind and the security they deserve.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding me this time and thank him and Chairman Mica, Members on both
sides, for their hard work in bringing this legislation to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, this debate really is about public safety. That is
after all why we are here, is to make sure we are doing everything we
can to make sure that the traveling public in this country, those
people who board airplanes, are safe and secure.
Now, what is happening here on the floor is they are talking a lot
about the means. We are talking about the end. The bottom line is
public safety. The President of the United States has asked for the
authority to decide whether or not at various airports that end, public
safety, is better achieved by the use of Federal employees or by the
use of private contractors.
There is nothing in this legislation that excludes Federal employees
from being used to accomplish the objective of safety. All we are
simply saying is that the President of the United States and his
Secretary, Mr. Mineta, who was the chairman of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure when he represented his State here in
the Congress, have asked for the discretion to make that decision based
upon what they view to be in the best interest of protecting safety and
providing security at airports across this country.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I represent a State that under the Democrat
substitute would be considered a second class State, because six out of
the seven airports in South Dakota would have different levels of
safety and security applied than would the 142 largest airports in this
country. We do not think in South Dakota that we are second class
citizens. We think we should have the same level of safety and security
that is applied to people boarding planes in Chicago, Boston,
Philadelphia, New York, and L.A.
And, secondly, we do not think we ought to be charged more for it.
The Democrat substitute charges people who originate in smaller
airports a higher fee because they connect.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that we need a system in place,
and this legislation prescribes a system which puts safeguards in
place, not just baggage screeners but every aspect of airport and
airline security and addresses it in a way that treats everybody
equally. We want to make sure that people who get on planes in places
like Pierre, South Dakota, have the same safety and security and the
same fares as those who board planes in other parts of this country.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation moves us in the direction of safety
and it puts a system in place across this country that will keep people
safe and secure when they fly. Let us adopt it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to make it very
clear that there is a single standard of safety in the Senate bill that
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and I offer in which the Secretary
has authority to apply one standard to the whole country but to
contract out as appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Lipinski).
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) for yielding me this time. I just wanted to state, since it
was mentioned earlier that a police union supports the Young-Mica bill,
that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO, is a strong supporter of the bipartisan substitute, and this
union would wind up losing employees if our substitute is passed.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, today we will finally address
aviation security, given 7 weeks after the tragic events of September
11. Today, public safety is threatened by an unprecedented event. War
has been declared on the American people. Therefore, it is the Federal
Government's job to protect our country during times of war and from
threats to our national security.

[[Page H7639]]

Security at the Nation's airports should no longer be a private
sector matter. Security must be a part of the front line of our
national security. Therefore, to pass H.R. 3150 gives Americans the
same old status quo and in no way provides the aviation security
necessary to reassure the traveling public that it is safe to use our
aviation system.
Simply put, the private contractors who currently have the
responsibility for screening passengers and baggage failed on September
11 and, for that matter, for the past 3 decades. The bill that we have
before us, 3150, does nothing but ensure the same old status quo. The
private contractors that we entrust through H.R. 3150 will make the
aviation system the same, with the same companies, who pay very low
salaries, have turnover rates of over 400 percent, and have failed to
detect dangerous objects recently planted by the GAO and the Department
of Transportation.
I say to my colleagues that Congress owes a duty to the American
public to ensure the strongest level of security possible at our
Nation's airports. Let us listen to the American people. Let us listen
to the mayors across this country. Let us listen to the port
authorities. Let us listen to the American people. Pass this Oberstar-
Ganske substitute bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), who is a pilot, by the way, and flies
here and yonder.
Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
An awful lot of work, a lot of time, a lot of hearings, a lot of
studies have gone into this very crucial and important issue, and the
first and last point in this debate is the security, the safety of the
American flying public. I am a pilot. I have been to every hearing. I
have listened to every hour of testimony. The Young-Mica bill, the
President's position, provides the best security, the best safety for
the American public as they fly.
Think with me for a moment. The gentleman or the gentlewoman in the
left seat in the front of that airliner has a piece of paper called a
license. That license certifies that they have met the recent
competency requirements, they have met very stringent physical
standards, they have gone through testing, and they are competent to
perform the job that is required of them. That pilot does not work for
the Federal Government.
The mechanic, the man or the woman who is at the maintenance
facility, who keeps these aircraft maintained and flying safely, has a
license. They are supervised by the Federal Government, but they are
not a Federal employee.
The men and women who guard Federal courthouses, who do an excellent
job under extremely trying circumstances, are not Federal employees.
The best system, based on history and present conditions, is a
partnership using the authority, the experience, and the law
enforcement ability of the Federal Government to set standards, ensure
accountability, and then follow up and enforce those standards.
The end result is the safest possible condition for the flying public
because of the training and the enforcement for the pilots, the
mechanics, and the law enforcement officials. That is the issue here.
As we look at it, we all agree federalizing the standards is
absolutely the correct thing to do. The system that we have now is not
sufficient. It is broken, and we are going to fix it. The best way to
fix it is with the Young-Mica and the President's position.
If we want to look a little further, the folks who did these
horrible, unimaginably horrible acts came through a system that was
controlled by Federal employees. Having everyone on the Federal payroll
does not give us the insurance or assurance that we need.
Looking even a little bit further, under the bill of the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), a good friend, and he has worked very
hard and listened very carefully as well, there is a division of
authority under that bill. Enforcement goes under DOT and screening
goes under DOJ. Accountability comes from a firm, clear head. The
supervision that we need, the standards that are required and the
enforcement that comes from that gives us the safety and the security
for the American public.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the Chair the
time remaining on each side.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 11-3/4
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 10
minutes remaining.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. I rise today in strong support of the Democratic substitute, the
Oberstar-Ganske bill. It deals with airport security at a time when
this Nation is looking to restore its confidence.
Requiring airport screeners to be Federal employees is needed in
order to establish an effective, uniform system of screening across the
Nation.

{time} 1630

This is essential to restoring the flying public's confidence in the
safety of our air transportation system. The aviation security
proposals of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica) are commendable, but they do not go far enough.
Allowing the continued private contracting of screening services
perpetuates the current system under which screeners are paid near-
minimum wage resulting in an average employee turnover rate of more
than 120 percent nationally and more than 400 percent at some airports.
Mr. Chairman, we would never consider contracting out the duties of
the U.S. Customs Service, Border Patrol, or the Capitol Police; and it
makes no sense to do so with airport screeners. These screeners serve
as America's first line of defense in aviation security. If
federalized, screeners should be paid salaries commensurate with the
law enforcement responsibilities of screening, which involves not only
the ability to read X-rays, but the ability to interrogate individuals
and conduct more thorough inspections in many different circumstances.
Only through a uniform national system with professional Federal
screeners can U.S. travelers be secure and be sure that they are being
protected.
Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal at stake today in this
legislation. This legislation is important to each and every one of us
that gets on an aircraft once or twice a week. Every week as I go back
to my district, people are asking why is it taking so long for the
House to pass a bill that gives us confidence to get back on planes
flying across this country. I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation. It is important. It is imperative. It is the right thing
to do.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Mica).
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I came over to this side of the aisle to
respond to the last speaker's comments of why this bill has taken so
long. I will tell Members why: because I served in the minority, and
some people when I was in the minority on the majority side treated me
fairly, like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), who I still
respect to this day. Others treated me unfairly and never let me be
heard. I made a determination if I ever had any position of authority
in this House, I would treat everybody in a bipartisan, fair manner and
hear all of the individuals, regardless of when they came to Congress
or what their stand was; and I did that.
Mr. Chairman, we held extensive hearings day after day, week after
week; and we stayed there and heard from every expert throughout the
country so we could develop the very best bipartisan bill possible; and
we came within one word of doing that, and I acted in a bipartisan
fashion. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for working with me. That is why
the bill took so long. We did make every effort, and we tried to be
fair and open and develop the best security measure for the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Chairman, I return to this side of the aisle, and not returning
to a partisan side, I want to return to the factual side. First we
heard the minority

[[Page H7640]]

leader give an eloquent speech, and I have the greatest respect for the
gentleman from Missouri; but he said the people failed, the screeners
failed, and he talked about pocketknives.
Mr. Chairman, FAA set the standards. Up to 4-inch pocketknives were
allowed. The screeners who were in place, in fact, were dealing with
laws which had been passed by Federal employees by the FAA. Box
cutters, there were no FAA restrictions on box cutters on September 11.
We heard the minority speaker say we can get about buying machines. Let
me show one of the flaws. Read the bill. I beg Members to read the
bill. This bill on page 23, line 7, leaves the technology with the
approval of the administrator of FAA.
Part of the problem we had on September 11 is we could not get the
best technology possible in place. In fact, this language prohibits
this type of technology because it says nonintrusive. This is the kind
of technology that is available. We have 1970s and 1980s X-ray
equipment. That is what we will have tomorrow if we pass the substitute
that is proposed. This equipment can detect plastics, and we know
plastic knives were something smuggled on board. This bill on the
Senate side gives us a worse position than we were in on September 10,
and it leaves technology in a terrible position.
We have heard if it is good enough for Congress, it should be good
enough for the American people. I tell Members the ads that are being
put on television by various groups are unfair. What we are proposing,
every Member of Congress, their families, my children, my wife, will
all be required to go through the same type of security. Read the bill
on the other side. It creates a two-tier system. Look at page 17 and
look at who is responsible. A two-tier system.
Look at page 22. There are 141 levels of security at some airports
and law enforcement, and 319 small airports are relegated to possible
Barney Fife-type enforcement. What is ironic about their bill, and read
the bill, I am not kidding. It leaves law enforcement in the Department
of Transportation, just the opposite of what the other side intended to
do.
Technology remains with FAA, read the bill; law enforcement remains
with the Department of Transportation. We can hire Ph.D.s to do
screening. They are only as good as the equipment. They are only as
good as the rules put in place. I defy anyone, come up here and show me
one place where there is the ability to pass a rule that needs to be
passed.
The problem with airline security is that we cannot get a rule in
place. We cannot get a rule to buy the latest technology. There is no
provision in the Senate bill, so Members are worse off than they were
on September 10 because there is no ability to get the best technology
in place.
Look at the provisions for the Under Secretary of Security and
Transportation. We deal with all of these things, and we delineate them
with a clear line of authority. This bifurcates it. The Department of
Justice says they cannot handle it. In fact, they issued a letter and
said it will interfere with their main responsibility right now, which
is to deal with terrorism. This is their letter. This is what they
said. The bill from the Senate side will actually deter their efforts
to deal with terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, I defy anyone in the House to take this bill and
diagram this bill as to how it will work. We tried to do this. It is
not only bifurcated with different levels of responsibility between
different agencies and different levels between big airports and small
airports, it would create a maze.
The argument that we do not use private contractors, this is a list
of 20-some agencies, including Department of Defense, all of our
nuclear facilities and on and on, we use contract security personnel
with high standards and high qualifications, as we propose in our bill.
When Members go back, I want them to tell their constituents what
they did if Members pass the Senate bill. It is no longer 28,000; it is
31,000 according to Congressional Budget Office, who has looked at the
bill from the other side.
Other protective services, Federal protective services, 442
employees. What failed was not the baggage screeners which we can all
pick on because they are lowly paid now, and our bill changes that
system. We have Federal oversight of the entire program. We have
Federal management and Federal supervision and Federal testing and
Federal background checks. And most importantly, we have Federal
oversight of the whole program.
If we want to put Federal employees someplace, there are only 4,087
United States marshals. I called the visa section and asked how many
people are there issuing visas. Mr. Atta got a visa from a Federal
employee. We can put people with Ph.D.s, and Mr. Atta, if he was given
a visa and passport approval to come into the United States, would get
in under the Senate measure.
Border patrol, we only have 323 border patrol people in Canada. This
is where we should be putting our Federal employees and resources. I
chaired the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization for 4
years. I tried to get performance standards for Federal employees. We
passed it in the House, and it failed in the Senate. If we want high
standards, it is impossible to do it in the Congress; but it is
possible to have the best possible people with a private-public
partnership with high standards, high qualifications and put those
provisions in place. The choice is clear, my colleagues; and I hope
Members put politics aside and put security for all traveling Americans
in the forefront.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).
Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record as saying that the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has done an outstanding job trying to
bring everybody into this process. He put a tremendous amount of time
into it. I certainly appreciate that, and I know everybody on this side
appreciates it very much.
We do not know where the 31,000 figure comes from. I know that it
comes from the Congressional Budget Office, but it is really up to the
President to determine how many there will be. Members have to remember
that we do enplane over 600 million passengers in this country every
year.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Costello).
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the bill
and in strong support of the bipartisan substitute. I support the
substitute offered today as it has already passed the United States
Senate and will be sent directly to the President if passed by this
body today.
The substitute contains many of the provisions that I and other
Democrats on the Subcommittee on Aviation introduced on September 14:
more sky marshals, limiting carry-on luggage, putting the Federal
Government in charge of security at our Nation's airports, and having
professional, career law enforcement officials in charge of baggage
screening and security in general.
It is the last point that some Members of this body cannot accept,
despite the overwhelming approval of the American people in passing the
United States Senate by 100 to zero. Currently, privately contracted
baggage screeners earn about $6 an hour, and receive little to no
training. At Lambert International Airport in St. Louis, the turnover
rate has been as high as 400 percent. Many of these screeners are not
U.S. citizens, which contributes to language barriers; and it makes it
difficult for us to perform background checks on them. It simply makes
sense to make sure these positions are filled with career law
enforcement professionals.
How can we expect the FBI, CIA, and other career law enforcement
professionals to share sensitive information about potential terrorists
with noncareer contract employees who will only be on the job a few
weeks? The substitute bill makes the Federal Government responsible for
hiring, training, and ensuring that we have a functional, properly
trained workforce.
Federal law enforcement professionals, career professionals at the
Secret Service protect the President, the Vice President, the White
House. Federal law enforcement career professionals protect Members of
Congress and the U.S. Capitol. Federal law enforcement career
professionals protect the Supreme Court Justices and the Supreme Court,
and Federal law enforcement career professionals should

[[Page H7641]]

be responsible for security at our Nation's airports and protecting the
flying public and the American people. I urge passage of the
substitute.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

{time} 1645

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, in the 2 months since September 11, we have
not passed an aviation security bill because of one issue: Should
Congress sit back and allow private security companies to continue to
provide the so-called security at our airports? Or should we mandate
that security be handled by professional Federal law enforcement
personnel? These private security companies, despite what people say
about Federal supervision, would not work. They have committed
thousands of screening violations. They have been charged millions of
dollars in fines by the supervisors, and yet they are even now failing
to conduct proper background checks, hiring convicted felons and lying
about it.
The Democratic substitute will make our airports secure by entrusting
security to professional law enforcement officials. It is not an
unreasonable request. The Senate voted for it 100-to-nothing.
Unfortunately, the House Republican leadership is putting the lives of
millions of Americans at risk by opposing Federal airport security on
the ideological grounds that we should not increase the number of
Federal employees. I do not recall anyone objecting in 1942 to plans to
hire 10 million new government employees in order to enlarge the Army
and the Navy to create additional divisions and air wings to fight
World War II. The argument is just that absurd.
All security functions are, and should be, handled by the Federal
Government, the FBI, the CIA, the Coast Guard, the Border Patrol, the
INS, the Armed Forces, all except our airport security. Nobody
advocates hiring mercenary soldiers or sailors or private police to
replace the FBI. The results of making an exception for airline
security are now all too evident.
The American people demand airline safety. The American people demand
a Federal enforcement force. And they will not stand for petty
political considerations blocking proper law enforcement and proper
safety to protect our lives when we fly.
I urge my colleagues to vote for law and order. I urge my colleagues
to vote for airline safety. I urge my colleagues to vote for the
Democratic substitute.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, the passengers want it overwhelmingly,
the pilots want it unanimously, the Senate wants it unanimously. What
happened to us? We must know something they do not know. Where are we
on this issue, anyway? Let us take a look at the Record.
Airport fast food restaurants are paying higher than those folks that
have been hired to screen. What are we going to get? We are going to
get what we pay for. It is no wonder that the number of people that are
turning over in every airport is astronomical. In Atlanta, the airport
in Atlanta, Georgia, over 400 percent turnover in a 2-year period of
time. You get what you pay for.
You are simply painting an old system to make it look differently.
You are camouflaging it and you are putting my family at risk and I do
not like it. Americans do not like it. They have made it very, very
clear. This is a national security issue. We better stand up for our
own families.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi).
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for
yielding time and for his leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, 7 weeks ago, terrorists used our own commercial
airliners as deadly weapons against us. For years transportation
experts have blown the whistle on airline security and today we have an
opportunity, indeed a responsibility, to make the change necessary to
make America's skies safe for Thanksgiving.
Mr. Chairman, for too long the airline industries and their private
screeners have not only neglected public safety, they have made a
decision against it. Today, we should not support the dangerous status
quo. Instead, we should vote a public indictment against a system which
has failed to train screeners, which has failed to invest in human
resources and has failed the American people.
That is why 100 percent of the United States Senate voted for a
proposal that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) are presenting to us today. I urge my
colleagues to support that amendment. Ensuring our personal security is
a bedrock responsibility of government. Support the Oberstar-Ganske
substitute.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is incredible to me that 7
weeks have passed since September 11 and this is the first security
bill that we have brought to the floor, although we immediately brought
up the $15 billion bailout for the airline industry as they were laying
off 100,000 workers and not one dime for the workers.
On October 11, the Senate passed a bipartisan aviation safety bill
100-0. I keep hearing over and over again from my colleagues that this
is not a perfect bill. I have been here 9 years and I have not seen a
perfect bill, but this bill the Senate passed is a perfect start. It is
a perfect start and we have much more work to do.
As we speak today, there are schools that are training people from
terrorist countries, paying them $25,000 in cash, and we have not done
anything about that. The Bible says to whom much is given, much is
expected. The people of this country are expecting much from the people
of this House. Let us pass the Senate bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the time remaining in
general debate?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has 2\1/4\
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has 1
minute remaining.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. OBERSTAR. I would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, is it correct that under the rule, the
manager's amendment is not subject to change except for unanimous
consent?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the amendment cannot be amended.
However, the offerer of the amendment by unanimous consent could modify
the amendment while it is pending.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I raise the issue because there are questions moving on
the floor from Members that promises have been made regarding the
manager's amendment, and as the Chair just indicated, the manager's
amendment is not subject to change unless unanimous consent is asked
and obtained.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, yesterday may have been Halloween, but
we are scaring the American public today. They know that we have a
failed system of privatization. They know that hundreds of airports
across the country deserve a unified system. They know that the FAA has
powers that it has failed to put into effect. They know that time after
time, private contractors have missed the mark. Putting costumes on
private rent-a-cops, calling them Federal officials, naming the bill
federalization does not give the level of confidence the public wants.
It may be a treat for the private contractors but it is a sad trick on
the public.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the well-known definition of
insanity holds that when we repeatedly do the same things that we have
done before without any meaningful change but somehow expect the result
to be different this time, that is insanity.
Our experience tells us when we do only that which we have done
before, we can expect the same outcome, the

[[Page H7642]]

same result. We cannot allow these failures to continue. We must
support the Oberstar-Ganske substitute bill. It makes sense. It is not
insanity. The rest of the verbiage I have heard today is insanity.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 30
seconds.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that there were
references made earlier in debate to the complex way in which security
would be organized under the bipartisan bill. In fact, it is not
complex at all. The bill provides very clear lines of responsibility.
The bipartisan substitute outlines who is responsible for what. The
Justice Department is responsible for four aviation security areas:
Passenger and baggage screening, including training of personnel;
guidelines for Federal air marshals; background checks of aliens; and
notifying critical persons about who may pose a risk to aviation
security.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
The bipartisan bill was very close, up to one word, and I got
derailed. The bill that is being suggested as a substitute is a
bipartisan bill in only some people's minds and it does not give us the
security, as I have mentioned before. We do change the system. I have
heard people say it is the same old system. We do federalize. We do
supervise. And we do, in fact, nationalize in some cases. We give the
latitude to the President, do what is best for the best security for
our flying passengers. That is what my bill does.
The Senate bill does nothing. I will not be part of that which kids
the public. I want to go to conference. I have committed, the President
has committed to going to conference. We will write a bill with the
help of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) very similar to
what our bill is, which he agreed to, and he knows that.
I am certainly chagrined at the fact that we are letting the Senate,
and since when has the Senate become the gurus of transportation, I ask
the gentleman from Minnesota? They are not. I believe we are.
I am going to suggest that we vote for the Young-Mica bill, make it
the right bill, go to conference and do the job correctly.

Announcement by the Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask Members of the House one more time,
not to characterize Members of the other body.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing the Senate bill,
it has been brought up numerous times, and I think we have a right to
speak of the Senate bill. I will continue to speak of the Senate bill.
It is the Senate bill.
Now you can answer my parliamentary inquiry if you would like to. The
parliamentary inquiry is why could I not?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that they are free to
discuss the contents of a pending bill that comes out of the Senate.
However, the Chair would just remind Members to try not to characterize
Senators.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota will state it.
Mr. OBERSTAR. The measure pending is the substitute that I have
offered in my name and on behalf of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Ganske). Is that not correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The measure pending is H.R. 3150.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Yes. But the substitute, which has been referred to,
that is provided for in the rule, which I will offer for myself and for
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), is the measure, it is the
substitute, is a House provision, is a House measure. Is that not
right?
The CHAIRMAN. What it would be is an amendment to be offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. So the Chair's admonition about reference to measures
from the other body is appropriate.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair was addressing references to the Senate bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the Chair for the clarification.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak today in favor of H.R.
3150 and its provisions relating to assistance for small airports.
Though disagreements remain how to permanently improve security
screening at all airports, it is heartening to see a bipartisan effort
to solve the current problems with airline security. I am encouraged by
the bill's content in all areas and hope this important piece of
legislation is passed.
Mr. Chairman, two small commercial airports in my district, Pullman-
Moscow Regional Airport and the Walla Walla Regional Airport, have been
severely affected by the enhanced security directives and the
regulations imposed on parking and ``loop roads'' instituted after the
tragic events of September 11th. The restrictions placed on passenger
vehicle access to the terminal and parking were prudent in the
immediate aftermath of the attacks, but their prolonged presence has
resulted in the closure of many small businesses across the country.
Two small businesses located in the Walla Walla Regional Airport either
directly, or indirectly, were forced to close due to these
restrictions. I know many of my colleagues have small airports and
aviation-related businesses in their districts facing similar
hardships.
Many airports in rural areas act as a vital link between the
economies of small communities and large cities. I commend the
Chairman's foresight to preserve the viability of these airports by
allowing Airport Improvement Program funds to be used to hire, train,
compensate or reimburse law enforcement personnel.
Some security measures, such as the screening of baggage and a law
enforcement presence at checkpoints, must be applied uniformly to all
airports in order to fulfill America's larger mission of securing our
National Airspace System; however, state and local officials can better
assess the threat to the terminal itself based on the unique
characteristics of each airport. For instance, terrorists thrive on
maximizing carnage and destruction with the few resources in their
possession. Though the horrible crimes perpetrated on September 11th
can easily be painted as irrational, terrorists tend to be very
rationale in their target selection. Using this analysis, small, rural
airport terminals are less attractive targets because of the limited
number of people using them and their geographical distance away from
major populations.
I am pleased the FAA has come to realize that the financial hardship
incurred by smaller airports is largely disproportionate to their level
by rescinding the ban on parking last week at Class IV airports.
However, slightly larger Category III airports continue to face these
hardships. Without flexibility in certain areas, the economic burdens
placed on small airports and regional airlines to cover these
enhancements will result in a severe contraction of our air
transportation system.
I am pleased that Section 22 of this bill recognizes the need for
flexibility in this area by allowing local airport operators, in
consultation with appropriate state and local law enforcement
authorities, to conduct a threat assessment of the airport facility to
determine the necessity of the 300-foot parking restriction at all
airports. I have the utmost confidence in local officials to decide how
best to mitigate the threat to smaller, low-risk airport terminals.
I strongly urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 3150. This bill is
flexible and will enhance the security of our transportation
infrastructure while limiting the financial mandates on vulnerable
airports like those in my district.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, aviation security is a matter of national
security. In the wake of the September 11th attacks, when the
terrorists were able to take weapons on board four separate flights
with ease, it is vital that the Congress act now to pass comprehensive
legislation to prevent future assaults. We must take this opportunity
to make our nation's skies safe for all Americans.
Mr. Chairman, we must act now to plug the holes in our aviation
security network. We need to invest in technologies that can screen all
luggage that is checked onto a plane, and not settle for the low
percent that is x-rayed now. We must pay and train our passenger
screeners more so that they will have the tools they need to perform
their jobs effectively. We must also invest in security measures at
airports to ensure that the people who work in and around grounded
planes are authorized to do so. And finally, we must invest in
technologies that will make our planes safer, including stronger
cockpit doors and other security measures so passengers and crew are
protected during flight.
Mr. Chairman, experts agree that our current airline security system
is broken. We need to invest in technology and people to make sure that
both our airplanes and airports are symbols of safety and freedom, not
outlets for attacks on America. For this reason I support the
bipartisan Ganske/Oberstar substitute.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3150, the secure
transportation for

[[Page H7643]]

America act of 2001 which addresses a variety of important security
issues within our nation's air transportation system. Airline security
is arguably the most pressing national security matter facing our
nation today and it is high time for Congress to move forward on this
issue. In contrast to the competing legislation on this issue, H.R.
3150 will allow our nation's federal authorities to make quick and
effective changes to the inadequate airport security system currently
in place. Within three months of implementation, this bill will
establish the transportation security administration (TSA), an
independent agency in the Department of Transportation that will be
responsible for overseeing our nation's airline security. This new
agency will move quickly to place uniformed federal law enforcement
officers at passenger and baggage check-in points to supervise the
screening process. It further mandates that the Federal Government will
conduct background checks on passenger and baggage screening personnel
who will also be subject to much stricter employment requirements.
Moreover, H.R. 3150 not only authorizes $500 million for cockpit
reinforcements but it also dramatically expands the Federal Air
Marshall Program. Mr. Speaker this is a balance and pragmatic approach
to reforming and enhancing our Nation's airline security system. I join
President Bush, Governor Pataki, Mayor Giuliani, and the Fraternal
Order of Police in supporting this measure and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``yes'' on the measure.
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman. In the days and weeks
since September 11 it has become evident that the United States has a
long way to go in order to improve aviation security. There is a
critical need to develop a security system that far surpasses anything
that exists in Europe or Israel as well as rigorous Federal oversight
of security measures that strike a balance to ensure that civil
liberties are not endangered while protecting the safety of passengers
and crew.
HR 3150, the Secure Transportation for America Act of 2001, overhauls
the antiquated security systems that failed the American public. It
requires the Administration to adopt tight standards for screening
passengers and baggage and makes all screening processes, background
checks and testing subject to strict federal oversight. HR 3150 also
expedites the deployment of more Federal Air Marshals and directs the
Federal Aviation Administration to take steps to strengthen cockpit
doors.
There has been a great deal of talk about federalizing almost 30,000
security screeners at our nation's airports. In the wake of September
11 that sounds on the surface to be positive, but Mr. Speaker, it is
not the long-term solution the American people need because it will not
automatically improve security.
Previous experiences with various federal workforces, in particular
the Immigration and Naturalization Service, is an example of a federal
workforce that faces difficulties performing at acceptable levels of
accountability. Time and again taxpayer dollars are spent to fund
agencies that talk a good game while training through a difficult
learning curve and providing very little in the way of actual services.
Another problem with federalization of airport security would be how
to best transition from private screeners to federal screeners. It is
unclear how quickly a federal workforce could be assembled, possibly
putting security improvements on hold, thereby inadvertently increasing
the vulnerability of air travelers and cargo.
The bill before us today replaces the current failed system. It
requires the federal government to take over responsibility for the
screening of passengers and property on passenger aircraft. The federal
government can do this by contracting with a security company to
perform this task with rigorous Congressional oversight. This is the
necessary tool to ensure both a safe and secure aviation system.
There is an old saying that the most permanent thing in Washington is
a temporary federal program. Our friends on the other side of the aisle
want you to believe that a federal aviation security force will be the
answer to our problem of airline security simply because the Senate
passed the same version 100-0. I would respectfully submit that just
because the Senate unanimously supports their plan does not mean that
this House will serve as a rubber stamp for bad legislation.
The American people deserve to feel safe when they fly. They also
deserve and demand an accountable federal government. I believe
strongly in the free enterprise system and I further believe that the
least economical and least efficient way that you can do anything is to
give the federal government more power.
Lastly, I want to touch on the issue of arming flight crews. Many of
our civilian pilots served in the armed forces as soldiers and airmen
and thus have extensive previous experience with firearms. I believe
this proposal has merit. As long as the program is voluntary and not
compulsory and the cockpit crew has the necessary training in firearms,
I believe it is more than appropriate for firearms to be present in the
cockpits on commercial flights.
The cockpit must be defended and every man and woman on the flight
crew has a role in that defense. In fact, according to a recent public
opinion poll conducted by the Winston Group, 77 percent of Americans
who favor gun control also favor arming flight crews.
We have the critical task before us to pass an aviation safety bill
that will reassure the travelling public that it is again safe to fly.
From bolstering airport security to authorizing Federal Air Marshals to
reinforcing cockpit doors, HR 3150 is the first step in ensuring secure
commercial aviation.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I will address separately the
deficiencies of this bill in regard to airline security. But there are
parts of the manager's amendment that have nothing whatsoever to do
with airline security.
In September, we passed legislation that limited the liability of air
carriers to the victims of the September 11 attacks. This amendment
would expand that limitation to other parties yet unnamed and unknown,
who face potential liability.
Some of the parties covered by this sweeping provision may well be
entitled to relief. But the language would limit liability, grant
immunity from punitive damages and waive prejudgment interest even for
private airport security contractors who wantonly, recklessly or
maliciously hired convicted felons or failed to check for weapons.
Nobody is seeking to hold responsible those who bear no blame for
what occurred. But this amendment lets companies off the hook even if
they knowingly engaged in conduct that put Americans at risk on that
fateful day.
It caps plaintiffs' attorneys fees, making it even harder for victims
to pursue meritorious claims in court. And it stacks the deck still
further by placing no comparable limit on the amounts that corporate
defendants can pay their lawyers.
These measures come barely a week after the House voted for a so-
called ``economic stimulus'' package that gives away billions of
dollars in tax rebates to U.S. corporations free-and-clear. Including
$1.4 billion to IBM and $833 million to General Motors. All-in-all,
$3.3 billion to seven blue-chip corporations, none of whom--none of
whom--suffered specific harm as a result of the terrorist attacks.
At least that giveaway did not reward wrongdoers at the expense of
their victims. The giveaways in this bill do.
I urge support for the bipartisan substitute and defeat of the
amendment.
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, America's confidence has been
severely weakened by the tragic events of September 11, 2001. People
will not fly until they feel safe! Hawaii's hotels and beaches are
empty while people wait for Congress to assure us that it is safe to
fly. We gave the airline industry their money ten days after the
terrorist attacks but our Republican leadership has delayed for two
weeks after the Senate passed its version by a vote of 100 to zero.
I believe airport screeners should be federal employees. 80 percent
of the American public supports federalizing airport baggage screeners.
The Association of Flight Attendants and the Air Line Pilots
Association, our front line employees, support federalizing the
screeners. The current system does not work. The workers are poorly
paid and poorly trained, with a turnover rate of more than 120 percent
nationally and more than 400 percent at some airports. Safety of our
airplanes requires upgrading these important employees who are our
first line of defense.
Airport Screening personnel should have the same benefits of federal
law enforcement officials. These workers must be able to work with
sophisticated machinery, be adequately trained, and will be responsible
for ensuring nothing hazardous gets on our airplanes. These extremely
important workers deserve to have pay and benefits commensurate with
other federal law enforcement officers.
Opponents contend that the hiring of federal employees will create a
bureaucracy that will not allow the government to fire employees for
poor performance. This is simply not true. There are specific
provisions that allow the government to fire workers who do not
perform.
Despite the intense media attention on airports and airport
screeners, we continue to have serious breaches in security. A man
carried a loaded gun onto an airplane, one-third of airport screeners
at Dulles airport failed a ``pop quiz'' on their fundamental duties,
and undercover agents have continued to slip through security
checkpoints with knives and box-cutters. If these private companies
cannot adequately secure our airplanes when the pressure is on them to
shape-up, how can we trust them in the future when the publicity fades?
The Democratic substitute is not a perfect bill but it is a more
effective bill than the underlying bill. It will reinforce the cockpit
door and make it impenetrable to intruders. It will expand the air
marshal program to hire, train,

[[Page H7644]]

and deploy more air marshals and require airlines to seat them. It will
require flight crews to be better trained in hijack prevention and
require the Department of Justice to conduct a study on giving flight
attendants non-lethal weapons to protect themselves.
The substitute also leaves open the possibility for the
implementation of various technologies to deter terrorist attacks, both
on the airplane and in the airports. I am hopeful it will include
cameras that look into the cabin so the pilots can see what is
happening and in addition provide radios that let flight attendants
communicate with the pilots. I am also hopeful that devices that allow
pilots to land the plane safely in the event of smoke in the cockpit
become standard equipment on all commercial planes.
The bottom line is people will not fly until they feel safe. They
will not feel safe until the federal government regains their
confidence by giving our passengers the best security possible; a
professional, federal screening security workforce. The Republican bill
continues the status quo; using low-bid private contractors that will
continue to suppress salaries and benefits and leave the workers
wanting to leave their jobs for higher paying jobs in the airport, such
as the coffee-shop.
I am disappointed that this bill allows guns in the cockpit. If we
are going to seal off the cockpit and not allow anyone in or out, what
is the point of having a gun in the cockpit. I would favor having a gun
in the cockpit to be used only if someone gains access to the cockpit,
but not to allow a pilot to ever leave the cockpit to confront anyone.
The pilots only job should be to fly the plane. They should never leave
the cockpit, risk losing control of the plane, and hazard all the lives
of the passengers.
I am also disappointed that this bill still does not include
provisions that provide much needed assistance for the hundreds of
thousands of laid-off workers. I remain hopeful that after we have
established a federal screening workforce, the House will immediately
move to give workers relief by extending unemployment compensation for
26 additional weeks, raising the unemployment benefits, and paying for
a full 72 weeks of COBRA or Medicaid health insurance.
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Chairman, all of us gathered today know that
aviation security must be radically improved. The current system is
clearly broken. And fixing it is of dire importance to the American
traveler, and to the nation at large. For we are a country built on
travel. The freedom of mobility is not a convenience for Americans, but
a way of life.
That is why I support the bill that our colleagues in the Senate
passed 100-0, as I have supported other plans that address the need for
drastic improvements in aviation security. The Senate unanimously
adopted this plan because it knows that federal screeners at our
nation's biggest airports will restore public confidence, and pubic
confidence will restore ailing airlines and our desire to travel. With
a recent Washington Post poll showing that 82% of all passengers
support federal screeners, our path is clear. All we need to do now is
follow it.
The bipartisan substitute before us recognizes that airport security
is the first line of defense against terrorism. And, that national
security is the foremost responsibility of the federal government. We
don't contract out the military, the FBI, the CIA or for that matter,
the Capitol Police, Federal workers guard our borders through INS and
Customs. We should not expect less for those protecting the safety of
our skies.
But, perhaps most importantly, I believe that federal screeners at
the large airports and local law enforcement at smaller airports is the
best way to address the need for greater security right now. By passing
this substitute, we can quickly present a bill to the President for the
signature which he has pledged. I recognize the need to build a
bipartisan solution to this pressing problem and that is what this
substitute offers. It addresses the main issues that both sides agree
must be changed and takes a measured approach to the federalization of
the screener workforce. I believe that this is the kind of common
ground we must build in order to make the improvements to aviation
security that the American public demands.
This bipartisan substitute is the best choice for the nation. We must
act now to secure our aviation system and get people traveling once
again. I urge my colleagues to vote for the measure before us.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Manager's amendment and in support of the Democratic substitute.
Airport security is a legitimate federal responsibility. Just as we
protect our borders, guard against smuggling, and protect against
illegal drugs, we must also protect our citizens against terrorists who
board our planes and travel our skies with guns, knives, and bombs.
However, the Manager's amendment does not accomplish this. Instead,
this amendment expands the provision that we already passed, limiting
liability for airlines that were used by terrorists on September 11,
2001 and applies that provision to ``any person liable for any damages
arising out of the hijacking.'' This would limit the liability of
everyone, including an airport security company that allowed terrorists
to get on a plane with box cutters.
Even worse, the liability provisions go far beyond the protections
included in the airline bailout bill we passed in September. This is
because the amendment totally bans punitive damages, eliminates
prejudgment interest, mandates collateral source, and limits victims'
attorneys' fees. All of this was done without the benefit of a single
hearing or any consideration by the Judiciary Committee. And all of
this harms the victims.
Members should know that these provisions are far more extreme that
the liability relief requested by the supposed beneficiaries of the
provisions--the owners of the World Trade Center and the airplane
manufacturers. This amendment is too broad, benefits the wrongdoers,
and would have a number of harmful and unintended consequences for
victims of terrorism. Please vote no on the manager's amendment and
support the Democratic Substitute. Passing this manager's amendment
constitutes special interest legislating at its worst. It is wrong and
I urge the Members to reject it.
Attached is a section-by-section description of the liability
limitation provision in Managers amendment:
On September 22, 2001, the ``Air Transportation Safety and
System Stabilization Act'' was signed into law by the
President. In addition to providing federal assistance to the
airline industry, it provided for a two track liability
system. The first track creates a victim compensation fund,
which provides victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist-
related aircraft crashes at the World Trade Center, the
Pentagon, or site of the aircraft crash in Shanksville,
Pennsylvania, with compensation. Specifically, the
legislation authorizes a Special Master, appointed by the
Attorney General, to review claims, within 120 days,
submitted by claimants. Negligence is not required to be
established to obtain compensation under this track. Funds
for this victim compensation fund are taken derived from
authorized funds from the federal government.
The second track is available to persons who elect not to
pursue the victim compensation fund. These individuals can
pursue a more traditional tort claim based on negligence. But
if the claim is against American or United Airlines, it must
be brought in the District Court of the Southern District of
New York, where all the cases are to be consolidated. In
these cases, liability is limited to the amount of available
insurance.
The Manager's amendment does not disturb the Victim's
Compensation Fund. However, it does amend the second track to
expand the number of companies eligible to benefit from the
liability limitations available described above and to add
new limitations, namely eliminating punitive damages,
eliminating prejudgment interest, mandating collateral source
and capping victims attorneys fees. The following is a more
detailed summary of the Section 201 of the Manager's
Amendment.
Limiting liability for unnamed and unknowable parties
(section 408 (a))
The amendment would expand current law from limiting the
liability of air carriers to limiting the liability of ``any
person'' liable for any damages arising out of the September
11, 2001 hijacking and crashes. Under this new provision, the
Federal government is asked to go far beyond the two named
defendants that it currently protects in the Air System
Stabilization Act (United Airlines and American Airlines). In
fact, this provision requires the government to assume
liability for ``unnamed parties'' including possible bad
actors. Although this new amendment would provide coverage
for those who have asked for and may well warrant relief
(such as the owner of the World Trade Center and the
Boeing Corporation), it would also limit the liability of
the screening companies whose negligence may have allowed
the hijackers to enter the aircrafts with weapons. This
expansion of the legislation would allow hundreds of
unknown parties to have protection against liability
whether the protection is warranted or not. At a minimum,
those eligible for limited liability should be identified,
their insurance coverage ascertained, and the need for
this protection substantiated. As a result, this bill
shifts untold amounts of liability to the federal
government with no substantiation.

limits on damages (section 4088 (b)(4))

The amendment would impose a new limitation on damages
injured victims can recover by stating that a party of the
action is not liable beyond the amount of its insurance. The
bill also specifically provides that any responsible
defendant shall not be held responsible for (1) punitive
damages or (2) interest prior to the judgment. It also limits
the amount of recovery an injured plaintiff can receive by
subtracting from the award any amounts the plaintiff may have
received from other wrongdoers (collateral source).
(1) Punitive damages are monetary damages awarded to
plaintiffs in civil actions when a defendant's conduct has
been found to flagrantly violate a plaintiff's rights. The

[[Page H7645]]

standard for awarding punitive damages is set at the state
level, but is generally allowed only in cases of wanton,
willful, reckless or malicious conduct. These damages are
used to deter and punish particularly egregious conduct.
Eliminating punitive damages totally undermines the
deterrent and punishment function of the tort law. The threat
of meaningful punitive damages is a major deterrent to
wrongdoing, and eliminating punitive damages would severely
undercut their deterrent value since reckless or malicious
defendants could find it more cost effective to continue
their callous behavior and risk paying small punitive damage
awards. If a baggage screening company hired a felon, the
company could normally be held liable for punitive damages.
However, this proposed provision could remove the ability of
a victim to make such a claim.
(2) Interest payments are an added incentive to move the
judicial process along because a delay would result in a
penalty of added interest to the judgment. Without the threat
of added interest payments defendant attorneys may be prone
to delay proceedings because the real dollar value of a
judgment amount would be reduced, making the judgment the
same no matter how long the process. Both Virginia and New
York law allow for pre-judgment interest in certain cases.
Limiting interest would unfairly affect the judgment award
collected by the victims and leave them vulnerable to a
delayed judicial process.
(3) Collateral source reduction would mandate the reduction
of the amount of the victims' award by collateral source
compensation received by the claimant or that the claimant
may be entitled to, such as health or disability insurance.
Neither New York nor Virginia require the court to reduce an
award by collateral source compensation. There are two
problems with this change:
First, a reduction of a victims award due to collateral
source compensation would result in wrongdoers escaping their
responsibility. This amendment subtracts any other potential
sources of recovery the victim may have from any damages the
wrongdoer should pay. Losses caused by negligence or
wrongdoing would be shifted from liable defendants to the
government or private insurers who made the ``collateral
source'' payment.
Second, the amendment does not require that the victim is
actually able to collect from the insurance policy or other
collateral source for the wrongdoer to escape responsibility.
The amendment only requires that the victim be entitled to
recovery from some other source.
Caps on attorneys' fees (section 408(b)(5))
This provision limits victims attorneys' fees by making
them subject to court discretion and by limiting the amount
charged to 20 percent of the damages ordered by the court or
the settlement. An attorney who violates this limitation will
be fined up to $2000, imprisoned for a year, or both. Neither
New York nor Virginia allow attorneys' fee caps. Instead,
those states require a lawyer's fee to be reasonable.
Fee caps result in less access to justice for lower income
populations. A payment ceiling or fee cap limits the economic
incentive for attorneys to take on complex or difficult-to-
prove claims under the contingency fee system. In turn, this
would make it much more difficult for lower income
populations to secure good representation.
Further, this proposal is one-sided because it only applies
to plaintiffs' attorneys. It is blatantly unfair to allow
defendants to spend unlimited amounts of money on
representation while plaintiffs, even when dealing with the
same legal issues, are severely limited in how much they can
spend.
One way disclaimer (section 408(d))
This amendment provides a disclaimer which states that
nothing in the section implies that a person is liable for
damages arising out of the hijacking and crashes of September
11, 2001. The language in the amendment as written is one-
sided. If it was neutral, it would provide that nothing in
the section implies that a person is liable or not liable for
damages arising out of the September 11, 2001 hijacking and
crashes. This is illustrative of the overall problem with the
amendment--it is written from a totally one-sided perspective
to benefit defendants with little regard for victims.

Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill,
H.R. 3150 to improve the security of air travel.
This bill establishes a clear federal responsibility to ensure
airport safety. It creates a new Under Secretary in the Department of
Transportation to set and implement the tough new security standards.
One major question has been whether or not every screener will be a
federal employee. Instead of worrying about whether the person
screening your luggage is a federal employee or an employee of a
federal contractor, we should be focusing on results and
accountability.
Under this bill, screeners would have to undergo rigorous background
and fingerprint checks performed by the federal government and would be
trained by the federal government with strict requirements. Moreover,
their performance would be monitored and assessed by federal employees.
Those who do not meet the high standards set by the federal government
would be dismissed. Further, the bill mandates a federal or state law
enforcement presence at each screening location.
Moreover, the bill allows for the flexibility that will be needed to
hire and fire employees, test new ideas, procedures, and technology.
Wedding ourselves to a less flexible, rigid federal system will make it
more difficult to assure safety. It is also important that we do not
impose a one-size-fits-all system on all airports. DOT should be given
the different options for different situations at different airports.
This bill would provide such flexibility while at the same time
requiring adherence to strict standards.
Unlike the Senate bill, this bill gives the President through one
agency, DOT, primary responsibility. It seems to me that one of the
weaknesses in our security that the September 11 terrorists were able
to exploit was the lack of inter-agency communication. We are beginning
to address that weakness. I believe it is better to have these
functions in one agency not only to reduce costs, but to ensure proper
co-ordination.
Mr. Chairman, this bill provides a comprehensive new approach to
airline security. I urge Members to support it.
Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R.
3150, the Aviation Security Act, a bill that does not fix America's
aviation security problems. I do, however, support the Democratic
substitute, which passed the Senate unanimously.
I stand fast to my belief that aviation security is a matter of
national security. Congress needs to treat this as a question of
national security and put in place an effective, federal law
enforcement system. Public safety is threatened by an unprecedented war
declared on the American people by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist
network. It is the federal government's job to protect our country.
Security at the nation's airports is no longer a private sector matter.
It is part of the front line of our national defense.
We would never consider contracting out the duties of our police
departments, and it makes no sense to do so with airport screeners--the
very people who are on the front lines of aviation security. Screeners
are often paid less than fast-food workers, resulting in an average
employee turnover rate of more than fast-food workers, resulting in an
average employee turnover rate of more than 120% nationally and more
than 400% at some airports. Instead, baggage screeners should be a
professional, skilled trained law enforcement workforce.
Unfortunately, the Republican bill keeps things as they are with the
same private contractors submitting the same low bids, the same private
screeners, the same high turnover rate, the same low pay, and the same
insecure aviation system. It fails to fundamentally reform the air
safety system.
There's a clear way to make sure our families are safe and restore
their faith in America's airline security. Making airline security
workers professional will ensure our families are safer, boost
confidence in air travel and help restore our economy.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, as the representative of a district
whose economy is almost completely dependent of the safety of air
travel, I rise in strong support of the Senate version of the airline
security bill.
Like all of my colleagues, I have received countless letters, calls
and e-mails from pilots and flight attendants. I heard from my local
airline staff, including my cousin, Colette who has Worked with
American for over 15 years, and I have had discussions with my own Port
Authority. Without dissent, all have asked for a strong bill now, one
which federalizes the security at our nations airports, and one which
gives the airports the resources needed to implement the measures that
will have to be put into place.
I salute our pilots, the crew and attendants, for being willing to
serve those of us who have to fly or are willing to despite the events
of September 11th. They will be the first to tell you that they do so,
knowing that despite the searches, and armed National Guards at the
terminals, there is not much more security than on September 10th,
2001.
We now have an office of Homeland Security. As we bring this office
into full operation, it is clear from the recent and historical use of
airplanes as agents of political statement, escape or terror, that
airline security must be a part of its purview.
We are long overdue in doing something definitive to make our skies
safe again. This is no time for arguing the small points, this is time
for prompt action. As we are now on a heightened watch for further acts
of terrorism, I do not want the responsibility of not having saved
innocent lives should the airlines once again be the instrument of
destruction.
I remember what happened to another important bill that would have
saved lives--the patient bill of rights--when it went to conference it
died there. We cannot let this happen with this critical measure. Lets
pass the same bill the Senate did and lets send it to the President for
his signature.

[[Page H7646]]

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, both Democrats and Republicans in this
House agree that we must overhaul our aviation security system after
the terrorist attacks against America on September 11, 2001. But sadly,
this House is divided over one key aspect of this debate--whether or
not we should make airport security screeners federal employees. I
believe they must become federal employees, for many glaring reasons.
It is the only way to solve the problem.
Security screeners stand at their posts at airports because they are
paid to watch the x-ray machines as people and carry-on luggage pass
the metal detectors. The screeners are paid to look for hidden bombs,
guns, knives, or any potentially lethal weapon, before innocent
passengers board the planes.
Yet, as James E. Casto, Associate Editor of the Herald-Dispatch of
Huntington, West Virginia pointed out, the standards for security
screeners across the nation are inconsistent.
Mr. Casto noted two of his personal experiences while traveling: in
one case at an airport out West, he encountered a screener who was
really on her toes. She spotted a letter opener he had in his toiletry
kit, that he was using as a makeshift screwdriver to fix his
eyeglasses. She sternly made him fill out a form to leave the letter
opener behind as ``abandoned property.''
But at another major airport in the Midwest, Mr. Casto noted the he
encountered ``a gaggle of screeners who were laughing and apparently
having a great time. I doubt they would have noticed if I'd had an A-K
47 under my arm.''
The problem is that until now, security screeners have been hired
privately by the airlines and the lowest bidder always gets the
contract. Security has been secondary to the airlines. The airlines'
mission is not the security business. It is the passenger service
business. As a result of this private system, there are no government
standards to ensure consistency in training, supervision, wages and
benefits, background checks, and continued security training once
screeners are on the job.
That is why Mr. Casto, and millions of passengers, experience various
levels of scrutiny from security screeners based at different airports,
and hired by different airlines.
We know of cases where convicted felons were hired to be security
screeners. Why? Because private security companies do not conduct
thorough background checks of the people they employ. This is
absolutely unacceptable.
The American people expect the federal government to act to protect
them in times of national security. Perhaps before September 11th,
domestic air travel was not considered to be a national security issue.
But today, we must accept the harsh reality that international
terrorists may attack us at any time. Our domestic flights have become
a new tool for their terrorism.
Therefore, domestic aviation is a national security issue. National
security means federal law enforcement. Federal law enforcement can
only be conducted by federal employees, just as it is for Customs,
immigration and agricultural inspections of crops coming in from other
nations.
In order to regain the American people's confidence in flying, the
federal government must demonstrate to them that we have taken all
necessary steps to ensure their safety. The best starting point is to
make the security screeners federal employees.
As the Herald-Dispatch noted in an editorial on October 31, 2001:
``Many House Republicans . . . favor continuing to contract security
operations to private companies, under new federal standards.''
``But reports by both the General Accounting Office and the
Department of Transportation have shown that the workers who now staff
airport security checkpoints are generally paid little more than those
who work at fast-food restaurants and have little or no training for
their all-important jobs. Little wonder that turnover in security at
many airports is said to be more than 100 percent a year.''
``House Republicans would simply continue this failed approach,
merely grafting on an overlay of new federal regulations.''
Mr. Chairman, we must federalize our airport security workforce to
ensure consistent, high standards for their training, supervision and
job performance. The more professional they are, the safer American
passengers will be in the skies.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, the House of Representatives prides
itself on being ``the people's House'' and on doing ``the people's
work''.
Since the attacks of September 11, the American people have made it
abundantly clear that they want their federal government to take the
lead in making our country safe. We have a bi-partisan bill that passed
the Senate 100-0 that is critical to our reaching that goal.
Unfortunately, this bill has been held hostage for three weeks by a
handful of members of the Republican leadership who, until today, have
blocked a vote on this critical legislation.
The Democratic bi-partisan substitute will among other things put the
federal government in charge of airport security including the
federalization of security screeners.
This bill has the endorsement of my Los Angeles mayor, Jim Hahn, as
well as the endorsement of the entire U.S. Conference of Mayors.
It's time for Congress to listen to the American people and make our
skies safe again by passing the Democratic Substitute.
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in full support of efforts to
increase the safety of the flying public and airline workers. America
has been the world's aviation leader from first flight in Kitty Hawk to
the development of the Space Shuttle. Today, we have the opportunity to
make historic advances in airline safety. I strongly support H.R. 3150
to increase security at airports in operation today and I strongly
support the development of the proposed Chicago South Suburban Third
Airport--an airport which has the opportunity to be the safest in the
world.
We have all been stunned and saddened by the recent terrorist
attacks. The goal of the terrorists was to make our nation fear, to
force us to shrink from new challenges, and to scare our economy into a
recession. I cannot emphasize enough how important both symbolically
and practically building a new South Suburban Airport is to respond to
these heinous acts. This airport can be built as the safest and most
secure airport the world has ever seen.
Building a new airport will signify our strong commitment to
continuing safe air travel, to building a strong economy, and to boldly
step forward to solve new challenges and again lead the world in our
national aviation system. Airline demand is already returning to high
levels, and it is our job to make sure that we are prepared for that
challenge.
We must take every step possible not only to prevent further
terrorist attacks, but to also ensure the peace-of-mind of the
traveling public. It is three weeks away until Thanksgiving and the
busy travel holiday season. We must act to thwart terrorist evil deeds
and to make sure that our loved ones, family and friends can travel
without fear. The immediate answer to this is H.R. 3150, and the long
term answer is the development of new secure airports such as the
proposed South Suburban Airport in Chicago.
H.R. 3150 federalizes airline security screening and requires federal
supervision of the screening process, background checks, testing and
strict oversight. Further, the legislation requires the deployment of
Federal Air Marshals and the immediate strengthening of cockpit doors.
These requirements will ensure that through screening of passengers and
baggage will take place by people who are trained and qualified to take
proper screenings. Federal Air Marshals will provide an additional
deterrent to anyone attempting to hijack an airliners.
As the public continues to resume air travel, the capacity crisis
that has plagued our air system will again be upon us. It is then our
duty to build the safest new airports to handle the capacity crisis.
There is no question that Chicago's aviation capacity is at its
limits; this fact is not in dispute. There is no doubt that the
capacity crisis is hurting regional and nationwide transportation
networks, as well as the economy. Now is the time for bold and decisive
action to finish the 15 years of research and work that have brought us
to this point by completing all environmental impact statements and
beginning construction on the third airport.
Land is available and can be obtained if the State of Illinois is
allowed to continue land acquisition. Construction could begin soon
after land acquisition, creating an inaugural airport site that would
be operational in four to five years. This is the key to alleviating
the coming capacity crisis as it is the fastest viable alternative
proposed to date. It also happens to be the least expensive--an
inaugural airport can be built for $560 million.
Some have asked, ``why this site, why Will County?'' Will County
continues to be a fast-growing, dynamic county that is underserved in
air transportation capacity, 2.3 million people live within 45 minutes
of the proposed site, but must travel much greater distances to O'Hare
or Midway, creating creating increasing traffic congestion. Will County
and the region will continue to experience significant population
growth. The proposed total acreage of the Peotone site will encompass
enough land for the airport to continue to grow with demand and still
keep green, open space around it.
There is no doubt that Chicago will continue to move south; the
question is do we plan for the growth that is coming by taking the
necessary steps today to ensure land is available for this airport
while we still can. In addition to the air travel benefits for Illinois
and Indiana residents, the region will also experience tremendous
economic growth and job creation

[[Page H7647]]

from the development of this airport. And, from a national perspective,
the delays at O'Hare that have a domino effect across the nation, will
be eliminated, keeping commerce and people moving efficiently and
safely.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3150 and to
support the development of the proposed South Suburban Chicago Airport
to solve not only the capacity crisis, but also the safety crisis.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, it is unconscionable that more than seven
weeks after this country lost more innocent lives than were lost in the
American Revolution--and the means of attack was through sabotage of
our aviation system--that we are only today debating this very urgent
matter. The Senate unanimously passed a comprehensive aviation security
bill three weeks ago. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives has been
devising ways to provide tax relief to corporations and liability
relief to the airlines--and ignoring airline safety altogether.
We continue to hear stories of passengers who board airplanes with
everything from knives to loaded guns. Two weeks ago, seven baggage
screeners at Dulles International Airport failed a pop quiz that tested
their skills. Currently, airlines are responsible for the screening of
airline passengers and baggage. Airlines pass this responsibility on to
the lowest-bid screening contractors who pay their employees minimum
wage and have widely varying employment standards. The result, as
documented by the General Accounting Office and the Department of
Transportation's Investigator General, is high turnover in the screener
workforce and a failure of the screening process to work effectively--
as witnessed by the attacks of September 11 and subsequent weapons
allowed aboard aircraft across the U.S.
We have given the airlines and private contractors plenty of
opportunity to remedy the egregious problems with the baggage screening
process and they have failed to do so. Now, it is time for the federal
government to step in and ensure safety of our airports and skyways.
The Democratic substitute will do just that and that's why I support
its passage today. It is not a perfect bill either. If I had the
opportunity, there are changes I would make. But, passing the
Democratic substitute today will get this overdue airline security bill
to the President for his signature today. That is of the utmost
importance.
Let's be clear. Baggage screeners are enforcement officers just like
our Customs officers who are already federal employees. It simply makes
sense to make them federal employees and ensure uniform employment
standards are in place for all of them. That's what we've done with
Customs Officers and no one is asking us to turn that duty over to
private companies! This is an issue of national security and it
requires a role for government to assure that our citizens are
protected.
This concept should not be controversial when we are talking about
risking U.S. lives. It is incumbent upon the U.S. government to provide
protection for all of its citizens from harm at airports and on
airplanes--if the best way to do that is to federalize passenger and
baggage screeners, let's do it and do it now. This very same bill was
passed by the U.S. Senate by 100-0. Last time I looked, there were a
significant number of conservative Republican Senators. If they were
able to recognize this as an issue of national security, so should
their colleagues in the House.
It is obvious that the quality of the screening process will improve
with federal employees doing the job. Government can pay salaries
commensurate with the law enforcement responsibilities of screening.
This job involves not only the ability to read x-rays, but also the
ability to size up individuals and situations which require more
thorough inspection in certain circumstances. These are skills required
of Customs and Immigration inspectors and for which they are more
appropriately paid than current baggage screeners in our nation's
airports.
The GOP bill allows the same inept agencies to train screeners. The
only change is that all these poorly trained screeners would be wearing
a uniform supplied by the U.S. Government. Slapping a U.S. badge and
uniform on our baggage screeners isn't going to deter further terrorist
attacks, nor will it improve the training and attrition of our baggage
screeners. We need real reforms in the entire screening pay structure
and process. The Democratic Substitute bill does that.
Finally, the GOP bill includes further unwarranted liability
protections. The bill expands liability relief to other unnamed parties
beyond the two airlines protected from liability under the Airline
Stabilization Act enacted last month. Under the Managers Amendment,
with no showing of justifiable cause--indeed, with no showing of any
cause at all--every potential defendant to a September 11-related
action, whether that defendant is presently known or unknown, would be
completely immunized from punitive damages regardless of its conduct.
That means that Congress might even be protecting a private security
company that knowingly hired a convicted felon or an illegal alien, or
that deliberately failed to check for weapons. This provision is as
ludicrous as the discussion of whether or not to federalize the baggage
screening workforce.
The evidence is clear. We must not waste another day in quarrelsome
debate when security has been breached prior to, and subsequent to, the
September 11 attacks at airports across the U.S.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Manager's amendment and vote
yes on the Democratic substitute bill.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3150, the
Security Transportation for America Act of 2001, and in support of the
substitute bill that the Senate passed unanimously.
The American public's confidence in our national aviation system has
eroded greatly since the tragic attacks of September 11. The public
rightly demands quick federal action to enhance security at our
nation's airports, and Congress must act now to ensure the safety of
millions of travelers.
The federal government has a legitimate and necessary role to play in
providing aviation security for the American public. In the wake of the
September 11 attacks, many Americans have realized that aviation
security needs to be viewed and treated as a matter of national
security. Private security companies have repeatedly failed to provide
adequate security at our nation's airports, and the American public
should not be forced to tolerate the status quo any longer. Passenger
and baggage screening should be treated as law enforcement functions,
undertaken by trained federal employees subject to annual review and
the threat of immediate dismissal in the event of inadequate job
performance.
The bipartisan substitute, which the Senate passed by a vote of 100-0
on October 11, would shift responsibility for aviation security from
the airline companies to the federal government. Our nation's borders,
shores and seaports are protected by federal agents of the U.S. Customs
Service, Border Patrol, Drug Enforcement Agency and Coast Guard. Our
nation's airports deserve the same assurance of protection.
As well, both aviation security bills under consideration today seek
to expand, not privatize, the Federal Air Marshal program. These
measures acknowledge the important role that federal agents play in
ensuring and enhancing the safety and confidence of American air
travelers. Air passengers deserve the same assurances of safety before
they enter commercial aircraft that they enjoy after they take their
seats.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the federal government needs to take
immediate, reasonable actions to enhance the safety of American air
travelers. Aviation security needs to be treated as a law enforcement
function, and as such should be provided by federal agents subject to
congressional oversight and accountable to the American people.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, a basic function of government is to ensure
the safety of the flying public. For many years now, there have been
ominous signs that the security procedures developed by airports and
airlines were broken.
Four years ago, in testimony presented to the House Aviation
Subcommittee, the General Accounting Office stated, ``The threat of
terrorism against the United States has increased. Aviation is, and
will remain, an attractive target for terrorists, so protecting civil
aviation continues to be an urgent national issue. Since the 1988
bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, security reviews by FAA, audits conducted
by GAO and the Department of Transportation's Inspector General, and
the work of a presidential commission have shown that the system
continues to be flawed. In fact, nearly every major aspect of the
system--ranging from screening passengers, checked and carry-on
baggage, mail, and cargo to controlling the access to secured areas
within an airport environment--has weaknesses that could be
exploited.''
In March of 2000, the General Accounting Office again raised red
flags about passenger screening checkpoints, the effectiveness of
screeners and the need to improve their performance: The GAO noted that
``turnover of screeners exceeds 100 percent a year at most large
airports and at one airport has topped 400 percent, leaving few
screeners with much experience at the checkpoints. We found that some
of the screening companies at 14 of the nation's 19 largest airports
paid screeners a starting salary of $6.00 an hour or less and, at 5 of
these airports, the starting salary was the minimum wage--$5.15 an
hour. It is common for the starting wages at airport fast-food
restaurants to be higher than the wages screeners receive.'' The GAO
further noted that the Federal Aviation Administration's efforts to
establish performance standards that all screening companies have to
meet in order to earn and retain certification is years behind
schedule.

[[Page H7648]]

Even after the horrendous destruction caused on September 11 when
four airlines were hijacked, the current aviation security system
continues to fail us. On September 23, a man in Atlanta was able to
successfully pass through a security checkpoint with a handgun in his
pocket. On October 13, a man with a knife hidden in his shoe was able
to pass through security at Dulles Airport without setting off the
metal detector. On October 23, a man with a loaded gun in his briefcase
was able to board a plane in New Orleans.
We have tried for 30 years to make the current airline security
system work. The American people need to have confidence that they can
fly safely, and this will only occur when we pass legislation
overhauling the baggage- and passenger-screening systems. We can no
longer afford to contract this critical responsibility out to the
lowest bidder.
The Oberstar substitute correctly addresses the longstanding flaws in
our country's aviation security system through the use of specially-
trained federal employees to perform the screening of passengers and
baggage at airports. The Oberstar substitute is identical to the
bipartisan aviation safety bill approved by the Senate three weeks ago
by a vote of 100 to 0.
Like the Capitol Hill police that protect Members of Congress and the
Secret Service that protects the President, the airport screeners
charged with protecting the flying public should be qualified
professionals, and the Oberstar substitute ensures that they will be.
Our substitute also increases the use of federal marshals on domestic
and international flights, reinforces cockpit doors, strengthens the
security of the flight deck, and enhances the security of secured areas
of airports.
Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying that holds that the definition
of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting
different result. Green everything that has happened, the last thing we
should do is to perpetuate an aviation security system that has failed
as badly as our current system has. I urge all my colleagues to vote
for the Oberstar substitute.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, it's been 50 days since the terrorist
attacks of September 11 and Americans are still unsafe on our nation's
airlines. While I am pleased that the House is finally debating airline
security, I rise in support of the bipartisan bill that passed the
Senate 100-0.
My colleagues, aviation security is now a matter of national
security. That became clear on September 11, when four commercial
plains were used as weaponry in the terrorist attack on America.
The first obligation of our government is to protect our citizens and
public safety is currently threatened by an unprecedented war. It is
the federal government's job to protect our country during these times,
and as President Bush has stated, we are fighting a two-front war--one
here and one abroad. While we've committed troops and billions of
dollars to the war overseas, it's sadly taken us seven weeks to even
begin debate on how to make air travel safe.
My colleagues, now is not the time for partisan politics. And shame
on those trying to make this a partisan issue. The Senate didn't. They
unanimously passed--100 to 0--a bill to hold the federal government
responsible for the safety of our nation's airlines. Quite frankly, the
Senate-passed bill should have been immediately placed on the House
suspension calendar and fast tracked to the President.
Instead, we are considering a bill that maintains the status quo. It
will keep the same screeners who are undertrained and underpaid. And a
workforce with a more than 120 percent turnover rate. Do we want
someone with less incentive than fast-food workers screening the people
and bags that are on our planes--or do we want a well-trained, capable
force of federal law enforcement ensuring our safety?
The Republican leadership cannot in good conscience ask Americans to
resume life as normal, without first making sweeping changes to our
airline security system. One of my constituents wrote that until the
flying public is put first, ``My family will not be flying . . . We
will not be flying any airplane until Air Marshals are on every flight,
every piece of luggage is x-rayed, and the workers that screen flyers
are federalized.''
Federalization is the key to professionalizing security. We would
never consider contracting out the duties of the U.S. Customs Service,
Border Patrol, or the local police department, and it makes no sense to
do so with airport screeners--the front line in aviation security.
The bipartisan democratic substitute is clearly the right bill for
airline security: 100 Senators voted for it; 82 percent of Americans
want to federalize airline security; and flight attendants, pilots, and
baggage handlers have made clear that their security is at risk at work
everyday, and they support federalizing airline security.
Let's vote down the Republican airline security bill, and enact the
bill everyone can stand behind--the democratic substitute.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, when our Nation deploys its Army or Navy on
a sensitive mission, we don't supplement their war-fighting
capabilities with a privately run air force. So why would we insist
that Federal law enforcement agents--who are on the front lines of
homeland security--work alongside private airline screeners who are
poorly paid, poorly trained and poorly performing? Do we really believe
that a terrorist who can elude the greatest fighting force in the world
cannot exploit this weakest link in our homeland security?
Every member of this body recognizes--in the wake of September 11--
that airline security is an integral part of our national security.
Thus, there's broad agreement: Airline cockpits must be more secure.
More Federal marshals must be deployed on airplanes. Training and
performance of airline security personnel must be improved. Yet, some
Members of the majority believe that private companies should conduct
security screening of passengers and baggage.
That's a recipe for future disaster. As Secretary Mineta remarked on
Tuesday, ``An unacceptable number of deficiencies continue to occur''
at our Nation's airports.
Just since September 11, seven screeners failed a quiz on their
skills at Dulles. Seven other screeners were arrested at Dallas-Forth
Worth when they were found to be working illegally in the United
States. And, Last week, a passenger flying from New Orleans to Phoenix
discovered that he had a gun in his briefcase that had not been
detected.
Low salaries contribute to an average turnover rate for private
screeners of 126 percent. And the General Accounting Office has
documented their poor performance.
Two weeks ago, the Senate recognized that decisive action was
required, and passed an airline security bill by a 100-0 vote that
would create a well-paid, well-trained force of Federal airline
screeners. Federalizing this security function will ensure that we are
able to conduct thorough government background checks on screeners, and
that our law enforcement efforts are integrated. The traveling public
has every right to expect that our airport security personnel will be
as professional as our Armed Forces deployed in Afghanistan and Central
Asia.
This Democratic alternative, which federalizes all security-screening
functions, is our best chance to restore public confidence in airline
security. Let me note, though, that Federal screeners cannot be Federal
employees in name only. This bill gives the Attorney General broad
discretion over pay, health care, whistleblower protection, veterans'
preference, workers' compensation, and the right to organize. He must
not use it to create a second-class status for these employees.
I will support this legislation to make our air travel system much
safer. This objective must be accomplished. But I intend to monitor the
implementation of this legislation to ensure that Federal employee
protections and benefits are not undermined in the process.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, in September, the House passed a
bill that limited the potential liability of air carriers in any
litigation arising out of the terrorist attacks of September 11. We did
this because the capital markets could not and would not deal with air
carriers as long as they remained under a cloud of potentially infinite
liability. At that time, I voted against that legislation because it
failed to similarly protect other industries. All businesses, not just
air carriers, will be unable to obtain credit, capital, and loans if
they are subject to potentially limitless liability awards. Without
capital, these businesses will disappear, and the terrorists will have
taken down not only the World Trade Center, but also untold numbers of
businesses, large and small. And they will have done this with the help
of a Congress that failed to act. Finally, today, in the manager's
amendment, Congress is acting.
Far beyond companies like Boeing, this bill protects any business
that creative trial lawyers could implicate in the tragic events of
September 11. Some or many of these business may be in our own
districts. Surely it is the terrorists, and not American companies,
that started this war on America. So let's remove the cloud of infinite
liability that hangs over these businesses and allow them to continue
to survive even as they may face litigation. The terrorists put that
cloud there. It's up to us to cast away that cloud, and to protect the
capital streams upon which New York and the nation thrive and prosper.
This bill does nothing to prevent victims from being compensated by
liable defendants. It does nothing to prevent them from taking part in
the victims' compensation program we created last month. This
legislation does, however, place finite limits on the potential
liability of anyone implicated in litigation arising out of the
terrorist attacks of September 11. In doing so, this legislation saves
those persons and companies from losses of capital that could lead to
bankruptcy. This in turn prevents the

[[Page H7649]]

victims of September 11th from having their compensation decided by a
federal bankruptcy court.
This bill also protects the city of New York, its police department,
and its fire department--all of which have conducted themselves so
valiantly. This measure is supported by elected leaders in New York, as
well as New York congressional members from both sides of the aisle
(Mr. Nadler excluded).
Mayor Guiliani, in a letter supporting the bill, noted that ``The
measure that Chairman Young will bring to the floor will contain a
manager's amendment that would provide New York with much needed relief
from potential liability arising out of the attacks on the World Trade
Center on September 11, 2001. Any substitute would fail to provide the
City the fiscal protection it needs from potentially limitless
lawsuits. . . . Passage of Chairman Young's bill would solve one large
part of the City's potential liability exposure, and help ensure steady
progress toward utilizing our resources to address critical fiscal
matters.''
Governor Pataki has written ``I can only underscore the importance of
passage for not only the manager's amendment and the bill, but also the
defeat of any substitute amendment scheduled to be offered. . . . H.R.
3150 with the manager's amendment will free the city of New York and
the Port Authority of under burdens which could seriously slow or even
derail those rebuilding efforts.''
New York is our nation's center of commerce, and it thrives on the
flow of capital. By passing the Manager's Amendment today, we can
prevent the prospect of unlimited liability damage awards from turning
New York from the nation's financial capital into a business graveyard.
Last month, Congress appropriately placed limits on the potential
liability of the airlines in order to keep planes in the air. That's
current law. Given that there is a finite amount of funds available for
victims from any airline found liable, the question becomes: Does the
House want more money to go to trial lawyers, or to victims? It's that
simple. The more money lawyers get from a limited source of funds, the
less victims get. Let's stand solidly behind the victims today and pass
the Manager's Amendment.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose H.R. 3150, the Airport Security
Federalization Act. As the short title of the bill suggests, this
legislation is a bureaucracy-laden approach. While the approach of this
legislation is marginally preferable to the complete federalization of
the workforce being offered by the House Minority, the bill is
otherwise strikingly similar to the Senate's approach. Regrettably, I
think portions of the manager's amendment actually make the legislation
worse. For example, the deputization of private security forces is
clearly a step in the wrong direction.
I have offered an alternate bill which would accomplish security
goals without expanding the federal government. My bill would not
create new federal spending nor new federal bureaucracies.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us, while a slight improvement over the
Senate version, is still a step in the wrong direction. By authorizing
a new airline ticket tax, by creating new federal mandates and
bureaucracies, and by subsidizing the airline industry to the tune of
another $3 billion, this bill creates a costly expense that the
American people cannot afford. We appropriated $40 billion in the wake
of September 11, and I supported that measure as legitimate
compensation for individuals and companies harmed by the failure of the
federal government to provide national defense. Soon thereafter we made
another $15 billion available to the airlines, and now we have a House
bill that further victimizes the taxpayers by making them pay for
another $3 billion worth of subsidies to the airline industry.
We need to stop this spending spree. I oppose this new taxation and
spending, as well as the steps taken in this bill, the substitute, and
unfortunately in the manager's amendment as well. Each of these items
moves further down the road of nationalizing air travel in this country
and, as such, must be rejected.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
manager's amendment and in support of the Democratic Substitute.
Airport security is a legitimate federal responsibility. Just as we
protect our borders, guard against smuggling, and protect against
illegal drugs, we must also protect our citizens against terrorists who
board our planes and travel our skies with guns, knives, and bombs.
However, the Manager's amendment does not accomplish this. Instead,
this amendment expands the provision that we already passed, limiting
liability for airlines that were used by terrorists on September 11,
2001 and applies that provision to ``any person liable for any damages
arising out of the hijacking.'' This would limit the liability of
everyone, including an airport security company that allowed terrorists
to get on a plane with box cutters.
Even worse, the liability provisions go far beyond the protections
included in the airline bailout bill we passed in September. This is
because the amendment totally bans punitive damages, eliminates
prejudgment interest, mandates collateral source, and limits victims'
attorneys' fees. All of this was done without the benefit of a single
hearing or any consideration by the Judiciary Committee. And all of
this harms the victims.
Members should know that these provisions are far more extreme than
the liability relief requested by the supposed beneficiaries of the
provisions--the owners of the World Trade Center and the airplane
manufacturers. This amendment is too broad, benefits the wrongdoers,
and would have a number of harmful and unintended consequences for
victims of terrorism. Please vote no on the manager's amendment and
support the Democratic Substitute. Passing this manager's amendment
constitutes special interest legislating at its worst. It is wrong and
I urge the Members to reject it.

____________________