[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 151 (Monday, November 5, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11431-S11433]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AIRPORT SECURITY
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise as if in morning business to
address an issue which has been debated at length on Capitol Hill since
September 11.
Since September 11, Americans have been focused on the issue of
aviation security. There is no question that the system we used to
cross America to that date was deficient. Whether stronger aviation
security in our airports and around them might have averted that crisis
is frankly unknown. But we all know that if we are going to be serious
about limiting the opportunities for violence and terrorism on
America's airlines we have to change the system in our airports.
Knowing that, we have taken a close look at the system of screening
at our airports and the security that is available. Historically, the
airlines were responsible for security in the airports. They would hire
the people who screened the passengers and the baggage. Of course, that
system broke down. It broke down to the point that the General
Accounting Office did a study and found there was a massive turnover of
employees working at screening stations in the airports.
The worst case on record was at St. Louis Lambert Airport. In 1 year,
there was over a 400-percent turnover in screening employees. We
learned that the people who were working in those positions were being
paid slightly more than a minimum wage. They were looking out of the
corner of their eye for an opportunity at the local bakery or
restaurant in the airport where help might be wanted so they could move
up in their career with limited training and limited pay.
As a consequence, we didn't have the kind of security in law
enforcement which we should expect, particularly in light of September
11.
In my hometown of Springfield and at many airports that I have gone
through in Illinois, some of the people working in the current system
could not be more conscientious. They really take their jobs seriously.
I want to give them credit where it is due.
But let's be honest. In the major airports and major cities, the
people who are attracted to these jobs are not the kind of people you
would hire off the street for a law enforcement responsibility. This is
clearly law enforcement.
I was happy when the Senate debated this issue and came forward with
a bill. That was led by Senator Fritz Hollings, chairman of the
Commerce Committee. It was also supported and cosponsored by his
colleague and ranking member, Senator John McCain of Arizona. In a
bipartisan fashion, it came to the Senate floor and passed by 100-0.
That is rather unprecedented in this Chamber.
It was a unanimous vote to take this workforce in our airports and to
say once and for all that we will hire them and train them as law
enforcement professionals. They will be under the Federal Government's
jurisdiction just as air traffic controllers are today. They will go
through background checks. They will be subjected to training that is
meaningful. They will be closely supervised by law enforcement experts.
They will be held to national standards. That is what the Senate bill
did, 100-0.
More than 3 weeks ago, we sent that bill to the House of
Representatives, asking them to respond in a timely fashion because of
the terrible problems in this industry and because of the fact that
some business travelers and families didn't want to get back on
airplanes.
Three weeks later, the House finally brought it to a vote at the end
of last week.
In the meantime, the House majority whip, Mr. Delay of Texas, and Mr.
Armey, the majority leader in the House of Representatives, said they
were opposed to the Senate approach.
In the words of Mr. Armey: Using the Senate approach will create
30,000 more union members who will work for the Federal Government.
I think that clearly told the story. That vote and that debate wasn't
about the merits of the issue. It was, sadly, about politics, and it
should not have been.
As a result, when it came up for a vote last week, the Senate version
that passed unanimously on a bipartisan fashion was rejected by the
House of Representatives by four votes. The alternative that was
brought up for passage passed with a substantial margin. Now we are
headed to conference.
The difference between the two bills is substantial. The Senate would
take this workforce in the airports and hold them to Federal standards
and Federal employment and hold them to supervision and training that
is uniform across the Nation. The House makes it an option for any
administration to decide what they would choose in any given airport.
I believe that was a terrible decision by the House of
Representatives. It is one that doesn't reflect the reality of what
families are thinking when they go to an airport and go to get on an
airplane.
As one clear illustration of why the House approach to aviation
security is so bad, I want to tell you what happened at O'Hare
International Airport in Chicago on Saturday evening.
A gentleman from Nepal came to the airport. His name is Subash
Gurung. He bought a ticket to fly from Chicago to Omaha. He went to
board a United Airlines flight and went through the screening station.
When he walked through the metal detector, it went off. They searched
him and found that he was carrying two knives on his person. They took
the knives away, and he left the screening station--after they found
him with two knives. He took his bag and went to the gate.
At the gate, United Airlines employees, on a random basis, chose him
to look at his bag. When they opened the bag, let me tell you what they
found. At the boarding gate, the man who had two knives on his person
when he went through the screening vision had in his bag seven other
knives, a stun gun, and a can of mace.
This man had gone through security and had been found to be armed
with dangerous weapons. His bag had gone through the screening device
of the Argenbright firm that is in charge of the security at the
airport. All of this was ignored. All of this slipped through. It was
only because of that last search at the gate that they found those
weapons on this man.
There are those who believe that while looking at this situation we
can patch up the security system at American airports. I am not one of
them. I don't believe law enforcement should go to the low bidder. I
don't think the first line of defense against terrorism should be taken
on the cheek. That is
[[Page S11432]]
what is happening in the current system.
I might add that Argenbright and other firms have changed some of the
ways they are doing business. They used to pay these screeners $6.75 an
hour at O'Hare. They have now raised that wage to $10 an hour. That is
a substantial increase. But they are still not attracting the people we
need to protect us and to protect everyone in America.
I am aware of a news story in Chicago that is going to come out with
additional information about the breakdown of the private screening
companies in terms of the preparation of their employees since
September 11. I know of the story because they came to interview me
last week. They told me what they found. It is shocking and it is
disgraceful.
To think Members of the House of Representatives want us to take this
flawed and failing system and say this is the best we can do in America
is just plain wrong. The obvious question is, If there are going to be
Federal employees at the airport, who is going to pay for them?
Let me suggest who is going to pay for them. The passengers on the
airplanes. I don't think it is unreasonable that we would pay an
additional $5 as a security fee for a ticket so that we can have
professional law enforcement at an airport not only screening
passengers but protecting the perimeter around the airport, making
certain that once and for all we put a system in place that we can
trust.
I ask unanimous consent that these articles from the Chicago Tribune,
the Chicago Sun-Times and USA Today dated today, November 5, be printed
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1)
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we know that private security contractors
at airports can hire quickly. But we also know that with the turnover
rates they have, they will have people who will come and go. That is
not in the best interest of law enforcement.
In your hometown, you would never delegate the protection of your
neighborhood or your city to a contract employee. We bring people on
who are public servants, people who are dedicated to law enforcement,
who take the job seriously and accept the challenge of that job.
Since September 11, we have seen stories of heroes and heroines
across America, and so many times they have been public employees.
Those firefighters who walked up the stairs in the World Trade Center,
trying to rescue people, giving their lives in the process, were public
employees. The men and women in law enforcement on the ground, who lost
their lives as they stood at their post trying to help people evacuate,
were public employees. Many of the medical rescue workers were public
employees. Sadly, the postal employees who died over the last several
weeks from the anthrax bioterrorism were public employees.
It is a reminder to all of us that so many of the men and women whom
we hold up in admiration and respect time and again for their
dedication and courage since September 11 have been public employees.
I think the House approach to this problem is one that will not work.
It will not protect America; it will not protect our airports; and it
will not return people to our airlines, which we need to do so quickly.
I am going to urge Senator Hollings and all the Senate conferees to
stand firm and stand fast on this issue. This is a critically important
issue. We need to do this and do it right. To do it in a halfhearted
fashion, as the House of Representatives has suggested, is not going to
restore the confidence of America's flying public.
It is important for every Member of the Senate to consider the
experience at O'Hare on Saturday night, when the current system, which
the House of Representatives wants to continue with some modifications
and changes here and there, utterly failed and left vulnerable a lot of
unsuspecting people who were just getting on an airplane for another
flight from Chicago to Omaha. It is an important lesson to be learned.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit I
[From the Chicago Tribune, Nov. 5, 2001]
Airport Security: 7 O'Hare Screeners Suspended Over Lapse
(By Tom McCann and Sean D. Hamill)
Seven O'Hare International Airport security workers were
suspended Sunday and are likely to be fired after they let a
Chicago man pass through a security checkpoint with seven
knives, a stun gun and a can of mace in his carry-on luggage,
according to city aviation officials.
The man was eventually stopped and the weapons were found
before he was able to board a plane Saturday. But the
incident, coming two days after the House rejected a plan
adopted by the Senate to federalize airport security workers,
in certain to stoke the debate over how to safeguard the
nation's airports.
Subash Gurung, 27, a native of Nepal, was arrested about
7:30 p.m. Saturday while waiting to board a United Airlines
flight to Omaha, said Chicago Department of Aviation
spokeswoman Monique Bond. Airport police said Gurung bought a
one-way ticket.
Airline employees discovered the weapons during a final bag
check at the gate, Bond said, part of new procedures that
several airlines have adopted since the Sept. 11 attacks.
But that was after two folding knives were discovered in
Gurung's pocket when he walked through a security checkpoint
metal detector, police said. Bond said the knives were
confiscated and police were summoned, but Gurung was allowed
to continue to his gate.
Meanwhile, his bag went through an X-ray machine, but the
security staff did not notice the knives or other weapons,
Bond said. A search of the bag wasn't conducted even after
the two knives were found, she said.
Bond would not say what led to the later search of Gurung's
bag.
``Something obviously went seriously wrong here, and we're
trying to find out if it's the employees' fault or the
security company's fault,'' Bond said. ``If weapons were
confiscated, he should never have been let through
security.''
The Federal Aviation Administration and Chicago Department
of Aviation have both launched investigations into the
incident and will consider whether the employees should be
fired and whether United should pay a fine.
The suspended workers were all employees of Atlanta-based
Argenbright Security Inc., the company that runs United's
screening operations at O'Hare. Three veteran employees were
working the checkpoint alongside three trainees, said FAA
spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory. The employees' supervisor
was also suspended.
``We commend all our employees who acted to apprehend this
man,'' said United spokesman Joe Hopkins. ``They did an
excellent job.''
Despite heightened airport security in the aftermath of the
attacks, the lapse on Saturday wasn't the first. Last month,
a passenger on a Southwest Airlines flight accidentally
brought a gun aboard a plane in his briefcase.
Lawmakers agree steps are still needed to improve baggage
and passenger screening, but the House and Senate remain
divided about how best to achieve that goal.
The Senate has approved a measure that would make security
screeners federal employees. The House version adopted
Thursday increased federal oversight of the 28,000 screeners,
but stopped short of federalizing them.
``If the system can't detect a knife and a stun gun in
luggage, then you have to ask yourself whether the people are
doing their job right,'' said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.),
who supports the Senate bill that gives the Justice
Department responsibility for airport security.
``I think the technology works, but you can't pay someone
minimum wage and ask them to act as a law enforcement officer
on the front line fighting terrorism,'' said Durbin at a news
conference Sunday, in which he also proposed legislation to
allow federal agencies to share classified information with
local police.
Gurung was charged with three misdemeanor counts of
unlawful use of a weapon, attempting to board an aircraft
with dangerous weapons and carrying dangerous weapons. A
spokeswoman for the Cook County state's attorney's office
said the case was still being evaluated and more serious
charges could be brought.
Gurung was released early Sunday on $1,000 bail and is
scheduled to appear in court Dec. 19. He was questioned by
the FBI, who turned him over to Chicago police.
Gurung could not be reached for comment Sunday. In comments
to WLS-Ch. 7, he said ``It just happened out of accident, in
a hurry.''
He said he has worked in a warehouse but was presently
unemployed.
Gurung recently moved back to Chicago with his brother,
Sushil, from Minnesota, said Adam Colfax, superintendent for
the apartment building in the 5700 block of North Kenmore
Avenue where the Gurung brothers lived until a year ago.
Colfax said Gurung previously lived in an apartment at 1025
W. Hollywood Ave., where Ayub Ali Khan once lived. Khan has
been detained by authorities as a material witness in the
Sept. 11 attacks but it is unclear whether he knew Gurung.
[[Page S11433]]
____
[From USA Today, Nov. 5, 2001]
Why Rely on Low-Bid Airport Safety?
(By Paul C. Light)
Now that the House has passed its own airport-security
bill, the stage is set for a showdown with the Senate over
who gets the 28,000 jobs. The Senate wants federal employees
at the baggage machines, while the House wants private
contractors.
President Bush also favors private contractors. Only days
after he expressed his appreciation to federal employees for
``your dedication and integrity, your commitment to
excellence and your love of our country,'' Bush was lobbying
hard to prevent passage of a measure that would have set up a
new federal workforce of airport screeners.
The Bush administration, facing a civil-service system that
is slow on the hiring, weak on the firing, poor on the
training and sluggish on the disciplining, believes there is
no other choice. As Bush has explained, the House bill
provides the ``quickest, most effective way to increase
aviation security,'' particularly by ensuring ``that security
managers can move aggressively to discipline or fire
employees who fail to live up to the rigorous new
standards.''
Bush's support for a contract workforce crystallizes the
problems facing the federal civil service. On the one hand,
federal employees would almost certainly do a better job at
airport security. According to recent surveys of federal and
private employees by the Brookings Institution's Center for
Public Service, a federal security service would be motivated
more by the job's challenge and the public good, and less by
pay. Federal employees would be more satisfied with benefits
and job security, and therefore less like to leave.
On the other hand, federal workers would be less likely
than private employees to get the tools, training and
technologies to do their jobs well. They would be hampered by
a disciplinary process that their peers believe does little
to address poor performance, and would join a workforce that
is under-resourced, over-reformed and generally demoralized
by a half-century of pay and hiring freezes.
New employees would be joining a federal workforce that is
under duress. Three out of five federal workers told the
Brookings center that their organizations only sometimes or
rarely have the staff needed to perform well. Many believe
the past few years of reinventing government made their jobs
harder. And the vast majority say the federal hiring system
is slow and confusing; a quarter refuse to call it fair.
The question is not whether federal employees often succeed
against the odds; they do. Rather, the question is whether
the federal government can find a private workforce that can
outperform federal employees on anything other than fast
hiring and firing.
The answer is mixed at best.
Private airport-security contractors can hire quickly, but
they're poor at retaining. From 1998 to 1999, turnover among
private contractors at the 19 largest U.S. airports averaged
126%, topped 200% at five and hit 416% at Lambert-St. Louis
International.
Private contractors also have trouble complying with
existing regulations. Just last year, one of the largest
contractors, Argenbright Security, was fined more than $1
million for assigning new employees to its screening check-
points in Philadelphia without background checks or an audit
system to detect what the U.S. attorney's office called ``the
astonishing and widespread criminal activities that occurred
in this case.''
In the best of all worlds, private contractors would hire
and supervise federal employees, avoiding an awful civil-
service hiring and firing system that hasn't been reformed in
decades. But given a choice between the two workforces,
federal employees should get the job. No matter how stringent
the oversight, airport security is too important to consign
to the lowest bidder. That is how the security function fell
into disrepair in the first place.
____
[From the Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 5, 2001]
Coping With New Tensions
O'Hare arrest tied to terror?
(By Susan Dodge)
A Nepalese man arrested at O'Hare Airport over the weekend
with several knives, a stun gun and a can of Mace gave police
the same home address that belonged to a suspect questioned
in the Sept. 11 terrorist hijacking investigation.
But authorities were vague on whether there was any
connection between Subash Gurung, who was arrested Saturday
night at O'Hare, and Ayub Ali Khan, who is being held as a
material witness to the attacks. Khan was one of two men with
box cutters taken into federal custody Sept. 12 on a San
Antonio-bound Amtrak train.
ABC-7 reported Sunday night that Gurung was being
questioned for a second time by FBI officials.
He listed 1025 W. Hollywood, a Chicago apartment building,
as his home address. Khan is believed to have lived at the
same address for a time, authorities said. Khan, 34, is being
held in a federal detention center in New York City.
Seven O'Hare Airport security workers--including a
supervisor--who allegedly let Gurung pass through their
checkpoint were fired Sunday, Chicago Aviation Department
spokeswoman Monique Bond said.
Gurung was within minutes of boarding a United flight to
Omaha, Neb., Saturday night when the stunning security breach
was detected by airline employees who searched his carry-on
bag, where the weapons were located, officials said.
Security officials confiscated two knives at a security
check-point, but Gurung made it to the boarding gate with
seven other knives, a stun gun and Mace in his carry-on, said
Bond.
Police Supt. Terry Hillard and Thomas J. Kneir, head of the
local FBI office, spoke about Gurung's arrest but decided
they could not charge him with a federal crime ``because he
didn't board an airplane,'' said Chicago police spokesman
David Bayless.
Gurung was arrested Saturday and charged with three
misdemeanors: unlawful use of a weapon, attempting to board
an aircraft with a weapon and carrying a dangerous weapon,
said Chicago Police Officer Matthew Jackson, a department
spokesman.
Exactly how did the 27-year-old Edgewater resident make it
through the terminal checkpoint, which supposedly is more
secure since the terrorist attacks?
``That's the million-dollar question,'' Bond said Sunday.
Equally uncertain was why Gurung was allegedly carrying the
items.
The Federal Aviation Administration, the city's aviation
department and United Airlines all were investigating the
security breach.
United gate employees checked Gurung's carry-on bag as a
random bag search, part of the airline's enhanced security
measures, said United spokesman Joe Hopkins.
Gurung was questioned by the FBI and then released on bond
early Sunday, police said. The FBI declined to comment
Sunday, referring all questions to police.
Gurung 27, told police that he's unemployed and originally
from Nepal. He is scheduled to appear in court Dec. 19.
The breach was the latest by Argenbright Security Inc.,
which operates the checkpoint for United and has been roundly
criticized for lax security and hiring workers with criminal
backgrounds.
It came as Congress debated how to tighten airport
security. The security lapse bolsters the case for making
airport security workers federal employees, who would be
higher paid and better trained, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin
said, adding, ``You can't do it on the cheap.''
But House Republican leaders argue that federalizing the
security would expand bureaucracy and make it tougher to fire
bad workers. House and Senate officials are expected to come
up with compromise legislation on airport security.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
____________________