[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 6, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7835-H7841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         AIRLINE SECURITY BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, tonight we are gathered to discuss a 
serious issue, and that is the issue of airline security. One of my 
colleagues from the great State of Texas is here and is on a limited 
time schedule, so I will begin this hour together by turning the time 
over at this point to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. First of all, let me congratulate the gentleman on 
taking this opportunity for us to come and say a few words on this very 
important issue. It is an issue that we recognize that we have not come 
to grips with since September 11, and I just wanted to share with my 
colleagues a couple of statistics.
  Prior to September 11, we had over 9 million passengers. After that 
date, we have had only 5 million. So we have had a drastic decrease.
  There is no doubt that people have some serious concerns about 
flying. A lot of people that are flying now are those that have 
business and those that have to, but a lot of people are choosing not 
to fly. And for good reasons they feel insecure in terms of the 
situation that they find themselves in.
  The actions of the House leadership have delayed the passage of 
strong airline security legislation. Politics must give way to action. 
This is not the time to be partisan. This is not the time to be playing 
games at the expense of our national security. It is a time to deal 
with it. It has been 7 weeks. So we have to come to grips with it.
  We must provide the best security we can at our airports. Not just 
adequate security, not just sufficient security; no, we need to provide 
the best security, and we will not get the best security if we continue 
to auction it off to the lowest bidder. We have to come to learn the 
hard way that airline security is a national security. So we need to 
recognize that national security should be in the hands of highly 
trained, highly motivated Federal law enforcement personnel.
  The current work force, brought to us by private contractors, are 
underpaid and undertrained, and we recognize that. We all understand 
that, and we all realize that we have a serious problem. This weekend 
someone managed to slip through at the O'Hare Airport at Chicago. He 
did not just have one knife but seven folding knives with blades up to 
4 inches. He also had a stun gun and a small container labeled teargas 
pepper spray.
  This is unacceptable. The American people expect our airport security 
personnel to be able to handle the job and be able to do the right 
thing. We cannot take chances. We cannot accept what we have before us, 
and we have to make sure that when it comes to tourism, when it comes 
to trade, when it comes to security in the air that we make it as 
secure as possible.
  What disturbs me is that the company at O'Hare is the same company 
that has already been cited by the FAA and has been placed on 
probation. Here we have a company that we continue to allow to be 
there, continue to allow them to do the things they have been doing.

                              {time}  2030

  It is obvious that the private companies do not provide the type of 
security that we need. The private companies, no matter what, are going 
to cut corners. When it comes to our national security, we should not 
live with those types of situations where they are going to cut 
corners.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, the gentleman talks about the private 
security company that is responsible for the situation in Chicago. That 
same company is responsible for the security at the Columbus, Ohio, 
airport which I flew out of this morning. While I was standing in line 
waiting to get on the airplane, there was a lady who started talking 
about her frustration. She knew I was a Member of Congress, and she 
said we need to federalize these workers. Who can I write to and 
express my opinion. I shared with her some names that she could 
contact.
  Then she told me this story. She said when I came to the Columbus, 
Ohio, airport, and I am a quilter, I went through security and after I 
went through security, I realized I had a large pair of scissors and 
what she described as a rotary blade cutter. She got through security 
and realized she had these scissors and blade. She said they were 
valuable to me, and I knew if I was caught with them, they probably 
would take them away, so she went back through security and took them 
to her car and left them in her car and then came back to the airport. 
She said I am furious I was able to get through security this morning 
with those scissors on me.
  Madam Speaker, it is happening over and over and over. This one 
particular company, the Argenbright company, seems to be very, very lax 
in the expectations they have for their employees, apparently for the 
training they provide; and certainly they are very lax with the 
supervision. Otherwise, these multiple incidents would not happen.
  It is a dangerous situation. Some of my colleagues have expressed 
that they think I ought not to say that flying is not safe. So I will 
say it this way: flying still has a risk attached to it. Is that risk 
less than it was before September 11? Perhaps. In some cases it may be 
much, much less. But the fact is that people have a right to accurate 
information. The American traveling public has a right to know what 
kind of security exists before they choose to get on an airplane and 
fly, especially if they are going to put their family members at risk. 
We are trying to inform the public, and the public is the one that will 
ultimately force this Congress to do the right thing and force the 
airlines to do the right thing. Until they feel safe, they will not 
return to the airlines as they have in the past.

[[Page H7836]]

  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Madam Speaker, I agree with the gentleman completely. 
A survey showed that 85 percent of Americans support the importance of 
federalizing our airline screeners. There is no doubt even after we 
have Federal workers we are still going to have some breaches. But I 
feel confident that those people can do a better job in making sure. I 
have had some experience with Customs workers. Those Customs workers 
have the experience and are able to tell and question people. For 
example, on the Mexican border, they were able to catch some people by 
asking where are you headed and why are you going there. They sensed 
some problems, and they were able to catch them. They have worked there 
and they understand.
  The type of workers employed as airline screeners, we have all seen 
the turnover rates. Up to 400 percent. Not to mention that same company 
has hired people with criminal records. Here we have some criminals who 
have been in jail, they are providing our security. We have a real 
problem in this country. I hope that we come to grips with these 
issues.
  Whether my colleague is a Republican or a Democrat, we need to do the 
right thing; and the right thing is to get good law enforcement people. 
National security is nothing less.
  I heard today on the House floor the discussions about the fact that 
a Member was angry on the Republican leadership that we made an 
indication that our security here in the Capitol is federalized. They 
are Federal workers. He was embarrassed that we compared them with the 
workers in airline security. They should not be any less. They should 
be trained. Just because they look at luggage and people coming 
through, they need to be trained. They also need to be on the lookout 
for the types of people that are coming through. It becomes important 
that we do the right thing.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to go a little 
ahead of everyone else. I thank the gentleman for what he is doing. It 
has been 7 weeks since September 11. Hopefully, we can get some Federal 
law enforcement workers that know what they are doing.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
joining us tonight. I have some other colleagues here, including the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and I yield to the 
gentlewoman.

  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time and putting together this Special Order tonight.
  I believe we have been forced to view aviation security in a brand 
new way. These past events emphasize that aviation security is vital to 
our national security, but also to our national economy. We have to get 
people back on airplanes. We cannot run the business of this Nation if 
people will not fly from one place to another. We are in very 
unfamiliar territory now, and we have to carefully assess what 
constitutes appropriate responses in this very new world that we are 
living in because whatever our response, we will leave a permanent mark 
on the lives of the American people.
  If Congress passes the aviation security measure that the House 
passed last week, I believe that the American people will know, they 
will not be surprised, and we cannot fool them that we have passed a 
status quo proposal. We will not have passed the best proposal. The 
public will know that we passed a measure to keep those same private 
companies in charge that the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman 
from Ohio just referred to. Those are the same companies in charge on 
September 11, and they are still in charge of security.
  The public will know that as Members of Congress we did not rise to 
the occasion and we will not pass the remedies that were desperately 
needed.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, we had quite a heated debate last week 
about two competing approaches. One would federalize our airline 
security workforce so the traveling public would know they were being 
protected by those who were answerable to Uncle Sam, who were law 
enforcement personnel, who were properly trained, who were adequately 
paid, and who were supervised.
  I would like to just share with the gentlewoman some thoughts that I 
saw in an editorial in USA Today on November 6. ``House Barters Away 
Strong Protections for Flyers.'' Want to know why at a time when tight 
airline security is needed, the House rejected a tough bipartisan bill 
and passed a weak version favored by the Republican leaders? First, 
stop looking at the House as a law-making body; think instead of a flea 
market.
  ``Last Thursday, the day of the vote, the House was one big bazaar. 
Lawmakers with swing votes were doing the selling. Their price: Last 
minute special interest amendments and political pay offs.'' That is 
the opinion of USA Today.
  After the Senate passed a bipartisan bill 100 to nothing, and as the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) stated, we cannot get more 
bipartisan than 100 to nothing; yet there were Members on the other 
side of the aisle that accused many of us in engaging in 
bipartisanship. All we wanted was an opportunity to pass the bill that 
the Senate passed so it could have gone directly to the President, he 
could have signed it into law the next day, and today we could have a 
strong airline bill in effect. We were not able to do that; but I 
believe when the American people come to realize what is at stake here, 
they will force this Chamber and this Congress to do the right thing.
  I have another editorial from my hometown paper, The Portsmouth Daily 
Times: ``Federalize Airport Workers.'' The Columbus Dispatch over the 
weekend had a long, thoughtful editorial opinion chiding this House for 
not doing the right thing and saying we need to federalize this 
responsibility. We still have that opportunity because the House and 
the Senate will take their competing bills to conference, and we still 
have an opportunity to have a bill that federalizes these workers and 
makes the situation not perfectly safe because it will never be 
perfectly safe to fly, but as safe as we can make it. Thus far we have 
not passed a bill that makes the traveling public as safe as they can 
be or as safe as they should be.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, first of all I read that same USA Today 
article on the airplane flying here from California this morning. I was 
hoping that everybody else on the airline was missing it because it was 
kind of frightening.
  I do not know if the gentleman heard the pilot that spoke at our 
press conference last week before we voted on the aviation security 
bill. He said one of the reasons the opposition to federalization is 
speaking so loudly is that they fear that federalization will equal 
labor unions. He said, I want to remind the public, I want to remind 
everybody here today and the press, that all of the heroes in this 
country since September 11, the pilots, the airline attendants, the 
firefighters and the police officers, every single one of them belong 
to a labor union. So what is the fear?
  The gentleman is right, we do have another chance. Our chance this 
week would be to agree to the other body's language to federalization, 
follow their lead and agree to some really meaningful provisions that 
will put our citizens first, not the airlines, not the private 
companies that contribute great amounts of money to these individuals 
that are insisting that we stay private.
  Since the other body did vote 100 to nothing, we know that is a 
bipartisan idea. We also know that the public is going to watch what we 
are doing, and they want us to take care of them.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Inslee), who is an attorney, has joined us; and I would like to inquire 
regarding a legal matter.
  Another Member of this body suggested to me because these private 
companies, at least two of the largest private companies that are 
responsible for airline security at many of our major airports are 
foreign-owned companies, as a result, their CEOs would be unable to get 
security clearance so that they would be able to get classified 
information.

                              {time}  2045

  The question has been raised with these private security companies 
responsible for airline security, what would happen, for example, if 
the CIA or the FBI came across information that was classified in 
nature but was relevant to airline security or some incident that may 
happen. Would it be

[[Page H7837]]

possible for these private companies to have access to that information 
so that they could work collaboratively or would that be possible? 
Would you have a legal opinion about that?
  Mr. INSLEE. Let me express an American opinion, that is just not a 
legal opinion, which is whether you are a lawyer or not a lawyer, you 
want law enforcement information to be used by law enforcement 
personnel.
  The nature of your question points out the exact flaw of continuing 
this failed experiment of having private contractors provide this 
service. They are not in a law enforcement context and this is a law 
enforcement responsibility. We do not share law enforcement information 
with people that you might not be able to have total confidence in. 
Unfortunately, these contractors have shown nothing but something akin 
to a Keystone Kops approach to this law enforcement situation. That is 
why this bill, the Republican bill that passed out of this House last 
week, is generating nothing but disdain as far as I can tell all across 
the country.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I think I hear you saying that the private companies, 
the private security companies, have the primary motive of making a 
profit, and a government law enforcement system would have the primary 
motive of protecting the public. Is that a fair way of phrasing that 
comment that you just made?
  Mr. INSLEE. As always, the gentleman has done it with much more 
eloquence than I have been able to muster, but that is exactly right.
  When we have the Border Patrol, we do not contract out the Border 
Patrol because we do not want to see the contractor's motivations to 
have low cost, low bid, cutting corners affect the law enforcement 
security issues that we have. It is the same with firefighters and 
police.
  The reason we feel that way in this country is that these jobs are 
life-and-death jobs. If the job is done well, people live. If the job 
is not done well, people die. This is why we believe so strongly and 
Americans believe so strongly all across the country, I am hearing on 
Main Street, I am reading USA Today, I am reading the Seattle Post 
Intelligencer, I am reading the New York Times, this bill is a clinker 
because it does not match Americans' expectations that we have a law 
enforcement type system.
  Let us just talk for a moment about this Keystone Kops idea. Since 
September 11, look at what has happened. Since September 11, when you 
would think these companies would be telling their employees to be on 
their best behavior, they would have their best front line people, 
their most trained people, they would be on their toes and they would 
have bells and whistles on, since September 11, we have had a test by 
the FAA at Dulles Airport that serves the Nation's Capital, you think 
would be the acme of achievement for these private contractors.
  They went out to Dulles Airport a couple of weeks ago and they tried 
to run the gate 20 times with weapons that would show up on the 
magnetometer; guns, knives, I do not know what they used. Out of that 
20 times, seven times people went through without being challenged by 
the security personnel. Almost half the times they failed at the 
Nation's principal airport. The company that was already fined $1 
million for hiring felons we found is hiring felons again.
  Now just the other day we have heard about this story where the guy 
ran through the system with multiple knives, stun guns, Mace, the only 
thing they kept him from taking on the plane was a Stinger missile. 
That was the only success they had. Yet the Republicans want to 
continue that status quo arrangement.
  The status quo has failed. We hope this conference committee sticks 
by the Senate version which has a Federal responsibility.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I would like to ask my friend a question. Perhaps you 
cannot give me a definitive answer, but I am puzzled. Why is it that 
when the American people overwhelmingly want to federalize this 
function, when newspapers like the Columbus Dispatch in Ohio and the 
New York Times, the Portsmouth Daily Times, newspapers all across this 
country are editorializing in favor of federalizing this security 
function, and the Senate passed a bill that would do that 100 to 
nothing, is it puzzling to you that this House just would not get on 
board, do the right thing, pass the Senate version which could go 
directly to the President for his signature? And although the President 
has indicated he is not crazy about the bill, his spokespersons have 
said that he would be willing to sign it. We could have such a law in 
effect now, today.
  Do you have any theory as to why this House would be so intractable 
in its approach to this issue?

  Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman will yield, I would like to suggest 
that if the GOP version does not sway towards the other body's, the 
Senate's version, it will be because they really do not want this to 
pass at all, because it is not going to pass. We will not get out of 
conference with the House version of that bill. So nothing will go to 
the President and we will not have an aviation security bill.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. So we could enter the Thanksgiving holiday season 
without a security bill? And people who go to the airports to get on 
airliners would do so knowing that this House, this Congress, had 
failed to take action to protect them. That would be truly a sad set of 
circumstances.
  Mr. INSLEE. To answer the gentleman's question, I am not so much 
puzzled as I am extremely disappointed because it is pretty obvious to 
anyone who has followed this with any but the scantiest degree of 
attention what is happening here. The companies that have failed the 
American people over and over again, the companies that have allowed 
sticks, guns, bottles, knives, everything short of a Stinger missile on 
these airplanes, have run up to their friends in Congress and have 
tried to save their bacon and their contracts and tried to put a kibosh 
on this bill that passed the Senate 100 to nothing, totally bipartisan, 
because they are trying to save their contracts and their potential 
profits.
  There is nothing wrong with profit, but the problem is, these 
companies should lose their contracts. These companies should not be 
providing this service.
  We have not seen anything in the Republican bill that will keep these 
same companies from not winning these same contracts. This same company 
that had seven knives get through security the other day and seven out 
of twenty through Dulles who are hiring ex-felons after they have 
already been fined $1 million, under the Republican bill could come up 
and they could get the same contract again. That is a pathetic failure 
of congressional responsibility.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Is it not true that this same company has already 
been fined over $1 million?
  Mr. INSLEE. Already been fined $1 million. They got caught again with 
their hand in the cookie jar, hiring ex-felons. You have to ask 
yourself another question, how can this system of private contractors 
under Federal supervision be such a failure? Would one think that if we 
had a Federal agency supposedly riding herd on these contractors we 
could accomplish a fair degree of training and certification? One would 
think.
  But the problem is this dirty little secret. We knew in 1995 that 
these companies were giving us a lousy job, they were not providing 
adequate security; and this Congress passed measures to require the FAA 
to adopt additional rules. But it never happened in 6 years. The reason 
is that every time the FAA tried to pass a meaningful safety 
regulation, those companies and airlines, too, to some degree, sent 
lobbyists up to Congress and blocked those safety regulations.
  That is why this experiment is a failure, because our agencies have 
been under the control of the ones they are supposed to be regulating. 
And you cannot break that iron cycle unless we get campaign finance 
reform which we have also not had a vote on. The American people need 
to know that the reason this has not passed is, we have a sick campaign 
financing system that needs to be reformed. But until we get that, we 
need a new system of airline safety.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I do not want to put words in the gentleman's mouth, 
but as I listened to you, I am starting to feel some anger. I said 
earlier I felt frustration and puzzlement, but what you are saying, it 
seems to me, is that you believe that there is a system in

[[Page H7838]]

place here that would allow special interest money, special interest 
contributions, to be so influential over the actions of this House that 
we could take action or fail to take action which would literally put 
the lives of Americans at risk. Is that an overstatement in your 
judgment or do you think it is a fair statement?
  Mr. INSLEE. That is a fair statement, that this Chamber put the 
financial security of special interests above and beyond the personal 
security of Americans who are in airplanes. It was a very sad day. That 
is why I hope the conferees will change the result that came out of 
this House.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. If the gentleman will yield, I think it would be good if 
we laid out right here in our conversation how we think it would be 
different if it was federalized, how the standards would be set, and 
they would be national standards, and there would be a Federal corps of 
workers that would be hired, trained, monitored and supervised and 
actually earn a livable wage; and we would have a work force not too 
dissimilar from the work force we have here protecting us at the 
Capitol. We have the Capitol Police. They are Federal workers. They are 
not contracted. We do not contract the Marines.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. It has been brought up in this Chamber on multiple 
occasions that we are protected here at the Capitol of the United 
States by police officers. They work for Uncle Sam. Some have taken 
offense when we have suggested that it is not fair for those of us who 
live and work in this Capitol to be protected by these well-trained 
professional individuals, who are adequately paid, adequately trained, 
adequately supervised, while we would be willing to let the American 
traveling public expose themselves to unnecessary danger. And when we 
pointed out the unfairness of that, some have taken offense.
  But I think it is absolutely fair. Why should you as a Congresswoman 
or why should I as a Congressman have a different level of protection 
than other Americans who may be in vulnerable positions and threatened 
by terrorists? I think we should not. We should not have any less or 
any more protection.
  I think what we have now is a system that leaves the traveling 
public, when they go to our airports, vulnerable. I know there are 
those who do not want us to say that, because they want the American 
people to go back and live a normal life. They know our economy needs 
our airlines to be successful and the public to feel like they can 
travel safely.
  The public can travel safely if we do the right thing in this 
Chamber. It is in our hands.
  I see that our friend from the great State of Colorado (Mr. Udall) 
has joined us. Welcome.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to 
thank my good friend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for 
calling this important special order tonight.
  I want to change the thrust of our discussion, if I could, somewhat 
and talk about the economic consequences of not having an airline 
security bill in place. In my home State, we have a beautiful airport, 
Denver International Airport, known as DIA locally. It is a driver in 
our economy and a driver in the entire Rocky Mountain West of all of 
the States' economies that make up the Rocky Mountain West. We have 
seen a falloff of about 30 percent in flights, in concessionaire 
revenue and in subsequent falloff to the local tax collection moneys 
that accrue to the city of Denver, which incidentally has a 
responsibility to pay the bonds that covered the cost of the airport.
  I have talked with a lot of people in the business community across 
the various sectors in our State, high tech, telecommunications, 
manufacturing, agriculture, you name it, we have it. I say, what can we 
do to bring our economy back to where it was? They say the number one 
thing we can do is get people back on airplanes again.
  The ripple effect in our economy of people using our air 
transportation system, which is still second to none, is phenomenal. 
That is why passing this legislation is so, so important. That is why 
it was so disappointing to all of us here last week when we did not 
take the opportunity to pass the legislation. It was bipartisan in 
nature, as we all remember. It would have been on President Bush's desk 
on Friday. We would now today on Tuesday be in the process of 
implementing this legislation.
  I also wanted to just underline what I have heard here too about the 
law enforcement function that we are trying to put in place. The people 
who are now doing the security work at our airports are well-
intentioned. Many of them are hardworking. They want to do a good job. 
But they are not law enforcement professionals.
  That is what we want to do by federalizing this work force. We would 
be able to provide them with the training, with the uniformity of 
approach, with a relationship with the intelligence community so that 
we can do a better job of catching people who should not be on our 
airplanes. We would provide these people with a career track.
  There are some very thoughtful proposals that would link our airport 
security system, were it to be federalized, to Customs and to the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service.

                              {time}  2100

  People could work across those various agencies. I think that is a 
powerful concept and one that would be very, very useful to us.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I do not think the gentleman was here a few moments 
ago when I pointed out an issue that had been brought to me regarding 
the fact that some of the larger private firms that provide security at 
our airports are foreign-owned firms, and, consequently, the CEOs of 
those companies would be literally unable to achieve a high level of 
security clearance that would enable them to have access to classified 
information which may be essential as the FBI and CIA and other law 
enforcement agencies gain access to information, for example, about a 
terrorist threat.
  On the other hand, if this was a Federal function, it would be quite 
easy for these Federal law enforcement agencies to work 
collaboratively, to share information, to make plans, to develop 
strategies together. It seems to me that is a glaring problem that I 
have not heard addressed as we have discussed this bill.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the gentleman will yield further, I want to 
affirm what the gentleman has just pointed out, that we have the 
opportunity here as we move to provide for the homeland defense, two 
months ago, few of us had heard that term, ``homeland defense,'' but we 
now have that responsibility, not only to ourselves and our 
constituents, but to our children and their children. If we were to 
continue the work of the Homeland Security Commission headed by Senator 
Rudman, a Republican from New England, and Senator Gary Hart from 
Colorado, who suggested that we combine about 40 Federal agencies into 
a Homeland Defense Agency, part of that would be airline security. It 
is so, so crucial. It is at the core of our economic activity and our 
economic strength.
  So I think the gentleman makes a very good point as to why it is 
important now, as soon as possible, to get about the job of 
federalizing our airport security and airline security system.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I would share a thought with my friend from Colorado, 
that I think it may not happen, what we are talking about here, it 
really may not happen until the American people become so determined 
that it has to happen. By that I mean only perhaps after the American 
people start calling and writing and making demands upon their elected 
Representatives and upon their Senators.
  I would just share one additional thought from the USA Today 
editorial. It says: ``This week a House-Senate conference is charged 
with reconciling the competing bills, giving Congress one more shot at 
putting security wholly in the hands of the Federal Government, where 
it belongs.''
  So we can still do this, as the House and Senate meets. We just 
passed a resolution here, or a motion to instruct, asking that this be 
accomplished by this Friday, so there is still time this week for the 
American people to let their will be known, to make phone calls or to 
write letters or to send e-messages or to visit their Representatives 
and express their opinions.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the gentleman will yield further, he makes 
a very, very important point; and I want to once again remind the 
viewers that the bill had bipartisan support. This is

[[Page H7839]]

not about Republicans or Democrats. This is not about partisan 
advantage or disadvantage. This is about creating a new system of 
airline security that will ensure that every person who gets on our 
world-class airline system will know that they are going to arrive 
safely at their destination. They will know that when they go to the 
airport that they are going to proceed through a security system that 
is going to treat them respectfully, treat them as if their time is 
important, but also make sure that the bottom line is emphasized, which 
is to ensure that our airline system is safe and secure.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. My friend understands that last week we spent a good 
deal of time talking about the fact that much of the baggage that is 
placed in an airliner is not screened for explosive devices. It is 
estimated that perhaps 5 percent is. But even the 5 percent that is 
being screened at Dulles International Airport, if I could just share a 
personal incident, this happened to me three times. I have flown out of 
Dulles now five times in the last few weeks, and three times I have 
been selected to have my luggage screened for explosive devices. Now, I 
am not sure what kind of profile I fit. Sometimes I think that maybe I 
am being screened because I am a Member of Congress and they want to 
convince me that the system is working. But here is how they have asked 
me to have my bags screened.
  I have gone up to the ticket counter, I have given them my ticket, I 
have received my seat assignment. Then the person behind the ticket 
counter says to me, sir, we would like for you to take your bag and 
walk down this corridor until you come to the first crossover, turn to 
your left, go to the next main corridor, turn to your left, and you 
will see the machine, one of these CTX machines, $1 million machines, 
you will see one of those machines over on your right, and they will 
screen your bag for you.

  Now, that is absolutely absurd. Any person who was devious enough to 
have an explosive in a bag would not voluntarily, without being 
observed or without being escorted, carry that bag around and ask 
someone standing on the other side of the wall to screen that bag for 
an explosive device. It is just simply absurd.
  This Argenbright Company, I assume, is involved in that kind of 
process. It is so ridiculous, it is almost unbelievable. I am almost 
embarrassed to share that, because I know it is hard for people to 
believe that we would have a $1 million machine, we would have a 
process in place that would be so absurd and call it security.
  I see my friend from California has stood.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Well, this is not about being inconvenienced; it is 
about being inefficient and senseless. We were talking about should we 
be protected here at the Capitol in a different fashion than our 
constituent in the traveling public is protected, and the answer, of 
course, is no.
  We have to remember that it is the pilots that fly those planes and 
the flight attendants that work so hard to make us comfortable that are 
telling us and told us last week, federalize the system. That is what 
we would feel safe with.
  They will; the public will. We know it is better. So we have one more 
chance this week in the conference discussion, the public does not care 
what a conference is or is not, but it is one more chance that we can 
get together and do the right thing.
  I agree with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) that it is time 
for the different Members of Congress here to hear from their 
constituency about this. But we have to remind them, they cannot send 
letters, because we do not get any mail. Phone calls, e-mail, call the 
district offices, but be heard.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the gentleman would yield for another 
minute, I want to thank my colleague from California (Ms. Woolsey) for 
joining us as well. I wanted to make one final point.
  Frederico Pena, the Mayor of Denver, well respected for his 
accomplishments, helped to see that our new international airport was 
first approved and then built; and it has now become a world class 
facility. He then served as the Secretary of Energy and then Secretary 
of Transportation. He wrote an editorial last weekend entitled 
``Federalize Airport Screeners.'' If I could, I would like to enter 
this in the Record. He makes a compelling set of arguments for why we 
need to move to federalize our workers. He rebuts all of the arguments 
that have been made by people who do not want to take this step.
  I know my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), 
talked about this argument that somehow unionizing these workers would 
result in them being less productive; and we would not have an 
opportunity to dismiss those who were not effective. That is inaccurate 
at best, and just not right, when you get under the surface and 
understand what we were proposing in our legislation last week.
  He says, just one example, that some people say the one-size-fits-all 
solution would not work. That was one of the arguments against our 
legislation. But it is uniform, consistent high security at all 
airports, which is exactly what is necessary, because terrorists can 
find the weakest link, as they did when they went to Boston and drove 
to Portland, Maine, flew back to Boston and then boarded those airlines 
that hit the World Trade Center.
  If I could, I want to thank my colleague for hosting this very 
important Special Order, and I hope a week from now we can all 
celebrate because this legislation will be on the President's desk, he 
will sign it, and before the holiday season begins, we can know that 
the American people will not only be secure physically, but secure 
psychologically. That is as important in this process as providing for 
the physical safety of all Americans who use our world-class aviation 
system.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I would like to share an anecdote regarding the 
wonderful Denver Airport. I know my friend is rightly proud of that 
great airport; but there is a problem there, and I would share this 
true story with the gentleman.
  About a month ago some friends of mine in Denver, a young man with 
his wife and very young child, were going to fly to Columbus, Ohio, to 
visit this young man's mother. So they went to the Denver Airport, they 
had their tickets, they checked their luggage.
  As they sat there waiting to get on the plane, they noticed someone 
who appeared to be nervous to them, and maybe they were allowing their 
imaginations to run wild, I do not know if they had a right to be 
concerned or not. But as they observed individuals boarding the plane 
that they were to fly, they saw this individual get on their plane, and 
so they were frightened so they chose to not fly on that airplane, but 
to drive from Denver to Columbus, which is a long distance.
  But, guess what? Their luggage stayed on that plane. In the past we 
have thought, well, if a person checked luggage and flew on the plane, 
they would be unlikely to try to explode that plane because they would 
lose their own lives. But in this incident the traveling persons did 
not even bother to take the flight, and yet their luggage remained on 
that airplane.
  That is another problem. We do not match passengers with luggage.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. If the gentleman will yield, it strikes me 
that given the advances in telecommunications and computing and data 
processing, that all we need is the will and the resources to provide 
the system that would make that bag and passenger match, something that 
could be done.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. It absolutely could be done. But once again, there is 
a story in the newspaper today saying the airlines are opposed to this, 
because they say it would cost too much and it would slow down the 
process.
  We cannot put a price tag on public safety. There are reasonable 
things we can do. It may add somewhat to our inconvenience. But as that 
woman in Columbus, Ohio, said to me, this woman who had gotten through 
security with a pair of large scissors, she said, I would not mind the 
inconvenience if it kept me safe. But people do not feel like what is 
currently happening is going to keep them safe. Quite frankly, I do not 
think that will be the case until we federalize this effort.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. People of all backgrounds and professions and 
experiences in my district have said to me, I will gladly pay the extra 
$2 or $3 on each ticket to insure that the security system is one that 
provides me a safe experience, provides my family and my friends a safe 
experience, and provides

[[Page H7840]]

all Americans who want to use our air system with the understanding and 
the security of knowing that they are not going to be threatened by 
another set of terrible acts such as we saw on September 11.
  I want to thank my colleague for hosting this Special Order tonight.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentleman for joining us. I yield to the 
gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. I just want to answer a couple of the questions people 
have asked about our plan of federalizing these security forces.
  One of the arguments against this essentially has been you will not 
be able to layoff incompetent people once they are Federal employees. 
People should realize that in the Senate bill we have made provisions 
to give additional flexibility to management to lay people off, to take 
disciplinary action, consistent with their law enforcement function.
  We need to treat these people like FBI agents, Border Patrol and 
Federal Marshals. They should have a similar disciplinary system, that 
perhaps does have more flexibility for management than a different 
Federal job. That is a really a red herring, because we have taken care 
of that, to make sure that if there is incompetence in that workforce, 
we can take care of it, just like we need to with Federal Marshals and 
the like. That is taken care of.
  The second argument people have played is there are some other 
countries that have different systems. There are some other countries 
that do have some private contractors under government supervision, 
which is fine. Other countries have managed in some circumstances to 
make that work.
  But those countries are not America. We are 20 times bigger than some 
of those countries, number one. Number two, those countries have not 
had a 10-year continued pattern of failure like we have had with this 
system; and, number three, and most importantly, those countries do not 
have a sick campaign system that allows these people with tons of money 
to come into the FAA and Congress and spread influence around and stop 
safety from being implemented.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. Speaker, that is the difference that we have to pay attention to.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. It is amazing 
to me that a company responsible for the security of the traveling 
public could violate procedures, hire felons, give false statements, be 
fined $1 million and continue to be allowed to provide, quote, 
``security to our traveling public.''
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it is a symptom of the illness that affects 
our system, of why we have not had sufficient regulation.
  But I do not know what the campaign system is in some of these 
countries, the Netherlands and other places, but I know that they do 
not have a system like we do; otherwise they would have lousy security. 
They would have lousy security because the security companies would 
come in, spread influence around and block any safety or yank in their 
contracts when they do not do a good job.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman has 
just reminded me of the fact that the gentleman and I sent a letter to 
the Speaker and to the majority leader asking that this House of 
Representatives not adjourn, that we stay in session throughout this 
year and attend to the important business of the American people.
  One of the items we need to be attending to is the campaign finance 
issue. The campaign finance bill passed the Senate. All we need to do 
is pass it here in the House. The President has indicated, I believe, 
that he would sign the bill if the House were to pass it. If we did 
that, it would be a wonderful holiday gift to the American people, 
because the American people could then have confidence that regardless 
of what decision we made in this Chamber regarding airline security and 
a whole host of other things, that we were doing it out of the right 
motive, and that we were not doing it because we were trying to please 
some large contributor. That would be an amazing, wonderful gift for 
the American people.
  That is why I do not think we should adjourn this House. We should 
not adjourn this House in time of war, we should not adjourn this House 
until the people's business has been attended to. That is one of the 
critical items that we need to address.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, every time the gentleman brings up campaign 
finance reform, I see the shelf, and if the leaders of this House will 
not move towards the other body's federalizing of aviation security, we 
are going to take aviation security and shelve it. So there will be 
campaign finance reform on the shelf, there will be aviation security 
on the shelf, there will be HMO reform on the shelf. It is all because 
of campaign finance reform. The gentleman is so absolutely right.
  We have to remind everybody that last week the aviation security bill 
only passed out of the House with four additional votes on the passing 
side. That is not a mandate from anybody. So it needs to go back to 
ground zero and be rethought.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, it is of interest that the gentlewoman 
mentioned three critical issues: campaign finance reform, a Patient's 
Bill of Rights, which has passed the Senate, and now airline security. 
These three huge issues that are of such great importance to the 
American people could become law if we could just get the leadership in 
this Chamber to take the stranglehold off this Chamber and let it work 
its will.
  We are near the end of our time together. I am wondering if the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) would just take a moment and 
reiterate the process that we are facing here. We have had the House 
and Senate bill. What is likely to happen? How can this bill become law 
by the end of this week? What needs to happen?
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, as the 
gentleman knows, the Senate passed a strong version requiring the 
Federal Government to assume responsibility for security of Americans 
in the air. It was 100 to zero. The bill came over to the House. It 
languished here for weeks and weeks and weeks after September 11. The 
Republican leadership refused to bring it up, essentially because they 
could not pass it. They finally brought it up last week and a very, 
very narrow margin passed a different version that had this giant hole 
in it, more Swiss cheese than anything; and now it goes to a conference 
committee where members of the House and Senate will meet to try to 
reconcile this to come up with a bill.
  We are just very hopeful that now that America has found out about 
this bill and people have found out, as Siskel & Ebert would say, it is 
two thumbs down for America on its failure to federalize this 
responsibility, that the conferees will, in fact, adopt the Senate 
version and have the Federal Government have Uncle Sam take over this 
system like they should have done 10 years ago to prevent guns, knives, 
sticks, bottles and everything else getting through this poor system.

  That can happen in conference committee. It can be signed into law by 
Monday by the President. We are hoping that Americans let their Members 
of Congress know what they think about it so that that is exactly what 
will happen.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this is the 
situation: A relatively small number of Members of the House of 
Representatives and a relatively small number of Senators will make up 
this conference committee, and they will get together and try to 
resolve the differences, and then they will bring back a final version 
to this House to be voted upon and to the Senate to be voted upon. So 
it is still possible, is it not, that that conference committee could 
decide to federalize this security apparatus?
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is very 
possible, and it is more likely if Americans will let their elected 
officials know that that is what they want to see happen, that they 
want certified Federal marshals, Federal officials at these gates to 
make sure people are not taking bombs and are not hijacking airplanes. 
And if we do that, we think this conference committee can, should and 
will adopt a federalized work force.
  I want to thank the gentleman for helping to get that message out.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from

[[Page H7841]]

California and the gentleman from Washington State and the gentleman 
from Texas and the gentleman from Colorado for joining us this evening.

                          ____________________