[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 158 (Thursday, November 15, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H8237-H8240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            AIRLINE SECURITY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tiberi). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) 
is recognized for the balance of the hour, approximately 28 minutes.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor this evening to 
comment on what I believe is a major, major step forward in our 
national security and, that is, the imminent passage of our airline 
security bill. Our conferees, we have been told, have been successful 
in ironing out a bill that I think is a real major step forward in 
several respects. I would like to talk about two of those ways that 
this bill is really going to advance Americans' sense of security and 
hopefully instill a fair measure of confidence in airline travel.
  The first is that our efforts have been successful to make sure that 
100 percent of the checked baggage that goes into the belly of our 
airplanes in fact will be screened for explosive devices. This is a 
major step forward to give the traveling public the assurance that any 
bag that is going to go into the luggage compartment of an airplane, we 
are going to be assured, does not have an explosive device in it. Given 
the nature of the threat, it is high time that the U.S. Congress has 
passed such a measure. We are told now that our conferees in both 
parties, in the House and Senate, have agreed on a measure that will 
set a deadline for the actual implementation of 100 percent screening 
for checked baggage. We also are told that we are going to have interim 
measures while we get to that 100 percent use by mechanical devices, by 
some of the sophisticated machinery, to be assured that we cannot see a 
plane taken down out of the sky.
  This has been the result of a lot of effort here in Congress, but I 
want to pay a real congratulatory note to two gentlemen who have been 
working for over a decade now to achieve that end, and those gentlemen 
are Bob Monetti and George Williams, two gentlemen each of whom lost a 
son in the Lockerbie bombing in Scotland in 1988. Bob Monetti, who lost 
his son Rick, a Syracuse student, in that bombing and Mr. Monetti since 
then has been working with the community of families that lost members 
in the Lockerbie bombing to try to get this Chamber, the U.S. House, 
and the Senate, to pass a provision to assure that that type of tragedy 
cannot happen again.
  I have met Mr. Monetti; he is a great leader in this regard and has 
been a conscience of his community to see to it that the House of 
Representatives would act. I have also met Mr. George Williams, who 
lost his son Geordie, an American soldier, Mr. Williams, a proud 
Marine. I really want to thank Mr. Williams for his efforts to make 
sure that the U.S. Congress would finally act to see to it that other 
family members do not have to suffer a loss that they have done. I 
think it is a real mark of tribute to these families that they have 
hung in this effort for over 10 years to see to it that the Congress 
would finally act.
  Now in the next day or two, we will be voting on a provision that 
will finally achieve their goal of having 100 percent screening. I want 
to thank Mr. Monetti and Mr. Williams and all of the Lockerbie families 
for their efforts to educate us in Congress about the need for this. I 
hope they take some measure of satisfaction. I know Rick and Geordie 
would be real proud of their fathers when this bill passes, as we were 
of them.
  I also want to thank some of our cosponsors, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Strickland), a Democrat, who has insisted on this; the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a Republican. The gentleman from 
Connecticut has been a great, great leader on many reform efforts. He 
has been instrumental in convincing some of the leadership on the 
Republican side of the aisle in including this measure in the eventual 
airline security bill. I consider this a bipartisan success through the 
efforts of the gentleman from Connecticut and several other 
Republicans, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and others 
on our side of the aisle who have gotten this in. We are happy that we 
have finally achieved this end, that we can now tell Americans that 
they will be able to have the peace of mind when they get on an 
airplane that we are not going to have explosives in the belly of the 
airplane.
  There are a couple of things we hope that both our conferees, if this 
has not been totally finalized, and our friends at the FAA and the 
Department of Transportation need to be attentive to, and, that is, 
that we need to very quickly evaluate the screening devices for various 
types of technology to make sure that we use the most effective, the 
fastest, the most efficient, the most cost-effective means of screening 
this baggage. We brought to the Cannon House Office Building last week 
some new technology that we hope that the FAA will look at very closely 
when we choose which types of screening machines to use. We want the 
FAA to be very open in its assessment so we have the fair opportunity 
to assess all of the technologies, and there are several types of 
machines that use several types of technology to determine whether 
there is an explosive device in a bag. We are going to be working 
diligently with the FAA to make sure that they have a fair evaluation 
process to decide which type of technology to implement throughout our 
Nation's airports. In doing that, we are going to be very insistent 
that we fully mobilize the industrialized base of the United States.

  Some time ago, the FAA talked about getting this done in 10 years or 
more, to get enough machines in our airports to get this done. We are 
not going to wait that long. We need to do the same kind of 
industrialization and mobilization that happened in World War II. We 
built about 10 or 12,000 B-24s in World War II when we fully mobilized 
our industrial base. We have got to do the same thing with these 
machines. We need a couple of thousand of them, and we need to find the 
licensing and a contractual way to fully engage the manufacturers of 
this country to get this done right away. We are going to be very 
insistent on that. We look forward to working with our agencies to make 
sure we make this decision promptly and in a way that gets the best 
technology into our airports.
  The other aspect of this bill that we are very, very pleased about is 
that it will have a quantum leap forward in the quality of screening of 
the individuals who screen passengers when they go through these 
screening gates heading for their airplanes. We have had such a litany 
of failure. We have had such a disastrous experience with private 
companies, low-bid contractors, who have allowed these types of 
failures to occur. Now we have finally agreed and our conferees have 
agreed to essentially ensure that we will have Federal employees who, 
in fact, will man these stations in the next 2 years. We are very happy 
that that assurance will be given to the traveling public. It

[[Page H8238]]

is time that we have the same level of protection of folks when they 
get on airplanes as we do when we have folks coming across our borders, 
namely, we have Federal employees who have been certified and trained, 
that work for Uncle Sam; the same type of assurance we have with FBI 
agents; the same type of assurance we have for fire and police 
personnel who work for the public and are certified and trained 
appropriately. We are going to require that and that that will happen.
  As you know, as with any legislative process, there has been some 
give and take in fashioning that, the give and take as some of the 
Republican leadership has resisted this idea, and we have been told 
that in this provision, there will be a provision that 2 years from 
now, airports that wanted to petition the agency to have a private 
contractor do this work, if they can convince the agency that that was 
a good idea, they would at least allow that argument to be made. But 
with all due respect, we do not think there is going to be any such 
petitions because the traveling public is going to learn that the best 
way to get this done is to have Federal employees to do it, and we are 
confident that that is going to be the case; and we feel good about the 
strides that have been made.
  We want to compliment our friends across the aisle who showed some 
bold leadership to move this effort forward. I see the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Ganske) here. I do not know if he wants to join in this 
colloquy or not, but I would be happy to yield to him if he would like 
to join me in this regard.
  Mr. GANSKE. I appreciate the recognition.
  On September 11 when we saw the airplane fly into the World Trade 
Center after the first one had already struck the first building and we 
kept seeing it and seeing it again and again on TV, it really brought 
home the fact that an airplane full of jet fuel is a flying bomb and we 
lost 5,000 plus American lives in that attack on our country, really 
more than twice as many American citizens as we lost in the attack on 
Pearl Harbor.

                              {time}  1845

  So, Congress has been struggling a little bit to come to a resolution 
on how to improve the security in our Nation's airports and on our 
airplanes, and I applaud the conference committee for coming together 
on this issue.
  What we really need is, we need secure cockpits, we need more air 
marshals. Those things will be achieved in this bill. We need to make 
sure that people getting on to airplanes do not carry weapons. We need 
to make sure that the luggage that gets stored in the belly of those 
airplanes does not have a bomb.
  That means that the people who screen the people walking on the 
planes and the people that screen the baggage need to be professionals. 
Unfortunately, we have had a situation in this country where, largely, 
the screening has been done by three foreign corporations, hiring 
people at the minimum wage, not doing security background checks, being 
fined millions and millions of dollars and still not correcting their 
operations, being fined by the FAA.
  This is not just a problem in the United States. Securicorp, the 
parent company of Argenbright, has had the same types of problems at 
Heathrow in England. So, since September 11 we have seen more than 70 
violations where people have gotten on to airplanes or gotten through 
the screeners carrying such things as seven knives, a can of mace and a 
stun gun, as an example.
  It is clear that we need to improve the performance, professionalize 
those screeners. We made strong arguments here on the floor of the 
House a week or so ago that the proper way to do that is to transfer 
that responsibility from the airports and the airlines to the Federal 
Government.
  The bill that we voted on, some of us voted for on the House floor, 
would have moved that to the Department of Justice, as the bill which 
passed originally in the Senate. In this compromise, that will still be 
handled under the Department of Transportation. However, all of these 
screeners will now be Federal employees.
  But there are important provisions in this conference bill that 
duplicate some of the provisions we had in the Senate bill.
  Number one, those screeners cannot go on strike. They just cannot 
walk off the job.
  Number two, if they are not performing the job, then they get fired. 
They get laid off immediately and can be fired, because under the terms 
and conditions of this conference report, they will not be under 
regular civil service rules. So they will be the what are excepted 
government employees, E-X-C-E-P-T-E-D, government employees. This will 
be the same whether you are talking about a big airport, one of our 
hubs or our smaller airports.
  I think this is a good thing coming out of the conference, because we 
learned from September 11 that we also need to have very good security 
at our smaller airports, because some of those terrorists enter the 
system through the smaller airports, and, once they are passed the 
screeners, then they do not get examined again.
  So what the thrust of this conference report will do is to make sure 
that these screeners get professional training, that they meet 
professional standards, that they will make a decent living wage, so 
that they do not just run down the hallway and take the next job that 
is open at McDonald's, that they will view themselves as a professional 
in terms of law enforcement, similar to what we have with Customs 
inspectors and officials.
  That changes the whole mind set of the people who do those jobs. I 
think it is very, very important. Yet, at the same time this conference 
report, this compromise, addresses concerns that people had with 
regular civil service, in that they were worried that if a person was 
not doing their job, that you could not get them off the job or 
replaced in a reasonable period of time. Because this is a job, these 
screener jobs are, in my opinion, professional law enforcement-type 
jobs, and I think we learned on September 11 that, you know, aviation 
security is a matter of national security, and national security is 
something that we all take an oath to uphold when we say that we will 
defend the Constitution, because the Constitution says that we will do 
our best job to secure the protection and the national defense.
  So, I, too, am pleased with the conference report that we are going 
to vote on tomorrow. I expect we will have an overwhelming vote for 
this conference report, President Bush will sign it, and we will start 
to get on our way to having better security.
  I think the gentleman was absolutely correct, it will take a little 
while to transition. You know, there will be some mistakes made. Nobody 
and no system is perfect. But the question is, will we have a better 
system? And I think this conference report will do that.
  Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. 
It is a very difficult position, and the gentleman did an admirable job 
getting this issue before on your side of the aisle. We appreciate that 
very much.

  I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland), who has been a cosponsor of the bill that started the 100 
percent checked baggage requirement going and the amendment.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. I want to thank my friend from Washington State. You 
know, oftentimes when we stand in this chamber, we find that we are 
being critical of each other. But I would like to begin my statement by 
just pointing out that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) has been 
really wonderful on this issue.
  I am a Democrat, you are a Republican. But I have observed you during 
the course of your tenure in this House, and not only on this issue, 
but on the Patients' Bill of Rights and on many other issues. The 
gentleman has been such a worthy Member and has fought for really good 
causes. I thank you for your great efforts on this legislation.
  I also want to thank my friend from Washington State (Mr. Inslee). I 
really believe that the emphasis on screening all of the baggage that 
goes into the belly of our airplanes, which has been included in this 
compromise, I believe that provision perhaps would not have been 
included had it not been for your efforts.
  So I suppose this is an evening when we stand on this floor and, 
instead of being critical or talking about the things that we wish 
would happen, we in a sense celebrate the fact that, after

[[Page H8239]]

weeks of work, that we have been able to reach a compromise. But it is 
not a compromise on safety, it is a compromise on strategy and process.
  I think what we have done is come up with a bill that will make the 
American traveling public much safer. That is something that both sides 
of this chamber should feel good about.
  I do not think either side, Democrat or Republican, can claim total 
victory in terms of getting their particular point of view put forth in 
this compromise, but I do think this is an example of how the process 
can work and should work. It has worked with this issue, and it is my 
hope that in the remaining days of this session of our Congress, that 
this kind of process could work to get a Patients' Bill of Rights 
brought before us, to get an education bill brought before us. We still 
have some time remaining before we have to draw this session to a 
close, and the fact is that we will get nowhere as long as we are 
unbending and uncompromising. But if we work together for the good of 
the country, I think we can accomplish a great deal of good.
  So I feel some relief tonight. I stood last week where the gentleman 
is standing, and I said that if the American people will just simply 
allow their voices to be heard, if they will communicate their strong 
desire for an airline security bill to the Members of the House and the 
Senate, that we can get this done before we leave here.
  I believe over the last several days the American people have 
expressed themselves very clearly and very strongly. They want to feel 
that it is safe to get on an American airliner and fly. They want to 
know if they put their families on that airliner, that everything that 
can be done has been done to see that their family members are going to 
be safe. They want this chamber to work together cooperatively to do 
the people's business.
  So, as we found out throughout the course of this day, we have been 
able to accomplish that, and tomorrow I think we are going to have a 
very strong vote on this bill, the President will sign it, and we can 
say to the American people and to our individual constituencies that we 
have done our part to make sure that they are safe when they fly.
  Is it perfect? No, it is not. Will it solve all the problems? No, it 
will not. There will be no perfect solution to the problem of airline 
security.
  One of the things that I continue to be concerned about, as I know my 
friend from Washington State is concerned about, is whether or not we 
are moving as expeditiously, as rapidly as we should, to make sure that 
all the luggage that is placed on our airlines, all of that luggage is 
screened for explosive devices.
  But this is a major step forward, and I believe we eventually will 
get to the point where people can say that my government has done all 
that it can do to make sure that I am safe when I get on an airliner.
  Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate all your great 
work. When we started this dialogue several weeks ago, it was a little 
bit lonely talking about that checked baggage. But I agree with the 
gentleman: The American voice was heard. We shared some information 
with America, namely, that not enough of these bags were being 
screened. Americans responded, they let their legislators know what 
they thought, and we have this product.
  So we want to thank Americans for their part in achieving this end, 
and we will look forward now to passage of this in the next day or two, 
and realize that we have a real step forward in airline security.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. If I could just say another word, I mentioned earlier 
the tenacious fight of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) for a 
strong Patients' Bill of Rights. Perhaps the American people can do for 
a Patients' Bill of Rights what they have done for airline security 
legislation if they just simply let their Member of Congress or they 
let their Senator know how important this is.
  I stood on this floor a few weeks ago and I talked about one of my 
constituents, a young woman, 41 years of age, whose name was Patsy 
Haines. She had leukemia, and she needed a transplant, a bone marrow 
transplant. She had a brother who was a perfect match. The insurance 
company was saying to her they were not going to pay for it.
  I went to the James Cancer Center in Columbus, Ohio, a wonderful 
institution where they do great research. I talked with cancer 
specialists. They talked with my constituent, these wonderful well-
trained doctors and researchers. They talked with my constituent, they 
talked with her personal physician, and they concurred that she needed 
this transplant, and, if she received it, she quite possibly would be 
cured of her condition and live a long life, and the chances were if 
she did not receive this treatment, that she almost certainly at some 
point in the future would lose her life.
  I went to Secretary Thompson and talked with him about it, and he was 
wonderfully sympathetic. In fact, I wrote the Secretary a letter today 
thanking him for his concern for Patsy Haines.
  But the fact is that the only way she got this surgery, and, by the 
way she got her surgery last week and we are staying in touch on a 
daily basis to see how she is doing, but the way she got her surgery 
was for Uncle Sam to come along and provide it. The Medicare system 
provided this surgery. Her insurance company never relented. So here 
Uncle Sam comes to the rescue.
  But when I think of Patsy Haines and her critical condition tonight, 
and our great hope that she is going to recover and continue to be a 
wife and a mother to her child, I am reminded that there are many 
people in this country who face similar circumstances and who need the 
protection that this House of Representatives can give them.
  So I just hope that the people in this country, as they did with the 
airline security bill, will contact Senators and Congress Members and 
say get this bill passed so that we can know that we are being 
protected in terms of our health care.
  Mr. GANSKE. If the gentleman would yield further, I thank the 
gentleman from Ohio and the gentleman from Washington for their kind 
words.
  The economy is in a real slump right now, and insurance premiums have 
gone up a lot. People are being laid off work. So there is a real 
problem with access to health care. However, as those HMOs start to 
squeeze down, I predict that we are going to see more and more examples 
again of people not getting the type of necessary medical care that 
they deserve and that they pay a lot of premiums for.
  I assure the gentleman that we will continue to push continue to push 
for a strong Patients' Bill of Rights. The conference has not even yet 
been named, partly, I think, because of September 11 and because we 
have had to deal with a number of emergent issues, such as aviation 
security, and also something I am going to speak about in the next 
half-hour or so, bioterrorism. But that does not mean that when we come 
back after Christmas, the beginning of next year, that we should not 
refocus attention on some of these issues that we have debated in the 
past.
  I would encourage the gentlemen to listen to part of my next half-
hour or so, because I am going to be introducing tomorrow, along with 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), the companion bill to the 
Kennedy-Frist bioterrorism bill, which does a number of good things to 
try to address the issue of bioterrorism.

                              {time}  1900

  We are looking for cosponsors, we are going to drop that bill 
tomorrow sometime, and I would encourage my colleagues' participation 
in this, because I know both of my colleagues have been very interested 
in health issues. I think that this is a really good bill; it is a 
bipartisan bill. It is not a bill on the cheap, but it is not a 
profligate bill either. It will address many issues that our 
constituents are asking us about in terms of their threat from such 
things as anthrax and smallpox and potential epidemics. So once again, 
I thank both the gentlemen for their kind remarks.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would love to listen to the gentleman's 
presentation, but I have a meeting with an incredible high school 
teacher named Mary Linquist of the famous Linquist teaching family that 
I have to keep to tackle educational matters, but I will look at the 
gentleman's bill and I thank the gentleman for his work on that.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to thank the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr.

[[Page H8240]]

Strickland) and others who participated in this. We are going to look 
forward to good success over the next 2 days. This is good news for the 
American people.

                          ____________________