[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 92 (Wednesday, July 10, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H4435-H4471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  ARMING PILOTS AGAINST TERRORISM ACT

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 472 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 472

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4635) to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to establish a program for Federal flight deck officers, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against the committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 
     of rule XVIII and except pro forma amendments for the purpose 
     of debate. Each amendment so printed may be offered only by 
     the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee and 
     shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 472 is a fair and 
balanced modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 
4635, Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, with 1 hour of general 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill 
and against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The rules also provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, tomorrow will mark the 10-month anniversary of the 
horrific tragedy of September 11 when four airplanes were used against 
us as weapons, resulting in tremendous loss of life, significant 
property damage, and an immeasurable sense of vulnerability.
  Since that time, this Congress has worked together to produce 
comprehensive legislation to improve, enhance and expand our Nation's 
aviation security system. President Bush signed the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act into law on November 19, 2001.
  Many of the changes from that law are already apparent throughout the 
country, both inside terminals and onboard planes. Yet incidents such 
as the shooting at Los Angeles International Airport on July 4 that 
killed two innocent bystanders reminds us that we must be vigilant in 
our efforts to combat acts of violence and terrorism on all fronts.
  One critical way that we can provide a final layer of defense against 
terrorists gaining control of a commercial aircraft is by allowing 
pilots to carry firearms aboard aircraft in order to defend the cockpit 
from hijackers.
  The legislation before us today will direct the Transportation 
Security Administration to deputize 2 percent of pilots, on a voluntary 
basis, for a 2-year test period. Participants will undergo extensive 
firearms training similar to that of the air marshals.
  The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 
Subcommittee on Aviation produced this bill and worked closely with the 
airline pilots to craft the language. As a result, they have presented 
to this House a bipartisan package, a package that was reported out of 
full committee by voice vote and one that reflects the needs and 
concerns from Members on both sides of the aisle.
  All of the major pilots' organizations support the measure, led by 
the Air Line Pilots Association, the world's oldest and largest pilot 
union representing more than 66,000 cockpit crewmembers at 43 airlines 
in the United States and Canada.
  In fact, the chairman of the Air Line Pilots Association 
International's National Flight Security Committee, Captain Stephen 
Luckey, testified at a hearing held by the Subcommittee on Aviation on 
May 2, 2002.
  As he outlined the continuing threat and dramatic economic 
repercussions of future terrorist attacks, Captain Luckey said the 
following: ``It is obvious, or should be, that protecting the flight 
deck and its occupants against hijackers is now tantamount to 
protecting our national economy. The Air Line Pilots Association 
strongly endorses and supports this bill and we urge Congress and the 
administration to work together to ensure its passage.''
  It is imperative that we take every step possible to protect our 
aircraft, our citizens and our country. Arming pilots may be just one 
component of a larger plan to provide security, but it will play an 
integral role in deterring catastrophic terrorist acts.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge Members to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for 
yielding me the customary time. While I will support the rule, I must 
express slight disappointment with the majority. This is not a totally 
open rule.
  We are just back from our Independence Day work period, but this rule 
requires Members to have preprinted any amendments in the Congressional 
Record at least one day before the bill is considered. Many Members 
have had little notice and opportunity to prepare amendments for this 
significant legislation. But having said that, I will support the rule.
  The bill under consideration today, H.R. 4635, would authorize a 2-
year test program allowing guns in the cockpit for a limited number of 
pilots. Prior to deputizing pilots, the Transportation Security 
Administration is required to establish within 2 months a plan for 
carrying guns, including the types of weapons allowed, types of 
ammunition, gun storage, interaction with air marshals, and limitations 
on removing the gun from the cockpit.
  We are committed to providing as much security as possible for the 
flying

[[Page H4436]]

public. September 11 was a devastating day, and we must do everything 
in our power to try and prevent it from ever happening again. I commend 
the members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
particularly the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for working hard to craft a 
bipartisan compromise in the long-standing tradition of that committee. 
The bill before us is certainly an improvement over what was originally 
introduced.
  I also understand the feelings of many pilots who support this bill. 
As well-trained, dedicated professionals, they are committed to 
protecting their passengers and fellow crewmembers. But, Mr. Speaker, I 
do have some concerns.
  The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, the law which created 
the Transportation Security Administration, gave that agency the 
authority to decide whether or not pilots should be armed. John Magaw, 
the Under Secretary of TSA, announced in a Senate Committee on Commerce 
hearing held on May 21, 2002, that TSA opposes arming pilots.
  Mr. Magaw made clear that he had several concerns about introducing 
firearms in the cockpit, and he testified that his agency was still 
looking at a range of options for pilot protection, including nonlethal 
weapons.
  It is unclear to me why, after granting the decision-making authority 
to the experts at TSA, that this body feels the urgent need to override 
those experts. To be honest, I would have preferred that this House 
fashion an approach that has the support of the Transportation Security 
Administration and has the support of the Bush administration. This is 
an important issue. We are talking about how best to provide security 
to the flying public, the pilots and the flight crew, and how to avoid 
a reoccurrence of September 11. We need to get this right and do what 
works. We need to be thoughtful and thorough.
  Patchwork approaches that do little to reassure the flying public may 
compromise our ability to provide the best possible security for 
passengers and flight crews.
  I know that some members of those flight crews, the flight 
attendants, have expressed strong reservations about the adequacy of 
the training measures for them contained in this bill, and I hope that 
their concerns will be addressed.
  Our aviation system still has a long way to go before all of the 
security measures we mandated last year are fully in place. Cockpit 
doors need to be permanently strengthened. The air marshal program is 
not yet fully staffed, and training is not yet complete. Baggage 
screening procedures are still being worked out. And the feasibility of 
nonlethal weapons such as stun guns is still being studied.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of unanswered questions out there, and I 
am hopeful that this House will work in a thoughtful, bipartisan way to 
answer them. I look forward to a good strong debate, a debate that 
begins to address some of those questions. Again, I support this 
modified open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me time, and 
I rise in strong support of this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with, obviously, a very difficult 
situation when it comes to the American people who travel by air. On 
July 4 at Los Angeles International Airport, the area near where I 
represent, we saw a tragic shooting take place at the El Al terminal. 
We, of course, have for literally decades seen the hijacking of 
aircraft, and the greatest change, of course, took place when the 
definition of hijacking changed on September 11. It changed from simply 
having an aircraft commandeered and taken to another spot, to having 
aircraft used as weapons. It was obviously a horrible time for us.
  Since September 11, we have spent a great deal of time trying to 
figure out exactly what steps we can take, and I believe it is very 
apparent that we have taken positive steps that have dramatically 
improved the security concerns that exist for the traveling public.
  This proposal that we are going to deal with today, and I would like 
to praise the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) who made an excellent presentation before our 
Committee on Rules yesterday, this proposal is one which is not by any 
stretch of the imagination a panacea to the challenges that exist when 
it comes to safety for those traveling. But it is, I believe, one step 
towards increasing the safety level.
  The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) in his testimony before 
the Committee on Rules yesterday talked about the fact that we wanted 
to ultimately get to the point where these pilots do not have to carry 
weapons, but allowing them to have the opportunity to do that at this 
point, when we do not have all of the safety measures put into place on 
aircraft, is clearly a correct step. So at the end of the day there 
will be many other things that are going to be done.
  Increasing the safety of the cockpit itself is something we are 
working on doing, and other steps. But we cannot let the terrorists 
succeed in preventing the free flow of the American people around this 
country or people around the world. So that is why this step is a 
positive one.
  We have offered a modified open rule which simply had the prefiling 
requirement for amendments, and we will now be in a position where we 
can have a free-flowing debate and pass what I think is a very 
important step to deal with a very, very serious situation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  There is, as the gentleman preceding me in the well said, an ongoing 
threat. In fact, there are threats to all facets of transportation, and 
we cannot ignore one in favor of another. Unfortunately, we do not have 
that luxury. But in the case of aviation, I do believe there is an 
ongoing threat. It may not be the commandeering of aircraft and their 
use as weapons of mass destruction again. It may be more the threat of 
explosive devices, either individual or baggage or freight carried.
  But we cannot ignore the fact that our planes were commandeered, that 
innocent people were slaughtered and civilian airliners were used as 
weapons of mass destruction; and we have not yet totally assured that 
that cannot happen again.
  The flight decks are still vulnerable. On the flight I took on 
Monday, I just watched on my watch, they had a particularly 
lackadaisical pilot and flight crew; they left the door to the flight 
deck open for 15 minutes during one cross-country flight, while the 
flight attendant, who has not yet had any training from United 
Airlines, stood menacingly behind the food cart to ward off any 
attempts to overtake the flight deck. That is not real security.
  The issue before the House today will be of arming pilots. Now, 
either we assess that there is a credible threat, or there is not. If 
there is a credible threat, the base bill before us today makes little 
sense. It would say that no more than 2 percent of the pilots might be 
armed, trained and armed; no more than 2 percent. Given pilots' flight 
schedules, that means on a daily basis less than three-fourths of 1 
percent of pilots might be armed.
  Now, if I was a terrorist intent on taking over a plane and causing 
murder and mass destruction, odds of 99-point-something to 1 would seem 
pretty good to me that there was not a weapon on that plane. I do not 
think that is enough. Why? If there is a threat and if it is good 
enough for 2 percent of the pilots, why not all of the pilots?
  So I will be joining with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt) and others to offer an amendment today to not cap the 
program, to allow any pilot who wishes to volunteer, who is qualified, 
who can successfully complete the training and

[[Page H4437]]

qualifications, to be armed properly onboard planes.
  Remember, this is the last point of defense. The standing orders of 
the Armed Forces of the United States are if a plane has been 
commandeered, if it is diverted toward a city, it is to be shot down. 
Now, you say there is risk with guns on the flight deck. That is true. 
But I will tell you, if I was sitting up there strapped in my seat, 
watching people commandeer a plane, at first I would try to stop them, 
but if they did take it over, I would much rather the pilot have the 
option to defend the flight deck than the United States Air Force 
having the option of taking that plane down. So I believe people should 
support that amendment.
  There also should be an amendment today, although I believe now it is 
not going to be offered, but to mandate that the FAA stop dragging its 
feet, the TSA, and train adequately all the flight crews, including the 
flight attendants.
  There is this attitude over at the FAA bureaucracy and the TSA of 
``manana.'' We do not yet have the armored flight deck doors approved. 
Ultimately, we should be moving toward a redesign of the airplane where 
the pilots are up there with a lav, with food service, behind an 
armored flight deck door, like on El Al; and on El Al they do not arm 
the pilots anymore because they are in an invulnerable spot.
  But you are still going to have the flight attendants back there with 
the passengers. The flight attendants need proper training. They need 
coordination training to deal with air marshals, to deal with the 
flight crews up on the flight deck. They also need some self-defense 
training.
  It has been suggested that the airlines should do that sometime in 
the next 15 or 20 years. But, you know, it costs a little bit of money 
to train people, and you divert people from their schedules and you 
have got to pay them their salaries, so the airlines are not really 
very interested in doing that.
  We need to mandate that much more assertively in this legislation. We 
thought we mandated it in legislation we passed last November, but it 
is being ignored by a number of the airlines and by the bureaucrats. We 
need to do better today.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Boozman).
  Mr. BOOZMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  As a member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, I rise in strong support 
of the rule and of the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. The 
modified open rule provides for an equal debate on this fair and 
balanced legislation.
  I would like to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) 
and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) for introducing the 
Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. With the input of the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski), I think we have come up with some very responsible 
legislation that establishes a pilot program for deputizing pilots to 
carry guns in the cockpit.
  We have made great strides since 9-11 to ensure that air travel is 
safe from terrorists. However, we are years from equipping all planes 
with reinforced cockpit doors, and currently we do not have air 
marshals on every flight.
  H.R. 4635 provides a strong layer of security and an important last 
line of defense against terrorist hijackings. It allows qualified 
pilots to volunteer to carry guns and to use deadly force to defend the 
cockpit against terrorist hijackings. Passengers entrust pilots with 
their lives every time they board a plane. In addition, many pilots 
have a law enforcement or military background and have experience with 
firearms.
  Mr. Speaker, the terrorist threat is real and our aviation system is 
still vulnerable to attacks. The bill, as it stands, is the result of a 
bipartisan compromise which the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure worked very hard to produce. I encourage my colleagues 
to support the rule and vote yes on H.R. 4635.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement), an effective member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, who has been very much involved in 
this issue.
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) on being the new member of the Committee 
on Rules. I know Mr. Moakley would be most pleased that you are on 
there, and you definitely deserve it.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand as a senior member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure in strong support of the rule as well 
as the bill. I want to congratulate the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman 
Young), along with the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for their 
leadership and cooperation on this most important bill. The manager's 
amendment to H.R. 4635, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act, is a 
testimony to the ability of both sides of our committee to find common 
ground and work together to address the concerns on all sides of this 
issue.
  I want to briefly voice my strong support for the manager's amendment 
to H.R. 4635. Immediately following the attacks of September 11, which 
none of us will ever forget, I voiced my intention to provide qualified 
pilots the right to carry firearms in the cockpit. I believe that 
pilots must have the voluntary right to arm themselves to ensure the 
safety and security of their passengers and the aviation system. The 
manager's amendment to H.R. 4635 does just that, by allowing carefully 
screened, properly trained and equipped airline pilots to be 
commissioned as Federal law enforcement officers and to carry firearms 
for flight deck defense.
  The American people trust the pilots of our Nation's airlines to 
safely transport them to their destination. I think they also trust 
them to carry firearms for domestic flights to help guarantee their 
safety. This bill sets up a 2-year test program that will deputize 
approximately 2,000 pilots following the completion of training set 
forth by the Transportation Security Administration.
  While I would like to see that any eligible pilot who wants to be 
trained to carry a weapon in the cockpit is allowed to do so, I 
recognize that the compromise before us represents a thoughtful middle 
ground that will both enhance security and ensure a workable program. 
Voluntarily arming our pilots will give us a new last line of defense 
against hijackers and terrorists, and I hope that my colleagues will 
join me in supporting the manager's amendment to H.R. 4635.
  I want to say to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), he has been 
outstanding on this and was vocal from the first day when the Bush 
Administration would not cooperate, would not support any consideration 
of firearms in the cockpit. We have just got to have common sense and 
good judgment prevail, whether it is on this issue or whether it is on 
screening, because we hear a lot of talk these days from passengers 
that fly all across this country and worldwide, and they are still very 
concerned that we are not back to normal, and we need to get back to 
normal as fast as we possibly can. Our economy is impacted by not 
getting back to normal.
  Yes, we are the one and only superpower left on Earth. One of these 
days that probably will change; it will be the United States and China 
that will be the two great superpowers on Earth. Today, we are 
definitely a target, whether we like it or not.
  Yes, we have to take precautions. Yes, we have to make some 
adjustments in our lives. But, yes, we can live normal lives as well. 
That is what we want to do in this legislation and that is so vitally 
important to us, because we do trust our pilots, because we trust them 
with our lives when we get on that airline, when we travel from pillar 
to post, all across the country.

                              {time}  1100

  So let us get behind this legislation, and let us support this 
legislation in order for it to pass, in order for it to be sent to the 
President and signed into law.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

[[Page H4438]]

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  We do have before us the question of passing a rule and then going on 
to debating the question of allowing pilots to defend themselves.
  First, I would like to speak in favor of the rule. I think this is a 
fair rule. We have tried to approach this issue in a fair manner to 
give both those on the subcommittee and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) and the full committee, everyone, fair and equal opportunity to 
look at the situation, to contribute to the legislation, and to try to 
improve safety and security for the flying public.
  Now, why are we here and why are we debating today? We are here 
because we are representatives of the people. We are here because the 
most terrible attack in the history of the United States took place 
against our Nation and our people on September 11. We are here because 
as representatives of the people, we have one responsibility as a 
primary responsibility, and that is to ensure our national security, 
our domestic security, and the personal security of every American 
citizen. We represent the people. We come here and we learn the facts 
dealing with security issues, and we have a responsibility to set the 
laws.
  Now, we have heard that there may be some amendments offered here 
today, and there will be, and they need to be openly and fairly 
debated, and this rule gives that ability. Everyone will have their 
say. It is my hope that the end product will be something that can 
ensure the safety and security of the flying public. It can make each 
of us, whether we get on a plane individually or our family or our 
children or our friends, and know that they are secure.
  Would I like to have different measures in place? Yes, I would. Would 
I like to have every pilot have the ability to defend himself or 
herself in the cockpit, the crew, the passengers, and the aircraft? 
Yes, I would. But this is a compromise, and this body is a body of 
compromise. We come from all over the Nation with different ideas and 
different opinions, and we meld them together here, again, hopefully in 
unity to do the best job possible to protect the American people. So 
that is what we hope to achieve today.
  We have heard that there has been some opposition in the past from 
some in the administration, some bureaucrats. Well, bureaucrats set the 
rules. We set the policy and the laws, and we will today begin 
formulating the law based on what we know. We know that we are 
particularly vulnerable at this time of transition. We have taken an 
all-private aviation sector and airline-run security system into a 
federalized system, and it will be several years before we have all of 
the security measures we would like to see in place. So this is an 
interim measure; it is a back-up measure. But again, we will have the 
opportunity to debate.
  Now, I will say in closing here, I have agreed in a bipartisan 
fashion with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking members of the full 
committee and the subcommittee, to oppose any of the amendments that we 
do not all agree upon, and I think that is a gentleman's commitment 
that I will keep throughout this debate. There are some good 
amendments. There are some amendments I would personally favor, but I 
will oppose them.
  Again, this is a fair rule and an open rule, and I urge the adoption 
of the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I certainly want to thank our own ranking member, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and I very much want to thank the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, because they have worked very well together 
to get a bill that was much improved.
  I regret that I must, nevertheless, oppose the underlying bill. I 
think I am in good company. I would say it is top-down company. It 
begins with the President of the United States and goes to the 
Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Mineta, the Secretary of the 
Transportation Security Agency, Mr. Magaw, and then to the flight 
attendants, and on and on it goes.
  What do these experts know that we do not know? Or should we not be 
asking ourselves this morning, What is it that we do not want to know? 
We are rushing to the security blanket of guns in the cockpit that 
could do more harm than good, and that is the test. As transparent as 
it seems, will guns in the cockpit do more harm than good? Which is 
worse, guns or no guns? Why is it that every European nation, every 
nation in the world has decided to disarm its pilots? For me, the 
ultimate example is El Al, which disarms its pilots, but faces risks I 
hope we shall never look in the face.
  Now, I could support this bill if it followed the El Al example. El 
Al, in fact, armed its pilots until it had put every single safeguard 
in place: locked cockpits, and everything on the ground that they 
needed to have done. And then what did El Al do? It disarmed its 
pilots.
  Now, if this bill had a provision in it that said, our pilots will be 
disarmed when A, B, C, D and E go into effect, I could support this 
bill.
  They disarmed their pilots, and everybody but us does so, because of 
the cost-benefit equation, and that is how policy should be made. Gun 
turmoil in the cockpit while keeping the plane flying, every nation in 
the world has concluded does more harm than good. One could prevail 
with the gun, but shoot the computer and still take the plane down.
  The armed pilot, we are being told, is the last resort. According to 
everybody who knows, every nation who has had experience, every expert 
in our own government, the armed pilot is a very dangerous resort that 
risks passengers and planes.
  We asked for a study of nonlethal weapons. That is not even in yet. 
We are hopping over that study to arm pilots.
  I appreciate the work that has been done. I respectfully disagree.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), the former chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation and now the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources 
and Environment.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I want, first of all, to thank the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my good friend, for yielding me this 
time. I rise today in strong support of the Arming Pilots Against 
Terrorism Act and the rule that brings this bill to the floor.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman 
of the full committee; and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation; and the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member of the full committee; and 
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, for bringing this very reasonable and very 
moderate bill and this pilot program to the floor of this House.
  The Boston Herald editorialized about this and said, ``No one is 
proposing that a pilot be required to carry a gun, only that he or she 
have the option. There is probably no more professionally responsible 
group of people in America than airline pilots.''
  They went on to say, ``If pilots will be reassured, if they will gain 
a little more confidence on the job from having a last-ditch defense 
before an F-16 shoots down the plane and kills everybody anyway, they 
should be allowed to carry arms. A large fraction have military 
backgrounds and will need little training.''
  The Wall Street Journal editorialized about this issue and said, 
``Arming pilots is an important security measure. Federal air marshals 
will never be able to protect more than a small fraction of flights. It 
shouldn't take another disaster before we get serious about keeping 
hijackers out of the cockpit.''
  The Chicago Tribune said, ``The chief value of an armed pilot is to 
deter terrorists from getting on the plane in the first place. Even if 
they could get weapons past security, overcome air marshals, flight 
attendants, and passengers, and penetrate the cockpit

[[Page H4439]]

door, they would then find themselves staring down the barrel of a gun. 
That prospect would create a powerful incentive for terrorists to give 
up on the idea entirely.''
  As we all know, the tragedies of September 11 have dramatically 
changed the way we look at aviation security. Now, more than ever, we 
need to make sure that we are doing everything we possibly can to 
protect the flying public. Mr. Speaker, I believe that includes arming 
pilots.
  We passed the aviation security bill, and we did a lot through that 
legislation. This act will establish a pilot program that will allow 
only about 2 percent of the pilot workforce, about 1,400 pilots, to 
have guns in the cockpit.
  I would just conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that these volunteer 
pilots would be trained by the Transportation Security Administration 
and would go through training similar to that of Federal air marshals.
  I wish this bill could allow more than 2 percent of the pilots to 
participate, but I am glad to see this legislation at least moving 
forward. This is something that a majority of my constituents support 
as well as every pilots association group, and I think this Arming 
Pilots Against Terrorism Act will go a long way in protecting the 
American people by deterring terrorists and preventing future 
tragedies.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that all of my colleagues support this 
very important legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, we have had the privilege of hearing from 
two subcommittee chairmen, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairmen of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) for his efforts and the Committee on Rules to bring 
forth a good rule, because really that is what we are supposed to be 
talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring up a couple of points. Number one, 
when I originally sponsored this legislation, it is what I would like 
to have had adopted. There has been again this consultation, some 
agreements made, and I will oppose the amendments that will be offered, 
knowing full well that many of those amendments have great merit. But 
this is a small step forward, and it really should have been done a 
long time ago.
  I would just like to ask my colleagues to think a moment. Do we 
really think that 9-11 would have happened if our pilots had been armed 
as they should have been armed, as they were armed in 1984? Do we think 
that those terrorists would have had a chance if they knew those pilots 
would have been armed and the pilots were trained, as they are under 
this bill, in knowing how to respond in case of an attack on the 
cockpit? Do we think for a second that the tragedy that occurred on 9-
11 would have been a reality as it is today?
  Now, I have heard people tell me, well, once we get all of the safety 
programs in place at the airports, we will not need to have an armed 
pilot. The captain of that ship is still responsible for the ship and 
his passengers, just as under maritime law, and I am one of those. Our 
duty is to protect the passengers, our cargo, and to maintain control 
of the ship at all times. The only way we can do that is make sure they 
are armed adequately to defend themselves and their passengers and 
their cargo against those who would take it away from them, such as a 
mutiny or a terrorist attack.
  I suggest respectfully to those that oppose this legislation and 
those who say it is not necessary are not looking at the reality. We 
are not El Al. We are, in fact, having 20 million flights a day or a 
year take off from our airports. That is much more, it is much more 
than any other country. We are a nation of air travel. I think it is 
very, very important that we recognize that and pass this legislation 
and make sure that the President, the other body, and all of those 
involved in this understand that this is a final step to make sure that 
when I get on that airplane I will arrive safely at my destination, 
even if there is an attempt to take that airplane, because I know that 
pilot will have the ability to defend that cockpit and make my trip 
safer. That is what we are trying to do here today. It is a right, it 
is a necessity, it is what we should be doing on this floor for our 
flying people. It is important today to make sure we pass this 
legislation.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor for me 
to be able to be here today. I want to commend the chairman of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), for his leadership in having this bill presented to 
us today. I want to give the experience of State level, in that I was 
only elected in December, and I had previously served in the State 
senate of South Carolina. I had been the floor leader for the concealed 
weapons bill in South Carolina, which provided that persons who were 
trained, law-abiding citizens, could carry weapons in public places.

                              {time}  1115

  The effect of that over the last 8 years has been a reduction in 
crime. We have had tens of thousands of people who qualified to be able 
to carry weapons, and the effect has been to reduce crime. This bill 
will have the same effect; that is, it will reduce the hijacking 
potential at all times.
  Of course, a lot of people will be concerned that maybe it will be a 
shootout at the O.K. Corral. That was what was stated about what 
occurred in South Carolina. It did not happen. Even the fiercest 
opponents of the concealed weapons bill now recognize that this was a 
positive move, one that reduced crime.
  I again want to commend the chairman and also the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reynolds) for his leadership, and the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Mica) for his leadership.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on 
Aviation on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Committee on Rules for this very, 
very good rule dealing with this important piece of legislation. I 
sincerely appreciate it, and I am sure so does the chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). Also, the 
Committee on Rules has given us just about what we would like.
  I also would like to put on the record that the Republican leadership 
of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), have 
really gone out of their way to craft a bill that is really bipartisan. 
I appreciate that very much, and I am sure the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) does also.
  This is a bill that is, as is often said, finely crafted, and because 
of that, it is necessary for the leadership of the committee on both 
sides of the aisle to oppose any amendment that will break that finely 
crafted balance.
  But I think it is a very good rule. I appreciate what the leadership 
of the committee on the Republican side has done to accommodate us on 
the Democratic side, and I have to say that even though I am happy to 
see that we have a number of amendments that will be presented, because 
I think they are very well-intentioned amendments, I will have to 
oppose each and every one of them.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to just again say that I expect we will 
have a good debate on this bill today. I am not sure what the fate of 
this measure will be once it passes the House, and I am not sure what 
the other body will do, whether it will take action on this, or even 
what the Bush administration would ultimately do if this were put on 
the President's desk.
  But I would just hope that as we debate this that we will all be 
committed to urging the administration to move as aggressively as 
possible in implementing some of the other measures that have been 
passed and supported by this House and by the other body.
  For instance, cockpit doors need to be permanently strengthened. The 
air marshal program is not yet fully

[[Page H4440]]

staffed, and training is not yet complete. Baggage screening procedures 
are still being worked out. There are other studies about ways to 
protect the cockpit and the flight crew. All these things need to be 
moved on aggressively, and I hope all of us will join together and urge 
the administration to move as expeditiously as possible, and certainly 
with greater speed than has been demonstrated up to this point.
  Having said that, I support the rule, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents the best of what our 
government is about, bipartisan coalitions working together not only to 
produce legislation, but to revisit issues that can be enhanced or 
improved as need be.
  America is slowly regaining its confidence in traveling, in large 
part because of the swift action this Congress took last fall in the 
aftermath of September 11. But our work is not done. It is incumbent 
upon us to continue doing everything in our power to make sure that 
travel by any means, but especially by air, is as safe and secure as 
possible. Safe travel must include defenses on both the ground and in 
the air. Our vigilance today will provide a final layer of defense 
against terrorism in the skies and, more importantly, peace of mind for 
America.
  I urge a yes vote on this rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reynolds). Pursuant to House Resolution 
472 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 4635.

                              {time}  1120


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4635) to amend title 49, United States Code, to establish a 
program for Federal flight deck officers, and for other purposes, with 
Mr. LaHood in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. Young of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is stronger and better 
prepared today than on September 11. We have enacted numerous reforms 
which will make a repeat of last year's terrorist attack highly 
unlikely.
  However, no system is perfect. We must remain vigilant in the face of 
the constantly evolving threat of terrorism. We are fighting an often 
invisible enemy, an enemy that appears to be preparing and training for 
additional terrorist attacks, and an enemy that seeks to obtain the 
most dangerous and deadly weapons to use against America.
  This bill, H.R. 4635, will provide one last line of defense against 
terrorist hijackings. It will allow qualified pilots to volunteer to 
carry guns to use deadly force to defend the cockpit against terrorist 
hijackings. The pilots are already entrusted with the lives of every 
passenger on the airplane. Many of them have a law enforcement or 
military background and have experience with firearms.
  The administration has been unwilling to act on this important 
matter, so I believe Congress must do so. The bill as it stands is the 
result of a bipartisan compromise. I believe it is one of the most 
important security issues we face today. I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill, and send a message with a strong bipartisan vote 
today.
  There will be amendments, and the agreement has been put forth, so I 
will oppose all of the amendments. Although my original bill had many 
of those parts of the amendments to be offered, this is a bipartisan 
effort to try to get a bill to the Senate, the other body, and on to 
the President's desk.
  Mr. Chairman, I heard in the debate on the rule that someone said the 
President probably will not sign this. I say he will sign it, because 
when people look at the logic of what we are trying to do today of 
arming the pilot, the captain of that ship, to defend that ship and his 
passengers against the terrorists, I think he will say that this has 
great wisdom.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation. I want to say 
that I thank first of all the ranking minority member of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for all the 
hard work that he put in, together with the chairman of the full 
committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), for the 
work that they put in to craft a truly bipartisan piece of legislation.
  As I mentioned earlier when I was speaking on the rule, I sincerely 
appreciate the degree of cooperation that we received, both from the 
gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Chairman Mica). I think they went out of their way to bring this bill 
to the floor in a manner that can be supported by the overwhelming 
majority of both the Democrats and the Republicans on the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Mr. Chairman, when this issue of arming pilots came up after the 
horrific September 11 attacks, there was considerable debate on both 
sides of the aisle as to whether or not we should allow pilots to be 
armed. The Aviation Transportation Security Act of 2001, which we 
passed in November of 2001, left a decision on lethal or nonlethal 
weapons in cockpits up to the Transportation Security Administration 
and the airlines by which the respective pilots are employed.
  However, in May of 2002, the TSA decided against arming pilots with 
lethal weapons. About the same time, there was a movement within the 
pilots' union and the committee leadership on the other side of the 
aisle to force the TSA's hand and allow pilots to voluntarily arm 
themselves.
  However, at a congressional hearing on the subject in May, many 
questions arose as to exactly how to arm the pilots. Subsequent 
conversation with the pilots' union brought forth the same questions, 
questions such as: Has there been full testing of bullets being fired 
in the cockpit and in the cabin to determine what damage might be done 
to the fuselage and the cockpit? Have there been simulated tests of 
where to best place and store the guns in or out of the cockpit so as 
to ensure that terrorists do not gain control of these weapons?
  I and others believe that these and many other questions should be 
answered before we authorize pilots to carry guns in the cockpit. 
Subsequently, that is how we came to craft a pilot program that would 
answer these questions, and after a 2-year period of testing and 
evaluation, the decision would be made whether to terminate the program 
or open it up to all qualified pilots. Then all the pilots who 
volunteer can be better trained and prepared for any threat that might 
come their way.
  What we all agree on in this body is that we should make airplanes 
safe and secure, and we do not want to put passengers in more danger, 
or to make weapons accessible to terrorists. This process of testing 
and evaluation before authorizing all pilots to carry guns in the 
cockpit will ensure just that.
  Today, some amendments will be offered with good intentions of making 
the airplanes safe and secure. However, other than the manager's 
amendment, which the committee leadership has crafted to improve the 
measure, I will oppose all amendments that will tilt this carefully 
balanced compromise that we reached in the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.

[[Page H4441]]

  In closing, again, I wish to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young), and the 
gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica), for their work on this measure.
  I would also like to thank all Members from my side of the aisle on 
the Subcommittee on Aviation for their contributions to the discussion, 
debate, and crafting of this measure. Hopefully, as the bill moves 
along with an open and fair process that includes everyone's input, we 
will send to the President's desk the best possible measure that will 
make our skies safer in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, who has done an outstanding job on this piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, allowing pilots to defend themselves and their 
passengers, their aircraft, is absolutely fundamental to the safety and 
security of our aviation system in this Nation. Unfortunately, the 
United States of America faces a new and changing threat unlike 
anything we have ever experienced before. That is the threat of global 
terrorism. This threat will exist, unfortunately, for a long time, and 
we must take absolutely every action to protect America against those 
who would seek to kill innocent citizens.
  Since September 11, we have enacted some sweeping security reforms. 
We have created a new Federal agency with unprecedented authority in 
transportation security measures. We have also been in the process of 
deploying Federal air marshals, federalizing our screener work force, 
mandating that all bags undergo explosive checks, and also requiring 
reinforcement of cockpit doors.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we do know that many of these reforms 
will not be in place for some time to come.

                              {time}  1130

  We know it will be impossible to place air marshals on all of the at-
risk flights. Full cockpit doors security conversions will not be 
complete until sometime, I believe, late in the year 2003. And what is 
most disturbing, and we have seen this behind closed doors and now 
revealed in the media in the last few days, weapons are still getting 
through airport security.
  This is the headline from July 1: ``Airport Security Failures 
Persist.'' A recent test by the TSA revealed that screeners failed to 
detect weapons nearly 25 percent of the time at our busiest airports. 
In fact, we found at our three major airports in the country screeners 
failed to detect potentially dangerous items in at least half of the 
tests. At a fourth location, and that happened to be Los Angeles 
International Airport which has also been in the news, the results were 
not much better. The failure rate there was 41 percent.
  We know it is impossible again to protect ourselves with either a 
private workforce or a fully federalized screener workforce to catch 
all of these weapons and potentially dangerous items. And there is 
strong evidence to suggest that even more terrorist cells have been 
trained to take over commercial aircraft. At our subcommittee hearing, 
we showed these photographs, satellite photographs, of training camps. 
We know that terrorists are being trained to use both lethal and 
nonlethal methods of taking over aircraft, so the threat of another 9-
11-type hijacking is, in fact, real.
  NORAD, the North American Defense, has a standing order to shoot down 
any plane under the control of hijackers and that gives us the 
possibility of killing hundreds of innocent passengers to prevent a 
plane from being used as a weapon. I ask you, is that the only line of 
defense we should have? I strongly believe that under these 
circumstances armed, trained and qualified pilots who volunteer is, in 
fact, a necessary step towards ensuring the safety and security of the 
flying public.
  Nothing, my colleagues, can provide a greater deterrence or 
effectiveness than having a weapon wielded by a highly trained 
individual, especially if we have the potential of armed terrorists 
taking over a plane, as we know they are being trained for.
  Pilots have had the ability to arm themselves in less dangerous 
times. A photo has been provided to me by an individual who has a 
record here, photographic record of actual property of United Airlines, 
a gun that was issued by airlines in the past. So pilots have had the 
ability in much less dangerous times of arming themselves. In fact, 
they were even supplied these weapons, as we can see, by the airlines. 
So we have a situation where pilots are almost unanimous in asking for 
the ability to once again defend themselves, their passengers and their 
aircraft. There is no one that has more experience or no one that sees 
our aviation security shortfalls more on a daily basis than a pilot. 
Each day they see how the weaknesses of the system exist, and they are 
asking that they be allowed to arm themselves. Congress has a 
responsibility today to hear their plea in this important matter.
  I believe this is one of the most vital issues we have as far as 
aviation security in the United States, and I ask for support of all 
colleagues today.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I now turn over the management of the 
time on our side to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the 
ranking member of the full committee.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Minnesota will 
control the balance of the time.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, initially when this legislation was introduced and the 
idea proposed of arming the flight deck crew, I was very much opposed 
to the idea. I just felt this was not a good idea, that the flight deck 
crew under any circumstances ought to be paying its full attention to 
the very complex job of managing and integrating systems in the flight 
deck and managing the flight itself, a full-time job. You should not 
have to be distracted by the details of worrying about a gun and where 
it is going to be and how it is going to be used and under what 
circumstances.
  But, as I discussed the matter further with the chairman of the full 
committee and the chairman of the subcommittee and the ranking member 
on our side, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), and with the 
Airline Pilots Association and with individual pilots, I came to be 
persuaded that the case was being made that under the current 
circumstances of an incomplete aviation security system that the appeal 
for arms in the flight deck had at least some limited viability and an 
underlying rationale.
  And that rationale is that not all of the protective measures that we 
have authorized in the Transportation Security Administration Act of 
last fall have been fully implemented. We do not yet have explosive 
detection systems deployed at all commercial airports. The trace 
technology for a backup system, a supplemental system of detecting 
explosives in checked luggage and carry-on luggage, is in its testing 
phase. It has not yet been authorized for full deployment.
  We did not have positive passenger bag match for all checked luggage. 
We do not have deployment of the Federal security screener workforce at 
all security checkpoints at the Nation's airports. We do not yet have a 
biometrics system for frequent fliers or for detection of terrorists 
known to our intelligence systems. We do not yet have a program of 
training the cabin crew onboard aircraft against terrorist actions.
  And furthermore, the pilots have said that in the ordinary course of 
events, the pilot in command and the first officer flying side by side, 
on the weekends that first officer is likely a member of the National 
Guard or Reserve and will be having flying duty on the weekend and 
could be ordered by the President of the United States under an 
executive order issued lasted year to NORAD to scramble military jets 
and shoot down that very aircraft that during the week the pilot now 
flying for the National Guard was co-pilot on.
  The pilot said to me, I do not want to be in that position. I do not 
want the last resort to be U.S. National Guard

[[Page H4442]]

aircraft shooting down, or active military aircraft, shooting down my 
aircraft when I could be the force of last resort. That is a compelling 
argument.
  In the process we have worked together, and I appreciate the 
forbearance of the Chair in the full committee and the participation of 
the Chair of the subcommittee, and particularly the splendid work that 
the ranking member on our side, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski), has done bringing the Democratic Members of the subcommittee 
and full committee together to discuss on numerous occasions concerns 
with the bill and changes to that legislation which have now been 
incorporated, and I can say this truly is a bipartisan piece of 
legislation.
  And amongst the most significant changes are that there will be 
training for the pilots, significant training, comparable to that for 
flight sky marshals. There will be extensive review by the 
Transportation Security Administration of the type of weapon to be used 
in the flight deck, not just any gun, but what type of gun, and more 
importantly, what type of bullet. Not all bullets are appropriate for 
the flight deck. For example, armor-piercing bullets. We would not want 
those to be used in the flight deck.
  Third, there will be testing done of an errant discharge into the 
control panel. I want to know what will happen, what will happen if the 
gun is accidentally discharged into the onboard computer, into the 
altimeter, into the glass cockpit of a 757, where all the controls are 
in one single panel; what will happen and how will you counteract the 
destabilization that will occur.
  Those questions have to be answered before you go ahead with this 
program. And under this legislation, those issues will be addressed and 
assessed and alternative measures taken.
  We have also, I think, perhaps the most important factor for me is 
that instead of a permanent program from the outset, we have a true 
test. This is a 2-year initiative. At the end of that period of time, 
it will be up to the Secretary of Transportation on the advice of the 
Under Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration whether 
to go ahead and make this a permanent program.
  Now, if in the meantime the Department of Transportation does what it 
is directed to do under the Transportation Security Act of 2001 and 
puts in place all of the other protective measures that I have already 
cited, positive passenger bag match, explosive detection systems, 
training of cabin crew and trace proves to be an effective technology 
and can be deployed and we have the security check points administered 
by Federal security crew and we have the strengthened flight deck doors 
that have been designed, not yet certified, hopefully will be and also 
being put in place, when all of those protective measures, the 
interlocking web of security is deployed, then guns will no longer be 
necessary in the flight deck.
  That has been the example of El Al, which initially armed flight 
crews, but after all the other protective measures were put in place 
and they were satisfied that a complex web of security was in place in 
the flight deck, then guns were removed; and that I think should be our 
example and our objective.
  The legislation we have crafted and which we bring to the floor today 
is, I believe, a balanced responsible measure that takes into 
consideration the concerns of those who are in charge of the flight, 
the flight deck crew.
  I do not think that we should have any amendments to this legislation 
either. We have gone about as far as I think we need to go. I think we 
have taken into account all the many concerns expressed. It is a fair 
and balanced bipartisan compromise, and I appreciate the work that our 
colleagues have done on both sides of the aisle.

                              {time}  1145

  I particularly want to express my great appreciation to the gentleman 
from Illinois for his splendid work and the many hours of time put in 
on this legislation and also, again, to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for their cooperation 
throughout this very long process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), an outstanding member of my committee.
  (Mr. SHUSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4635. The 
safety of airplanes has been in the forefront of our committee's work 
for the past 10 months, and I would like to commend the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), as well 
as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), the ranking members, for their dedication to 
making our skies safe.
  Since the tragedy of September 11, Congress has been dealing with the 
issue of security, and this Congress passed the Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act last year to revamp the entire 
transportation security system.
  Included in that security act was a provision allowing pilots to 
carry guns pending administration approval. Since the passage of the 
bill, the administration has been publicly conflicted on the issue and 
nothing has been done. If my colleagues examine the Aviation Security 
Act they will notice that 99 percent of the enhanced security 
provisions are passive, from new x-ray machines to protective cockpit 
doors. Training flight crews on self-defense and allowing pilots to be 
armed are the only provisions that involve active defense of the plane.
  The American public supports the arming of the cockpits, and 
additionally, over 40,000 pilots have signed a petition to the 
President asking him to allow them to carry guns. In my opinion, people 
realize that if a person cannot get into the cockpit they cannot take 
control of the plane.
  I also hope today that we can improve this bill by passing the Thune 
amendment, which will raise the cap of armed pilots from 2 percent to 
10 percent which will give greater peace of mind to the traveling 
public.
  Today's debate should be about active defense versus strictly passive 
defense of a plane. I think it is time we allow the pilots to be the 
last line of defense of our planes rather than the current alternative, 
to shoot the plane out of the sky.
  H.R. 4635 is a positive step to protect our air transportation 
system. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and others who have 
preceded me have said, we passed an excellent aviation security bill 
last November. Unfortunately, it is yet a work in progress. There are 
many incomplete measures, some of which are moving along with 
acceptable speed, others which are not. I am particularly concerned 
about whether or not we can meet the deadlines for detecting explosives 
and do believe this is a very real threat, including individually 
carried explosives similar to suicide belts; and we need to be adopting 
new measures to deal with that.
  The flight deck doors are of particular concern. The FAA is going 
along at its normal speed, which is 5, 10, 15 years to certify a minor 
change to an aircraft, in terms of approving these long-designed 
armored flight deck doors which are in use by foreign airlines.
  Without those armored flight deck doors, flight decks are still 
vulnerable, including the vulnerability that will not even be 
accommodated then, which is to put them behind a door similar to El Al, 
which includes a lav and food service.
  On my cross-country flight on Monday, I observed the door to be open 
for a total of more than 15 minutes, at one point for 8 minutes 
consecutively while the three people on the flight deck shuffled around 
to the bathroom, got a cup of coffee and shot the breeze with the 
flight attendant, who was standing menacingly behind the food cart to 
keep the terrorists from rushing the flight deck. That is not security. 
That is not decent security at all.
  The issue now comes to, what about this last line of defense? We have 
already heard about the standing orders

[[Page H4443]]

to shoot down civilian aircraft that have been commandeered. That would 
be a horrible, horrible thing, but potentially less horrible than 
another guided attempt of using one of our civilian airliners as a 
weapon of mass destruction and killing thousands more on the ground. It 
should never get to that point. And when we fully implement the 
measures that we passed last November, it is improbable that someone 
will be able to access the airplane with sufficient weaponry to take it 
over. But until that is done, until we have the armored flight deck 
doors, I believe other measures are necessary, including the arming of 
pilots.
  I am disturbed that President Bush is so strongly opposed to the 
arming of pilots. As a former part-time fighter pilot in the National 
Guard, he should certainly understand the gravity of the order that 
would be given to a full-time pilot or another National Guard pilot to 
shoot down a civilian aircraft that has been commandeered, and he 
should be appalled by that; and I cannot understand the President's 
absolute objection to the arming of pilots.
  So I believe it is wise for the House to move forward and mandate 
that this go forward. I will, however, be supporting an amendment to 
make the program available to all qualified pilots who can qualify with 
the weapons and pass the training, including the other provisos about 
the testing of weaponry and the appropriateness of ammunition and 
things like that, because, to me, the issue here is, if the threat 
exists, why would we limit it to 2 percent of the pilots, because if we 
limit it to 2 percent or less of pilots, and since his administration, 
the President does not want to arm these people, we will expect they 
will move very slowly toward that 2 percent target. That would mean 
that on any given day less than 1 percent of the pilots in the air 
potentially would be armed as a last line of defense against a 
takeover.
  A terrorist might think odds of 99 to 1 are pretty darn good. I would 
buy a lottery ticket if my odds of winning were 99 to 1.
  So we are going to offer an amendment later with the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and others to lift the cap and allow the 
administration to rethink its position and hopefully move ahead 
expeditiously with training with a much larger number of pilots, all 
those who volunteer. It would only be voluntary because some pilots do 
object to this procedure.
  So I look forward to a vigorous debate over that amendment, but I 
certainly support the base bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the 
time, and I rise to support H.R. 4635, the Arming Pilots Against 
Terrorism Act. I thank not only the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) 
but also the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), because they have put 
together a fine manager's substitute.
  This legislation will allow us to give the flying public peace of 
mind and the knowledge that the pilots and flight attendants aboard 
their commercial flights are prepared for challenges that the 
terrorists may present.
  I am a strong supporter of arming pilots to defend the cockpit; and I 
appreciate what has been done to help the first resisters, and this is 
the Nation's flight attendants. I am pleased that the manager's 
amendment addressed those needs for those that serve us aboard, before 
and after.
  As many of my colleagues know, I offered an amendment at the full 
committee that sought to strengthen flight attendant training. I later 
withdrew my amendment with the good faith that a reasonable compromise 
would be reached, and that would benefit flight attendants.
  I commend the transportation leadership for that amendment. It 
strengthens many of the flight attendant proposals, and I am 
particularly pleased with the hands-on training, in making it 
mandatory.
  With many important provisions added in the manager's amendment, I 
have decided against offering my amendment on the floor today. I have 
additional language which further strengthens flight attendant 
training, and I will offer these suggestions to the transportation 
committee leadership for consideration during a possible conference 
with the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4635. This important legislation 
will improve the safety of the flying public.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my steadfast 
opposition to H.R. 4635, legislation that would unnecessarily and 
unwisely introduce lethal weapons into an airplane's sterile 
environment.
  As we debate final passage of this bill, I remind my colleagues that 
the Congress considered this issue last November when it passed the 
Aviation and Transportation Security Act. Under that landmark aviation 
security legislation, a pilot of a commercial air carrier may carry an 
approved firearm while flying an aircraft if he or she receives 
approval from the Transportation Security Administrator or his or her 
employer. In other words, Congress deferred this critical decision to 
the experts who have since concluded that arming pilots may actually 
compromise aviation security and aviation safety.
  Our Nation's security leaders, Homeland Security Director Ridge, 
Transportation Secretary Mineta and TSA Administrator John Magaw, have 
all made public statements signaling their opposition to arming pilots. 
Members who vote for final passage of this bill will vote to override 
the decision of those experts principally responsible for guaranteeing 
the security of air travel.
  I join these experts in expressing my fundamental opposition to 
arming pilots, and I also oppose this particular bill because it 
mandates a pilot program before the completion of the most basic 
studies on the introduction of guns into the cockpit. No real studies 
have been performed on the consequences of an accidentally discharged 
bullet on a cockpit's computers. No real studies have taken place to 
determine where a gun should be stored in flight and between flights. 
No real evaluation has been made as to how this added responsibility 
would impact TSA's ability to meet significant but important 
congressionally mandated deadlines to bolster aviation security.
  In proposing this legislation, the Congress is experimenting with the 
lives of the flying public, and furthermore, it is being careless with 
taxpayers' dollars. Under this legislation, armed pilots would be 
deputized by the Federal Government, exempting airlines and pilots from 
legal liability.
  Instead of giving pistols to pilots, let us keep our focus on the 
fundamentals of aviation security, hardening cockpit doors, screening 
all checked baggage, vetting passenger manifests, ensuring a validated 
workforce and deploying Federal security screeners.
  Let me conclude by reaffirming my utmost respect for our Nation's 
airline pilots. Each day, they safely transport thousands of passengers 
to destinations all over the world. The job requires great expertise 
and great diligence, and my vote today is to vote to keep pilots 
focused on what they do best, on flying airplanes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would like to suggest to my good friend from California, the 
experts which he referred to do not know squat. I have 60,000 and over 
of pilots who want this legislation. Again, as a captain myself, I know 
how it feels not to be armed. As history will show us, the protection 
of the wheelhouse and the cockpit are vitally important. The gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) mentioned this.
  The reality is that now there is an order to shoot down the airplane. 
If there is a hijacking with passengers aboard, to me that is a 
ridiculous solution when it can be stopped at the cockpit.
  As was said before, this is nothing new. Until it became politically 
correct, the pilots armed themselves as they have done through history 
to defend that cockpit and defend that plane and defend those 
passengers. And now we have experts. Who are they? A man that belonged 
to the ATF, an individual very frankly that is being told very frankly 
what he should be saying. This is incorrect.
  This is my bill. This is a bill for the American people. This is a 
bill, in fact,

[[Page H4444]]

to defend those people that fly every day. By the captain of the ship, 
they are his responsibility. If there is an infringement upon that 
cockpit by a terrorist, he has a right to eliminate that individual, to 
defend his passengers.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Cunningham).

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate what the 
chairman just spoke about. I have got over 10,000 hours in military and 
civilian airplanes flying Lears, G-4s, every fighter that you can name. 
And I would tell my colleagues first of all it is hard enough to shoot 
down an enemy airplane with your psyche and if a pilot ever has to 
shoot down a civilian airplane, we ought to give that pilot a lot of 
support because not just during the act but after the act it will be 
very difficult for that individual.
  But I tell my colleagues that as a pilot myself with thousands of 
hours, if I was going aboard an airplane either as a passenger or a 
pilot, I would want several things. The massive security that the 
gentleman spoke about before, including INS, to make sure that people 
are not available to do the bad things, but I would want the marshals. 
I would want a policy where airline hostesses are trained so that if an 
act takes place, then they are automatically going to strap themselves 
down because if someone tries to get through that cockpit, a 757 will 
take about two negative G's. I am going to put those guys on the top of 
the roof and try to break their necks and let them pick themselves up 
off the ground. But as a pilot, as in the Pennsylvania airplane, there 
is no pilot in the world that is going to take that airplane and fly it 
into a building. The bad guys are going to slit your throat and take 
over the airplane. And I want the Kevlar door. I want the marshals. But 
as a last line of defense to protect the passengers and myself, I would 
want to be armed.
  Not everybody should be armed, but up until 1987 pilots were armed. A 
large portion of our aviation pilots today are military men and women. 
I know Air Force and Navy aviators, and they need this type of 
legislation. I think it ought to be a much higher percentage. Up to 
1987, over 70 percent of our pilots qualified to be armed. Mail 
aircraft hauling pilots were forced to carry a weapon up to this time, 
but as the chairman says, until political correctness came to this 
Nation, our lives have been changed forever. Political correctness is 
going to get passengers and people killed.
  I highly and strongly recommend this legislation, and I thank the 
chairman for it. But I would also say that we need lethal and nonlethal 
ordnance on those aircraft to support, in my opinion; and we need to 
support the legislation, not only this legislation but future 
legislation to protect passengers and the airlines and restore the 
confidence so that our public will fly the airways.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I stand strongly supporting 
H.R. 4635, and I say this because the events of September 11 have 
caused us to pause and reassess our security in the Nation's air 
travel. It has drastically altered the way we do business, and 
henceforth U.S. policies on safety and security must reflect a 
heightened awareness and preparation. September 11 events should keep 
us vigilant and aggressive in the development and deployment of new 
technologies and procedures.
  Mr. Chairman, it would be a serious mistake not to believe that more 
terrorist attacks like those experienced on September 11 could occur 
again. In fact, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the 
Transportation Security Administration strongly indicate that the 
threat to aviation remains very high. Therefore, I believe that under 
these circumstances we must incorporate innovation in our approach to 
this very serious issue. We must support H.R. 4635, a pilot program 
that would allow trained and qualified pilots to serve as a last line 
of defense against such a potential disaster.
  I know that there are some who feel that this measure does not go far 
enough, and there are some who feel it does nothing; but I believe that 
this measure is another means that we can use in protecting the 
traveling public. While I fully support this measure, I think it is 
critically important for us to remember that we are in the midst of 
hiring and expanding the air marshal program. The development of any 
new pilot program should not interfere with the established and proven 
air marshal program, nor should it interfere with research into 
nonlethal measures like stun guns and Tasers.
  The proposed bipartisan bill has several key provisions to the 
original bill. First, it is important to note that this bill is a 2-
year pilot program with a minimum of 250 pilots monitored by the 
Transportation Security Administration. Pilots will use firearms only 
in defense of aircraft after hijackers breach the cockpit door.
  No man-made door is impenetrable to a determined attacker. The bill 
requires that certain testing and planning take place prior to armed 
pilots boarding aircraft, including testing the ramification of a 
misfire in the cockpit. We should allow for proper training and 
strengthened firearm training requirements prior to their deployment. 
This training will be similar to that we provide Federal air marshals. 
Finally, the TSA administrator has the authority to terminate the 
program after a 2-year test period.
  I, like my colleagues, would agree that keeping an aircraft aloft 
during an attempted hijacking is of prime importance to the survival of 
the crew and passengers, and today we should pass this very important 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4635, the 
Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. It is vital that we give the 
pilots and passengers of American commercial aircraft a fighting chance 
against would-be attackers. An armed pilot is the final line of defense 
against terrorist hijackers. Under H.R. 4635, the use of force may be 
employed only in the defense of the cockpit.
  At this point, Mr. Chairman, terrorists would have already seized the 
aircraft. In the last few moments before hijackers use this plane as a 
weapon, we have a difficult choice to make. Currently our Air Force has 
standing orders to shoot down any plane captured by terrorists.
  Mr. Chairman, we are at our last resort. Why would we not allow our 
pilots the opportunity to protect themselves, their passengers, and 
thousands of American lives? Let us face it, the days of the hijacking 
thugs or terrorist thugs on our airplanes demanding money or the 
release of their cohorts is over. The airplane is now the coward's 
weapon of choice.
  Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we must secure our airplanes from these 
cowards and protect our people from harm. The greatest way to fight off 
terrorists is to arm those who know the aircraft the best, and that is 
our pilots.
  H.R. 4635 will augment the military background that many pilots 
already hold by providing rigorous training for all armed pilots. This 
training is much like the training that Federal air marshals receive 
with an emphasis on marksmanship, defensive maneuvers, and weapon 
retention.
  Currently, Federal air marshals patrol our skies armed, and have done 
so since 1985. In addition, foreign airlines who arm their pilots are 
allowed to travel to our airspace and land on American soil. To suggest 
that American pilots are somehow incapable or less qualified than those 
who already carry arms aboard aircraft is ridiculous.
  Mr. Chairman, our people want this legislation, our pilots want this 
legislation, and America deserves this last line of defense. I urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 4635.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I want to address the issue the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Horn) raised in the well about the rest of the flight crew, the 
flight attendants, on board the plane.
  It was absolutely positively the intention of the Members of this 
House and those who drafted the aviation security bill last fall that 
they would get

[[Page H4445]]

adequate training, both in the issues of self-defense and crew 
coordination, and all the things that are necessary for those people 
who are so exposed on the other side of those doors that are slightly 
reinforced at this point in time.
  Unfortunately, many of the airlines, because of the expense and the 
inconvenience in scheduling involved, have chosen to either stiff or 
short that training requirement: a 15-minute video on self-defense. And 
having studied a number of martial arts, I can tell my colleagues that 
that is not going to do much for a lot of people.
  As I spoke here earlier, we are using flight attendants directly. In 
the case of United's policy, they wheel out the food cart and they 
stand behind it, and they are supposed to defend the flight deck while 
that door is open against terrorists, after having watched the 15-
minute video.
  There has been no serious consideration by the administration of 
whether or not nonlethal devices or other things should be made 
available to the flight attendants. So the improvements in this bill 
should send a strong message to the TSA, to the FAA, and to the 
airlines that we do not want more delay; that the flight attendants are 
at risk, they are a critical part of solving this problem, and they 
need the training and the tools. It is a minuscule cost to the airline; 
certainly a lot less cost than the tragedy of another lost plane.
  So I congratulate the leaders of the committee on the inclusion of 
some stronger language and hope we can even push that further and make 
certain that this gets done.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), not a member of the committee, 
but of the important Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Overall, this is a good bill. By establishing a demonstration program 
of limited duration and strict standards, we will be able to assess the 
benefits and risks of arming commercial airline pilots. The bill does 
not require pilots to carry guns but gives them the option up to a 
certain percentage and subject to training. They will be literally the 
last line of defense for our commercial aviation system. The terrorist 
attacks of September 11 demonstrated that this is something that should 
at least be evaluated in a systematic and limited manner.
  However, I want to draw to the Members' attention one element of the 
bill that I hope will be addressed in conference with the other body. 
Section 2 of the bill requires that all costs for the training, 
supervision, and equipment, meaning guns, under this program shall be 
borne by the Federal Government. These costs have been estimated by the 
Congressional Budget Office at $47 million over the next 5 years.
  These funds are not currently in the Transportation Security 
Administration's budget and could well cause the agency to cancel or 
defer other critical security activities to finance what is essentially 
an earmark on future budgets. In addition, training facilities at the 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which are mandated to be the 
trainer of these pilots, are stretched thin already; and it is not 
clear whether the program could go forward immediately because of that.
  There is a way out of this predicament. In my view, the Federal 
Government could just as easily specify the standards for this training 
and equipment, as we do for pilot training, and allow the airlines, who 
choose to participate in the program, to bear those costs. This is a 
voluntary program. Airlines who want to participate should bear these 
costs, rather than expanding the Federal Government even further than 
we already have.
  I am concerned, as I know many Members are, over mission creep at the 
TSA. Many of us want to constrain the size and the scope of that agency 
and limit mission creep. Deputizing pilots and also paying for their 
training and firearms, I think, is a step in the direction of mission 
creep for TSA.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the chairman of the full 
committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young); the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica); the ranking member 
of the full committee, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar); and 
others for a good job in the drafting of this legislation, with a 
couple of minor corrections that I hope can be made as we go along.
  I hope as we proceed through the process that the managers of the 
bill will work to limit the direct Federal responsibility for the 
program and focus more on oversight of what I consider to be industry 
responsibilities.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the time 
remaining on both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Tauscher).

                              {time}  1215

  Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Subcommittee on 
Aviation, I take my job very seriously. Making air travel secure is one 
of the most important and daunting challenges our country and this 
Congress faces.
  It is unclear if the new Transportation Security Administration that 
Congress created last year will meet its deadlines for hiring and 
training federal screeners and deploying bomb detection equipment to 
airports this year. This prospect alarms me, and it should alarm other 
Members.
  The TSA and the Bush administration have told us that there are more 
pressing security issues to address than arming pilots, and I hope that 
passage of this bill does not add to the TSA's full plate and delay 
implementation of these other vital security measures.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the willingness of the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to 
work with me to address some of the concerns that I raised during the 
markup of this legislation in committee. I would also like to thank the 
committee staff for their efforts to incorporate some of my common-
sense changes to the manager's amendment.
  However, I do not believe this is the best bill our committee could 
have brought to the floor. I regret that this was the best bill we 
could get to the floor in an election year after the bill unnecessarily 
became more about guns than about safe air travel.
  The FAA has taken too long to certify and install the reinforced 
cockpit doors than originally thought and pilots should have the means 
to defend the cockpit in the interim.
  I support equipping all cockpits with nonlethal weapons to defend the 
cockpit. United Airlines, ATA and others have taken a leadership role 
in purchasing these devices and training all of their pilots to use 
nonlethal weapons, and now are only waiting for TSA certification. I 
commend them for their efforts.
  I am pleased that the manager's amendment included some of my 
language setting a deadline for the TSA to certify these weapons, but I 
hope the TSA will act sooner to certify these nonlethal weapons so that 
companies can begin installing them immediately.
  Another big security concern raised by this bill is pilots 
transporting firearms to, from, and through the airports. I am pleased 
the manager's amendment includes part of my amendment to have the TSA 
look at securing their weapons at airports during overnight stays.
  I remain concerned about pilots being targeted outside of airports, 
and recent reports of uniform and ID thefts at hotels, and hope the TSA 
addresses this issue during its rulemaking process.
  I think we can do a better job. I am hoping that we will see some of 
these amendments, and hope that I will be able to support this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4635, and my thanks go out to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica) for the fine work they have done in doing the work 
that we need to do in this Congress, and that is remain focused on 
benefits, not on policy.

[[Page H4446]]

  As a father, a husband, a grandson, a brother, I can say that this 
Congress has remained fixed on doing everything they possibly can to 
make air traffic safety paramount for this country. I know after I 
leave this Congress some day, I will be able to look back and thank 
these gentlemen and this Congress for doing everything that they can to 
make my family safer when they fly.
  Putting qualified, armed pilots onto planes is not a new idea. It was 
done successfully as recently as 1984. Today we have an opportunity to 
increase passenger safety, and the American people demand it. Through 
passage of this legislation, Congress will put future terrorists around 
the globe on notice that American air passengers are off limits. 
America's pilots will no longer be unarmed targets for terrorist 
aggression. Those wishing to interfere with the safe operation of U.S. 
passenger airlines are on notice that they will not succeed, and their 
evil efforts will be met with lethal force.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and for bringing this important issue to the floor.
  We have an opportunity today to do something that is critically 
important to the aviation security system in this country. As a member 
of the Subcommittee on Aviation and a cosponsor of the original version 
of H.R. 4635, I strongly support the creation of a voluntary Federal 
program to arm and train pilots to defend their cockpit against 
terrorist attacks. I believe the bill that we are considering today 
creates a good framework for the Transportation Security Administration 
to implement an effective flight deck officer program.
  Later on we will have an opportunity to offer amendments, and I am 
happy to be part of an effort to amend this bill further to strengthen 
it and make it even stronger. Our amendment will attempt to lift the 
ceiling on the number of pilots that are eligible to volunteer for this 
important program. Secondly, it will require the Transportation 
Security Administration to begin training qualified, volunteer pilots 
more quickly. Finally, it will eliminate the sunset for the program. 
Clearly this is an important issue. It is an important program, and it 
should not diminish after 2 years.
  By arming pilots, Congress can create a last line of defense against 
terrorist attacks. It is critical that we take every possible action to 
protect the passengers that fly the aviation system, and this 
legislation is an important component in that process. Since September 
11, we have learned that we need to prepare for previously unthinkable 
acts of terrorism, and this common-sense legislation and the amendment 
we will offer later will give airlines and pilots an additional tool 
and create a last line of defense against future attacks.
  This is a voluntary program. It is one that the pilots have asked 
for, and one I believe that the people in this country are very 
supportive of, and it is one that will send a strong message to 
terrorists around the world that they cannot mess with our system.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I support this legislation as a 
groundbreaking test of 2 percent of pilots to be provided with arms.
  When we fly in the Navy, we always fly armed. Most of the cadre of 
civilian pilots come out of the military, and would fly with a 9 
millimeter in their SPU. This gives them a sense of confidence, and we 
will establish a track record.
  I want to also talk about tasers in the cockpit. United Airlines has 
come forward with a proposal to have this nonlethal technology that 
would not involve having any bullets moving around in the aircraft, and 
I think this is a reasonable compromise position that the Secretary of 
Transportation should also look to and support.
  I support this legislation, but also hope that we can go forward on 
the taser proposal for a nonlethal alternative, and I will engage in a 
colloquy with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation later on 
that topic.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct some misimpressions that were 
left by previous speakers, talking somewhat enthusiastically about guns 
in the flight deck prior to this legislation. The actual history is 
that under general authority of the FAA to protect security aboard 
aircraft, it was permitted for pilots to carry guns. There is no record 
of the actual number of pilots who were armed prior to 1981.
  In 1981, there was a specific regulation issued by FAA under its 
security authority to allow arming of pilots provided the airline 
company permitted the arming, and the pilot voluntarily chose to do so. 
Again, the FAA can produce no records of the number of pilots who were 
so armed.
  It is ironic, however, that it was last year, last summer, in fact, 
the summer of 2001, that the authority for armed pilots in the flight 
deck was repealed by FAA. This is new authority, new legislation. I 
just want the record to be clear on this point that we are charting a 
very new course, and doing so, I believe, in a very responsible, 
thoughtful and careful manner.
  This is a much bigger undertaking, much greater initiative than ever 
conceived of in the past. As previous speakers have said, there clearly 
is a case to be made, I believe, now for arming flight crews. It ought 
to be done in this careful, thoughtful manner to a point where the 2-
year demonstration is undertaken, the questions are resolved, and then 
a further determination made on whether to proceed with a permanent 
program which, again, we can revisit in this body and enact should it 
be necessary to do so.
  Meanwhile, I think we have crafted here a very fine piece of 
legislation that stands on its merits and ought to be adopted by this 
body.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar) and his working with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation.
  I would like to remind Members of some things. Number one, I like the 
idea of possibly studying a taser weapon or futuristic weapon like what 
we see in movies, but I personally want that pilot to have a lethal 
weapon on board.
  If I had a terrorist trying to take my ship, I want to have a lethal 
weapon in my hand. I want to make sure that person does not even have a 
chance. With a taser, he has a chance. I have some experience with 
those types of weapons, and if a person was a true terrorist, he would 
wear protective armament and would need to be struck in the head. Until 
that time, he would be able to circumvent a taser. A taser does not 
immobilize a person immediately. A lethal weapon would. Properly 
trained, that terrorist will be eliminated and my ship will be 
protected and my passengers will arrive safely.
  This is a small step forward. We are not sure, and neither are the 
terrorists sure, which pilots will be armed. I believe that is a 
deterrent in itself. I believe there will be some hesitancy on that 
airplane. I will go back in history, and the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Oberstar) mentioned the FAA repealed this action last summer so 
they could not carry a weapon.
  I would say if anyone should be criticized, it is the inactivity of 
the FAA. The inability to make a decision even today with the TSA, we 
have the FAA saying we have certified new equipment for screening of 
people or baggage so we are not going to use it. If there is any fault, 
it is with the two agencies: One old, outdated, antiquated, an agency 
that does not take steps forward in a positive fashion, the FAA; and a 
new agency which still follows that lead.
  I think the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) said it very 
correctly, we have to have more oversight and some demands for action 
instead of delay so we can implement what we thought we were doing in 
the Airline Security Act, that we thought we would have a slim and trim 
agency that would get the job done and the

[[Page H4447]]

passengers would be screened and put on the plane on time. That is not 
occurring because of the inactivity of both agencies.
  I say to those who say no to this, I am not going to rely on the 
airlines. I am not going to rely on the TSA or those agencies saying, 
let us look at it. I am going to say this is going to be done with a 
small percentage of our pilots. And hopefully after 2 years, with a 
larger percentage of our pilots, because it is the last line of 
defense. I remind Members as one who has carried weapons most of his 
life, I will tell Members that 9-11 would not have happened if that 
pilot had a weapon at the time of that hijacking. That would not have 
happened. I say let us pass this legislation, let us go forward and 
protect passengers. I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4635, the 
Arming Pilots Against Terrorists Act of 2002 which will allow for a 2-
year test period for selected and qualified airline pilots to carry 
firearms on board the aircraft they command. In confronting the threat 
of terrorism, we must ensure that our Nation is fully prepared. With 
many terrorist cells training followers to hijack and fly commercial 
airliners, providing our pilots with the authority to carry a firearm 
in order to protect our passengers and airliners is sound policy.
  The 2-year trial period will begin when the first 250 pilots have 
been deputized to carry guns in the cockpit. The number of deputized 
pilots will be capped at 2 percent of their total workforce, or about 
1,400 pilots. Preference will be given to pilots who have formerly 
served in the military or law enforcement, but participation will be 
voluntary.
  Pilots have voiced nearly unanimous support for using firearms to 
protect their passengers, their planes and themselves. Moreover, 
reinforced cockpit doors won't be completed until next year and air 
marshals will not be riding on all flights. Pilots deserve the right to 
protect our skies from terror as the last line of defense. Accordingly, 
I urge my colleagues to support this practical and worthy measure.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on September 11th, terrorist 
hijackers killed eight unarmed pilots, hundreds of passengers, and 
thousands of innocent people. There is evidence that more terrorist 
cells have been trained to take over commercial aircraft. Our own armed 
services may be forced to shoot down a plane full of innocent 
passengers to thwart a terrorist takeover. The Federal Government has a 
constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense.
   Mr. Chairman, we are failing! Our aviation system is still 
vulnerable, and we remain susceptible to unknown threats from an often-
invisible enemy.
  Arming trained and qualified pilots to defend their aircraft cockpits 
is a necessary step to ensure the safety of the flying public. Many 
pilots have a law enforcement or military background and have 
experience with firearms. Pilots are entrusted with the lives of the 
flying public, and arming them will serve as a significant deterrent. 
What hijacker will break into a cockpit not knowing whether he will 
face an armed pilot?
   Mr. Chairman, some of my hoplophobic colleagues will urge us to give 
the current efforts at heightened security a chance. They will cite 
more metal detectors, sealed cockpit doors and the presence of air 
marshals. I ask them to explain that rationale to loved ones of the 9/
11 victims.
   Mr. Chairman, we would never ask a combat pilot to fly into battle 
without his side arm as a back up. On September 11th, the battlefield 
entered the cockpit of commercial aircraft. How can we deny the pilots 
of commercial aircraft the right to defend themselves and the 
passengers on their aircraft?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this very 
important legislation and urge my colleagues to support its passage. 
First, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Young, and the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, Mr. Mica, for their leadership in producing 
this legislation and getting it to the floor today. I was glad to sign 
on as a cosponsor of this legislation immediately, because it simply 
makes sense.
  The events of September 11th were indeed a defining moment in our 
history. For the first time in 60 years, the enemies of freedom 
attacked our country on our very own soil. Unlike the attack on Pearl 
Harbor, these enemies used our own airplanes as a weapon to murder 
thousands of innocent civilians. Such actions cannot be allowed to 
happen again.
  These terrorists were able to use box cutters and knives to take 
control of our planes, because they knew no one on the plane would be 
able to defend against even these rudimentary weapons. Since the events 
of September 11th, the Congress has acted swiftly to provide for air 
marshals, stronger doors, and better screening procedures, to reduce 
the terrorist threat to our commercial airlines and our citizens. All 
of these things make sense, but unfortunately, even these measures are 
not going to completely eliminate the possibility of terrorists seizing 
a plane.
  So what is the safety net? In the event of terrorist takeover of the 
plane, it is possible U.S. military planes will track the plane and be 
forced to bring it down with a missile. This is really not an option 
which should be forced by our military onto the brave men and women 
serving our country and causing great harm, or an innocent American 
civilian.
  There is a better option. Train pilots and allow them to carry arms, 
so they may serve as the last line of defense. It is a more effective 
option--a decision made by a trained pilot who is there to make the 
appropriate judgement and determine when lethal force is necessary. My 
only concern with the legislation is that it is too limited in scope. 
The bill, as it is presently written, allows only 2 percent of pilots 
to be trained and certified. Simply put: This cap is far too low. Why 
should passengers on the 98 percent of other flights receive less 
protection?
  More than half of the commercial pilots today are military veterans 
who have been well trained in the use of weapons. These pilots are 
easily trainable to provide the extra security necessary on our planes. 
I will support the amendment offered by my colleagues from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), South Dakota (Mr. Thune), and 
Texas (Mr. Barton). Which removes the restrictive cap and ensures a 
much greater number of pilots can qualify for training and 
certification. This amendment makes a good piece of legislation even 
better.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, support the 
amendment removing the 2-percent cap, and provide an even stronger line 
of defense against future attacks.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4635, the 
Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act and the manager's amendment to this 
bill. This legislation is the bipartisan product of the Transportation 
and Infrastructure Committee and I thank my colleagues, especially 
Chairman Young, Ranking Member Oberstar, Subcommittee Chairman Mica and 
Ranking Member Lipinski for their hard work on this issue.
  Following the attacks of September 11th, there was an immediate and 
obvious need to increase aviation security. Congress passed the 
Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which took significant steps 
to improve our Nation's aviation security. One of these steps was to 
authorize the Transportation Security Administration to determine 
whether airline pilots should be armed in the cockpit. This legislation 
moves forward with plans to allow commercial, passenger pilots to be 
armed while flying. The bill establishes a 2-year pilot program which 
will arm up to 2 percent of our Nation's pilots after they have 
completed a training program providing firearms proficiency equal to 
that of what a federal air marshal achieves. It also increases and 
mandates self-defense and defense training for the flight attendants, 
who most likely would be the first individuals to recognize a threat in 
the cabin.
  We all hope that we will never have a repeat of the events of 
September 11th. However, we must give our pilots an opportunity to 
defend themselves, the passengers and the plane, if another situation 
like this were to occur.
   Mr. Chairman, I support this compromise legislation. It is good 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Chairman, when 19 men hijacked four 
airplanes on September 11th, 2001, the terrorists had a tactical 
advantage--and ultimately, the final word. The last line of defense by 
the pilots on those planes was handicapped. The bad guys had weapons. 
The good guys did not.
  What the House is proposing today is to allow a limited number of 
pilots who wish to have firearms in their cockpits have them. It is a 
pilot program for pilots. Critics of this legislation are quick to make 
excuses why pilots should not have firearms in the cockpit. Their 
favorite reason seems to be a myth concerning the decompression of the 
airplane from a stray bullet. What they are saying is quite 
preposterous. A plane is heading for a building--but a pilot shouldn't 
be allowed to stop the hijacker for fear of breaking a window. The 
bottom line is: if an aircraft is headed for destruction as a result of 
a hijacking, there is absolutely nothing to lose by giving the pilot a 
last-ditch effort tool to restore order to his plane.
  Until 1987, pilots could have firearms in their cockpit. Can anyone 
in this chamber stand up and tell me it was the Wild, Wild West up 
there in the skies? Can anyone in this chamber give me one instance 
where a pilot misused a gun on a plane? This is a commonsense proposal 
supported by pilots, their unions, Democrats, Republicans and a clear 
majority of the American public.
  We can pretend an ideal world will somehow prevent acts of terror. 
But cockpit doors

[[Page H4448]]

will open. Pilots are not immune from bathroom breaks. Air marshals 
will not be on every flight. A limited number of sky marshals for 
thirty-five thousand daily flights just does not cut it.
  There will always be evil men seeking to accomplish evil deeds. For 
once, let's give the good ones a fighting chance. I urge my colleagues 
to vote for the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act and allow pilots to 
keep control of their planes.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
4635, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act.
  In responding to the horrific tragedy of September 11th, we've spent 
billions to put sensible measures in place to ensure the safety of our 
airlines and the airports they serve. We've implemented strict new 
standards for screening passengers and their baggage. We've beefed up 
security personnel, dispatched sky marshals to guard domestic flights, 
and reinforced cockpit doors to protect our pilots from dangerous 
intruders. These important security precautions are working and our 
skies are safer than they've ever been.
  Yet, we're confronted today with legislation that would have us take 
the unnecessary step of arming pilots. After all we've done to make it 
nearly impossible for anyone to carry dangerous weapons on any plane, 
why would we put guns in every cockpit?
  The gun lobby is peddling the illusion that having guns in the 
cockpit will boost the safety of our skies. But, in fact, arming pilots 
would only add a dangerously unpredictable element to air travel that 
endangers pilots, flight attendants, and passengers alike. Giving guns 
to pilots doesn't make us any safer. It only increases the chances for 
disaster.
  This is why the President, with the support of a broad consensus of 
safety experts, law enforcement and all the major airlines, acted to 
prohibit guns being carried by pilots. We ought to vote today to 
reinforce this sound judgment and reaffirm the common sense notion that 
pilots are trained to fly not shoot.
  Let's not turn the Red Carpet Room into the OK Corral or our planes 
into shooting galleries. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no on 
this bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it is now widely acknowledged that our 
Government and our intelligence agencies were not properly prepared for 
dealing with the events that led up to September 11th and its 
aftermath. We are spending enormous sums of money to convince the 
public that we are taking action to make our country safer, in some 
instances we may actually be making things worse.
  The project proposed by the bill from the Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee was a cautious attempt to test a new approach 
to airline safety. As amended, however, it could potentially arm all 
airline pilots, removes the testing and automatic review of the new 
program and raises serious concerns about its operation. Furthermore, 
this bill has little support from the industry, law enforcement 
officials or the Bush administration.
  There are simple and effective safety solutions that deserve our 
support. Over a decade ago, industry and security experts strongly 
recommended that cockpit doors be reinforced to prevent plane 
hijackings but to little avail. Although it was included as part of 
last fall's airline security bill, it will be another year before all 
cockpit doors are sufficiently reinforced.
  We still have not completely dealt with the basic issues of airline 
security, such as baggage screening. The fundamental notion that we arm 
people, be they classroom teachers, pilots, or Members of Congress is 
no substitute for appropriate security. I am deeply concerned that we 
are concentrating on programs that give the illusion of security rather 
than focusing on doing our job to protect our country. I do not feel 
comfortable adding complex, controversial new programs over the 
objections of the administration and the airline industry. This bill, 
if enacted, will divert attention from existing programs and, given its 
current amended form, is unlikely to become law. In its present form, 
that is probably the best outcome.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I had every intention to vote for this 
bill when I entered this Chamber. But now the bill has been 
substantially transformed from a demonstration program to allow pilots 
to carry guns aboard aircraft into a permanent program of arming every 
commercial pilot. The transformation of this bill is so substantial 
that I intend to vote against H.R. 4635.
  As a Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation, I am very concerned about improving airline security, 
and I basically support allowing pilots to carry guns as a last line of 
defense against potential hijackers. Our subcommittee has held a number 
of hearings to determine the status of the Transportation Security 
Administration's (TSA's) progress in meeting the deadlines established 
under the Aviation Security Act. We have all followed the slow progress 
this new agency is making in meeting the timelines to improve the 
security of the nation's 429 airports and commercial airline carriers. 
It is unlikely that we will be able to equip all airports with the 
explosive detection equipment and magnetometers that are required to 
screen baggage and passengers. The TSA has not been able to 
satisfactorily determine security standards for cargo flights and the 
security standards of international flights has not been addressed at 
all. The TSA has fallen behind its own internal deadlines and its 
coordination with airports and airlines has been lacking. This is the 
wrong time to impose a new mandate on an agency that is struggling to 
meet it original mission.
  I cannot in good conscience vote for legislation that imposes a new 
requirement on an agency that has yet to demonstrate its success in 
meeting the current legislative requirements. The airline industry must 
demonstrate to the traveling public that the security measures required 
of it are in place to protect passenger safety, not put it at risk. It 
is important that pilots demonstrate to passengers that they can safely 
pilot a commercial plane and still defend against hijackers. We must 
know more about how misfires from discharged weapons can affect the 
airworthiness of our crafts.
  The amendment that transformed this bill assumes that the need for an 
additional level of security in the pilot's cabin outweighs the 
potential safety problems caused by the accidental misuse of firearms 
on board an aircraft. I respectfully disagree with that thinking, and 
for that reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against the 
bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 4635

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Arming Pilots Against 
     Terrorism Act''.

     SEC. 2. FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICER PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 449 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 44921. Federal flight deck officer program

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Under Secretary of Transportation 
     for Security shall establish a pilot program to deputize 
     volunteer pilots of air carriers providing air transportation 
     or intrastate air transportation as Federal law enforcement 
     officers to defend the flight decks of aircraft of such air 
     carriers against acts of criminal violence or air piracy. 
     Such officers shall be known as `Federal flight deck 
     officers'.
       ``(b) Procedural Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 2 months after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary shall 
     establish procedural requirements to carry out the program 
     under this section.
       ``(2) Commencement of program.--Beginning 2 months after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary 
     shall begin the process of selecting, training, and 
     deputizing pilots as Federal flight deck officers under the 
     program; except that, if the procedures required under 
     paragraph (1) are not established before the last day of such 
     2-month period, the Under Secretary shall not begin the 
     process of selecting, training, and deputizing pilots until 
     the date on which the procedures are established or the last 
     day of the 4-month period beginning on such date of 
     enactment, whichever occurs first.
       ``(3) Issues to be addressed.--The procedural requirements 
     established under paragraph (1) shall address the following 
     issues:
       ``(A) The type of firearm to be used by a Federal flight 
     deck officer.
       ``(B) The type of ammunition to be used by a Federal flight 
     deck officer.
       ``(C) The standards and training needed to qualify and 
     requalify as a Federal flight deck officer.
       ``(D) The placement of the firearm of a Federal flight deck 
     officer on board the aircraft to ensure both its security and 
     its ease of retrieval in an emergency.
       ``(E) Analyze the risk of catastrophic failure of an 
     aircraft as a result of the discharge of a firearm to be used 
     in the program into the avionics, electrical systems, or 
     other sensitive areas of the aircraft.
       ``(F) The division of responsibility between pilots in the 
     event of an act of criminal violence or air piracy if only 
     one pilot is a Federal flight deck officer and if both pilots 
     are Federal flight deck officers.
       ``(G) Procedures for ensuring that the firearm of a Federal 
     flight deck officer does not leave the cockpit if there is a 
     disturbance in the passenger cabin of the aircraft or if the 
     pilot leaves the cockpit for personal reasons.
       ``(H) Interaction between a Federal flight deck officer and 
     a Federal air marshal on board the aircraft.
       ``(I) The process for selection of pilots to participate in 
     the program based on their fitness to participate in the 
     program.
       ``(J) Storage and transportation of firearms between 
     flights, including international flights, to ensure the 
     security of the firearms.

[[Page H4449]]

       ``(K) Methods for ensuring that security personnel will be 
     able to identify whether a pilot is authorized to carry a 
     firearm under the program.
       ``(L) Methods for ensuring that pilots (including Federal 
     flight deck officers) will be able to identify whether a 
     passenger is a law enforcement officer who is authorized to 
     carry a firearm aboard the aircraft.
       ``(M) Any other issues that the Under Secretary considers 
     necessary.
       ``(4) Preference.--In selecting pilots to participate in 
     the program, the Under Secretary shall give preference to 
     pilots who are former military or law enforcement personnel.
       ``(5) Classified information.--Notwithstanding section 552 
     of title 5 but subject to section 40119 of this title, 
     information developed under paragraph (3)(E) shall not be 
     disclosed.
       ``(6) Notice to congress.--The Under Secretary shall 
     provide notice to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate after completing the analysis required by paragraph 
     (3)(E).
       ``(c) Training, Supervision, and Equipment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Under Secretary shall provide the 
     training, supervision, and equipment necessary for a pilot to 
     be a Federal flight deck officer under this section at no 
     expense to the pilot or the air carrier employing the pilot.
       ``(2) Training.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Under Secretary shall base the 
     requirements for the training of Federal flight deck officers 
     under subsection (b) on the training standards applicable to 
     Federal air marshals; except that the Under Secretary shall 
     take into account the differing roles and responsibilities of 
     Federal flight deck officers and Federal air marshals.
       ``(B) Elements.--The training of a Federal flight deck 
     officer shall include, at a minimum, the following elements:
       ``(i) Training to ensure that the officer achieves the 
     level of proficiency with a firearm required under 
     subparagraph (C)(i).
       ``(ii) Training to ensure that the officer maintains 
     exclusive control over the officer's firearm at all times, 
     including training in defensive maneuvers.
       ``(iii) Training to assist the officer in determining when 
     it is appropriate to use the officer's firearm and when it is 
     appropriate to use less than lethal force.
       ``(C) Training in use of firearms.--
       ``(i) Standard.--In order to be deputized as a Federal 
     flight deck officer, a pilot must achieve a level of 
     proficiency with a firearm that is required by the Under 
     Secretary. Such level shall be comparable to the level of 
     proficiency required of Federal air marshals.
       ``(ii) Conduct of training.--The training of a Federal 
     flight deck officer in the use of a firearm may be conducted 
     by the Under Secretary or by a firearms training facility 
     approved by the Under Secretary.
       ``(iii) Requalification.--The Under Secretary shall require 
     a Federal flight deck officer to requalify to carry a firearm 
     under the program. Such requalification shall occur quarterly 
     or at an interval required by a rule issued under subsection 
     (i).
       ``(d) Deputization.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Under Secretary may deputize, as a 
     Federal flight deck officer under this section, a pilot who 
     submits to the Under Secretary a request to be such an 
     officer and whom the Under Secretary determines is qualified 
     to be such an officer.
       ``(2) Qualification.--A pilot is qualified to be a Federal 
     flight deck officer under this section if--
       ``(A) the pilot is employed by an air carrier;
       ``(B) the Under Secretary determines that the pilot meets 
     the standards established by the Under Secretary for being 
     such an officer; and
       ``(C) the Under Secretary determines that the pilot has 
     completed the training required by the Under Secretary.
       ``(3) Deputization by other federal agencies.--The Under 
     Secretary may request another Federal agency to deputize, as 
     Federal flight deck officers under this section, those pilots 
     that the Under Secretary determines are qualified to be such 
     officers.
       ``(4) Maximum number.--The maximum number of pilots that 
     may be deputized under the pilot program as Federal flight 
     deck officers may not exceed 2 percent of the total number of 
     pilots that are employed by air carriers engaged in air 
     transportation or intrastate transportation on the date of 
     enactment of this section.
       ``(5) Revocation.--The Under Secretary may revoke the 
     deputization of a pilot as a Federal flight deck officer if 
     the Under Secretary finds that the pilot is no longer 
     qualified to be such an officer.
       ``(e) Compensation.--Pilots participating in the program 
     under this section shall not be eligible for compensation 
     from the Federal Government for services provided as a 
     Federal flight deck officer. The Federal Government and air 
     carriers shall not be obligated to compensate a pilot for 
     participating in the program or for the pilot's training or 
     qualification and requalification to carry firearms under the 
     program.
       ``(f) Authority To Carry Firearms.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Under Secretary shall authorize, 
     while the program under this section is in effect, a Federal 
     flight deck officer to carry a firearm while engaged in 
     providing air transportation or intrastate air 
     transportation. Notwithstanding subsection (c)(1), the 
     officer may purchase a firearm and carry that firearm aboard 
     an aircraft of which the officer is the pilot in accordance 
     with this section if the firearm is of a type that may be 
     used under the program.
       ``(2) Preemption.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     Federal or State law, a Federal flight deck officer, whenever 
     necessary to participate in the program, may carry a 
     firearm in any State and from one State to another State.
       ``(3) Carrying firearms outside united states.--In 
     consultation with the Secretary of State, the Under Secretary 
     may take such action as may be necessary to ensure that a 
     Federal flight deck officer may carry a firearm in a foreign 
     country whenever necessary to participate in the program.
       ``(g) Authority To Use Force.--Notwithstanding section 
     44903(d), the Under Secretary shall prescribe the standards 
     and circumstances under which a Federal flight deck officer 
     may use, while the program under this section is in effect, 
     force (including lethal force) against an individual in the 
     defense of the flight deck of an aircraft in air 
     transportation or intrastate air transportation.
       ``(h) Limitation on Liability.--
       ``(1) Liability of air carriers.--An air carrier shall not 
     be liable for damages in any action brought in a Federal or 
     State court arising out of a Federal flight deck officer's 
     use of or failure to use a firearm.
       ``(2) Liability of federal flight deck officers.--A Federal 
     flight deck officer shall not be liable for damages in any 
     action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the 
     acts or omissions of the officer in defending the flight deck 
     of an aircraft against acts of criminal violence or air 
     piracy unless the officer is guilty of gross negligence or 
     willful misconduct.
       ``(3) Liability of federal government.--For purposes of an 
     action against the United States with respect to an act or 
     omission of a Federal flight deck officer, the officer shall 
     be treated as an employee of the Federal Government.
       ``(i) Duration of Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the pilot program established under this section 
     shall be in effect for a period of 2 years beginning on the 
     date that the 250th pilot is deputized as a Federal flight 
     deck officer under this section.
       ``(2) Risk-benefit determination decision.--Before the last 
     day of such 2-year period, the Under Secretary shall 
     determine whether the security benefits of the Federal flight 
     deck officer pilot program outweigh the risks of the program.
       ``(3) Termination of pilot program.--If the Under Secretary 
     determines under paragraph (2) that the risks outweigh the 
     benefits, the Under Secretary shall publish a notice in the 
     Federal Register terminating the pilot program and explaining 
     the reasons for the decision to terminate and shall provide 
     adequate notice of the decision to Federal flight deck 
     officers and other individuals as necessary.
       ``(4) Continuation of program.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the Under Secretary determines under 
     paragraph (2) that the benefits outweigh the risks, the Under 
     Secretary shall publish a notice in the Federal Register 
     announcing the continuation of the program, shall continue 
     the program in accordance with this section, and may increase 
     the number of Federal flight deck officers participating in 
     the program.
       ``(B) Notice of proposed rulemaking.--Not later than 60 
     days after the date of publication of a notice continuing the 
     program, the Under Secretary shall issue a notice of proposed 
     rulemaking to provide for continuation of the program. In 
     conducting the proposed rulemaking, the Under Secretary shall 
     readdress each of the issues to be addressed under subsection 
     (b)(3) and, in addition, shall address the following issues:
       ``(i) The use of various technologies by Federal flight 
     deck officers, including smart gun technologies and nonlethal 
     weapons.
       ``(ii) The necessity of hardening critical avionics, 
     electrical systems, and other vulnerable equipment on 
     aircraft.
       ``(iii) The standards and circumstances under which a 
     Federal flight deck officer may use force (including lethal 
     force) against an individual in defense of the flight deck of 
     an aircraft.
       ``(5) Reevaluation.--Not later than 3 years after the date 
     of publication of a notice continuing the program, the Under 
     Secretary shall reevaluate the program and shall report to 
     Congress on whether, in light of additional security measures 
     that have been implemented (such as reinforced doors and 
     universal employee biometric identification), the program is 
     still necessary and should be continued or terminated.
       ``(j) Applicability.--
       ``(1) Exemption.--This section shall not apply to air 
     carriers operating under part 135 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations, and to pilots employed by such carriers 
     to the extent that such carriers and pilots are covered by 
     section 135.119 of such title or any successor to such 
     section.
       ``(2) Pilot defined.--The term `pilot' means an individual 
     who has final authority and responsibility for the operation 
     and safety of the flight or, if more than 1 pilot is required 
     for the operation of the aircraft or by the regulations under 
     which the flight is being conducted, the individual 
     designated as second in command.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 44920 
     the following:

``44921.  Federal flight deck officer program.''.
       (2) Flight deck security.--Section 128 of the Aviation and 
     Transportation Security Act (Public Law 107-71) is repealed.
       (c) Federal Air Marshal Program.--
       (1) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the Federal air marshal program is critical to aviation 
     security.
       (2) Limitation on statutory construction.--Nothing in this 
     Act, including any amendment made by this Act, shall be 
     construed as preventing the Under Secretary of Transportation 
     for Security from implementing and training Federal air 
     marshals.

[[Page H4450]]

     SEC. 3. CREW TRAINING.

       Section 44918(e) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Administrator'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Under Secretary'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Additional requirements.--In updating the training 
     guidance, the Under Secretary, in consultation with the 
     Administrator, shall issue a rule to--
       ``(A) require both classroom and hands-on situational 
     training in the following elements of self defense:
       ``(i) recognizing suspicious activities and determining the 
     seriousness of an occurrence;
       ``(ii) deterring a passenger who might present a problem;
       ``(iii) crew communication and coordination;
       ``(iv) the proper commands to give to passengers and 
     attackers;
       ``(v) methods to restrain an attacker;
       ``(vi) use of available items aboard the aircraft for self-
     defense;
       ``(vii) appropriate responses to defend oneself, including 
     the use of force against an attacker;
       ``(viii) use of protective devices assigned to crew members 
     (to the extent such devices are approved by the Administrator 
     or Under Secretary);
       ``(ix) the psychology of terrorists to cope with their 
     behavior and passenger responses to that behavior;
       ``(x) how to respond to aircraft maneuvers that may be 
     authorized to defend against an act of criminal violence or 
     air piracy;
       ``(B) require training in the proper conduct of a cabin 
     search;
       ``(C) establish the required number of hours of training 
     and the qualifications for the training instructors;
       ``(D) establish the intervals, amount, and elements of 
     recurrent training;
       ``(E) ensure that air carriers provide the initial training 
     required by this paragraph within 24 months of the date of 
     enactment of this subparagraph; and
       ``(F) ensure that no person is required to participate in 
     any hands-on training activity that that person believes will 
     have an adverse impact on his or her health or safety.
       ``(3) Responsibility of under secretary.--In developing the 
     rule under paragraph (2), the Under Secretary shall consult 
     with law enforcement personnel and security experts who have 
     expertise in self-defense training, terrorism experts, and 
     representatives of air carriers, employees of air carriers, 
     and educational institutions offering law enforcement 
     training programs.''; and
       (3) by aligning the remainder of the text of paragraph (1) 
     (as designated by paragraph (1) of this section) with 
     paragraphs (2) and (3) (as added by paragraph (2) of this 
     section).

     SEC. 4. COMMERCIAL AIRLINE SECURITY STUDY.

       (a) Study.--The Secretary of Transportation shall conduct a 
     study of the following:
       (1) The number of armed Federal law enforcement officers 
     (other than Federal air marshals), who travel on commercial 
     airliners annually and the frequency of their travel.
       (2) The cost and resources necessary to provide such 
     officers with supplemental training in aircraft anti-
     terrorism training that is comparable to the training that 
     Federal air marshals are provided.
       (3) The cost of establishing a program at a Federal law 
     enforcement training center for the purpose of providing new 
     Federal law enforcement recruits with standardized training 
     comparable to the training that Federal air marshals are 
     provided.
       (4) The feasibility of implementing a certification program 
     designed for the purpose of ensuring Federal law enforcement 
     officers have completed the training described in paragraph 
     (2) and track their travel over a 6-month period.
       (5) The feasibility of staggering the flights of such 
     officers to ensure the maximum amount of flights have a 
     certified trained Federal officer on board.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study. The report may 
     be submitted in classified and redacted form.

     SEC. 5. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

       Section 44903 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (i) (relating to short-term 
     assessment and deployment of emerging security technologies 
     and procedures) as subsection (j);
       (2) by redesignating the second subsection (h) (relating to 
     authority to arm flight deck crew with less-than-lethal 
     weapons) as subsection (i); and
       (3) by redesignating the third subsection (h) (relating to 
     limitation on liability for acts to thwart criminal violence 
     for aircraft piracy) as subsection (k).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No amendment to that amendment shall be in 
order except those printed in the Congressional Record designated for 
that purpose and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate. 
Amendments printed in the Record may be offered only by the Member who 
caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be considered read.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?

                              {time}  1230


                  Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Mica

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Mica:
       Page 4, line 8, strike ``Analyze'' and insert ``An analysis 
     of''.
       Page 4, line 9, after ``discharge'' insert ``(including an 
     accidental discharge)''.
       Page 5, line 3, before the period insert the following:

     , including whether an additional background check should be 
     required beyond that required by section 44936(a)(1)
       Page 5, line 6, before the period insert the following:

     , focusing particularly on whether such security would be 
     enhanced by requiring storage of the firearm at the airport 
     when the pilot leaves the airport to remain overnight away 
     from the pilot's base airport.
       Page 6, after line 6, insert the following:
       ``(7) Minimization of risk.--If the Under Secretary 
     determines as a result of the analysis under paragraph (3)(E) 
     that there is a significant risk of the catastrophic failure 
     of an aircraft as a result of the discharge of a firearm, the 
     Under Secretary shall take such actions as may be necessary 
     to minimize that risk.
       Page 11, line 19, before the period insert the following:

     under chapter 171 of title 28, relating to tort claims 
     procedure.
       Page 11, after line 19 insert the following:
       ``(i) Procedures Following Accidental Discharges.--
       ``(1) In general.--If an accidental discharge of a firearm 
     under the pilot program results in the injury or death of a 
     passenger or crew member on an aircraft, the Under 
     Secretary--
       ``(A) shall revoke the deputization of the Federal flight 
     deck officer responsible for that firearm if the Under 
     Secretary determines that the discharge was attributable to 
     the negligence of the officer; and
       ``(B) if the Under Secretary determines that a shortcoming 
     in standards, training, or procedures was responsible for the 
     accidental discharge, the Under Secretary may temporarily 
     suspend the program until the shortcoming is corrected.
       ``(2) Affect of suspension.--A temporary suspension of the 
     pilot program under paragraph (1) suspends the running of the 
     2-year period for the pilot program until the suspension is 
     terminated.
       Page 11, line 20, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(j)''.
       Page 13, line 6, strike ``proposed''.
       Page 14, line 4, after the period insert the following:

     The report shall include a description of all the incidents 
     in which a gun is discharged, including accidental 
     discharges, on an aircraft of an air carrier after the date 
     of enactment of this section.
       Page 14, line 5, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(k)''.
       Page 15, line 12, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Section''.
       Page 15, line 22, insert ``effective'' before ``hands-on''.
       Page 16, line 10, insert ``subdue and'' before 
     ``restrain''.
       Page 16, line 13, insert ``and effective'' after 
     ``appropriate''.
       Page 17, line 4, insert ``, including the duty time 
     required to conduct the search'' before the semicolon.
       Page 17, line 8, strike ``amount'' and insert ``number or 
     hours''
       Page 17, line 9, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       Page 17, line 13, strike the semicolon and all that follows 
     through line 17 and insert a period.
       Page 17, line 19, strike ``In developing'' and insert the 
     following:
       ``(A) Consultation.--In developing
       Page 17, line 23, strike ``employees of air carriers,'' and 
     insert ``the provider of self-defense training for Federal 
     air marshals, flight attendants, labor organizations 
     representing flight attendants,''.
       Page 17, line 25, strike the closing quotation marks and 
     ``; and''.
       Page 17, after line 25, insert the following:
       ``(B) Designation of official.--The Under Secretary shall 
     designate an official in the Transportation Security 
     Administration to be responsible for overseeing the 
     implementation of the training program under this subsection.
       ``(C) Necessary resources and knowledge.--The Under 
     Secretary shall ensure that employees of the Administration 
     responsible for monitoring the training program have the 
     necessary resources and knowledge.''; and
       Page 18, after line 4, insert the following:
       (b) Enhance Security Measures.--Section 109(a) of the 
     Aviation and Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C. 114 note; 
     115 Stat. 613-614) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(9) Require that air carriers provide flight attendants 
     with a discreet, hands-free, wireless method of communicating 
     with the pilots.''.
       (c) Benefits and Risks of Providing Flight Attendants With 
     Nonlethal Weapons.--
       (1) Study.--The Under Secretary of Transportation for 
     Security shall conduct a study to evaluate the benefits and 
     risks of providing flight attendants with nonlethal weapons 
     to aide in combating air piracy and criminal violence on 
     commercial airlines.

[[Page H4451]]

       (2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary shall transmit to 
     Congress a report on the results of the study.
       Page 19, after line 7, insert the following:

     SEC. 5. AUTHORITY TO ARM FLIGHT DECK CREW WITH LESS-THAN-
                   LETHAL WEAPONS.

       Section 44903(i) of title 49, United States Code (as 
     redesignated by section 6 of this Act) is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(3) Request of air carriers to use less-than-lethal 
     weapons.--If, after the date of enactment of this paragraph, 
     the Under Secretary receives a request from an air carrier 
     for authorization to allow pilots of the air carrier to carry 
     less-than-lethal weapons, the Under Secretary shall respond 
     to that request within 90 days.''.
       Page 19, line 8, strike ``5'' and insert ``6''.


             Modification to Amendment Offered by Mr. Mica

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be 
modified in the form at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Modification to amendment offered by Mr. Mica:
       In section 5, relating to authority to arm flight deck crew 
     with less-than-lethal weapons, that is proposed to be 
     inserted after line 7 on page 19:
       (1) insert before ``Section 444903(i)'' the following:
       ``(a) In General.--''; and
       (2) insert at the end the following:
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Such section is further 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ``Secretary'' the first 
     and third places it appears and inserting ``Under 
     Secretary''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2) by striking ``Secretary'' each place 
     it appears and inserting ``Under Secretary''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification 
offered by the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, the modification that we just offered to my 
amendment is merely technical and does provide some conforming and 
consistent language. The manager's amendment that I have offered today 
does make some relatively minor changes. However, it does not change at 
all the fundamental thrust of the legislation, and that is to establish 
a pilot program under which about 2 percent, 2 percent specified and 
about 1,400 pilots, can arm themselves to stop a hijacking.
  We chose that number because, again, we think during the next 2 years 
that will provide us a good test basis; and given TSA's track record 
and performance, I think that is probably about all they can do in that 
time frame to get this program under way.
  The purpose of this amendment today is to address some of the issues 
that have been raised, but not totally resolved, during our committee 
markup. For example, the bill directs the Secretary of the 
Transportation Security Administration, TSA, to focus on the safest way 
to store guns between flights. This amendment also directs the TSA to 
decide whether a pilot should be subject to an additional background 
check before being allowed to be traveling armed.
  This amendment also directs the TSA to minimize any risk that might 
occur from the accidental discharge of a weapon. It further makes clear 
that the pilot could lose the right to fly armed if that pilot is 
responsible for the accidental discharge of a weapon. Further, it 
requires a report compiling all the instances where a weapon was 
discharged on an aircraft.
  Again, we have tried to incorporate constructive suggestions in this 
manager's amendment.
  In addition, this amendment significantly beefs up self-defense 
training for flight attendants. Many flight attendants were concerned 
that the existing training provisions were inadequate. The bill 
approved by the committee already directs that improvements in their 
training should be made, and this amendment further specifies the type 
of training that should be provided to the flight attendants. It also 
urges TSA to make certain that it has the personnel in place who are 
capable of monitoring the training program.
  One change in this manager's amendment that we reluctantly included 
was the deletion of the provision making hands-on self-defense training 
voluntary for flight attendants. It will be now, again by this 
amendment, mandatory.
  We were concerned that some flight attendants might be reluctant to 
actively participate in the more physical aspects of self-defense 
training for fear it might adversely affect their health or safety. 
However, the representatives of the flight attendants organizations 
assured us they wanted all flight attendants to be required to 
participate in all aspects of self-defense training, so we have today 
honored that request.
  Finally, this amendment changes existing law on less-than-lethal 
weapons. Existing law authorizes the government to permit pilots to 
carry less-than-lethal weapons, but it provides no deadline for the 
government's decision. This amendment does provide a deadline for the 
decision, but it leaves it up to the TSA to decide whether or not to 
allow those weapons. I will get into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk) later on on that issue.
  Personally, I do not believe that the less-than-lethal weapons will 
be effective in stopping a determined terrorist, and from the 
demonstrations we have seen, there is a lot to be desired and a lot 
lacking in using that as the only line of defense. But I think those 
who seek permission to carry that particular less-than-lethal type of 
protection are entitled to at least a timely answer.
  In sum, this is a good manager's amendment. It improves the bill, it 
incorporates many constructive provisions, and it is a bipartisan 
compromise. I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the manager's 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, we worked long and hard to negotiate the terms of this 
manager's amendment to complement the work done in subcommittee and in 
full committee to respond to a number of concerns that were raised 
subsequent to subcommittee action and during full committee 
consideration of the bill. The same bipartisan spirit that 
characterized the crafting of the bill that we considered in 
subcommittee and full committee characterizes the manager's amendment.
  The bill requires the Transportation Security Administration within 2 
months of enactment to conduct a study of the risk that a misfire in 
the cockpit will result in a catastrophic event. By that, I understand 
and intend, firing a bullet into the autopilot or firing into the 
navigational guidance system or any of the other on-board equipment 
that is essential to the navigation of the aircraft. We need to know 
before launching this program what will be the effects of such an 
accidental misfire.
  The manager's amendment requires the Transportation Security 
Administration, should they have determined that there is a significant 
risk to the aircraft, to take necessary actions to minimize that risk. 
That is another, I think, important caveat and protective step that we 
must take in this process.
  The amendment also provides authority for the Under Secretary for 
Transportation Security to suspend the program if an accidental 
discharge results in injury or death of a passenger or a crew member 
and requires the Under Secretary to revoke the deputation of the pilot 
who is responsible for that accidental discharge.
  TSA must also report all incidents where a gun is discharged on an 
aircraft, including accidental discharge, and provide a report to the 
Congress within 3 years.
  Issues were raised in subcommittee and full committee about the 
storage of weapons. The manager's amendment requires TSA to 
specifically address whether the storage of weapons at airports between 
flights would enhance security. It requires the under secretary to 
respond to requests from carriers to arm flight crews with nonlethal 
weapons within 90 days of each request.
  It also addresses in detail that the gentleman from Florida (Chairman 
Mica) has already covered the provisions for training of flight 
attendants, including establishing a single contact person within TSA 
to oversee that training program; and it makes that training mandatory, 
as is evacuation procedure training mandatory and other safety measures 
mandatory for flight attendants.
  I think the way we have crafted the training for cabin crew is very 
thoughtful and effective and should be carried out, if this legislation 
is enacted, with vigor by the Transportation Security Administration. 
As I think virtually every Member of the

[[Page H4452]]

House does, I fully sympathize with the concerns raised by flight 
attendants. They are the first line of safety on board an aircraft. 
They also now are the first line of security, along with Federal air 
marshals, on board an aircraft; and the legislation we are presenting 
today makes the pilots the last line of security aboard an aircraft.
  So I think we have covered all the concerns and enhanced the 
legislation with the manager's amendment, and I support its adoption.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise very enthusiastically supportive of what is 
going on here today. I thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and 
the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica), the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), of the full committee and the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), for moving 
the ball forward today. I think our country will be safer.
  I would just like to kind of make a general statement. I will try to 
be short.
  I appreciate what is going on here today. I, like many others in this 
body, am a current commercial pilot, and I suppose that by being so I 
am a little more critical at times of those that man the cockpits of 
the airplane and just kind of look them over without even thinking 
about it too much.
  I submit that the people that fly our airliners, and I want to 
emphasize the airliners, that carry many, many what people in the 
business call SOBs, we call them ``souls on board,'' we are concerned 
about their safety. That has been in the vernacular for a long time, 
``souls on board.'' How many souls are on board? You know, there may be 
100, there may be 200, there may be 300, and it is an important thing, 
their safety.
  The pilots come on in a briefing and they will tell you their main 
purpose is a safe arrival at the destination. So they are high-quality 
people, very high-quality people we can have a lot of confidence in.
  So I think this is appropriate, to do what we are doing. If it were 
left up to me, I would have probably gone to a little higher percentage 
and so on. I think we are moving forward, and I think the public will 
be safer as we arm the pilots.
  Last Monday, flying out here, how many times I have reflected on it, 
as I sat there in the airliner and looked at that door, and I know it 
can be reinforced and will be in due time, but it is still not going to 
be attached to a piece of reinforced steel. It will be attached to a 
bulkhead of aluminum, and I suppose some enterprising terrorist can 
figure out how to get through that, even though it is reinforced.
  If for some reason a terrorist did manage to get into the cockpit and 
we had not armed him, I think we would feel a lot of remorse if an F-16 
pulled alongside and we had not done everything we could have in the 
last-resort possibility. That last-resort possibility is to arm the 
pilots. There are two of them on board. Each of them, either one, can 
land that airplane safely, if required to do so.
  So I think we are doing the right thing. It is unfortunate that we 
live in a time after September 11 that we even have to consider this, 
but we live in that time.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the manager's amendment and I support the 
underlying bill. I just hope we can move it forward today. Those 
listening, wherever you might be here on Capitol Hill, support this 
bill. It is the right thing to do.
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I have recently proposed an amendment to 
H.R. 4635, the ``Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act,'' which would 
establish a program for training pilots as Federal flight deck 
officers. This amendment enhances the bill by requiring the Under 
Secretary of Security to address the crucial issue of accidental 
discharges. I am very pleased that the gentleman from Florida has 
agreed to include my amendment in the Manager's amendment.
  While all law enforcement officers are trained to handle their 
firearms with the utmost care, accidental discharges do occur, and are 
a cause of firearm-related injuries. Typically, accidental discharges 
result in the wounding of the gun carrier, or of a limited number of 
bystanders. But in an aircraft flying at 30,000 feet, an accidental 
discharge, which can potentially shoot out a window, or damage other 
vital technology, endangers many more people.
  To address this concern, I drafted a two-part amendment. The first 
part instructs the Under Secretary to consider the potential risk of 
accident discharges prior to implementing the program. The second half 
requires the Under Secretary to include in his report to Congress, an 
account of the specific instances of accidental discharges, and the 
subsequent damage caused by them.
  By requiring the Under Secretary to pay specific attention to the 
issue of accidental discharges, this amendment increases the security 
that the program proposed by the bill strives to provide to airline 
passengers. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the Manager's 
amendment, and I thank the Chairman and the subcommittee chair for its 
inclusion in the Manager's amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment, as 
modified, offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

                              {time}  1245


                Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Page 2, line 12, strike ``pilot''.
       Page 3, lines 8 and 9, strike ``selecting, training,'' and 
     insert ``training''.
       Page 3, line 9, after ``pilots'' insert ``who are qualified 
     to be Federal flight deck officers''.
       Page 3, line 10, strike the semicolon and all that follows 
     through ``first'' on line 17.
       Page 9, strike lines 3 through 9.
       Page 9, line 10, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4).
       Page 9, line 24, strike the comma and all that follows 
     through the comma on line 25.
       Page 11, strike line 20 and all that follows through line 4 
     on page 14.
       Page 12, line 21, strike the comma and insert ``and''.
       Page 12, line 23, strike the comma and all that follows 
     through ``program'' on line 24.
       Page 14, line 5, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(i)''.

  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, today the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Nethercutt) and others and I rise in support of the base bill, but in 
the hopes of improving the legislation.
  We are concerned that by specifying a cap on a reluctant 
administration, an administration, a President and a head of the TSA 
who do not want to arm pilots, that by setting a very, very modest goal 
of 2 percent, a cap of 2 percent, without mandates, that they move 
ahead expeditiously with that program, that we are not going to 
adequately meet the identified threat.
  Virtually everyone who has spoken today basically subscribes to the 
idea that the flight deck should be defensible, the weapons in the bill 
would not come away from the flight deck, they would be used to defend 
the flight deck. But the point is that under this legislation, if this 
reluctant administration moved quickly and expeditiously to the cap of 
2 percent, on a daily basis, given pilots' schedules, one could be 
certain that less than 1 percent of the pilots flying were armed.
  Now, I do not believe a chance of one in 100 is a significant 
deterrent to a suicidal, homicidal terrorist intent on causing death 
and destruction. So I really feel that by putting that cap in the bill 
that we would be making a mistake. I do not see why we should not set a 
goal of saying in an orderly basis, as we are hearing from the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), as much as we can afford to 
finance, and I believe that security is worth financing, we should move 
forward with training all pilots who meet the minimum qualifications, 
and then all pilots who pass the proficiency test and pass through the 
training should be allowed, until the day when we have armored flight 
decks, flight decks which are secure, and which provide for the 
necessities of food and lavatories for the pilots where they do not 
have to come out at all, that we would continue to have pilots armed 
until that point in time.
  That is what El Al did. Their pilots were armed until they came up 
with these secure flight decks where the pilots do not have to come out 
at all. The door is locked. They do not come out until the plane lands 
and the engines are shut down.
  Now, the FAA says it is impossible to design that kind of a flight 
deck, and they are going to take a few years to approve the design, so 
we are a long

[[Page H4453]]

way away from that here in the United States. Beyond that, we are not 
even envisioning one where they would have lav services, because that 
would cause some more money to redesign those planes. So we may be 
decades away from that.
  So we should not have a bill that sunsets in 2 years. We should not 
have a bill that limits to 2 percent because, remember, the hard and 
fast bottom line here is there are standing orders from the President 
of the United States of America that if another plane is commandeered, 
that that plane will be shot from the sky. That is a horror beyond 
imagination for the pilot with the order to do that, but a horror that 
they would have, to avoid even more mayhem on the ground. It should not 
ever come to that. Why not have this adequate, last line of defense, 
and that is what it is, defense.
  Some say, oh, we are worried about the pilot running down the cabin 
with the gun or wandering the airport with the gun. All of those 
problems can be resolved. It should be a defensive weapon in the flight 
deck. I urge people to try these stun guns. You get one shot, and it 
takes about 10 seconds to reload and you get another. That is not going 
to work against perhaps one or more than one determined terrorist 
trying to storm a flight deck.
  A legal force to repel murderous intent, I believe, is justified. The 
bill recognizes that, but it has these defects. I urge the Members to 
support this amendment.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) 
and the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). 
All of us worked hard to craft this amendment that we think improves 
the bill substantially, because it brings more reason to the concept of 
arming pilots as the base bill does.
  We think it is unreasonable, and I submit it is unreasonable, to 
limit the number of pilots who would voluntarily participate in this 
program of defense on airlines to 2 percent. What that means is that 98 
percent of the other flights, the other pilots who are in the air every 
day, every hour, carrying us and our families and friends and others of 
the traveling public, are subject to less protection than the 2 percent 
which would be implemented under the base bill. So what we do is lift 
the cap of 2 percent, and we make this program permanent.
  I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that as we looked at the concept of 
arming pilots, the committee and subcommittee of jurisdiction have 
approved the concept of arming pilots. So if it is a concept that is 
valid, and I believe it is, then we should not limit the time under 
which it would be implemented to the multiyear term that is contained 
in the bill. So lifting the cap, lifting the time limitation and making 
this program permanent, as it should be, I think makes all the good 
sense in the world to protect the traveling public.
  I know the committee worked hard to negotiate the package that is 
part of the bill as we look at it today, but I also think that this is 
an improvement in that package; and I believe there will be a strong 
deterrent associated in making more pilots available to voluntarily 
participate in the program and arm themselves to protect the 
passengers, protect against terrorism.
  So my sense is that while again, the concept is good in the bill, we 
really firmly protect and perfect the concept in our amendment. I think 
it makes all the sense to do that.
  So we should make it permanent. I think if there are pilots as the 
last line of defense, then there should not be a limitation on numbers 
and time for providing that permanent line of defense to the traveling 
public. So our amendment achieves this.
  Again, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman 
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), 
and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). I am proud to be a 
part of this effort to make this change and make it in a commonsense 
fashion, in a reasonable way, to make sure the traveling public has all 
of the confidence in the world, as much as possible, in the dangerous 
world in which we live, that they are flying and that they are flying 
safe. Arming our pilots and lifting these restrictions will do just 
that.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I know that the 
sponsors of this amendment are very sincere and very genuine in what 
they want to do. I am personally very close to one of them, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), as he and I have participated in a 
number of endeavors over the course of the years; and I know that his 
intentions are always for the benefit of all Americans. But in regards 
to this amendment, I must very strongly oppose it. It would just 
destroy the delicate balance that we have with this bill. We have come 
a long way in compromising on this bill, and I think that we finally 
have a bill that we can truly say represents the will of the American 
people.
  Arming pilots with lethal weapons at the present time is opposed by 
the administration, opposed by the Secretary of Transportation, and 
opposed by the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security. So it is 
questioned whether or not our compromise, bipartisan piece of 
legislation is ever going to gain the support of those individuals. 
Certainly, if this amendment would be accepted, the chances of those 
individuals ever changing their position, the odds of their changing 
their positions would be much, much greater than they are today when 
they are not even in favor of it today.
  Also, the American public is not totally sold on arming pilots. The 
issue definitely is in doubt. We should go about this slowly and in a 
very prudent manner.
  There has been an awful lot thrown at the TSA since we passed our 
legislation establishing it. They are trying to do the best they 
possibly can with everything that we have given them to do, but they 
are moving slowly. It is very possible that some of the deadline dates 
will have to be extended. If we were now to give them the authority and 
direct them to start processing approximately tens of thousands of 
pilots, I honestly and frankly do not know how they could ever do it in 
a reasonable, responsible manner. Consequently, I say to everyone, 
stick with the bill that we have before us. It is the most prudent 
course of action, and we do not want to make the skies less safe and 
less secure; and I believe this amendment would do that.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to join with my colleagues, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), to introduce this amendment to H.R. 4635.
  We have an opportunity today with this amendment to improve a 
critically important piece of legislation that I hope becomes law as 
quickly as possible. As a member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Aviation and a cosponsor of the 
original version of H.R. 4635, I strongly support the creation of a 
voluntary Federal program that would arm and train pilots to defend 
their cockpits against terrorist attacks. I believe the bill that we 
are considering today creates a good framework for the Transportation 
Security Administration to implement an effective Federal flight deck 
officer program. However, I feel a more aggressive benchmark is needed.
  In an effort to strengthen the role that pilots play in our airline 
security, this amendment will make three commonsense changes to the 
Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act.
  First, our amendment would eliminate the ceiling on the number of 
pilots that are eligible to volunteer for this important program. In an 
effort to move the bill through the committee, the current 2 percent 
limit was included in the bill; and I am certainly pleased, Mr. 
Chairman, and I admire the work of the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the distinguished 
ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), for moving 
this bill through the committee. However, I strongly believe

[[Page H4454]]

that this program needs to allow all pilots to volunteer for this 
critical program.
  Second, the amendment would require the Transportation Security 
Administration to begin training qualified volunteer pilots more 
quickly. Very simply, the sooner that there are armed pilots in the 
cockpit, the quicker they can respond to potential and future in-flight 
attacks.
  Lastly, the amendment would eliminate the sunset for the Federal 
flight deck officer program included in the bill and make it permanent. 
Mr. Chairman, I believe the need for this important program does not go 
away after 2 years.
  Mr. Chairman, by arming pilots, Congress can create a last line of 
defense against terrorist attacks. It is critical that we take every 
possible action to protect passengers in this country and the aviation 
system, and this legislation is an important component of that process.
  Since September 11, we have learned that we need to prepare for 
previously unthinkable acts of terror. This commonsense legislation and 
this commonsense amendment gives airlines and pilots an additional tool 
and creates the last line of defense against future attacks.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a voluntary program. This is a program that 
pilots can choose to participate in. It is something that the pilots of 
this country have asked for, and I would dare say that anybody who uses 
the aviation system in this country and flies on a regular basis, there 
is no person that we put more trust and more confidence in than the 
person who is piloting that airplane. From the takeoff to the flight 
and the many miles in between and to the landing, it is important that 
we support our pilots in what they are asking for, and also what I 
believe the majority of the people in the country are asking for, and 
that is providing the last line of defense, giving those pilots, those 
people that we entrust our lives to on a daily basis, an opportunity if 
it presents itself to be saved from an airplane having to be shot down 
or, worse yet, although there is not anything worse yet, but having 
been shot down or having to experience what we saw on September 11.

                              {time}  1300

  So it is critically important, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this 
amendment be added to this important legislation; that we strengthen 
it, that we put in place a provision that does not limit or in any way 
put a ceiling on the number of pilots who can participate in this 
program. It is a voluntary program.
  I ask that we expedite and accelerate the training process, and 
finally, that we eliminate the sunset provisions so this program can 
continue long after the 2 years has expired. I believe it will have a 
deterrent effect and it will send a very, very strong message to the 
terrorists around the world who would commit acts of terrorism against 
the people of this country that they are going to be dealing with a 
system that is completely armed and ready to deal with any type of 
terrorist attack.
  So I ask my colleagues here to support this amendment to make this 
legislation stronger, and then to move it out of this Chamber and 
hopefully on the President's desk, and to get a signature so we can 
begin to implement these provisions.
  Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman 
Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) and the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Lipinski) for their hard work and cooperation in developing this 
compromise, and I want to stress, compromise legislation. There are 
many tough decisions that had to be made by members of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The terrible acts of September 11 changed our perspective on how we 
protect our air passengers and citizens. The traveling public wants and 
deserves to be safe while traveling. In my home State of Florida, we 
rely heavily on tourists as the base of our economy, and we need to 
ensure for people that it is safe to fly.
  Arming our pilots is a monumental action by this Congress, and it is 
a perfect example of why it is so important for us to decide policy 
through thoughtful deliberation and debate. We are beginning to 
undertake one of the most significant changes in our Nation's 
government. As we begin to develop the Department of Homeland Security, 
we should not be concerned about when we get it done; we should be 
concerned about whether this new agency is going to serve the best 
interests of the American public.
  We have seen too many examples where the TSA has lacked communication 
with the local government or the airports, and it is very important 
that we have communications working with the local governments as far 
as this new agency is concerned.
  The high percentage of missed weapons in the recent TSA undercover 
operation shows us how much we need to improve passenger safety 
programs. Arming pilots is one small step, but we still have a lot of 
work to do. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the 
committee, as well as DOT and the airline industry, in striving to 
provide the safest and most efficient air transportation system for the 
traveling public.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but I 
would like to mention that this is essentially the same amendment that 
I had prepared to offer, an amendment that I put into the Record 2 days 
ago. But I will support this amendment because it is essentially doing 
what I was anxious to do.
  Shortly after 9-11, as a matter of fact, on September 17, I 
introduced legislation into this body, H.R. 2896. It would have taken 
care of this problem in a more conclusive way, and it would have 
removed all the prohibitions and legalized, once again, the right of 
property owners to defend their property.
  Of course, that would be the ultimate solution, as far as I am 
concerned, because we are moving in a direction, unfortunately, towards 
more dependence on government and government regulation, and government 
programs that allow weapons in a cockpit.
  An example I like to use, which I think is an accurate example, if we 
look at the inner cities, guns are denied to the citizens. There are a 
lot of police and there is a lot of crime. If we look to the suburbs 
and the rural areas, there are essentially no police, there are a lot 
of guns in the homes, and there are essentially no crimes.
  That principle should be applied to the airlines. It should be 
applied because guns can prevent crime, and we should allow them to be 
placed in the hands of the owners. I have a tie that is a favorite tie 
of mine, and it has a picture of the Bill of Rights, but it has a stamp 
over it which says, ``void where prohibited by law.'' I think we do too 
much of that around here.
  A lot of times I get support from the other side of the aisle when 
they see the prohibitions that our legislation places on the First 
Amendment. Likewise, I get a lot of support when I would like to reduce 
the prohibitions on the Fourth Amendment in the area of privacy. 
Unfortunately, since 9-11, we have moved in the wrong direction. We are 
making more prohibitions by law on our Bill of Rights.
  In this case we are moving in the right direction because we are 
trying to remove some prohibitions that are limiting our Second 
Amendment rights. Our job here in the Congress should be to protect the 
Second Amendment, never to get in the way of the Second Amendment. This 
is why, although this amendment improves the bill and the bill is 
moving in that direction, I can support it, but we ought to do a lot 
more.
  Another example of how private property could work was the recent 
example at LAX Airport. Private owners of an airline assumed 
responsibility for security at the gate. Many lives were probably saved 
with El Al guards, private guards with private weapons, that tragically 
are denied to American airlines. Because of an agreement between one 
foreign airline and the U.S. Department of Transportation, it has been

[[Page H4455]]

given permission to protect their people better than we are allowed to 
protect ourselves. That to me just seems downright foolish, and I think 
we in the Congress should demand our rights of the Second Amendment and 
insist on the responsibility of property owners to protect their 
property and to protect our lives.
  We are moving in that direction, and El Al deserves definite 
compliments, but we deserve deep scrutiny. Why do we permit a foreign 
airline to provide more security for their people than we are allowed 
in our country?
  The best step in the world, of course, would be to pass my bill, H.R. 
2896, which would just legalize once again the Second Amendment and 
allow our airlines to make the decision, and let the people decide. The 
airlines that say, we have guns in the cockpit, I would go fly that 
airline; if they say no, we do not believe in guns, let it be.
  We need to, once again, believe in America, believe in freedom, 
believe in the Bill of Rights, and let the people take care of so many 
of these problems instead of getting in the way. This bill, 
fortunately, is helping to get the government out of the way. That is 
why I support it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure for bringing this bill to the floor. 
I want to commend the ranking member, the full committee chairman, the 
ranking subcommittee member, and the subcommittee chairman for this. It 
is an excellent piece of legislation, but, like most bills, it can be 
improved.
  The district that I represent down in Texas includes D-FW airport, 
which is one of the hub airports in our great Nation. I am very close 
to Love Field, which is the hub airport for Southwest Airlines. I could 
be proven wrong on this, but I guess my estimate is that there are more 
pilots who live in my congressional district than any other district in 
the country.
  As soon as we had the terrible tragedy back in September, my pilots 
began to come to me personally and collectively and in town meetings 
saying that they would like to have the right to carry a firearm in the 
cockpit. I support that right. It is guaranteed under the Constitution, 
the Second Amendment. We have had several pieces of legislation that 
have passed since September 11, and there have been numerous ways to 
try to give that right to the pilots.
  The underlying bill before us would allow that in a limited fashion. 
The amendment that is sponsored by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio), myself, the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), and the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) would remove that 2 percent 
cap, it would make the program permanent, and it would accelerate the 
training of qualified pilots.
  I would like to point out that this is a voluntary program. We are 
not forcing a pilot to carry a weapon if he or she feels that they do 
not need to or do not want to. The pilots have to be trained. The 
pilots have to be certified. But as someone who has flown over 3 
million miles, air miles on commercial airliners since I became a 
United States Representative in 1985, I can tell Members that as a 
passenger, I feel more comfortable if I know that the pilots at a 
minimum have the right to carry a weapon, and hopefully, are carrying 
that weapon and exercising that right. It makes the terrorists' job 
that much more difficult, should they in some way gain entry into the 
airplane or into the cockpit.
  Most of our pilots are former military flyers, so they are very 
comfortable with firearms. Again, they have to be trained.
  I think this is an excellent amendment. I would point out that a 
survey that was done back in October by the Air Line Pilots Association 
and by United Seniors Association, USA, this was done by the Winston 
Group in October of 2001, shows that 75 percent of Americans favor 
arming airline pilots, and 49 percent say they would switch to an 
airline that allows its pilots to be armed. More than half said they 
would be willing to pay extra to fly on a plane where they knew the 
pilot had a firearm.
  Interestingly enough, 78 percent of married women with children would 
support arming our pilots, and 77 percent of adults over 55.
  So at least in this survey taken last fall, there was overwhelming 
support. I believe, if this amendment comes to a roll call vote, we 
will see overwhelming support on the House floor.
  I want to commend the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune), the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Nethercutt) for working with me to bring forth this amendment, and 
I hope we adopt it expeditiously.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record information on the survey I 
referred to earlier.
  The document referred to is as follows:
                                 Allied Pilots Association, United


                                          Seniors Association,

                                                 October 17, 2001.

   New National Survey Shows Overwhelming Public Support for Arming 
                             Airline Pilots


   support strongest among women, seniors; travelers would switch to 
                      airlines that arm its pilots

       Washington, DC.--A new national survey commissioned by the 
     Allied Pilots Association and United Seniors Association and 
     conducted by The Winston Group, will be released today, 
     Wednesday, October 17, 2001. The survey reveals the biggest 
     concerns of airline passengers and what security measures the 
     government needs to take now to reassure the traveling public 
     that it is again safe to fly.
       75% of Americans favor arming airline pilots.
       49% of those surveyed would switch to an airline that armed 
     its pilots.
       More than half (51%) would be willing to pay up to $25 per 
     ticket to pay for new security measures.
       78% of married women with children support arming airline 
     pilots.
       77% of adults 55 and older support arming airline pilots.
       The Airline Passenger Security Survey was conducted October 
     9-10, 2001 with 800 registered voters across the nation. 
     Margin of error is +/-3.46
       Last week, the United States Senate passed the Aviation 
     Security Act and the U.S. House of Representatives will be 
     debating these issues shortly.
       ``We hope the House considers these important views of 
     American people when crafting their bill on airline 
     security,'' said Charlie Jarvis, President and CEO of United 
     Seniors Association.

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, my heart is with the proponents of this amendment, but 
my vote must reluctantly be with those with whom I have agreed to 
compromise, so I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Some of the things that have been said by the proponents of this 
amendment are correct, and all pilots should have the ability to defend 
themselves. However, in our system, nobody gets their way 100 percent.
  Although it has been delightful to see some of the Members who were 
on the other side of the issue scampering to get back to my original 
proposal, it is always great to see Members in this body do a 180-
degree turn back in the direction of the proposal which I had advocated 
in the first place, but nonetheless, we have thought this out. We 
learned some experiences from passing legislation in the heat of 
passion and in the heat of circumstances post-September 11.
  We have heard that the Transportation Security Administration, which 
we created, which we gave far too many tasks to, which we tried to 
argue against but we lost that debate, we do not want to make the same 
mistake now in giving TSA any more than they can put on their platter.
  The chairman of the subcommittee on the Committee on Appropriations 
was quoted a month ago saying that TSA is in chaos. We do not want to 
add to that chaos. Members have already heard how their finances are 
stretched. Therefore, we came up with a compromise that allows 2 
percent. It does not sound like a lot, but it can be as many as 1,400 
pilots to be trained on a voluntary basis with the specifications of 
weapons, of storage of weapons, of every detail involved in the process 
of defending the cabin and the cockpit. I think that is a reasonable 
compromise. I think this is a reasoned and well-thought-out approach.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleagues have to understand, too, that TSA, the 
Transportation Security Administration, has

[[Page H4456]]

the ability to put a rule in place today, before the day is out. We 
gave in our unprecedented legislation, signed by the President November 
19, we gave them the ability to do this today. They have not done that, 
and shame on them for not doing that. That is why we are here as 
policymakers, to put that in place.
  We have not eliminated that possibility, but we have only put in 
place a beginning program. I think the program will work. I think it is 
well thought out.
  So, again, it is with reluctance that I oppose this to honor the 
agreement that we have come forward with, which I think is a good 
agreement.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. A friendly inquiry, Mr. Chairman. I am reading 
the underlying bill. In the bill that is on the floor, section 128, 
which has the section that the gentleman was alluding to that would 
give TSA the authority to do the rule, it is repealed.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I would tell the gentleman that, no, we would 
repeal that, but we replace it with this provision.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. It is to be replaced?
  Mr. MICA. Yes. So we do have that ability. I want to clarify that. 
That may appear to be contradictory, but in fact we are putting this in 
this particular provision.

                              {time}  1315

  Again, I think it is well thought out, I think it gives us the 
ability to defend the cockpit. And a terrorist will not know, a 
terrorist will not know which of these pilots are armed, but they will 
know that we as a Congress have acted and allowed some of those pilots 
to be armed. They will not know how many air marshals are on what plane 
either, but they will know there will be air marshals. They will know 
there will be another line of defense.
  So, again, I think this is a good beginning. I think it is a good 
compromise. I want to honor the compromise that we have so carefully 
crafted. Again, I rise in reluctant opposition to the amendment offered 
by my friends, the DeFazio-Thune-Nethercutt amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise without reluctance with great concern about this 
amendment in opposition to it. I have no hesitation at all in opposing 
this amendment, with great respect for the sincerity with which its 
authors come forward. But the road to destruction is paved with good 
intentions and sincerity, and we would be on a road to very serious 
problems with this amendment.
  As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) has said and as the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) officially in his remarks has said, 
the bill before us today is the product of a very carefully thought 
through, debated, negotiated compromise, like most legislation that 
passes this House. In this case we have the benefit of the best ideas 
from both sides of the aisle coming together in support of a bill that 
both sides of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure can 
support this far and no farther.
  Now, the idea of creating a permanent program to arm pilots as 
compared to the bill which has a 2-year experimental program would 
totally undo this agreement. I could not support the bill should this 
pass.
  Then the bill, I think, would not pass because I think there is great 
reluctance among Members on both sides of the aisle about the issue of 
arming pilots. There is, as was expressed by a previous speaker, the 
gentleman from Illinois, the public is not at all sure about this idea 
of arming pilots. In fact, time and again travelers aboard aircraft 
have asked me with some trepidation in their voice about having guns in 
the cockpit.
  We have achieved a balance between those in this body who are 
vehemently opposed to arming flight deck crews and those who are 
vigorously in support of it, those who are in between. There are 
reservations on both sides. I think the bill before us balances the 
equity. Expanding the basic program to an unlimited number of 
commercial pilots within such a short time frame would frankly 
undermine aviation security in general. This would mean, passage of 
this amendment would mean training tens of thousands of commercial 
pilots to carry guns.
  The Transportation and Security Administration already is having a 
difficult time training the airport security check point personnel. 
They have not been deployed at airports around this country. How in 
heaven's name are they going to take on the additional task of training 
tens of thousands of commercial pilots? They have not fully trained the 
Federal air marshals necessary to put them on board all flights. There 
just simply is not going to be enough personnel. There is not going to 
be enough time or money to train such a vast number of personnel.
  I listened with great interest as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the 
Committee on Appropriations, addressed the issue of costs. Based on 
Congressional Budget Office estimates of some 70,000, their estimate is 
100 percent of the 70,000 pilots. That is a low number. I think there 
are more like 85,000 commercial pilots. If you do 100 percent training, 
the cost estimate is $560 million a year. Well, we do not have 
unlimited dollars to address this issue. There is not enough money in 
the aviation security charge that we have imposed upon air travelers to 
cover that cost. There is not enough money to do all the other things 
that we are attempting to do that I think have a much higher priority 
than training flight deck crews.
  We have a solid approach, sensible approach, a step-by-step approach. 
Let us take this 2-year pilot program, make sure that it works, make 
sure that under the circumstances we have set forth it will be 
effective, and let us not go beyond that point. Oppose this amendment.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the DeFazio-
Nethercutt-Thune-Barton amendment. I appreciate very much the effort 
that our chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) have put into crafting a 
compromise. Their efforts are well intended and we are moving in the 
right direction, but the amendment before us today will take their good 
work and expand it. This will provide true security at a moment's 
notice, deterrence that will mean something that can be clearly 
understood and will provide a tremendous boost to both the confidence 
and the security of the flying public.
  There are three things I want to mention briefly here. When an 
airplane leaves the ground, all the passengers and the crew are 
entirely dependent on the ability of the pilot to maintain control of 
the aircraft. Over 70 percent of the pilots and the majority of the 
public at large overwhelmingly agree that properly trained pilots 
should have the opportunity to carry a firearm.
  If I might address my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota's comments 
about the training part of the bill. As I understand it, it allows 
appropriate training for the pilots to be armed. Of course, they will 
be experienced. They will have proper training. Training for the pilot 
is far different. This is about someone coming through the cockpit 
door. This is not about someone unidentified rising in a seat, perhaps 
coming out of a lavatory. The type of training and level of training is 
far less and, consequently, in my opinion, far less expensive than it 
would be to train a sky marshal.
  At the same time, let me stress that the training they would receive 
would be appropriate. It would be sufficient, and it would also be very 
relevant to the task that you hope that they would never be called on 
to perform. Also, this is volunteer pilots. It increases the number of 
participants in the program. It is clearly more effective and more 
helpful than asking passengers to take their shoes off in a random 
fashion and checking them.
  A potential terrorist who knows that the pilot is armed and trained 
to deal with anyone who comes to the door to take over control of that 
aircraft and uses a weapon, that is a deterrent. That is a real 
deterrent.
  Lastly, the amendment will accelerate the training of qualified 
pilots by

[[Page H4457]]

requiring TSA to begin training the qualified pilots within 2 months of 
enacting the legislation. I also might add this keeps the under 
secretary, who has expressed some disfavor for this project, from 
stopping it arbitrarily in 2 years.
  This is a good amendment and it can make a good bill even better. I 
urge support for the Barton-Thune amendment.
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Mica). First of all, I wanted to thank the gentleman 
and the ranking member and all the committee members for what they have 
done and for the gentleman's leadership on this important legislation. 
I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill so I certainly support the 
gentleman's efforts.
  Our airline pilots are already entrusted with every passenger on 
their aircraft, so it stands to reason that they be entrusted to serve 
as responsible Federal flight deck officers. All we have to do is 
ensure they receive the proper training, and with that in mind, I would 
like to request that we clarify the training aspect of the bill.
  As the chairman knows, the bill states ``the Under Secretary shall 
base requirements for training on the standards applicable to Federal 
air marshals.''
  The Federal air marshals conduct their training at the Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center, FLETC. However, this bill simply states 
that the pilots' training should be conducted at ``a facility approved 
by the Under Secretary.''
  Since FLETC is already the approved Federal training facility for the 
Federal air marshals, I am sure the gentleman would agree that this is 
appropriate to designate FLETC as an approved training facility for the 
Federal flight deck officer program. I request that the record reflect 
our intent to designate the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center as 
an approved training facility for both the Federal air marshal program 
and the Federal flight deck officer program.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Georgia on 
this important issue of training standardization for our Federal flight 
deck officers and also for our Federal air marshals. The Federal Law 
Enforcement Training Center should be designated as an approved 
training facility for both the Federal Air Marshal Program and also for 
the Federal Flight Deck Officer program.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I first rise to state that I am opposed to the 
amendment, but as you will see in a moment, I am also opposed to the 
bill but not for the reasons you may think.
  I am not fundamentally opposed to the idea of arming pilots in the 
cockpit as a last line of the defense against a terrorist attack on an 
airplane. The safety and security of the flying public is a central 
concern to us all, and a well-trained, armed pilot could be a valuable 
asset in defending ourselves against terrorist acts. Moreover, the 
bipartisan bill approved by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure addresses a number of the logistical and procedural 
issues for implementing a program for arming pilots, even if it leaves 
most of the sticky details to the TSA.
  I must say that I am skeptical of the ability of the Transportation 
Security Administration to develop adequate procedures for this 
complicated process of safely getting a firearm on and off an airplane 
and securing it in the cockpit without incident. Let us hope that they 
can successfully answer many of the questions we do not firmly work out 
in this bill.
  In summary, I am not fundamentally opposed to this bill. In fact, I 
have consistently voted against any measures to control firearms. But 
let me just say, having said all of that, that H.R. 4635 still has at 
least one fatal flaw and a few minor ones that prevents me from voting 
for it. The problem: the bill does not give the airlines a choice on 
whether their pilots, their employees, can carry guns on the airline's 
planes.
  We have heard from the public. We have heard from the pilots. We have 
heard from the flight attendants. And we have responded to these 
groups, but we have shut out the airlines. This is entirely 
inappropriate.
  The Federal Government should not mandate that a reluctant airline be 
required to allow one of its pilots to carry a firearm on board one of 
its planes. I acknowledge that we often tell employers what to do, such 
as how to treat employees and how to handle safety and security 
matters. However, I am not aware of any instance where the Federal 
Government has told an employer you have to let your employees carry 
guns to work if they want to.
  We do not tell bus companies that they have to let their drivers 
carry weapons, but buses have been the subject of terrorist attacks. We 
do not tell rail service companies that they have to let their 
engineers carry weapons on their trains, but they are subject to 
terrorist attacks. We do not tell banks, gas stations or convenience 
stores that they have to allow their tellers or employees to carry 
firearms at work in case they face a robbery. In fact, my home State of 
Michigan, like the State of Texas, has passed a concealed-carry weapons 
law, but even those broadly permissive laws do not force an employer to 
permit an employee to carry a weapon while at work. In fact, they very 
specifically, in their language, allow employers to exempt the 
workplace as a place where employees may carry their guns.

                              {time}  1330

  This bill does precisely the opposite of what those concealed-carry 
permissive laws do.
  The airlines have indicated that they are opposed to allowing guns in 
their cockpit. We are depriving them of their voice in this important 
matter. This is wrong, and for this reason I will not vote in favor of 
this bill.
  I have two other concerns about this bill as well. One is the total 
cost for implementation of the test program which, according to the CBO 
estimate, is $47 million. This money could be better spent on other 
security measures, such as securing cockpit doors and bulkheads.
  In addition, if this test program is broadened to include all pilots, 
how many millions of dollars will it cost to provide them the proper 
training and to implement the necessary procedures? The increased TSA 
spending that we are deciding today will result once again in higher 
taxes on the flying public, at a time in which we are already seeing 
the detriment to flying that security fees and taxes are having on the 
aviation economy.
  My final objection to H.R. 4635 is that it exposes the Federal 
Government to massive amounts of potential liability. Under the bill's 
language, a Federal flight deck officer is treated as a Federal 
employee for purposes of liability. If an armed pilot accidentally 
shoots a passenger that posed no threat to the aircraft, the Federal 
Government could be on the hook for a huge amount.
  There are a number of other situations that could lead to potential 
liability. For example, a pilot could improperly respond to a mentally 
deranged passenger attacking the cockpit. This very situation was faced 
by pilots on United Airlines Flight 855 from Miami to Buenos Aires in 
February of this year. Or a pilot could accidentally discharge a weapon 
in a scuffle with an intruder or injure an innocent passenger or flight 
attendant or, even worse, the pilot could use the weapon in a perfectly 
lawful manner to overcome a terrorist, but do so in an improper way 
which results in crew or passenger death or, in the worst possible 
case, the plane going down.
  Coupled with the costs of implementing this program, this potentially 
enormous liability makes this bill financially irresponsible.
  For these reasons, the fact that we are forcing airlines to allow 
their pilots to carry guns, the fact that the program is very 
expensive, and the fact that the Federal Government is exposed to 
extremely high liability, I am opposed to this bill. I urge its defeat.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  First of all, I would like to commend the committee and the chairman 
of the

[[Page H4458]]

committee and the chairman of the subcommittee on this legislation for 
moving us in the right direction.
  I would like to point out, however, first of all, I am in support of 
the Thune-DeFazio-Nethercutt amendment and I would like to suggest why.
  As was stated earlier, that the underlying amendment makes a 
provision for 250 pilots to be trained, as such, if we use the lower 
number that was discussed earlier as to the total number of pilots that 
would be part of that overall pool, which would be 70,000 pilots, we 
are talking about training 0.4 percent of America's commercial pilots 
in this program. That would mean that 99.6 percent of pilots would not 
be trained. Therefore, a significant number and the overall majority of 
flights every single day would not be covered as a result of this 
training program.
  It was mentioned earlier that the road to destruction is paved with 
good intentions, and I would agree with that, and I would like to share 
with the Members of the House one of those noble intentions that was 
discussed with me by General Ralph Eberhart, the commander in chief of 
the North American Aerospace Defense Command in a recent Committee on 
Armed Services hearing.
  I asked General Eberhart what happened on September 11 when it was 
determined that the fourth plane, Flight 93, which crashed in 
Pennsylvania, may in fact have been aiming to target our Nation's 
capital. I asked, what were the actions that NORAD had contemplated?
  General Eberhart stated the following: ``At that time, the authority 
was passed, if we believed that, in fact, it constituted a threat to 
people on the ground, that we could take action to shoot it down.
  ``The decision was made rather than to go out and try to meet this 
airplane to stay over New York City and Washington, D.C., in case, if 
we left it uncovered, there was another airplane coming. So had we seen 
it continue toward one of those metropolitan areas or we were sure it 
was going to another metropolitan area, be it Baltimore or whatever, we 
would have engaged the airplane and shot it down.''
  He went on to say: ``Obviously, we're always hoping, and we do not 
want to do that until the last minute because we were hoping that, as 
those brave souls attempted, that maybe they regained control of the 
aircraft or that the skyjackers changed their mind. So we don't want to 
do this prematurely, and we want to see a hostile act, and we want to 
see it pose a threat.
  ``So we take this action after a lot of deliberation and to ensure 
that we have no other option. But we were prepared and we would have 
been able to shoot that aircraft down had we needed to.''
  I then asked General Eberhart: ``General, there is still an action 
item that your command may be responsible for doing something similar 
to what was contemplated on September 11th, are you not? That is still 
a possibility?''
  General Eberhart said, ``Regrettably, I'm afraid that's always going 
to be a possibility now. We redefined it on 9-11, and we now train for 
that. We've established the procedures for that. We exercise for that, 
hoping that that would never happen. But hope's not a good strategy.''
  The road to destruction is, in fact, paved with good intentions. It 
is the intention of the North American Aerospace Defense Command to 
shoot down a commercial airliner, and they train for that if it is 
determined that that commercial airliner, if the pilots aboard have 
lost control of that airliner and that airliner is going to be used in 
a similar activity such as 9-11.
  I think it would be a good intention today of Congress to take us 
down another road, not a path to destruction, as is the case with 
scrambled F-16s armed with Sidewinder and Sparrow missiles, but rather, 
takes us down a path that allows the pilots in the cockpit, not 0.4 
percent of pilots in the cockpit, but 100 percent of pilots in the 
cockpit, who volunteer to be the last line of defense for passengers 
traveling across the air these days.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the full House support the Thune-DeFazio 
amendment.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I support not only the underlying bill but the DeFazio-
Thune amendment, and let me tell my colleagues why.
  I spoke a little bit on the bill itself. Two percent is a good step, 
and I commend the chairman and the ranking member. And we had 70 
percent of our pilots qualified up to 1987; as a matter of fact, our 
mail planes required that a weapon was carried to protect it prior. And 
so that is in place.
  I disagreed with one of the Members that spoke earlier that we do not 
mandate different folks. Very seldom can we take a car or in a post 
office or something like that and kill 3- to 10,000 people at one time. 
If we save one airplane, if we save one lawsuit, if one life that is 
lost, we are going to more than pay for this program.
  I support, 100 percent. I do not think that we will ever get to 100 
percent, but all that does is allow the airlines of those people that 
are qualified. And I would demand strict regimentation in the actual 
training because I do not believe everyone should be allowed to carry a 
gun on an airplane because they are not predisposed either 
psychologically or physically to do so. I do not believe everybody is. 
A large portion of our airline pilots today are former Air Force, Navy, 
Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and I think they are predisposed to do that; 
they have carried those kinds of weapons. But our passengers deserve to 
feel safe.
  As my colleague mentioned, a wide array of security, starting with 
INS and Homeland Security, to when I go through, I had a knee 
preplacement I have to end up doing this every time at the airport and 
take my shoes off. It is a pain, but I have to look at the alternative, 
and I am glad they are doing that job. But on that airplane, once I get 
on that airplane, like the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) spoke 
about, I have seen the cockpit door open, and it is vulnerable.
  As a pilot with over 10,000 hours of flying both civilian and 
military airplanes, I know that I would never take that airplane and 
fly it into a building. Al Qaeda knows that, also. So the first thing 
they are going to do is cut the throat of that pilot and kill him and 
they are going to take over the airplane.
  As a pilot, I would want to feel a last line of defense. I hope they 
stop it in all the other places. I hope a marshal, which I support 
flying with the airplanes, would stop it. I hope a Kevlar door would 
stop it, but once that fails, if we have got a pilot inside that 
airplane that is armed, it is going to deter, as a last line of 
defense. Or even if those guys overtake the airplane and they are using 
an ax to get through that door, we know that airplane is not going to 
be used against New York or any other target in this thing.
  I feel very, very strong about that, and the fact that we need to 
pass this kind of legislation.
  The gentleman talks about costs. Tell me one family member in New 
York who would worry about costs or one passenger that jumps on these 
airplanes that would worry about costs. Our lives have changed for good 
in this country, forever, and unless we take up the challenge, these 
rascals are going to attack us.
  I serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I 
truly believe we stand a 100 percent chance this year of being struck 
by al Qaeda, 100 percent, because these rascals are out there collating 
in all these different countries and raising money and raising arms. 
And it may not be an airplane because we are vulnerable in other areas.
  If this amendment does not pass, I hope it does, I have got an 
amendment to strike it to 25 percent. I am not going to offer that 
because I do not want to take away from the gentleman from Oregon's 
(Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from South Dakota's (Mr. Thune) 
amendment and have people split off from it. But this is a well-
crafted, well-designed amendment that will supply security for citizens 
of this country, not just airline passengers, but for the people on the 
ground as well.
  I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the Members that 
support this.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I would like to engage our distinguished chairman of the subcommittee 
in a colloquy, if I may.

[[Page H4459]]

  The Aviation and Transportation Security Act, passed last year, 
provided airlines with the option of deploying less-than-lethal 
technology as part of their security procedure enhancements with the 
approval of the Transportation Security Administration. To date, have 
any airlines been granted permission to employ this nonlethal 
technology.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KIRK. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the Transportation 
Security Administration has yet developed a process to review these 
applications at this time.
  Mr. KIRK. As we today initiate this important pilot program to allow 
the use of firearms by flight crews, is it not also appropriate that 
the TSA expedite the implementation of less-than-lethal security plans 
when requested by the airlines?
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, certainly the 
airlines and the flight crews should be given the tools they feel are 
appropriate to protect themselves and their passengers, and that is why 
we have set the 90-day deadline for the Transportation Security 
Administration to issue a decision on applications from carriers to 
utilize less-than-lethal technology.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware of the request from 
United Airlines to the Transportation Security Administration to begin 
equipping properly trained flight crews with less-than-lethal 
technology in the form of Taser guns?
  Mr. MICA. If the gentleman will yield again, I am aware that United 
has made such an application.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman agree that in light of 
this important legislation we are preparing to pass today, it would be 
in the best interest of enhanced security at our Nation's airlines for 
the TSA to approve appropriate applications to allow flight crews this 
extra measure of protection while we undertake this additional pilot 
program to evaluate the use of firearms on aircraft?
  Mr. MICA. Again, if the gentleman would yield, I absolutely agree 
that as long as an airline has developed the appropriate training 
program and has the proper protocols ready to implement, that the TSA 
should quickly approve the airline's application to enhance security of 
their personnel and their passengers.
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his responses.
  Right now, an application is pending before the Department of 
Transportation Secretary Mineta. If approved, it offers an immediate 
way to upgrade flight deck security using nonlethal technology. And I 
thank the chairman for his leadership, and I hope and urge the 
Department of Transportation to move quickly on this application and 
approve the use of nonlethal technology on the flight deck.

                              {time}  1345

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Fossella). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
DeFazio) will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       Page 5, strike lines 18 through 21.
       Page 5, line 22, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 6, line 1, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.

  (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to thank the 
committee for the legislation that is before us and that we are moving 
in the right way.
  The amendment that I offer at this time strikes the language in this 
bill that gives preferential treatment to pilots who were former 
military or former law enforcement personnel.
  Mr. Chairman, in order for us to determine whether this program 
really works, I believe that we should have a better cross-section of 
pilots. I would like to open this legislation up to all pilots. Since 
this bill creates a training program, there is no reason to 
discriminate against those pilots who truly want to provide a safe 
environment for their passengers.
  Why not allow all pilots to carry firearms if they so choose? Had the 
pilots of the four airplanes that were commandeered on September 11 
been carrying side arms, the hijackers, armed with box cutters, might 
not have been successful in their mission.
  The American people support the idea. In a Time-CNN poll conducted 
just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, 61 percent said 
they favored allowing pilots to carry guns. Two more recent polls, 
conducted by the Wilson Center and the Winston Group, found support for 
arming pilots has risen to 75 percent. Airline pilots themselves 
overwhelmingly favor this option. The Nation's five largest pilots 
unions, representing 90,000 pilots, sent a letter to President Bush 
seeking his ``assistance in the immediate development and 
implementation of a program to defend the American traveling public 
with voluntary armed pilots.''
  The pilots make the very good point that they are the first line of 
deterrence and the last line of defense for their aircraft. And few 
professionals are better equipped to be armed. Pilots endure rigorous 
screening before they can work for a major airline. There is every 
reason to believe that all of these professionals have the ability to 
protect their planes. Most importantly, we already entrust pilots daily 
with the lives of hundreds of men, women, and children on airplanes 
weighing 450,000 pounds, traveling 530 miles per hour, carrying 24,000 
gallons of fuel, while flying 7 miles above the Earth.
  Clearly, these are responsible and trustworthy professionals. And 
whether they have a background in the military or law enforcement, they 
should be allowed to carry weapons and to be trained properly to carry 
weapons and to defend their airliners from potential terrorist attack.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
Again, we have tried to work out a bipartisan agreement. I think the 
gentleman from Indiana is well-intended in offering his amendment; but 
unfortunately, it has not been agreed to as part of this package.
  This amendment, as I understand it, would eliminate a key section of 
the underlying bill, the selection preference that is granted to pilots 
who have former military or law enforcement experience. We think this 
is extremely important because we know that many of our pilots have 
previous military experience. They already have handled weapons and 
arms. They know how to defend themselves and have had extensive 
training. The same is true with law enforcement individuals.
  Those who have had experience more than likely have had experience 
with weapons, arming themselves, defensive measures; and we think that, 
again, this invaluable experience will be helpful in defending the 
cockpit, in learning the new procedures that are required as 
established under the guidelines of the TSA. So we think it is 
essential that having this selection process and giving preference to 
both military and law enforcement personnel, those who have had that 
experience, makes perfect sense.
  When the determination as to which pilots are qualified to 
participate in the Federal flight deck program is being made, previous 
experience with a firearm should absolutely be taken into 
consideration. That is the agreement that we have reached, and that is 
the agreement we must stick to.
  So, unfortunately, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment and urge 
Members also to oppose the amendment. We should leave the amendment as 
we have now passed it intact, and I think we will have a much better 
piece of legislation. So, again, I oppose this amendment by the 
gentleman from Indiana.

[[Page H4460]]

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, as a result of an error on my part, I 
ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at this time and offer 
it at a later time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       Page 9, strike lines 3 through 9 and insert the following:
       ``(4) Time limits.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this section, 20 percent of all pilots 
     who volunteer to participate in the program within 30 days of 
     such date of enactment shall be trained and deputized as 
     Federal flight deck officers. Pilots may continue to 
     participate in the program during the 2-year period of the 
     pilot program. By the last day of such 2-year period, at 
     least 80 percent of all pilots who volunteer to participate 
     in the program must be trained and deputized as Federal 
     flight deck officers.
       Page 11, line 24, strike ``250th pilot'' and insert the 
     following: ``last pilot of the 20 percent of all pilots who 
     volunteer to participate in the program within 30 days of 
     such date of enactment of this Act''.

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Once again, Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer 
simply opens up the bill and the provisions of the bill to all the 
pilots that desire to take part in this program, that volunteer to take 
part in this program, and does not discriminate against them should 
they not have taken part in previous law enforcement activity nor been 
a member of the military.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I am puzzled, however, by the gentleman's amendment. It apparently 
proposes to strike the 2 percent cap and establishes a new accelerated 
time line and requires the Transportation Security Administration to 
deputize 20 percent of pilots that volunteer in the first 30 days. Is 
that the gentleman's amendment?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentleman from 
Minnesota that we are currently considering amendment No. 8, which 
simply strikes the preferential treatment of individuals.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. Is the gentleman's 
amendment the one that would strike the preference for pilots or the 
amendment that would strike the 2 percent cap?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, this is the 
preference with regard to military service personnel and law 
enforcement.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has already addressed that 
subject, and we have had some discussion on it. This is, apparently, 
further debate on the amendment previously offered and withdrawn and 
then offered again because of a technical mistake. Is that correct, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Could the gentleman from Minnesota restate 
his inquiry?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Is the gentleman offering under a technical change the 
same amendment that he offered apparently in error earlier?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Right now, currently under debate, is 
amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Indiana as reported in 
the Congressional Record.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Which was previously discussed in error because it was 
misnumbered?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No. Amendment No. 7 was offered, and then, 
by unanimous consent, withdrawn by the gentleman from Indiana. Now 
pending is amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Is a copy of the amendment at the desk?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is printed in the 
Congressional Record and is available at the desk.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I insist that the Clerk read the 
amendment so that we are clear on what we are debating here.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the Clerk will report 
the amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, again, just to be clear on what we are 
voting on here, because there is some great uncertainty, this is a very 
different amendment from the one on which I had an exchange with the 
gentleman. The gentleman from Indiana characterized his amendment as 
striking the preference for pilots. The amendment just read by the 
Clerk strikes the provisions of the underlying bill and would replace 
it with a different percentage of pilots and other requirements.
  I just want to make sure. Is this the amendment the gentleman intends 
to offer? Is this the amendment the gentleman proposes to offer, the 
amendment that deals with the percentage of pilots who volunteer to 
participate in the program, et cetera?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes, this is the amendment we are currently 
discussing, and I will talk to that.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the other amendment 
proposed by the gentleman from Indiana to strike the preference for 
pilots, that amendment has been withdrawn?
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, it has been 
withdrawn; but under unanimous consent, as the Chair has pointed out, 
it will be brought up at a later time, and that unanimous consent 
request has been granted.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, once again reclaiming my time, I rise in 
opposition to both this one and the previous amendment withdrawn and do 
so because both are mistaken.
  To delete the preference for pilots who are former military or law 
enforcement personnel is a blow at the underlying premise of the entire 
concept of arming flight deck crews. It has been said time and again in 
advocating the legislation that pilots should be armed because they are 
former military, they have experience, they know how to handle a gun, 
and we ought to provide arms for them in the flight deck.
  This is simply a preference. This is not a mandatory requirement, but 
because of that argument, that pilots have prior military experience, 
know how to handle a gun, we should therefore arm them. The bill goes 
on to say that we should then give them preference in the hiring 
scheme. It does not make sense to strike that preference for those 
personnel who are the ones most likely to have experience and would 
probably need the least amount of training.

                              {time}  1400

  The present pending amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler), we have already debated the issue of whether we ought to 
limit or remove the limits, the 2 percent cap on a number of pilots 
that can be sent through the experimental program. We have had an 
extensive debate on that issue already. It was defeated on a voice 
vote. We will have a recorded vote on it later. This simply is another 
amendment masquerading under different terms, but it is essentially the 
same amendment that we have already debated and I hope put to rest. But 
to expand the program to an unlimited number of commercial pilots goes 
against the compromise that we reached, against the concept of a pilot 
program, an experimental program where we work out all the issues and 
then decide whether or not to go ahead.
  I cannot support an unlimited program. I cannot support just go full 
bore ahead. We must address the issues that have already been discussed 
at great length, and I need not repeat them, of assuring the type of 
gun, type of bullet, the accidental discharge in the flight deck, 
shooting through navigational equipment. Those issues all have to be 
resolved before we can go through with a permanent program, and just 
for reasons I have already expressed, the costs and the burden on the 
Transportation Security Administration to train 70,000 to 85,000 pilots 
in a relatively brief period of time, when we have not got the security 
screeners trained yet, defies the imagination. It just does not make 
sense at all. The amendment should be defeated.

[[Page H4461]]

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  My good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler), I think is very well intended. I think he was probably 
well intended on his first amendment that he offered, and I see now 
what he was trying to achieve and what he is trying to achieve by these 
amendments, and he is saying we need to speed up this process. His 
amendment first, I think, was intended to have a larger body than just 
a smaller body of pilots trained, and I would concur with his 
intention. I appreciate his withdrawing that amendment.
  His second amendment that we have this afternoon says that 20 percent 
should be trained in the first 6 months and I believe 80 percent by the 
end of the second year, and I think that is also well intended. I think 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), has 
pointed out that we looked at the tasks that have already been assigned 
to TSA and we said wait a minute, this agency was given much more than 
it can do, and usually when Government gets a program, it costs twice 
as much, takes twice as many employees and costs three times as much, 
and we are finding our prediction to be true, and some of my concerns 
about passing the full federalization without the private participation 
to also be accurate. We found already that TSA, just in a simple 
assignment, assigned 429 airport security directors. To my knowledge, 
they have only named about four dozen, about 48. They have actually 
only deployed a little over two dozen, and here we are in July. So this 
amendment, while well intended, and we would like to have more pilots 
trained, is a very difficult task.
  If we look at another task that was assigned to TSA, and that is to 
train screeners, my latest knowledge is they might have had 3,000 
possibly trained. We might have a dozen airports deployed and 
federalized at this stage, again in July, and they just cannot do it. 
And that is not to mention anything about the lack of having explosive 
detection equipment deployed, which we said would be difficult, which 
we said is impossible for manufacturers to even produce. We now find 
ourselves with the possible requirement of training some 20,000 to 
25,000 hand wand trace detection Federal employees to complete another 
requirement by Congress.
  So, unfortunately, this is not achievable. I would like to see it. I 
would like to get on a plane and know that a pilot is ready and capable 
of defending that cockpit, but we have reached a compromise here where 
we think the maximum they can do is this 1,400. They start out with a 
group of 250 and that is sort of the kick-in trigger that we have put 
in the bill, but we can get up to 1,400. We hope they can get this 
assignment accomplished.
  Let me just say one word about the airlines' opposition to some of 
this. We have provided protection for the airlines in an unprecedented 
manner to protect them against liability. I know that is their concern. 
But my concern, and it should be their concern, is if we have one more 
incident, it will be fatal to airlines. If we have one more incident, 
it will be fatal to our economy. If we have one more incident, it will 
be fatal to potentially thousands and thousands of Americans, and we 
lost 3,000 of them on September 11. We cannot afford to lose one more. 
So we need to put these measures in place on a well-thought-out basis. 
I think that is the approach.
  I commend the gentleman for coming out and adding to the debate, 
offering this amendment, but I must reluctantly stand in opposition.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in opposition to both Hostettler amendment number 7 and number 
8, and I also want to say that the gentleman presented his amendments 
in the correct order. I do not know what happened that we got confused 
over here, but he was right in the first place on the way he presented 
the amendments.
  I happen to believe that he is not correct in presenting these 
amendments, so I oppose them. I oppose them because of what the 
chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), has had to say about 
them; what the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), has had to say about them; and what I had to say about one 
of those two amendments really in dealing with the DeFazio amendment 
that we had here on the floor earlier.
  I have said before, and it has been said a number of times on this 
floor, that this is truly a bipartisan bill. An awful lot of work went 
into it. A lot of compromise went into it. We spent an awful lot of 
time on it. I think it would be a tragic mistake to pass any amendment 
on this House floor today because I seriously believe it would 
jeopardize the possibility of passing this legislation.
  Once again I reiterate that the administration is opposed to arming 
pilots with lethal weapons.
  The Secretary of Transportation is opposed to it. The Under Secretary 
for Security of the Transportation Security Administration is opposed 
to it. So our pilot project bill that is reasonable, rational, and 
prudent is going to have a very difficult time passing. If we start 
enlarging this bill, it is going to spell the death of this bill and we 
will not be able to improve aviation security and safety.
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I wanted to come to the House floor earlier to engage in debate on 
this significant legislation, but I have been tied up in a Committee on 
the Judiciary hearing most of the day. I do not want to portray myself 
as a naysayer, but I am confident there is evidence to suggest that 
additional terrorist cells have been trained to take over commercial 
aircraft, and in the event of another terrorist hijacking, the 
Department of Defense will be forced to make the difficult decision to 
shoot down a plane filled with passengers to prevent that plane from 
being used as a weapon. We have gone through that before, and we do not 
want to do it again.
  As far as the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), I think the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation and the 
ranking member from Illinois may have said this, I think it is well-
intentioned, and I do not see the gentleman on the floor, but what 
bothers me is the possible or probable additional cost that might have 
to be absorbed in the training of those additional pilots to qualify 
them to be armed in the appropriate cockpits.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I would advise the gentleman that we are 
not discussing the amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar). We are discussing an amendment by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that 
clarification. I appreciate that, and I will confine my remarks to the 
bill generally.
  Our aviation system, it seems to me, oftentimes is based upon 
redundancy. When all else fails, we need a last line of defense. 
Providing pilots with firearms, it seems to me, affords additional 
assurance that the hijackers can no longer be assured of success. It is 
a significant deterrent since a potential hijacker will no longer know 
whether or not a pilot is armed prior to breaking into that cockpit. I 
regret that I missed the debate on this bill, and I thank the gentleman 
for setting me straight.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the two amendments, but I also 
rise in opposition to the bill, H.R. 4635. Although the program has 
been modified from the original version, I do not believe that it is 
prudent to deputize pilots as law enforcement officials and to arm them 
with lethal weapons, even on a pilot program basis.
  But before I discuss the reasons for my opposition, let me first 
commend the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation, the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for negotiating a much-improved 
bill. I also thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for 
incorporating language in the bill and the report to address some 
specific concerns I raised. Even though the final compromise is not an 
acceptable

[[Page H4462]]

one to me, I appreciate the good faith, and it is a much-improved bill.
  The central issue in this debate is what is the proper role of an 
airline pilot in aviation security. The proponents of H.R. 4635 believe 
that pilots can serve in a dual capacity as navigators and as Federal 
law enforcement officers. I appreciate the desire and willingness of 
pilots to assume additional responsibilities. However, I am not 
convinced that law enforcement is an appropriate role for the airline 
pilots.
  In the aviation security area, there are already Federal air marshals 
specially trained to deal with violent situations in the air. This is a 
full-time job that requires individuals' individual attention. They 
must undergo vigorous training, and after initial qualification, they 
still must spend a great deal of time to maintain their proficiency.
  H.R. 4635 would essentially establish a Federal flight deck officer 
program that authorizes volunteer pilots to serve as adjuncts to the 
Federal air marshal program. The main reason why I oppose this idea is 
I have grave doubts about whether pilots whose primary duty and 
experience involves manipulating complex electronic equipment can 
devote the time and attention necessary to reach a level of proficiency 
that is equivalent to that of a Federal air marshal.
  Let me also remind Members that passenger cabins are relatively 
small, and they are a confined environment where gun battles are very 
likely to cause damage to bystanders and damage the aircraft 
instruments.

                              {time}  1415

  For this reason, Federal air marshals must undergo a training regimen 
that is far more demanding than the training programs for other law 
enforcement officials.
  I would like to point out that the bill provides no role for the 
employers of the individuals who would become Federal flight deck 
officers of the airlines. Candidates for the Federal flight deck 
officer program apply directly to the TSA. Airlines might not even find 
out whether one of their pilots has applied for the program until after 
TSA requests a history of their work record and other background 
information. I know of no other private sector employee-employer 
relationship where the employees can seek authorization to carry a 
lethal weapon without the employer's knowledge and consent. After all, 
if something happens on a plane, it is the airline that is most likely 
to be sued, and yet they have no role to play in this program.
  During the question-and-answer period at a Senate Commerce Committee 
hearing, the head of TSA, John Magaw, indicated that the agency is 
opposed to arming pilots with lethal weapons. TSA are the experts in 
this area, and they recognize the complexities involved. They know what 
it takes to train a Federal air marshal. It goes far beyond just 
training someone in basic gun safety and firing a weapon accurately.
  Security tasks should be left to dedicated security professionals. We 
should not be second-guessing the TSA program and their judgment. At 
best, arming pilots increases security only marginally, while diverting 
precious time and resources that TSA could spend on more important 
endeavors.
  TSA is already having great difficulty reviewing and coordinating 
plans with airports deploying detection systems. I am particularly 
concerned that requiring TSA to focus on developing procedures to arm 
pilots will make it virtually impossible to comply with the December 31 
deadline for 100 percent deployment in this area.
  I just want to remind Members, Mr. Oberstar, that two pilots were 
arrested for being drunk as they were getting ready to go fly a plane. 
I would hate for them to have had lethal weapons.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). Without 
objection, the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, we are currently considering Amendment 
No. 8, and that amendment does the following: The amendment ensures 
that the program proposed by this act will be carried out expeditiously 
by requiring that at least 20 percent of the pilots who volunteer 
during the first month be trained and deputized not more than 6 months 
after the program is enacted.
  Also this amendment provides that at the end of 2 years, at least 80 
percent of all those pilots who volunteered during those years will be 
trained and acting as Federal flight deck officers.
  With our Nation's present safety concerns, time is of the essence to 
get this program up and running. Those who would cause harm to our 
citizens need to know that there are pilots who are trained and ready 
to defend their passengers against harm.
  The Transportation Security Administration recognizes the deterrent 
and life-saving effect armed personnel can have in a terrorist incident 
at an airport. Just this past weekend, following the shooting deaths of 
two people at the El Al Airlines ticket desk at Los Angeles 
International Airport, the TSA, or Transportation Security 
Administration, announced that armed agents will begin patrolling the 
ticketing areas of the Nation's airports. According to press accounts, 
a TSA spokesman said these armed agents could react quickly to an 
incident, preventing additional deaths and injuries like the armed 
guard did in Los Angeles.
  On Saturday, according to numerous press reports, the TSA issued a 
press release that said, ``Had this event occurred at another airline 
counter without armed security guards, the situation, unfortunately, 
would have been worse.''
  This incident emphasizes that we cannot be complacent about any of 
the security measures that we put in place at our airports and at the 
other modes of transportation. I wish that I could verify these press 
reports with an actual copy of the TSA statement. However, the TSA and 
the Transportation Department will not make them available to my 
office, despite repeated requests.
  Nevertheless, in the case of airport terminals, the TSA is absolutely 
right. Having firearms in the hands of people can thwart terrorists and 
save lives. Today we have an opportunity to apply that same logic to 
the airplanes themselves, the very place where the attacks took place 
on September 11.
  Tom Heidenberger, a pilot for U.S. Airways, lost his wife Michelle, a 
flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 77, when terrorists 
hijacked the plane and flew it into the side of the Pentagon on 
September 11. Tom, who continues to fly, told me why arming pilots is 
so necessary. ``Had the terrorists known there were means to protect 
the cockpit, had the crew been able to defend against the takeover, my 
wife would be here today,'' he said.
  Let us learn from the horrible events of that day and make sure they 
can never happen again by arming as many pilots as soon as possible.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take the whole 5 minutes, but I would 
like to counter some of the things the gentlewoman preceding spoke 
about.
  First of all, it is almost laughable when you talk about the tight 
confines. Have you ever flown an A-4 Skyhawk or an F-14? I had 20-
millimeter Gatling guns in those airplanes, I could disintegrate this 
building in a half-second burst, and I could operate it fine. If I was 
landing or taking off at a Naval airfield, I can assure you, I could 
use it.
  When I was shot down over Vietnam, I had a .357 Magnum, I had a .38 
flare pistol and a 9 millimeter Luger. I used them. I did not want to. 
When the time came, I used them, and they were effective. It let the 
enemy know I was armed. I probably did not hit anybody, but they knew I 
was armed.
  I want to tell the gentlewoman that just a terrorist knowing that 
someone in that cockpit is armed is going to deter them. If I was a 
terrorist and I thought only 2 percent of these pilots were armed, I 
might take the bet. But if I knew between 25 and 100 percent of those 
guys were armed, I am probably not going to play those odds because I 
know I am not going to win.
  I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), because I want to clarify something in the 
bill, if the gentleman does not mind.

[[Page H4463]]

  It is my understanding that someone other than a military or 
policeman is not eliminated from participating in the armed pilots 
program, is that correct? They were just given a preference?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, yes. The intention of the language in the 
bill is to give a preference to pilots who have previous military 
experience or law enforcement experience, but it is a preference only.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it does not 
eliminate someone else?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. It is only a preferential consideration.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman for clarifying that.
  Mr. Chairman, if the DeFazio amendment fails, I am going to offer an 
amendment to put it at 25 percent. I will not do that if that passes. I 
cannot imagine it not passing, because the public has spoken, the 
airline pilots have spoken, and I think this House has spoken as far as 
that position.
  I understand that, in drafting a bill, you have got to work in a 
tight way to craft a bill that you think is the best, but I think 
looking at what the needs are, we need more than a 2 percent chance of 
these pilots bearing arms.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) 
will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       Page 5, strike lines 18 through 21.
       Page 5, line 22, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       Page 6, line 1, strike ``(6)'' and insert ``(5)''.

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, there has already been a significant 
bit of discussion about this amendment, but I would like to clarify 
what this amendment does, one more time.
  The amendment strikes the language in this bill that gives 
preferential treatment to pilots who were former military or former law 
enforcement personnel. It is correct, Mr. Chairman, that there is a 
preference only, but if we want a cross-section, a complete cross-
section, of pilots who volunteer to take part in this plan, the 
question is, why do we have a preference in the first place?
  The underlying bill calls for, at this time, a rigorous training 
program, a rigorous training program that would result in a pilot who 
has much responsibility in the safety of the crew and passengers of the 
flight already, a program that he or she would have to take part in in 
order to become a flight deck officer and wield a weapon potentially on 
board a flight.
  Mr. Chairman, if we truly want a cross-section, then I believe that 
the preference is not necessary. There are thousands of pilots who 
desire to carry firearms on to the flight deck, lethal force to protect 
the crew and passengers of their plane, of the flight, that have never 
been in the military or in law enforcement. If they are so willing to 
go through the rigorous training program and to adequately be able to 
wield lethal force aboard a plane, why should we give a preference to 
others?
  So, Mr. Chairman, once again, this simply strikes the language that 
grants a preference for individuals who have been currently military or 
law enforcement personnel.
  I think it is a good amendment. I think it does what the underlying 
premise of this bill would do, and that is to not only deter potential 
hijackings, but also to thwart those hijackings should they attempt to 
take place. Likewise, we would know that more pilots would be part of 
the pool of individuals that would be considered for volunteering to 
serve us.
  So, Mr. Chairman, once again I ask that the full House accept this 
amendment.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, again, we have presented in a slightly altered 
technical fashion, I believe, this amendment which we have talked about 
before. I must reluctantly rise in opposition.
  I think the gentleman, again, is well-intended in that he is saying, 
why not go to the full body of pilots and train them? We have though, 
again, as I have said before, tried to think through this bill how we 
could achieve training those who have the best credentials, the best 
experience, on an expedited basis. Certainly those with military and 
law enforcement backgrounds meet those criteria. So we will actually 
harm the bill by passing this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against it. Again, I think 
the gentleman is well-intended, both by this amendment and his previous 
amendment, in trying to get many pilots trained on an expedited basis 
and get many pilots, a large percentage of them, armed within a certain 
period of time.
  I also realize his mistrust of the bureaucracy. We have seen that 
sometimes we assign tasks, and that task is not fulfilled or somehow 
gets distorted. Again, I understand his motivation, but must 
reluctantly oppose his amendment.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I would like to inquire of the offerer of the amendment, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), why he withdrew the amendment 
in the first place, Mr. Chairman, and I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer that 
question. The fact is that staff of the House had a different form, had 
a different paper that had transposed the numbers 7 and 8 on their 
sheets and had said that when I initially offered amendment No. 7, 
which is the amendment that is pending before us now, which is No. 7 
and has always been No. 7, according to their paper was No. 8. So they 
spoke to the amendment No. 8 and all of us, including myself, were 
considering No. 7, that is actually No. 7. So I offered, because that 
was the best information at the time and was informed that we should do 
that, and so I asked unanimous consent to withdraw it and then to bring 
it up at a later time.
  Then it was found out between that time and the previous amendment 
No. 8 that, in fact, the transposition had taken place, and so that is 
where we find ourselves now.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for explaining the 
circumstances which caused a great deal of consternation on the floor 
and caused us to debate this amendment twice.
  As I said in debate the first time the amendment was offered, it goes 
contrary to the underlying principle of this entire bill, which is 
armed pilots. Because they have previous military or law enforcement 
experience, they know how to handle guns, they know how to handle a 
turbulent situation that clearly would be the case in the attempt of a 
hijacking of a lethal nature and, therefore, one of the principal 
motivating factors for this legislation.
  Now the gentleman proposes to strike the preference in the bill which 
emerges from that underlying premise. I find it a contradiction in 
terms.
  Furthermore, the language that the gentleman seeks to strike is a 
preference. It is not a prohibition, as I discussed in exchange with 
the gentleman from California. It is not an exclusion of anyone else, 
any person other than those in the two categories of previous military 
or law enforcement experience. So it just seems to me to be a 
puzzlement as to why we would. Notwithstanding the gentleman's 
explanation, I find it contrary to the amendment, contrary to the 
purpose of this legislation; and I urge my colleagues to defeat it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). The question is 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler).

[[Page H4464]]

  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler) will be postponed.


               Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Hostettler:

                               H.R. 4635

       Page 11, after line 9, insert the following:
       ``(i) Limitation on Authority of Air Carriers.--No air 
     carrier shall prohibit or in any way refuse or discourage a 
     pilot employed by the air carrier from becoming a Federal 
     flight deck officer under this section. No air carrier 
     shall--
       ``(1) prohibit a Federal flight deck officer from piloting 
     an aircraft operated by the air carrier, or
       ``(2) terminate the employment of a Federal flight deck 
     officer,
     solely on the basis of his or her volunteering for or 
     participating in the program under this section.
       Page 11, line 11, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(j)''.
       Page 13, line 20, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(k)''.


        Amendment No. 9, As Modified, Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask unanimous consent to 
modify amendment No. 9 with the text that I have now and will deliver.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will report the modification.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 9, as modified, offered by Mr. Hostettler:
       Page 11, after line 19, insert the following:
       ``(i) Limitation on Authority of Air Carriers.--No air 
     carrier shall prohibit or in any way refuse or discourage a 
     pilot employed by the air carrier from becoming a Federal 
     flight deck officer under this section. No air carrier 
     shall--
       ``(1) prohibit a Federal flight deck officer from piloting 
     an aircraft operated by the air carrier, or
       ``(2) terminate the employment of a Federal flight deck 
     officer,
     solely on the basis of his or her volunteering for or 
     participating in the program under this section.
       Page 11, line 20, strike ``(i)'' and insert ``(j)''.
       Page 14, line 5, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(k)''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the modification 
offered by the gentleman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I am proposing 
today would clarify what I believe this bill infers. Air carriers would 
simply be prevented from firing or otherwise discouraging those pilots 
who join the flight deck officer program. It also ensures that air 
carriers cannot prohibit Federal flight deck officers from flying their 
aircraft.
  This amendment simply ensures that the brave pilots who volunteer to 
protect the citizens of this country will not be discriminated against 
by airline carriers.
  I want to ensure that terrorists know that if they attempt to hijack 
one of our airliners, in all likelihood they will not succeed. Given 
that pilots are not yet armed at this point, we have to ask: If an 
armed pilot is not the last line of defense against hijackers, where 
does that leave us?
  In a recent Committee on Armed Services hearing, I asked the 
commander in chief of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, 
General Ralph Eberhart, about what happened on September 11 when it was 
determined that the fourth plane, Flight No. 93 which crashed in 
Pennsylvania, may in fact have been aiming to target our Nation's 
capital.
  I asked, ``What were the actions that NORAD contemplated?'' General 
Eberhart stated, ``At that time, the authority was passed, if we 
believed that, in fact, it constituted a threat to people on the 
ground, that we could take action to shoot it down.
  ``The decision was made rather than to go out and try to meet this 
airplane to stay over New York City and Washington, D.C., in case, if 
we left it uncovered, there was another airplane coming. So had we seen 
it continue toward one of those metropolitan areas or we were sure it 
was going to another metropolitan area, be it Baltimore or whatever, we 
would have engaged the airplane and shot it down.''
  He went on, ``Obviously, we're always hoping, and we don't do that 
until the last minute because we were hoping that, as those brave souls 
attempted, that maybe they regained control of the aircraft or that the 
hijackers changed their mind. So we don't want to do this prematurely, 
and we want to see a hostile act, and we want to see it pose a threat.
  ``So we take this action after a lot of deliberation and to ensure 
that we have no other option. But we were prepared and we would have 
been able to shoot that aircraft down had we needed to.''
  I then asked General Eberhart: ``General, there is still an action 
item that your command may be responsible for doing something that was 
similar to what was contemplated on September 11, are you not? That is 
still a possibility?''
  General Eberhart said, ``Regrettably, I'm afraid that's always going 
to be a possibility now. We redefined it on 9-11, and we now train for 
that. We've established the procedures for that. We exercise for that, 
hoping that that would never happen. But hope's not a good strategy.''
  General Eberhart's remarks are obviously very telling. If terrorists 
get control of a commercial airline, the only alternative is for the 
Air Force to shoot it down. Does it not seem reasonable to insert one 
more preventive step before an F-16 launches a missile at a passenger 
plane? We allow law enforcement officers, animal control officers, and 
forest rangers to carry their weapons on airplanes. Why not the 
individuals entrusted with the safety of the plane itself? These are 
the people we entrust with our lives every time we board a flight, and 
the majority of them possess distinguished military backgrounds. These 
are the ones who are trained in responding to life and death situations 
in a moment's notice.
  Several months ago, I had the opportunity to join several commercial 
pilots and pilots associations in a press conference to agree that 
they, not F-16 missiles, are the preferred last line of defense against 
an attempted terrorist takeover of a commercial aircraft. They strongly 
prefer firearms to stun guns to do the job most effectively. In fact, 
every law enforcement official who uses a Taser backs it up with lethal 
force; no one depends on Tasers alone.
  I will add that the open market currently offers some ammunition 
suitable for firing onboard aircraft.
  These facts, combined with the fact that this bill shields the 
airlines from liability, leave no reason for the airlines to prohibit 
pilots from protecting their planes and passengers. This amendment 
simply ensures that pilots are able to do just that. I ask the House 
for its acceptance.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Indiana. I strongly support his amendment before us.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana for his making 
changes that have allowed us to support this amendment. While we have 
not received any indications from airlines that they would prohibit 
pilots from participating in the program, we feel pilots deserve ample 
protection in this matter. Pilots should not be punished for their 
desire to protect their aircraft, their crews, or their passengers from 
terrorists. I urge support of this amendment.
  I might also say, since this will probably be the last amendment, I 
believe, offered, that it is important to respond to a couple of other 
items relating to the airlines and their participation in this program.
  The very distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), whom I 
greatly respect, a member of our committee, he rose in opposition. His 
opposition is primarily centered around giving the airlines the ability 
to opt out of this program. The gentleman from Indiana's amendment 
restrains the airlines from interfering with a pilot participating in 
this program; and we think that that approach, that provision is good.
  I do think that the gentleman from Michigan is well intended to allow 
airlines to opt out, and that is something

[[Page H4465]]

they requested before. However, we have given them unprecedented 
exemption and liability, and I think that that should cover them. 
Again, my concern is that if we had one more incident of an airliner 
being taken out that we would not have to worry about airline survival; 
we would not have to worry about the economy, because they would all be 
going down the tubes. We have seen what the incidents of 9-11 have 
brought to us, and we are still trying to recover economically, and our 
airlines are trying to recover. So this is a good provision. It 
protects the pilots.
  We have also heard in the debate today about the pilots, and I want 
to remember today some of the captains that flew those planes on 
September 11. If they had had the ability to defend themselves, if even 
one of them had had the ability to be armed, we could have saved 
destruction; we could have saved lives.
  Some of those brave captains were Captain Jason Dahl, and he was the 
pilot on United Flight 93. On United Flight 175 was Captain Victor 
Saracini. On American Flight 11 was Captain John Ogonowski, and on 
American Flight No. 77 was Captain Charles Burlingame. If even one of 
those captains had had the ability to defend himself, history today 
might be entirely different.
  We do not want anything to interfere with pilots' ability to defend 
themselves. Yes, I would like to have more pilots trained, and I would 
like to expedite this whole program. But again, our compromise does not 
allow that.
  Finally, let me respond to the gentlewoman, also a distinguished 
Representative who serves on our committee, the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), and she referred to the TSA experts. Well, 
I will tell my colleagues, I would rather put my trust and faith in the 
pilots. We have to understand that sometimes we get letters from our 
constituents around the country and we get maybe 100, sometimes many 
hundreds of letters on a particular issue. As chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Aviation, I was presented with petitions from 58,000 
pilots and many of their families who signed petitions asking us for 
this legislation. As I have said in the past, this is not something we 
just cooked up in the back room; this is not something that I sprung 
out. In fact, I was kind of lukewarm at the beginning. But the more I 
saw, the more I heard from pilots who see the weaknesses in our 
aviation security system. I put my trust in those pilots, and that is 
why we have moved forward with this bill.

                              {time}  1445

  It is not a perfect measure, by any means, but it is a good bill, a 
good start. I support the gentleman's amendment, and urge its adoption.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Hostettler), as further amended in the version just read by the Clerk, 
is acceptable. I did not think it was necessary to take this step, but 
I think we have agreed on both sides of the aisle to accept the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, on the overall measure before us, since this is 
apparently the last amendment, and hopefully we will vote in the next 
10 or 15 minutes, it is a good time to reflect back on where we are and 
where we have come with this legislation.
  The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Mica) has already referenced the 
strong support of the commercial airline pilot community for this 
legislation, and that certainly has become evident in the months since 
the tragic events of September.
  When first approached with the idea of arming flight deck crews, I 
was opposed to the idea. I have mentioned this in my opening remarks on 
the legislation. But as I weighed the progress being made by the 
Transportation Security Administration in putting in place the many 
provisions of our Transportation Security Act of last November, it 
became very clear that the interlocking web of security measures that 
we envisioned in that legislation is not in place.
  Secondly, pilots are concerned about the order of the President to 
NORAD to scramble, whether active Air Force units or Air National Guard 
units, to intercept a plane on which there may be a skyjacking of the 
September 11 type.
  Pilots rightly have said if that occurs, the pilot in command of the 
attacking jet could well be my right-hand pilot on the weekday, and on 
the weekend he would be ordered to scramble to shoot down my aircraft 
and my passengers, and I do not want that to happen. I want to be, if 
that is the case, the obstacle of last resort.
  Now, in aviation security, as in aviation safety, the entire 
structure is dependent upon a web of redundancies. We have backups for 
virtually every aviation safety system, and so we have done in crafting 
the Transportation Security Administration Act to establish a web of 
redundant security measures that back up and overlap one another.
  Those measures are now being put in place with great vigor by the 
Department of Transportation, by Secretary Mineta, Under Secretary 
Jackson or Deputy Secretary Jackson and Under Secretary McGaw, but it 
is a huge and daunting task.
  They have gone through spring housecleaning and they have cleaned out 
the old system while still keeping its structure in place and preparing 
to replace it. They have established a training curriculum for the 
instructors of the security screeners. They have established a system 
to recruit screeners who comply with the requirements of our law. They 
are in the process of training those security screeners, and have 
already put the first increment in place at Baltimore-Washington 
International Airport to test out the training curriculum, the 
operation of the new Federal security screeners, and to take those 
lessons into the classroom for the next wave of security screeners.
  They have moved vigorously at TSA to work with the industry producing 
explosive detection systems, the two companies that produced the two 
versions of explosive detection systems, and are encouraging them and 
are helping, with all the resources of the government, to have multiple 
production of these units by other companies.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). The time of the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Oberstar was allowed to proceed for 5 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, that is under way, but it is proving very 
difficult to manufacture this equipment in the time frame envisioned. 
We knew that a year ago. We knew very well it was going to be difficult 
to comply with, but this House, with an overwhelming vote, supported 
that legislation, supported those deadlines, because the public 
insisted on security in our aviation system.
  The protection for the flight deck, there was an interim measure that 
has now been in place for securing all flight deck doors, as an interim 
measure. There is under way with Boeing and Airbus a development of the 
ultimate flight deck secure door that has yet to be certified by the 
FAA, although the FAA is in the process of final evaluation, and 
hopefully yet by the end of this summer they will be able to certify 
that the flight deck doors proposed by the two aircraft manufacturing 
companies will be able to withstand all of the assault measures 
envisioned on board an aircraft. So that piece of the web security is 
not in place.
  We do not have positive passenger bag match required on all flights 
in the domestic service.
  We do not have a universal biometric system for identifying potential 
problem travelers. I think that, too, needs to be put in place.
  Absent all of those measures being put in place to provide the 
ultimate security for aviation that we envisioned in the Transportation 
Security Act, this bill before us does provide the next logical and 
responsible step of a test program to arm and to train pilots in the 
use of those armaments on board aircraft.
  I hope that the amendments offered will be rejected. They are not in 
conformity with the spirit of the legislation. If they are not 
rejected, I will be constrained to oppose this bill. I do not want to 
oppose it, but if these amendments or if any one of them is adopted, 
except the one on which we have agreed, then I feel the bill and the 
bipartisan spirit will have failed and I

[[Page H4466]]

will not be prepared to go forward with this legislation.
  I know that the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the 
full committee have expressed their opposition to all but this one 
amendment, and we anticipate that there will be a satisfactory outcome, 
that the amendments will be rejected, and that the underlying bill can 
then be adopted by the House and be sent on to the other body, and 
hopefully to the President.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, not very often do we find ourselves trying to stretch 
out the time. I guess leadership is downtown and they want to stretch 
it out until 3 o'clock.
  One of the enjoyable things about this debate, and I see my friend, 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mica), but I have seen some people that, in my opinion, do 
not know what they are talking about. But even in that light, they were 
offering constructive types of legislation or comments that were in 
good faith. I think that is why this debate has been so healthy.
  Quite often on this floor we sit here, and because it is an election 
year, there is partisan rancor. I want to thank my colleagues on the 
other side that that has not been the case. There has not been a 
partisan issue on this, and although we may disagree, it is based on 
wanting to help the American public.
  With that, I would say that I disagree with my friend, the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), on the amendment. I would say that it 
has been established that it is a benefit to have our aviators armed in 
the cockpit. If that is the case, should we only arm 2 percent of our 
Capitol Police? I think not, because 100 percent of our Capitol Police 
armed gives us better protection.
  Should we arm 100 percent of our aviators? No, because I also agree 
with the gentleman that not 100 percent of aviators should carry a 
weapon, or even qualify for that. But I think a goal of that would be 
correct.
  Of those that are allowed to do that, I think the training should be 
very, very intensive, with modern techniques, in the problems they may 
incur in a highly pressurized aircraft at elevation.
  Our marshals carry weapons, 100 percent of them. I think we ought to 
achieve that goal, and the DeFazio-Thune amendment I believe should 
pass. I would be sad if the gentleman that has tried so hard to craft a 
good bill, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), would oppose it 
because of that; but I think that the American people have spoken, the 
airline pilots have spoken, and I think this body will speak, and I 
expect that overwhelmingly to pass. I would hope the gentleman would 
join us in this with enthusiasm.
  Mr. Chairman, I would take a look at professional aviators. I looked 
at the one amendment as far as preference. The reason I asked my friend 
if military and law enforcement had preference, but did not eliminate, 
I want to tell the gentleman, I have known some aviators that the only 
pistol they have ever handled was a .38 during qualifications when they 
were going through the AOC program in training; so again, they may have 
precedents, but there are people that I hunt and fish with that have 
far more experience.
  If we look at Suzie Brewster, a former Member's wife, I would trust 
her in a cockpit with a weapon, and she has never been in law 
enforcement or been an aviator, more than I would some of my pilot 
friends. I would not want those individuals eliminated. I was glad to 
see that they are not.
  I think there needs to be a real close look at the requirements and 
the capability and the overall experience, not just because they are in 
the military or in law enforcement.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, on the matter of the cap and the last 
point the gentleman made, the point of the bill, of doing a 2-year test 
and then evaluating, was to work out some of the very concerns the 
gentleman expressed.
  The gentleman is quite right, that not all pilots that we know are 
qualified to handle a gun. That is why there is the training 
requirement in the legislation, to prepare and hopefully to weed out 
people who really do not qualify.
  The idea of undertaking this limited program to test out these ideas 
and to ascertain the effects of a misfired gun in the cockpit that 
might send a bullet through the autopilot or through the flight deck 
computer are necessary preconditions. Then we stop, take stock, and the 
Secretary or the under secretary could make the determination to open 
it up to all pilots. But I think this is a matter of walking before we 
run.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I understand 
his argument except the fact that I know, I do not have to study it, I 
know if I was in a cockpit of an airplane, I would want to be armed as 
protection because that guy is going to cut my throat and I want to be 
able to defend not only myself but the pilots in the back, and I do not 
need a pilot program.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to reluctantly support the 
Hostettler amendment No. 9. I have said repeatedly I was opposed to all 
amendments that would be offered to this piece of legislation. But 
fortunately amendment No. 9 is an amendment which I do not believe 
breaks the delicate balance that we have achieved in this bipartisan 
piece of legislation. So I am reluctantly willing to support it.
  I would like to go on to say, though, that the ranking member, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), mentioned that if the DeFazio 
amendment were to pass that he would reluctantly have to be opposed to 
the bill, and I would want to say that I would have to be also.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Oberstar), and myself and our staff, particularly the staff, have 
worked enormously hard on putting this bill together. All of us in this 
body are interested in improving security and safety in our skies. But 
until we really get into a piece of legislation, we will not understand 
what ramifications it can have. And that is why it is so important that 
this bill that we have put together be passed without any amendments 
that would harm it, because these amendments that have been proposed 
have very serious ramifications which we who deal with aviation on a 
day-in and day-out basis and our staff that does it on a day-in, day-
out basis realize what these ramifications will be in trying to 
implement this program if the program is changed.
  So I ask all my colleagues to support the bill, the manager's 
amendment that was brought here to the floor, and oppose all the other 
amendments that are opposed by the ranking member of the full 
committee, by myself, by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, 
and by the chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. Chairman, I also remind my colleagues if they really want to do 
something for aviation safety and security, support this bill in its 
present context without amendments because, once again, I say the 
administration is really opposed to arming pilots with lethal weapons. 
The Secretary of Transportation is and the Under Secretary for Security 
is also. And if we expand this bill too far, you can rest assured that 
the administration ultimately will veto this piece of legislation. So 
to prevent that from happening, please defeat all amendments.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). The question is 
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hostettler).
  The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: Amendment No. 11, 
offered by the gentleman from Oregon

[[Page H4467]]

(Mr. DeFazio); amendment No. 8, offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hostettler); amendment No. 7, offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 11 Offered By Mr. DeFazio

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 250, 
noes 175, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 288]

                               AYES--250

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--175

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burr
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Barrett
     Bonior
     Delahunt
     Hastings (FL)
     Norwood
     Olver
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  1534

  Messrs. WYNN, SKEEN, CROWLEY, PALLONE, ACKERMAN, RUSH, CLYBURN, and 
BISHOP, Ms. McKINNEY, Mrs. CAPPS, and Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. POMBO, TERRY, COSTELLO, FORD, SESSIONS, ENGLISH, McHUGH, 
GREENWOOD, STUPAK, GILCHREST, and Mrs. NORTHUP changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). Pursuant to 
clause 6, rule XVIII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a 
minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by 
electronic device will be taken on each amendment on which the Chair 
has postponed further proceedings.


               Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Hostettler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169, 
noes 256, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 289]

                               AYES--169

     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Berry
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     English
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Gallegly
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)

[[Page H4468]]


     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Skelton
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thune
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                               NOES--256

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bono
     Boozman
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Burr
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefley
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (MI)
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Barrett
     Bonior
     Delahunt
     Hastings (FL)
     Norwood
     Olver
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  1546

  Mr. DAN MILLER of Florida, Ms. PELOSI, and Mr. FRANK changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. BRADY of Texas, CULBERSON, ROHRABACHER, and LEACH changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Hostettler

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). The pending 
business is the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 49, 
noes 376, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 290]

                                AYES--49

     Akin
     Baird
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Doolittle
     Flake
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     LaHood
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, Jeff
     Ney
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Platts
     Pombo
     Rehberg
     Rogers (MI)
     Royce
     Schaffer
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Tancredo
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wilson (SC)

                               NOES--376

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Boozman
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)

[[Page H4469]]


     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Andrews
     Barrett
     Bonior
     Delahunt
     Hastings (FL)
     Norwood
     Olver
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  1556

  Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any further amendments to this 
bill?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I take this time simply to state the case of the status 
of this legislation. With passage of the first amendment, the DeFazio, 
et al. amendment, the House has voted to make all 70,000-plus 
commercial airline pilots eligible immediately to be armed and trained 
to carry guns in the flight deck. That is fine. I am just stating the 
case of where we are.
  The House has voted to delete the requirement for a 2-year pilot 
program, a test program, after which the plan was to stop, take stock 
and decide what issues needed to be addressed, what problems need to be 
fixed, and then to proceed with a permanent program if the 
Transportation Security Administration decided to do so.
  Under this legislation, even if the initial deployment demonstrates 
that there are safety problems, even if we learn in the initial going 
in a year or so in this initiative that there are safety problems or 
the program is ineffective in preventing a skyjacking, or if doors are 
installed to make the flight deck secure, as will happen next summer, 
according to the current schedule, this program is permanent. There is 
no stop, take stock, and decide whether to go permanently with it.

                              {time}  1600

  At a cost of $8,000 of training per pilot per year, the cost is in 
excess of $500 million a year. The Transportation Security 
Administration will have to start training within 2 months of enactment 
of the legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, in the end, the current status of this bill violates, 
in my opinion and in reality, the agreement that we worked out on a 
bipartisan basis to bring to the floor measured, responsible, stop, 
take stock, before you go ahead, assess the effect of this program in a 
2-year initiative and then decide whether to go ahead on a permanent 
basis.
  That is now gone. I can no longer support the legislation in this 
form, and I urge a no vote on passage.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, this has been one of the more honorable debates that I 
have taken part in, and my utmost respect goes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). You will not find very many times that I vote 
with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), so you know when I do it, 
it is pretty bipartisan.
  But I want to tell Members that although it makes 100 percent 
allowable, that will never be reached. The only people that are going 
to be allowed in those cockpits are people that are qualified, that are 
trained and that complete the training; and that will never reach 100 
percent, and it should not. All this did was raise the cap. If it is 
true that we should only have 2 percent, then why do we not just arm 2 
percent of our Capitol Police? Arming 100 percent of them that are 
qualified makes it safer for all of us.
  This is a bipartisan agreement. I think that you will see the vote on 
the DeFazio amendment was one of the most bipartisan votes we have had 
this year. Not just committee members, but of this body, of this House.
  It is a good amendment. It makes our airways more safe. For that 
reason, I strongly support this. I ask Members to support the bill.
  And I would also like to again express my appreciation to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's kind 
remarks. He said that previously.
  It was a very balanced debate and one that stuck to the issues, and 
in the interest of sticking to the issues, I just want to point out 
further that while the underlying bill had a 2-year program, stop, take 
stock before going ahead, the bill, as now constructed, does not have 
that stop, take stock provision. That is my concern.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the reason I did 
not vote for the Hostettler amendment, it required 30 percent within 30 
days. There was no way to do that if the percentage was increased. I 
think that is why the DeFazio amendment strikes a good balance on this 
and gives us the maximum amount of protection.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides to support this bill. It is a good 
bill for the American people. They want it, the American Pilots 
Association wants it.
  God bless you.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not often I disagree with the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), who knows more about aviation than probably 
everybody on the floor of the House put together, but I do respectfully 
rise to disagree with his conclusion that Members should vote against 
this bill. Let me quickly lay out a case.
  The threshold was crossed on a bipartisan basis by the Democrats and 
the Republican leaders of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure that there is a credible threat that continues in 
aviation. I can tell you it is going to be a very, very long time, if 
ever, before we have flight decks similar to what El Al, has where the 
pilots can go in and stay there until they land because they have a lav 
and food service. We are not even anticipating that.
  We are seeing the FAA drag their feet on just giving us a door that 
can't be battered down by a deranged individual from Brazil with his 
head. They are dragging their feet on that, so it is going to be a long 
time before those flight decks are as secure as we want. At El Al, 
until they reached that point in time, they did arm their pilots. They 
never had an incident.
  These are highly trained people. These are people you trust with your 
lives every week when you fly in those planes. These are people who do 
not want to feel helpless in losing control of their airplane to 
terrorists.
  I am not going to say this is the most credible threat. Personally, I 
believe explosives are the most credible threat to killing people, 
maybe even personal explosives.
  This continues to be a threat, and the leaders of the committee 
decided it was a threat, so the question becomes, why should we at that 
point restrict to 2 percent, which would be known to every terrorist in 
the world, of the pilots, on a daily basis? That would mean that less 
than one-half of 1 percent of the pilots flying would be armed because 
of the flight schedules they keep on a monthly basis.
  So if you are a terrorist intent on mayhem and your chances are 99.5 
to 1 that you are going to be successful, you might just take a chance. 
But with this amendment, we have created the uncertainty.
  I would suggest that we will classify the number of pilots who have 
undergone the training and qualified, and it will be just like the sky 
marshals. You are not going to know how many of them are up there or 
whether they have a gun or do not have a gun. You are going to create 
that element of uncertainty for these people, so then they will try 
maybe some other place in the system to get us, and we have to be 
closing those gaps with explosives and maritime and all those other 
things.
  So I respectfully disagree with the gentleman's conclusion that 
because of that we should vote against this bill. There is still 
administrative discretion. There will still be a conference with the 
Senate. If the gentleman finds horrible problems in terms of the pace 
or whatever, we can work on those things. But to kill the bill now 
would be to deny the threat that was identified on a bipartisan basis 
by the leaders of the committee and the American public and deny the 
American public this credible protection.
  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and I have 
fought many, many fights on this floor,

[[Page H4470]]

and in subcommittee and full committee, and on most occasions, 
unfortunately, we lost. Today I am sorry to say that he won and I lost.
  I think that the people who really lost here are the American flying 
public. We had a bill that the leadership of the committee on both 
sides agreed to. It was a balanced bill, it was a prudent bill, it was 
a cautious bill, it was a bill that really would be effective in the 
long run.
  The Senate was not even interested in that bill. It was our hope that 
we could pass this bill here today by overwhelming numbers so that the 
Senate would be forced to take up that bill.
  By passing the DeFazio amendment today, it ensures that you are not 
going to have the Senate take up this bill. If, through some miracle, 
the Senate does take up the bill, the Secretary of Transportation and 
the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security, has already come 
out against weapons of this nature being on planes with pilots. The 
administration has said nothing on this because their Secretary of 
Transportation has already come out in opposition.
  If we really want to do something for aviation safety and security, 
we will now defeat this bill so we can come back with a bill that has a 
chance of ultimately becoming law. If we want to improve aviation 
safety and security in this Nation and not make a point for a special 
interest group along political lines, we will vote against this bill 
and we will come back with a new one very shortly that has a chance.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dan Miller of Florida). Are there any 
further amendments to the bill?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Nethercutt) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dan Miller of Florida, 
Chairman pro tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under 
consideration the bill (H.R. 4635) to amend title 49, United States 
Code, to establish a program for Federal flight deck officers, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 472, he reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole?
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the so-called 
DeFazio amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment?
  If not, the Clerk will report the amendment on which a separate vote 
has been demanded.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
       Page 2, line 12, strike ``pilot''.
       Page 3, lines 8 and 9, strike ``selecting, training,'' and 
     insert ``training''.
       Page 3, line 9, after ``pilots'' insert ``who are qualified 
     to be Federal flight deck officers''.
       Page 3, line 10, strike the semicolon and all that follows 
     through ``first'' on line 17.
       Page 9, strike lines 3 through 9.
       Page 9, line 10, strike ``(5)'' and insert ``(4).
       Page 9, line 24, strike the comma and all that follows 
     through the comma on line 25.
       Page 11, strike line 20 and all that follows through line 4 
     on page 14.
       Page 12, line 21, strike the comma and insert ``and''.
       Page 12, line 23, strike the comma and all that follows 
     through ``program'' on line 24.
       Page 14, line 5, strike ``(j)'' and insert ``(i)''.

  Mr. OBERSTAR (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 251, 
nays 172, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 291]

                               YEAS--251

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--172

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burr
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goss
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Osborne
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark

[[Page H4471]]


     Tauscher
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews
     Barrett
     Bonior
     Delahunt
     Hastings (FL)
     Norwood
     Olver
     Radanovich
     Roukema
     Traficant
     Waters

                              {time}  1628

  Mr. COX changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. SANCHEZ, Mr. Speaker, today I cast a vote in error on rollcall 
No. 291. It was my intention to cast a no vote on this rollcall.

                              {time}  1630

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nethercutt). The question is on the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 310, 
nays 113, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 292]

                               YEAS--310

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clement
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--113

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Blumenauer
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burr
     Capuano
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Ehlers
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Thomas
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews
     Barrett
     Bonior
     Chambliss
     Delahunt
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Norwood
     Olver
     Roukema
     Traficant

                              {time}  1646

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to travel to Washington, DC on 
July 10, 2002 because I was attending the burial of Firefighter Thomas 
G. Stewart III, who died in the line of duty on July 4th, 2002 in 
Gloucester City, New Jersey.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' of rollcall No. 292, 
H.R. 4635, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act.
  Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 292, I was unexpectedly 
detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 292, I was unavoidably 
detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________