[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S209-S210]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. Brown of Massachusetts, Mr.
Akaka, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Kyl):
S. 2044. A bill to require the Under Secretary for Science and
Technology in the Department of Homeland Security to contract with an
independent laboratory to study the health effects of backscatter x-ray
machines used at airline checkpoints operated by the Transportation
Security Administration and provide improved notice to airline
passengers; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
aimed at ensuring that the health of American travelers is not placed
at possible risk as our airport security technology evolves. I am very
pleased to be joined by Senators Akaka, Coburn, Scott Brown, and Levin,
who are cosponsoring this bill.
Our bill has two major components. First, it would require the
Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology Directorate,
in consultation with the National Science Foundation, to commission an
independent study on the possible health effects of the x-ray radiation
emitted by some of the scanning machines we see and pass through in our
airports. Second, it would give airline passengers, especially those
passengers in sensitive groups such as pregnant women, clear notice of
their ability to choose another screening option in lieu of exposure to
ionizing radiation.
Some advanced-imaging technology--or AIT--machines rely on x-ray
backscatter technology. Time and time again, I have expressed my
concern over their use, particularly since there is an alternative
screening technology available. While the TSA has repeatedly told the
public that the amount of radiation emitted from these machines is
extremely small, passengers and some scientific experts have raised
legitimate questions about the impact of repeated exposure to this
radiation.
Last November, during a hearing on aviation security before our
Homeland Security Committee, the TSA Administrator, John Pistole,
agreed to my
[[Page S210]]
call for an independent study to address the lingering health concerns
and questions about this additional and repeated exposure to radiation.
Shortly thereafter, however, he appeared to back away from this
commitment, suggesting that a forthcoming report by the Department of
Homeland Security's inspector general might be a sufficient substitute
for a new, completely independent, thorough study.
Chairman Joe Lieberman and I wrote to the Administrator to press for
more details about TSA's plans for an independent study. Two weeks
later, having received no reply, I sent another letter to Administrator
Pistole asking why he believed the IG report on TSA's use of
backscatter machines was a sufficient substitute for an independent
study of the health impacts. TSA's response lacked any detail as to why
the agency no longer believes an independent study on the health
effects of x-ray backscatter machines is warranted, nor did it explain
how the IG's review would be a sufficient substitute for an independent
study. That is why I have introduced this bill today.
Late last year, the European Commission announced that ``in order not
to risk jeopardizing citizens' health and safety,'' it would only
authorize the use of passenger scanners in the European Union that do
not use x-ray technology. This prohibition gives even more need and
justification for an independent study of the safety of the AIT
machines.
Some respected experts have warned Congress and the administration of
the potential negative public health risks posed by the x-ray
backscatter machines. They note that while the risk that someone might
develop cancer because of his or her exposure to radiation during one
screening by such an AIT machine is very small, we simply do not truly
know the risk of this radiation exposure over multiple screenings for
frequent flyers, those in vulnerable groups, or TSA employees
themselves who are operating these machines.
When a person is scanned by these machines, they receive a dose of
radiation--what experts in the field call a direct dose. During the
scan, some of the radiation is not absorbed but is scattered in random
directions from the person being scanned. Experts call this the scatter
dose. Some experts point to anomalies between the scatter dose
reportedly associated with these scanners and the scatter dose
associated with comparable medical technology. Specifically, the
scatter doses for these AIT machines are higher in relative terms than
scatter doses for comparable medical devices. What is troubling is that
the experts are not sure why the AIT scatter doses are higher. They
point to possible deficiencies with the testing equipment or the poor
placement of the testing equipment as possible explanations. Overall,
they say this anomaly could point to higher direct dose rates and
should be yet another impetus for an independent study.
Additionally, some experts note that the safety mechanisms in these
machines that would prevent them from malfunctioning have never been
independently tested. This means that if a machine malfunctions and the
safety features designed to shut the machine down in such an instance
do not work, a traveler could receive a higher dose of radiation.
Pregnant women, children, the elderly, and as much as 5 percent of the
adult population are more sensitive to radiation exposure. At a
minimum, this suggests the need for further independent study.
Mr. President, I wish to share with my colleagues a tragic episode
involving the daughter of two of my constituents. She underwent
screening at the airport with a backscatter x-ray AIT. She was pregnant
and directed by TSA to a line for a backscatter x-ray AIT machine. She
was completely unaware that she was entering into an x-ray emitting
machine before she stepped into it. She thought it was the more
traditional magnetometer. Afterward, she was distressed to know she had
exposed her unborn child to x-ray radiation. Had she realized ahead of
time, she clearly would have opted for the alternative screening
methods. Only 2 weeks later, she suffered a miscarriage which she
attributes to the radiation she received from this scan. We will never
know for certain the cause of this family's loss, but they believe in
their hearts that the backscatter radiation is to blame.
Clearly, at a minimum, this young woman should have been informed by
a prominent sign that an alternative means of screening was available.
That is why my bill also requires TSA to have larger, understandable
signs at the beginning of the screening process, not later when it is
only noticed, if at all, after a lengthy wait in line. Signs should
alert passengers that pregnant women, children, and the elderly can be
more sensitive to radiation exposure. These signs should also make
clear that passengers can opt out of this type of scanning.
I have urged TSA to move forward using only radiation screening
technology, but in the meantime, an independent study is needed to
protect the public and to determine which technology is worthy of
taxpayer dollars. Surely passengers should be well informed of their
screening options.
We Americans have demonstrated our willingness to endure enhanced
security measures at our airports if those measures appear to be
reasonable and related to real risks. But travelers become frustrated
when security measures inconvenience them without cause, cause privacy
or health concerns, or when they appear to be focused on those who pose
little or no threat.
On this particular issue, Senators Akaka, Coburn, Scott Brown, Levin,
and I agree that we are past the time when an independent review of the
scanning technology that emits radiation must be undertaken. I urge my
colleagues to join us in quickly passing this legislation.
______