[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[House]
[Page 18948]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                SCREENING BAGGAGE FOR EXPLOSIVE DEVICES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share some information to my 
colleagues that is pertinent to our next several hours of us in the 
House of Representatives. The reason I say that is in the next several 
hours probably about 80 percent of us will be getting on airplanes. We 
are going to go out to Dulles, some to National. We are going to get on 
airplanes to fly back to our districts to work with the people who have 
been so traumatized by our recent losses, and that is part of our duty 
to do it.
  But what the information I want to share with my colleagues is that 
when we get on those airplanes in the next several hours, we will be 
getting on the airplanes with 100, 150, 200, maybe 300 other Americans. 
All of those Americans will be getting on airplanes that have not had 
the baggage screened for explosive devices when they are put in the 
belly of the jets that we get on.
  The sad fact is that today I have found and many others in the last 
few weeks, much to our surprise, that our security apparatus does not 
screen for explosive devices on bags that are put in the baggage 
compartments of our airlines. The reason that we have not done that in 
the past is two-fold. Number one, the theory has been in the past that 
we do not have to screen for bombs in luggage. All we have to do is to 
make sure that the people who put the baggage on get on with the plane, 
under the assumption that no one would want to go down with the plane. 
Well that assumption is certainly moot after September 11. That basis 
for our strategy has greatly outlived its purpose.
  The second reason that we have not screened for bombs on aircraft in 
the baggage compartment is that it has involved some cost. But, Mr. 
Speaker, I can state that I am very, very confident that the hundreds 
of people that are going to get on the airplane at Dulles and National 
today believe that the cost is worth it to screen for bombs in the 
baggage compartment of airplanes. The threat is too great, the 
potential loss is too great, and the available technology is too good 
not to use it. The fact is we have technology that can sniff with high 
level, actually not sniff, but they use another technology, a high 
level of probability will catch explosive devices, but we are simply 
not using it.
  As a result of that, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Strickland), and myself and 14 others introduced yesterday the Baggage 
Screening Act which will require that bags shall be screened for 
explosive devices before they go on an airplane 100 percent. Right now 
maybe 5 or 10 percent are screened. That is not enough. That means 90, 
95 percent of our bags are not screened for explosive devices. That is 
not good enough security for American people.
  The reason we introduced this bill is that today and in the next few 
days, we are attempting to reach a bipartisan consensus on a security 
package for airlines. We want to bring to the attention of our 
leadership that this feature needs to be in our security package. We 
need to screen for explosive devices. It is the right thing to do. We 
need to find a way to pay for it. If we do that, a lot of Americans 
will feel a lot more confident. If we take away nail clippers from 
passengers, let us keep the bombs out of the baggage.

                          ____________________