[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21234-21238]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2299, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND 
               RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2299) making appropriations for 
the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes, with a Senate 
amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the 
conference asked by the Senate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.


                 Motion to Instruct Offered by Mr. Sabo

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Sabo moves that the managers on the part of the House 
     at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses 
     on the bill, H.R. 2299, be instructed to insist on inclusion 
     of the highest possible level of transportation security 
     funding.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XX, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Rogers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct is very straightforward. It is a 
motion to instruct the House conferees to insist on the highest 
possible level of funding for transportation security.

                              {time}  1130

  As the conference on the differences between the House and Senate 
versions of the fiscal year 2002 Transportation Appropriations bill 
begins, we now have an opportunity, in light of the tragic events of 
September 11, to provide additional transportation security resources.
  Funding in the Senate bill for aviation security is over $14 million 
higher than funding in the House bill. The Senate bill funds civil 
aviation security at $150.2 million and the House bill funds it at 
$135.9 million. Likewise, funding in the Senate bill for Coast Guard 
operating expenses is $45 million above the House bill. While not all 
of this funding is directly related to increased transportation 
security, much of it is because Coast Guard operations are 
multimissioned.
  Currently Coast Guard homeland security missions have increased 
substantially while other missions, such as drug interdiction, have 
decreased. In context, I must say that the Senate also had a higher 
302(b) allocation for total resources available than the House did.
  Accordingly, this motion to instruct directs the House conferees to 
agree to the Senate funding levels for transportation security 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with this motion to instruct. As the 
gentleman from Minnesota knows, the House-passed bill included 
reductions in the FAA's operating expenses for their civil aviation 
security program. We made those reductions out of total frustration at 
that time with the FAA's delays and mismanagement of airport-airline 
security.
  We are beginning to get back on track, but at the time we passed the 
bill, that was the situation. We wanted to get their attention, using 
the power of the purse, to compel them to make these long-needed 
improvements. We read in this morning's edition of the Washington Post 
the Secretary of Transportation is saying the problems continue even to 
this day in airport-airline security beyond what we had been promised 
and told.
  The House is scheduled tomorrow to debate an airport-airline security 
bill which would remove those functions of security from the FAA and 
transfer them to a new agency which has transportation security as a 
whole as its function, not just airline security but pipelines and 
trucks, barges, trains, whatever, security for transportation in 
general. There would be a new agency within the Department of 
Transportation to which the FAA's heretofore obligations on airport 
security would be transferred, and the FAA would no longer have those 
responsibilities nor the need for the funds for that purpose. So in all 
probability then, after tomorrow when the House acts, the Senate acts, 
those activities would be handled not by the FAA but by a new agency 
within the Department of Transportation, hopefully.
  Given this, I do not believe we will have the problems being 
described this morning in the future. We should give this new agency 
within the Department of Transportation a fresh start, not hamstring 
them with the problems

[[Page 21235]]

that the FAA has had with airline security; and I wanted to assure my 
colleague, my helpmate, my soul mate on the floor here, that I will do 
all I can as chairman of the conference to ensure the highest possible 
level of funding for transportation security, not necessarily within 
the FAA.
  One other note. We all obviously are concerned that the Coast Guard 
is not getting all the money that they would like to have. They would 
like to put into a supplemental bill moneys that we could not fund in 
the regular bill. If we see in this conference items within the Coast 
Guard's request that relate to security and the need for improved 
security, we can address that, but I would hope that we would limit our 
conversation in that regard to the matters that pertain to security and 
the need for the Coast Guard to improve their security capability.
  As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with the motion to instruct.
  I want to thank the staff and the gentleman from Minnesota and his 
staff for the cooperation and the hard work that all have shown.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson).
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I come in support of the 
Senate bill that will come to the floor on airline security.
  I formerly represented Los Angeles Airport, LAX. As I go in there to 
come back to Washington, D.C., there is not a time that the staff at 
whatever airline does not approach me to secure the planes that they 
have to fly and serve on. It is an essential move that we have to make 
now.
  People do not want to fly because they think it is unsafe. We have to 
have a force checking everyone, checking bags. We have to have them 
uniformed. We have to renew the spirit of flying in this country. We 
have to save the industry. We have to encourage the American people 
that they can feel safe on their airlines. We must pass the bipartisan 
bill now. We must secure the safety of our planes, our passengers, our 
airports.
  I would encourage everyone to vote ``aye'' on the compromise bill.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Matheson).
  Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, lost in all the debate and politics over 
airline security is the very common-sense idea that the best long-term 
strategy for improving security is with new technology. I think we 
cannot increase security at our airports for this 21st century war with 
technologies from the 1950s.
  There is a world of technology from biometric authentications, radio 
tracking for baggage, and passenger scanning and identification systems 
that can be deployed as our first line of defense against the terrorist 
threat. Systems such as electronic fingerprinting, retinal scans, 
facial geometry and signature scans could present a level of secure 
access that is not being provided today.
  At check-in we can instantly match passengers against terrorist watch 
lists. For employees, we can better secure the restricted areas of 
airports and planes by ensuring that entry is tied to biometric 
identifiers.
  Two weeks ago the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and I 
introduced the Aviation Security Technology Enhancement Act so we can 
find out which technologies work best and what would be the best way to 
implement these new technologies. Technology will provide better 
security, more efficiency and eliminate the problem of profiling 
because it will check everyone.
  Mr. Speaker, American innovation is at its best when we face a 
challenge. We are the Nation that put people on the moon and created 
the Internet. We must put our technological capacity on the front lines 
of this new challenge.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Lampson).
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for 
yielding me this time.
  We would not dream of contracting out the protection that our police 
provide and we would not dream of contracting out the protection our 
military provides. Why in the world are the leaders of this body 
attempting to contract out our airport security? Airport security 
forces must be reliable, standardized and verifiable. There should be 
no compromise on this.
  Following September 11, I have been meeting with thousands of school 
kids from my district. Recently I asked them the question, should the 
security forces that protect our airports be federalized like the 
police and military? The kids resoundingly answered yes. It is common 
sense; kids know it, the American public knows it. But my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle do not seem to know it.
  National defense and security are charges of the Federal Government, 
and keeping our skies safe is part of that responsibility. It is plain 
and simple common sense. Ask yourself, who do you want protecting you 
and your family, a Federal security force or the lowest bidder?
  Support this motion to instruct conferees to include more money for 
airport security.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  This motion to instruct is vital. The House of Representatives in the 
7 weeks and 1 day since these terrorist attacks has yet to directly 
appropriate one dollar for enhanced aviation security or consider one 
piece of legislation, no matter how minor or major, to enhance the 
failing system of today.
  I feel pretty secure here in the Capitol, and I believe my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle who are fighting against a Federal law 
enforcement work force for aviation security feel pretty secure here, 
too. We have uniformed Federal law enforcement officers protecting the 
United States Capitol and protecting us. But somehow when it comes to 
the safety of the American traveling public, this failing private 
security business is paramount. They are the best we can do. Security 
on the cheap.
  We have reports 3 feet deep from the GAO over 30 years of the 
failures of this system, but they say, ``Don't worry. We'll have new 
Federal standards.''
  Let us talk about the Federal standards. The second largest private 
security firm in the United States of America, Argenbright, is under 
criminal indictment for the second time in 6 months. But their bill 
would keep them in business. That is great. Let us keep them in 
business. Let us give them a chance. I guess they believe in three-
strikes-and-you're-out for the private security firms.
  The second time they are under indictment for hiring known felons, 
maintaining known felons on staff. They have violated their probation 
by maintaining known felons on staff. They have continued to falsify 
documents to the Federal Government about training and background 
checks, but they want to perpetuate that system. They said, ``Don't 
worry, with a little Federal oversight it will get better.''
  Federal oversight? What could be tougher Federal oversight than the 
United States Department of Justice, a Federal judge, a million-dollar 
fine and probation for a criminal conviction? This system does not 
work, and it will never provide the security the American traveling 
public needs and deserves.
  They say, ``Well, we'll do other things. We'll mandate the wages. 
We'll mandate the benefits. The Federal Government will do the 
background checks. The Federal Government will supervise or actually 
conduct the training. The Federal Government will supervise these 
people.''
  What role is left for these failing private security companies except 
to give campaign contributions to the other side and to turn a little 
tidy profit? The government would be assuming everything but, in name, 
the security function under their bill.
  Let us just do it straight up. When you go to Hawaii, they inspect 
your baggage for contraband agricultural

[[Page 21236]]

goods. The people who inspect your baggage for contraband agricultural 
goods in Hawaii are uniformed Federal law enforcement officers. In 
fact, this United States Congress has even deemed that the beagles that 
sniff your baggage are Federal law enforcement officers. The INS are 
Federal law enforcement officers. Customs are Federal law enforcement 
officers. As I pointed out earlier, those who protect the Capitol are 
Federal law enforcement officers. But somehow when it comes to 
screening passengers and baggage and carry-on bags and protecting the 
secure side of the airport, we should continue this failing private 
system.
  No, we can do better. It is time to totally junk that system and 
adopt a new one that will protect the traveling public.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let us talk about airline security and the bill coming 
up tomorrow, since the gentleman would like to talk about it.
  What are we talking about when you talk about securing an airplane 
for the safety of the passengers? Well, you are talking about the 
baggage that is checked, that goes into the hold of the plane; you are 
talking about the person, the flier; and you are talking about whatever 
purses or baggage that that person carries into the cabin of the plane.
  Do you need a security expert to look through a purse? I hardly think 
so. Do you need a technician that is paid $50,000 a year to look in 
your briefcase? I do not think so. Do you need a $50,000 a year person 
to look at an x-ray screen that is looking at your purse or your 
briefcase as you go through the checkout line? No, I do not think so.
  What you do need, Mr. Speaker, is a Federal agent there, with the 
proper authority, to receive information from our security agencies, 
the CIA, the FBI, the INS, the DEA, all of the Federal agencies that 
have something to do with learning whether or not you might be 
dangerous on that airplane. So it is the person that is getting on the 
plane that is altogether important, and, yes, the Federal Government 
needs a Federal agent at every checkpoint checking on the person that 
wants on the airplane. That is the most important thing. An innocent 
person, a non-terrorist that carries a machine gun onto the plane is no 
danger, but a terrorist with a box cutting knife is the most dangerous. 
So it is the person that needs to be checked.
  Now the Federal security agencies do not have input, are not allowed 
to have input, frankly, and the FAA is not given the data from these 
agencies to check whether or not you as you try to enter the plane are 
in fact a suspected terrorist. That is a problem. That needs to be 
fixed. The only way to fix that is to have a law enforcement officer 
who has the proper security clearance to receive information from CIA, 
FBI, and so on, there on the spot checking the passenger list to be 
sure you are okay. That is important. That is necessary.
  But you can hire people to check the bags. That is not a complicated 
security job. You can get it done more quickly, you can get it done 
more efficiently, you can get it done for a better expenditure of the 
Federal taxpayers' dollars, I think, by contracting that out under 
Federal supervision, under Federal clearances, under Federal 
regulations and guidelines, so that when the person is hired we know 
whether or not they have a criminal background, or they will not be 
hired if they do; that there will be Federal certification required, 
which is not the case now, before a person is hired for those types of 
jobs. There would be Federal supervision, Federal training, and 
dismissal if the person does not fit up to the standards that are 
required.
  Under the Civil Service laws of our land, rightfully so, it is very, 
very, very difficult to discharge, to fire, a person for incompetence. 
It is practically impossible. I do not want those kinds of rules 
applying to the person checking to see whether or not a terrorist is 
entering my airplane. If that person is not doing the job, fire them 
right on the spot, just as happened last week in New Orleans where a 
person was allowed on a plane with a gun. The person, the screener, 
that allowed that to happen was fired instantaneously by the private 
contractor. Had that person been a Federal employee, they would still 
be checking at that gate today.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let us understand what we are talking about here. 
Yes, we need a Federal takeover of security screening of people and 
items going on planes. Yes, a Federal takeover, Federal agents on the 
spot 24 hours a day being sure that people and things going on planes 
are not dangerous. You can deal with the details of that though much 
more efficiently and more cheaply, frankly, for the taxpayers by 
contracting out the small items, the things that can be done by 
untrained, frankly, untrained personnel.
  So I hope tomorrow when we have the airline security bill, that we 
will do what the President wants, what the Secretary of Transportation 
wants. Norm Mineta we all know. The Secretary of Transportation, Norm 
Mineta, was a Member of this body. He was chairman of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure for a number of years. He is an 
expert if there is one on airline security. He has advised the 
President, the President's staff all agrees, the President agrees, the 
Secretary of Transportation agrees, the FAA agrees, all of them agree 
that the best way to go is a Federal takeover of airline security, but 
contract out the mundane details that can be done by just about 
anybody.
  So I hope tomorrow we will exercise good judgment, that we will 
follow the lead of our former colleague in this great body with high 
respect on both sides of the aisle, Norm Mineta, Secretary of 
Transportation, and we will follow the lead of our President. And let 
us not worry. Let us not get in the way of what this country needs to 
do right now, and that is to defeat the terrorists. And let us not get 
bogged down in a detail like this, when I think it is a fairly 
insignificant detail, and let us stay focused on the big picture.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me respond quickly. The gentleman mentioned cheaply. 
We do now have the cheapest system you can buy. It is failing us 
miserably. That should not be a consideration before us.
  The gentleman talked about insignificant details. Is it an 
insignificant detail to smuggle a fully assembled, loaded handgun onto 
a plane, or a hand grenade through security? Because that is what has 
happened with private security today. The FAA has tested this system, 
and they have been able to get hand grenades through, fully loaded 
handguns.
  The gentleman mentioned machine guns. I am not sure that happened 
yet, but it may have. But he said it would be okay if someone brought 
it on with good intentions. I do not think so.
  But, if I could, the gentleman talked about $50,000 a year people. 
Well, I am not sure what we pay these Capitol Hill police, but we 
should pay them $50,000 a year. And if we think we need $50,000 a year 
uniformed Federal law enforcement officers to protect the United States 
Capitol and the Members of the United States Congress, I will tell you 
what, no one is going to take the Capitol up off the ground and fly it 
into a building and kill people, but airplanes go up in the air every 
day. And the flight attendants are not feeling good about it, the 
pilots are not feeling good about it, they are not getting the security 
they need.
  We need better security screening. It is our first line of defense. I 
do not know if the gentleman is familiar with the CTX-5000. It is a 
very complicated piece of machinery, and we probably need to pay at 
least $50,000 a year for someone to operate it. It sniffs and looks for 
bombs in baggage. It is a machine that they say you basically have to 
be a radiologist to analyze, because it is like using a CAT scan. It is 
very,

[[Page 21237]]

very complicated. But the gentleman would want to put a minimum wage 
person operating that machine, because that would be cheaper.
  What does it take to operate the machine? Actually it takes an expert 
to operate that machine. So this is not something you can do on the 
cheap. But we want to go around the barn and say, well, the Federal 
Government will have law enforcement officers there, the Federal 
Government will supervise, the Federal Government will do the 
background checks, the Federal Government will set the wages and 
benefits, but these will not be Federal employees because we are 
worried we cannot fire them.
  Actually, if the gentleman read our bill, he would see in the bill it 
says they do not get protections that are performance-based, they can 
be fired for lack of performance. This is a better option.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman misrepresented what I said. I, of course, 
would not say it is okay to take a machine gun on an airplane. I resent 
that inference.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I do not yield.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Would the gentleman like me to have the words read back?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). The gentleman from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I would appreciate the gentleman responding 
and respecting my time, as I respected his.
  Of course, I did not say that. I would never say something like that. 
I did not say that it would be minimum wage employees operating 
expensive equipment. Of course you have to have experts to operate the 
new CAT scan-type x-ray machines that we are bringing on-line now and 
paying for in our bills.
  If you take a tour of the Rome airport, for example, as the ranking 
member and I did just a while back, and saw the expensive, highly-paid 
classified workers out of sight beneath the airport searching all 
baggage, including searched baggage, you know that it must be done by 
an expert. Of course it must be.
  I am just saying for the routine things, looking in purses, opening 
up a briefcase looking for something, you do not have to have a highly 
paid person doing that. But you do, of course, have to have the highly 
paid Federal workers that are there with security clearances to receive 
information from our security agencies to check the person, to see if 
they are on the watch list, to see if they have been involved in 
problems overseas somewhere, or here. That is the person that needs to 
be the expert, and that is what I would advocate that we do.
  Now, the system as it now is run by the airlines, they have been in 
the past needing to get by on the cheap, and they have. And no one 
defends the present system, certainly not me. I have been probably one 
of the most critical of it there is. But that was done because the 
airlines have been responsible for security, and their bottom line was 
important to them, and therefore you had minimum wage employees now 
doing the screening.
  Of course that should be done away with. You do not need to pay these 
people minimum wage. The Federal Government when it takes over the 
system will be able to hire the people that the requirements of the 
position will demand and we will pay whatever the rate is. I am sure it 
will not be minimum wage.
  But the essential point is we need a Federal takeover of airline 
security. We need Federal agents on the scene at all times, not only 
just to run the screening process, but the baggage process, and access 
to the tarmac, to the airfield. That all needs to be controlled under a 
Federal mandate.
  But please give the President some choices, some options here, to do 
it the best possible way. I hope the gentleman is not telling us that 
he knows more about this than Secretary Mineta. I do not believe the 
gentleman will tell us that he knows more about this than people who 
have devoted their lives to airline security, who are saying to us 
please give the President options.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman can answer briefly, since 
the gentleman has admitted the present system is failing, would the 
gentleman bar the present firms, particularly those who are under 
criminal indictment and have been criminally convicted, from continuing 
to provide services under a new privatized system? Would the gentleman 
accept that? I guess not.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Listen, I am the one who I guess broke the 
story on one of the companies.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. So you would.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. That was under indictment, in fact pled 
guilty in Philadelphia. So if that company or any other company could 
qualify under the conditions that we set down, sure. But I have got a 
feeling, as far as I am concerned, that the standards would prohibit 
that.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the Young bill, that 
would not prohibit firms who are criminally convicted of violating 
existing guidelines from continuing to provide private security. The 
parent company in Britain has just been found to have committed very, 
very serious breaches of security in Heathrow Airport. So you have a 
foreign-owned firm which is on both sides of the ocean failing, and 
your bill would not prohibit that firm from bidding.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), our good friend.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I 
did not realize at what point we were in this debate, and I came over 
as soon as I knew that it was going on.
  I am pleased to see that this motion to instruct has been offered, 
and I am glad to see that the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 
indicated that he has no problems with the proposal, with the motion to 
instruct the conferees.
  I think it is an entirely appropriate thing that we should be doing 
here; that is, asking for the highest possible level of transportation 
security funding. It goes far beyond just security for airports, 
although that is the area that, because of the horrendous events on 
September 11, has had the most attention. Clearly, we need better 
security in our tunnels, on our bridges, in our rail stations, in our 
subway stations. We will have to get around to that. But we have become 
focused, at least for the moment, upon airline security and the 
airports' security.
  Since September 11, the economy has been in a steep slide toward 
recession. There are at least 100,000 direct employees, direct 
employees of the airline companies, who are out of jobs, and that does 
not say anything about the many-times-that of other employees, often 
part-timers and such in the tourism industry, that have been affected 
by the steep slide in the economy. It comes because air travel is a 
major portion of our whole economic system. The airports are half-
empty. Even in those that are running fairly effectively, we find the 
confusion that goes on in the security systems that are there. They do 
not know what to do because they never had any training, never had any 
standards, never had any real professionalization in the process; and 
that is still affecting them, even though there are fewer than half the 
people going through the airports today that were going through 
earlier, and we are expecting that we are going to end up with some of 
our airlines going out of business. Yet, we have had in, now, almost 2 
months no law; with all the different things that we have done, nothing 
on the professional-

[[Page 21238]]

ization of the airport security systems and not a single dollar to 
establish that kind of professionalization.
  Mr. Speaker, we really have to professionalize our airport security 
system with ultimately the responsibility for that being clearly in the 
hands of the Federal Government. It can be in terms of very strong 
management with features that are being talked about in the several 
bills that are here, but we really have to require a Federal uniform 
system to protect all passengers, or passengers are not going to return 
to the airlines and they are not going to return to our airports and 
our economy will still be in the tank.
  We have to expand the air marshal program. We have to develop new 
methods to modify cabin and cockpit security in our planes. We have to 
require extensive background checks of security personnel. And we need 
to maximize the use of explosion detection equipment. But at the bottom 
of all of that is that we must professionalize the personnel systems 
that are involved in airline security.
  It is more than a month ago already, it was in September, and here we 
are on the last day of October, that we held a joint hearing of the 
Senate and House Subcommittees on Transportation of the Committees on 
Appropriations, where we heard powerful testimony by the Federal 
Aviation Administration, the General Accounting Office and the 
Inspector General for Transportation documenting the utterly poor 
security systems that are operated by the airlines. As they operate in 
this country, it is the weakest system of any of our major Western 
countries, as far as I have been able to detect, looking at the systems 
that are available in Western Europe and in Israel; and ours is very 
like Canada's at the moment, or has been.
  Both the General Accounting Office and the IG extensively tested the 
security systems and found that screeners frequently failed to detect 
guns, knives; other threats at security checkpoints the IG reported 
repeatedly breached, and there has been a long history of that, 
document after document, stacks of documents showing that to be the 
case, breached security areas in a large percentage of their tests at 
major airports.
  Once they have breached the secure areas, persons who had gotten 
through what security systems were there could enter any of the planes. 
Well, why are those breaches, why were those breaches, so easy?
  Well, the GAO and the Inspector General cited specifically the very 
low wages and benefits of security personnel, little or no training of 
the screeners, weak to no criminal checks on the screeners, no uniform 
standards for screening and, interestingly, extremely rapid turnover 
which, in the testimony, indicated that the turnover ran from 80 
percent at a minimum in the lowest turnover at one of the companies up 
to 250 percent and, I think, as much as 400 percent turnover. These are 
people who were working for no more than a couple of months and the 
minute that they could get out of that job, because there was no kind 
of standard involved and no morale on the jobs, would go on to 
something else.
  In other words, these were the largely dead-end jobs, the very 
deadest end of jobs that were being used in protecting the security of 
American travelers, and yet we have not really done anything formal in 
that period of, now, almost 2 months to make corrections in it.
  So we now are going to deal with that tomorrow with legislation. I 
think that the Democratic bill is much stronger in what it puts 
forward, because it does professionalize the security system and put 
the responsibility directly on the Federal Government to make certain 
that the security system is one that is reliable; and that may give 
people the degree of confidence that they need so that they can come 
back to the business of flying and the business of why they fly, 
whether it be for tourism or for business itself.
  We have had indications that some of the companies have pleaded 
guilty to criminal violations and yet they are still contracted 
companies in the system as it operates today. With that happening, with 
the failure to conduct background checks on employees staffing those 
security checkpoints, it is highly unlikely that we will get back the 
confidence of the American people in the air travel systems that we 
have and get our economy back running.
  So I am very pleased that the chairman is happy to support the motion 
to instruct. I hope that when we get finished with this legislation 
tomorrow that we will have the strongest possible, the strongest 
possible law in place that will protect the security of the American 
traveling public.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATSON of California. Mr. Speaker, when anthrax was discovered on 
Capitol Hill two weeks ago, the House Leadership acted quickly and 
prudently to protect Congressional employees from the threat of 
terrorism. I support that decision. But the speed with which Congress 
moved to protect itself stands in stark contrast with our failure to 
provide for the security of the flying public.
  Mr. Speaker, it has been fifty days since September 11th, and yet the 
House of Representatives has still not acted to pass an airline 
security bill.
  It has been forty days since the House of Representatives voted to 
authorize a fifteen billion dollar bailout for the airlines, and yet 
the House still has not passed an airline security bill.
  It has been twenty days since the other body voted unanimously to 
provide for airline security, and still, the House has not yet passed 
an airline security bill.
  You might think that this delay was because our leaders were 
searching for a novel approach, or a well-calibrated solution. But, in 
fact, it was because of a partisan dispute about whether the screeners 
should be Federal employees. This despite that the fact that an 
overwhelming majority of Americans have said that they want the Federal 
Government to run airport security.
  In the wake of the September 11th attacks, Americans asked for, and 
received, an outpouring of bipartisan leadership from their elected 
officials. How sad that the one key thing that Congress must do to 
safeguard their security has been held up by a partisan dispute. I urge 
my colleagues to support this motion, and I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to 
bring the Senate's bipartisan airline security bill to the floor 
without delay.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct 
offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
  The motion to instruct was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the Chair appoints the 
following conferees:
  Messrs. Rogers, Wolf, DeLay, Callahan, Tiahrt, Aderholt, Ms. Granger, 
Mrs. Emerson, Messrs. Sweeney, Young of Florida, Sabo, Olver, Pastor, 
Ms. Kilpatrick, and Messrs. Serrano, Clyburn and Obey.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________