[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 21589-21592]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            AIRPORT SECURITY

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise as if in morning business to 
address an issue which has been debated at length on Capitol Hill since 
September 11.
  Since September 11, Americans have been focused on the issue of 
aviation security. There is no question that the system we used to 
cross America to that date was deficient. Whether stronger aviation 
security in our airports and around them might have averted that crisis 
is frankly unknown. But we all know that if we are going to be serious 
about limiting the opportunities for violence and terrorism on

[[Page 21590]]

America's airlines we have to change the system in our airports.
  Knowing that, we have taken a close look at the system of screening 
at our airports and the security that is available. Historically, the 
airlines were responsible for security in the airports. They would hire 
the people who screened the passengers and the baggage. Of course, that 
system broke down. It broke down to the point that the General 
Accounting Office did a study and found there was a massive turnover of 
employees working at screening stations in the airports.
  The worst case on record was at St. Louis Lambert Airport. In 1 year, 
there was over a 400-percent turnover in screening employees. We 
learned that the people who were working in those positions were being 
paid slightly more than a minimum wage. They were looking out of the 
corner of their eye for an opportunity at the local bakery or 
restaurant in the airport where help might be wanted so they could move 
up in their career with limited training and limited pay.
  As a consequence, we didn't have the kind of security in law 
enforcement which we should expect, particularly in light of September 
11.
  In my hometown of Springfield and at many airports that I have gone 
through in Illinois, some of the people working in the current system 
could not be more conscientious. They really take their jobs seriously. 
I want to give them credit where it is due.
  But let's be honest. In the major airports and major cities, the 
people who are attracted to these jobs are not the kind of people you 
would hire off the street for a law enforcement responsibility. This is 
clearly law enforcement.
  I was happy when the Senate debated this issue and came forward with 
a bill. That was led by Senator Fritz Hollings, chairman of the 
Commerce Committee. It was also supported and cosponsored by his 
colleague and ranking member, Senator John McCain of Arizona. In a 
bipartisan fashion, it came to the Senate floor and passed by 100-0. 
That is rather unprecedented in this Chamber.
  It was a unanimous vote to take this workforce in our airports and to 
say once and for all that we will hire them and train them as law 
enforcement professionals. They will be under the Federal Government's 
jurisdiction just as air traffic controllers are today. They will go 
through background checks. They will be subjected to training that is 
meaningful. They will be closely supervised by law enforcement experts. 
They will be held to national standards. That is what the Senate bill 
did, 100-0.
  More than 3 weeks ago, we sent that bill to the House of 
Representatives, asking them to respond in a timely fashion because of 
the terrible problems in this industry and because of the fact that 
some business travelers and families didn't want to get back on 
airplanes.
  Three weeks later, the House finally brought it to a vote at the end 
of last week.
  In the meantime, the House majority whip, Mr. Delay of Texas, and Mr. 
Armey, the majority leader in the House of Representatives, said they 
were opposed to the Senate approach.
  In the words of Mr. Armey: Using the Senate approach will create 
30,000 more union members who will work for the Federal Government.
  I think that clearly told the story. That vote and that debate wasn't 
about the merits of the issue. It was, sadly, about politics, and it 
should not have been.
  As a result, when it came up for a vote last week, the Senate version 
that passed unanimously on a bipartisan fashion was rejected by the 
House of Representatives by four votes. The alternative that was 
brought up for passage passed with a substantial margin. Now we are 
headed to conference.
  The difference between the two bills is substantial. The Senate would 
take this workforce in the airports and hold them to Federal standards 
and Federal employment and hold them to supervision and training that 
is uniform across the Nation. The House makes it an option for any 
administration to decide what they would choose in any given airport.
  I believe that was a terrible decision by the House of 
Representatives. It is one that doesn't reflect the reality of what 
families are thinking when they go to an airport and go to get on an 
airplane.
  As one clear illustration of why the House approach to aviation 
security is so bad, I want to tell you what happened at O'Hare 
International Airport in Chicago on Saturday evening.
  A gentleman from Nepal came to the airport. His name is Subash 
Gurung. He bought a ticket to fly from Chicago to Omaha. He went to 
board a United Airlines flight and went through the screening station. 
When he walked through the metal detector, it went off. They searched 
him and found that he was carrying two knives on his person. They took 
the knives away, and he left the screening station--after they found 
him with two knives. He took his bag and went to the gate.
  At the gate, United Airlines employees, on a random basis, chose him 
to look at his bag. When they opened the bag, let me tell you what they 
found. At the boarding gate, the man who had two knives on his person 
when he went through the screening vision had in his bag seven other 
knives, a stun gun, and a can of mace.
  This man had gone through security and had been found to be armed 
with dangerous weapons. His bag had gone through the screening device 
of the Argenbright firm that is in charge of the security at the 
airport. All of this was ignored. All of this slipped through. It was 
only because of that last search at the gate that they found those 
weapons on this man.
  There are those who believe that while looking at this situation we 
can patch up the security system at American airports. I am not one of 
them. I don't believe law enforcement should go to the low bidder. I 
don't think the first line of defense against terrorism should be taken 
on the cheek. That is what is happening in the current system.
  I might add that Argenbright and other firms have changed some of the 
ways they are doing business. They used to pay these screeners $6.75 an 
hour at O'Hare. They have now raised that wage to $10 an hour. That is 
a substantial increase. But they are still not attracting the people we 
need to protect us and to protect everyone in America.
  I am aware of a news story in Chicago that is going to come out with 
additional information about the breakdown of the private screening 
companies in terms of the preparation of their employees since 
September 11. I know of the story because they came to interview me 
last week. They told me what they found. It is shocking and it is 
disgraceful.
  To think Members of the House of Representatives want us to take this 
flawed and failing system and say this is the best we can do in America 
is just plain wrong. The obvious question is, If there are going to be 
Federal employees at the airport, who is going to pay for them?
  Let me suggest who is going to pay for them. The passengers on the 
airplanes. I don't think it is unreasonable that we would pay an 
additional $5 as a security fee for a ticket so that we can have 
professional law enforcement at an airport not only screening 
passengers but protecting the perimeter around the airport, making 
certain that once and for all we put a system in place that we can 
trust.
  I ask unanimous consent that these articles from the Chicago Tribune, 
the Chicago Sun-Times and USA Today dated today, November 5, be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1)
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, we know that private security contractors 
at airports can hire quickly. But we also know that with the turnover 
rates they have, they will have people who will come and go. That is 
not in the best interest of law enforcement.
  In your hometown, you would never delegate the protection of your 
neighborhood or your city to a contract employee. We bring people on 
who are

[[Page 21591]]

public servants, people who are dedicated to law enforcement, who take 
the job seriously and accept the challenge of that job.
  Since September 11, we have seen stories of heroes and heroines 
across America, and so many times they have been public employees. 
Those firefighters who walked up the stairs in the World Trade Center, 
trying to rescue people, giving their lives in the process, were public 
employees. The men and women in law enforcement on the ground, who lost 
their lives as they stood at their post trying to help people evacuate, 
were public employees. Many of the medical rescue workers were public 
employees. Sadly, the postal employees who died over the last several 
weeks from the anthrax bioterrorism were public employees.
  It is a reminder to all of us that so many of the men and women whom 
we hold up in admiration and respect time and again for their 
dedication and courage since September 11 have been public employees.
  I think the House approach to this problem is one that will not work. 
It will not protect America; it will not protect our airports; and it 
will not return people to our airlines, which we need to do so quickly.
  I am going to urge Senator Hollings and all the Senate conferees to 
stand firm and stand fast on this issue. This is a critically important 
issue. We need to do this and do it right. To do it in a halfhearted 
fashion, as the House of Representatives has suggested, is not going to 
restore the confidence of America's flying public.
  It is important for every Member of the Senate to consider the 
experience at O'Hare on Saturday night, when the current system, which 
the House of Representatives wants to continue with some modifications 
and changes here and there, utterly failed and left vulnerable a lot of 
unsuspecting people who were just getting on an airplane for another 
flight from Chicago to Omaha. It is an important lesson to be learned.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit I

                [From the Chicago Tribune, Nov. 5, 2001]

       Airport Security: 7 O'Hare Screeners Suspended Over Lapse

                   (By Tom McCann and Sean D. Hamill)

       Seven O'Hare International Airport security workers were 
     suspended Sunday and are likely to be fired after they let a 
     Chicago man pass through a security checkpoint with seven 
     knives, a stun gun and a can of mace in his carry-on luggage, 
     according to city aviation officials.
       The man was eventually stopped and the weapons were found 
     before he was able to board a plane Saturday. But the 
     incident, coming two days after the House rejected a plan 
     adopted by the Senate to federalize airport security workers, 
     in certain to stoke the debate over how to safeguard the 
     nation's airports.
       Subash Gurung, 27, a native of Nepal, was arrested about 
     7:30 p.m. Saturday while waiting to board a United Airlines 
     flight to Omaha, said Chicago Department of Aviation 
     spokeswoman Monique Bond. Airport police said Gurung bought a 
     one-way ticket.
       Airline employees discovered the weapons during a final bag 
     check at the gate, Bond said, part of new procedures that 
     several airlines have adopted since the Sept. 11 attacks.
       But that was after two folding knives were discovered in 
     Gurung's pocket when he walked through a security checkpoint 
     metal detector, police said. Bond said the knives were 
     confiscated and police were summoned, but Gurung was allowed 
     to continue to his gate.
       Meanwhile, his bag went through an X-ray machine, but the 
     security staff did not notice the knives or other weapons, 
     Bond said. A search of the bag wasn't conducted even after 
     the two knives were found, she said.
       Bond would not say what led to the later search of Gurung's 
     bag.
       ``Something obviously went seriously wrong here, and we're 
     trying to find out if it's the employees' fault or the 
     security company's fault,'' Bond said. ``If weapons were 
     confiscated, he should never have been let through 
     security.''
       The Federal Aviation Administration and Chicago Department 
     of Aviation have both launched investigations into the 
     incident and will consider whether the employees should be 
     fired and whether United should pay a fine.
       The suspended workers were all employees of Atlanta-based 
     Argenbright Security Inc., the company that runs United's 
     screening operations at O'Hare. Three veteran employees were 
     working the checkpoint alongside three trainees, said FAA 
     spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory. The employees' supervisor 
     was also suspended.
       ``We commend all our employees who acted to apprehend this 
     man,'' said United spokesman Joe Hopkins. ``They did an 
     excellent job.''
       Despite heightened airport security in the aftermath of the 
     attacks, the lapse on Saturday wasn't the first. Last month, 
     a passenger on a Southwest Airlines flight accidentally 
     brought a gun aboard a plane in his briefcase.
       Lawmakers agree steps are still needed to improve baggage 
     and passenger screening, but the House and Senate remain 
     divided about how best to achieve that goal.
       The Senate has approved a measure that would make security 
     screeners federal employees. The House version adopted 
     Thursday increased federal oversight of the 28,000 screeners, 
     but stopped short of federalizing them.
       ``If the system can't detect a knife and a stun gun in 
     luggage, then you have to ask yourself whether the people are 
     doing their job right,'' said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), 
     who supports the Senate bill that gives the Justice 
     Department responsibility for airport security.
       ``I think the technology works, but you can't pay someone 
     minimum wage and ask them to act as a law enforcement officer 
     on the front line fighting terrorism,'' said Durbin at a news 
     conference Sunday, in which he also proposed legislation to 
     allow federal agencies to share classified information with 
     local police.
       Gurung was charged with three misdemeanor counts of 
     unlawful use of a weapon, attempting to board an aircraft 
     with dangerous weapons and carrying dangerous weapons. A 
     spokeswoman for the Cook County state's attorney's office 
     said the case was still being evaluated and more serious 
     charges could be brought.
       Gurung was released early Sunday on $1,000 bail and is 
     scheduled to appear in court Dec. 19. He was questioned by 
     the FBI, who turned him over to Chicago police.
       Gurung could not be reached for comment Sunday. In comments 
     to WLS-Ch. 7, he said ``It just happened out of accident, in 
     a hurry.''
       He said he has worked in a warehouse but was presently 
     unemployed.
       Gurung recently moved back to Chicago with his brother, 
     Sushil, from Minnesota, said Adam Colfax, superintendent for 
     the apartment building in the 5700 block of North Kenmore 
     Avenue where the Gurung brothers lived until a year ago.
       Colfax said Gurung previously lived in an apartment at 1025 
     W. Hollywood Ave., where Ayub Ali Khan once lived. Khan has 
     been detained by authorities as a material witness in the 
     Sept. 11 attacks but it is unclear whether he knew Gurung.
                                  ____


                     [From USA Today, Nov. 5, 2001]

                  Why Rely on Low-Bid Airport Safety?

                           (By Paul C. Light)

       Now that the House has passed its own airport-security 
     bill, the stage is set for a showdown with the Senate over 
     who gets the 28,000 jobs. The Senate wants federal employees 
     at the baggage machines, while the House wants private 
     contractors.
       President Bush also favors private contractors. Only days 
     after he expressed his appreciation to federal employees for 
     ``your dedication and integrity, your commitment to 
     excellence and your love of our country,'' Bush was lobbying 
     hard to prevent passage of a measure that would have set up a 
     new federal workforce of airport screeners.
       The Bush administration, facing a civil-service system that 
     is slow on the hiring, weak on the firing, poor on the 
     training and sluggish on the disciplining, believes there is 
     no other choice. As Bush has explained, the House bill 
     provides the ``quickest, most effective way to increase 
     aviation security,'' particularly by ensuring ``that security 
     managers can move aggressively to discipline or fire 
     employees who fail to live up to the rigorous new 
     standards.''
       Bush's support for a contract workforce crystallizes the 
     problems facing the federal civil service. On the one hand, 
     federal employees would almost certainly do a better job at 
     airport security. According to recent surveys of federal and 
     private employees by the Brookings Institution's Center for 
     Public Service, a federal security service would be motivated 
     more by the job's challenge and the public good, and less by 
     pay. Federal employees would be more satisfied with benefits 
     and job security, and therefore less like to leave.
       On the other hand, federal workers would be less likely 
     than private employees to get the tools, training and 
     technologies to do their jobs well. They would be hampered by 
     a disciplinary process that their peers believe does little 
     to address poor performance, and would join a workforce that 
     is under-resourced, over-reformed and generally demoralized 
     by a half-century of pay and hiring freezes.
       New employees would be joining a federal workforce that is 
     under duress. Three out of five federal workers told the 
     Brookings center that their organizations only sometimes or 
     rarely have the staff needed to perform well. Many believe 
     the past few years of reinventing government made their jobs 
     harder. And the vast majority say the federal hiring system 
     is slow and confusing; a quarter refuse to call it fair.

[[Page 21592]]

       The question is not whether federal employees often succeed 
     against the odds; they do. Rather, the question is whether 
     the federal government can find a private workforce that can 
     outperform federal employees on anything other than fast 
     hiring and firing.
       The answer is mixed at best.
       Private airport-security contractors can hire quickly, but 
     they're poor at retaining. From 1998 to 1999, turnover among 
     private contractors at the 19 largest U.S. airports averaged 
     126%, topped 200% at five and hit 416% at Lambert-St. Louis 
     International.
       Private contractors also have trouble complying with 
     existing regulations. Just last year, one of the largest 
     contractors, Argenbright Security, was fined more than $1 
     million for assigning new employees to its screening check-
     points in Philadelphia without background checks or an audit 
     system to detect what the U.S. attorney's office called ``the 
     astonishing and widespread criminal activities that occurred 
     in this case.''
       In the best of all worlds, private contractors would hire 
     and supervise federal employees, avoiding an awful civil-
     service hiring and firing system that hasn't been reformed in 
     decades. But given a choice between the two workforces, 
     federal employees should get the job. No matter how stringent 
     the oversight, airport security is too important to consign 
     to the lowest bidder. That is how the security function fell 
     into disrepair in the first place.
                                  ____


               [From the Chicago Sun-Times, Nov. 5, 2001]

                        Coping With New Tensions


                     O'Hare arrest tied to terror?

                            (By Susan Dodge)

       A Nepalese man arrested at O'Hare Airport over the weekend 
     with several knives, a stun gun and a can of Mace gave police 
     the same home address that belonged to a suspect questioned 
     in the Sept. 11 terrorist hijacking investigation.
       But authorities were vague on whether there was any 
     connection between Subash Gurung, who was arrested Saturday 
     night at O'Hare, and Ayub Ali Khan, who is being held as a 
     material witness to the attacks. Khan was one of two men with 
     box cutters taken into federal custody Sept. 12 on a San 
     Antonio-bound Amtrak train.
       ABC-7 reported Sunday night that Gurung was being 
     questioned for a second time by FBI officials.
       He listed 1025 W. Hollywood, a Chicago apartment building, 
     as his home address. Khan is believed to have lived at the 
     same address for a time, authorities said. Khan, 34, is being 
     held in a federal detention center in New York City.
       Seven O'Hare Airport security workers--including a 
     supervisor--who allegedly let Gurung pass through their 
     checkpoint were fired Sunday, Chicago Aviation Department 
     spokeswoman Monique Bond said.
       Gurung was within minutes of boarding a United flight to 
     Omaha, Neb., Saturday night when the stunning security breach 
     was detected by airline employees who searched his carry-on 
     bag, where the weapons were located, officials said.
       Security officials confiscated two knives at a security 
     check-point, but Gurung made it to the boarding gate with 
     seven other knives, a stun gun and Mace in his carry-on, said 
     Bond.
       Police Supt. Terry Hillard and Thomas J. Kneir, head of the 
     local FBI office, spoke about Gurung's arrest but decided 
     they could not charge him with a federal crime ``because he 
     didn't board an airplane,'' said Chicago police spokesman 
     David Bayless.
       Gurung was arrested Saturday and charged with three 
     misdemeanors: unlawful use of a weapon, attempting to board 
     an aircraft with a weapon and carrying a dangerous weapon, 
     said Chicago Police Officer Matthew Jackson, a department 
     spokesman.
       Exactly how did the 27-year-old Edgewater resident make it 
     through the terminal checkpoint, which supposedly is more 
     secure since the terrorist attacks?
       ``That's the million-dollar question,'' Bond said Sunday.
       Equally uncertain was why Gurung was allegedly carrying the 
     items.
       The Federal Aviation Administration, the city's aviation 
     department and United Airlines all were investigating the 
     security breach.
       United gate employees checked Gurung's carry-on bag as a 
     random bag search, part of the airline's enhanced security 
     measures, said United spokesman Joe Hopkins.
       Gurung was questioned by the FBI and then released on bond 
     early Sunday, police said. The FBI declined to comment 
     Sunday, referring all questions to police.
       Gurung 27, told police that he's unemployed and originally 
     from Nepal. He is scheduled to appear in court Dec. 19.
       The breach was the latest by Argenbright Security Inc., 
     which operates the checkpoint for United and has been roundly 
     criticized for lax security and hiring workers with criminal 
     backgrounds.
       It came as Congress debated how to tighten airport 
     security. The security lapse bolsters the case for making 
     airport security workers federal employees, who would be 
     higher paid and better trained, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin 
     said, adding, ``You can't do it on the cheap.''
       But House Republican leaders argue that federalizing the 
     security would expand bureaucracy and make it tougher to fire 
     bad workers. House and Senate officials are expected to come 
     up with compromise legislation on airport security.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.

                          ____________________