Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I share the sentiments of the chairman of the committee that we should engage the Senate immediately and aggressively and get a bill done this week. I do not believe that we can do any less for the American people. We are coming up on what is traditionally the busiest travel time of the year, Thanksgiving, but we have yet to enact any more comprehensive measures on the issue of aviation security since the attacks on September 11. Mr. Speaker, we acted with great dispatch, although I did not support the legislation, to provide financial support to the industry. At that time, I attempted on a motion to recommit to include some security measures, and although a substantial number voted for that, it did not pass. But here we are now almost 2 months later, still waiting. When I was flying out to Oregon on Friday, I was on a plane with a number of first responders, firefighters and medics who had been back here at the fire academy; and they were all sitting on the aisle, they were together, but they were all sitting along the aisle. And I said, you guys are all together, but you are not sitting together. They said, no, we are ready here on the aisle. If someone comes down this aisle, they are not getting past us to the flight deck. Now, that kind of occurrence I think many frequent flyers are hearing almost every week. The passengers, the night crews, they are all making their own plans because they are waiting for Congress to act. They watched the debate last week. They are disappointed that we did not go and adopt legislation that could have been immediately signed by the President. I had that flight crew tell me they were very disappointed and they hoped that this week, finally, Congress would act. The same thing I heard from the firefighters and many other frequent flyers. We have to act this week. There are a number of myths that came out last week about the provision most in contention. It was alleged that there would be 31,000 new Federal employees. Well actually, if we federalize the screeners, that would be 16,200; that is as many as there are now. There has been a concession on the other side that there will be a Federal security officer at every screening point, so we cannot add in the supervisors, the checkpoint law enforcement officers, and all the other things the CBO used to get to this fantastical number of 31,000. So we are arguing over the status of 16,000 people. Some are saying, perpetuate the status quo. Argenbright proved it again last weekend. The managers of that company should be in jail and fired, not the employees necessarily. How many times do they have to falsify documents? How many times do they have to hire known felons, maintain known felons on staff, and run a slipshod organization until we realize that these private security companies are not getting the job done. They have not gotten the job done for 30 years, and no amount of Federal oversight is going to get us there with these same companies. It just is not going to happen. These people are so used to abusing the system with impunity and profiting from it that they just want to perpetuate that. At the minimum, we should at least disqualify companies who commit felonies from any further Federal contract, and the bill does not even do that that passed the House.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there are an extraordinary number of Members on our side who would like to speak. Debate, I believe, was unduly limited. So I would ask unanimous consent that the debate be continued on each side for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a unanimous consent request.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there is one point of agreement, and that is that the existing privatized airport security system is failing the American traveling public. Now, we have a choice. We can overhaul that system or we can continue the status quo. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership has chosen to rename and dress up the existing failing system. They call it the Airport Security Federalization Act. They are going to require the private security firms to dress up their employees in Federal-looking uniforms with Federal-looking badges. They even say that they will be deputized, but given no law enforcement powers. Now, how is that a change? The same companies that are failing us today, and have failed us for 30 years, will still be running airport security. Securicor in the United States is under indictment, criminal indictment, for the second time in a year for hiring and maintaining known felons on staff and lying to the Federal regulators. They are going to have Federal regulators. What is a better Federal regulator than parole? These people violated their parole. Do my colleagues think the FAA bureaucrats can do better? I do not think so. Their parent company is failing in Britain. In fact, one of the employees of that company, senior employee, said he would not let his family get on an airplane out of Heathrow Airport because he was so worried about their lapse in security. So we have a choice here. We can dress up and make us feel better to have private security firms instead of armed Federal law enforcement agents providing the security of the traveling public needs, or we can have armed Federal law enforcement agents providing for the security of the traveling public needs. I think the choice is clear. This system has failed for 30 years, and passing this bill is going to make it no better. There is only one option and one option that can go into effect tomorrow, and that is to pass the Senate version of the bill, which passed the Senate 100 to 0, and give the American traveling public the peace of mind and the security they deserve.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who preceded me in the well talked about a sham. Let us talk about a sham. They are renaming this bill as the Airport Security Federalization Act. They are going to take the private security employees, the same ones who are failing us today, some of them are even convicted felons, some are illegal aliens, but they are going to put Federal uniforms on them. They are even going to deputize them. But guess what, they are not going to be Federal law enforcement. They are trying to fool the American public. It is too bad that the United States Congress does not have a rule of the House that requires truth in labeling. The private security firms are failing, and in Europe the large Securicor is a dismal failure at Heathrow. They just had a huge security lapse. They own Argenbright in the United States, who is under criminal indictment for the second time in 1 year for hiring and maintaining known felons on staff, falsifying documents, all under the supervision of probation, and somehow they tell us they are going to supervise these firms better. No, the people at the door of the House of Representatives are sworn, uniformed Federal law enforcement officers. If that is necessary for us, it is necessary for the traveling public.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it has been 7 weeks and 2 days since the terrorist attacks, 2 weeks since the Senate passed the aviation security bill 100 to 0. Finally, we can overhaul this failed system. There are three private foreign-owned firms that provide security at most U.S. airports. Their performance is miserable. One is under indictment for having violated its parole from its last criminal conviction. Now we are going to have a choice today. We could pass the Senate bill and have a bill on the President's desk tonight and begin an overhaul, a major change, put those people out of business, or we can adopt the Republican manager's amendments, which will not only continue these failed private firms and convicted felons in business, it will reward them amazingly with an exemption from liability for past actions. Yesterday was Halloween, but today the Republican leaders are trying one last trick and treat on the American public. Reject the private firms that have failed us so miserably. Put Federal law enforcement in the airports and make the traveling public safe.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it has been 7 weeks and 1 day since the horrific attacks by the terrorists using our commercial airlines and innocent civilians and passengers and crew as weapons in attacks on the World Trade Towers, the Pentagon and the other plane which crashed in Pennsylvania. It has been more than 2 weeks since the United States Senate voted 100 to 0 on a comprehensive bill to improve aviation security. Now what has gone on in the House so far in these issues? Nothing. We had the airline bailout bill, $16 billion. There was not a penny in it for aviation security. I tried to amend in at the end of the consideration of the bill a provision for aviation security, but lost that vote. Now, I think there is pretty broad agreement on both sides of the aisle that the current system is failing. The FAA testers, the regulators who oversee the system find it failing frequently. Their testers are able to smuggle through fake hand grenades, weapons, bombs with great regularity. It is failing us. Then we have the issue of a number of large private security firms, most notably Argenbright, largest in the United States, subsidiary of one of the largest in the world, the three major private security firms which provide security at airports, are foreign owned. They have a problem. They were criminally convicted last year of hiring known felons, maintaining known felons on staff, lying to the Federal regulators, falsifying documents to Federal regulators. They were fined $1.1 million and put on probation. Well, here we are a year later and guess what? They are in court again. They are under indictment for hiring known felons, maintaining known felons on staff, falsifying documents to Federal regulators. So although there may be agreement here that we need to do something, unfortunately the majority, particularly a couple of leaders on the majority side, want to perpetuate that system. They said, all we have to do is take the Argenbright Company, known felons, the company itself, in for its second felony trial and supervise them more. How much more supervision can you provide than probation? They are on probation. They are violating their probation. Maybe if we put the CEO in jail that will get their attention, but I cannot see that this new system of supervision they are talking about is going to shape these people up. They have got problems over in Europe at Heathrow. They have 38 people working in critical positions allowing access to secure parts of the airport who had not had background checks. Same problem they got here in the United States. Some members of the leadership of the majority on that side want to perpetuate this failing $800 million a year security on the cheap bureaucracy because it is immensely profitable to those companies employing minimum wage, undertrained and abused employees. That has got to change. We just cannot fix it. We cannot bring in the same firms, the same firms that have committed felonies and make them better with new regulations. They are saying, well, this is what we will do, we will set the wage; we will set the benefit package. This is the Federal Government. We will set the training, we will supervise the training, we will do the background checks and we will supervise the workers, but they will not be Federal employees. What sense does that make? If we are going to do all that, why not make them into Federal law enforcement personnel, just like we have right out here at the doors of the capitol. We do not have private security out there because I do not think most Members of Congress would feel safe. We have armed Federal law enforcement agents. Should we do any less for the traveling American public when it comes to aviation safety? Should they go into the airports and have these companies that have committed felonies and perpetuated in those crimes or should they have a Federal law enforcement workforce, just like when they confront the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Customs Service. The Department of Agriculture checks bags in Hawaii and at other times people coming into the United States. They are all sworn Federal law enforcement officers, but somehow they are telling us either we cannot afford that. I mean one very candid member of the Republican leadership said these people could join unions if they become Federal employees. Well, guess what? They can join unions if they are private employees. In fact, this legislation is being opposed by a private union because they have unionized some of these folks. They can be unionized one way or another. There is another concern I have about that. Most of the people who were working and died, other than those innocently at work, on the day of this tragedy, the firefighters, the medics, the police, the pilots and the flight attendants, they were all members of unions. What is wrong with unions?

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. So you would.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

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. DeFAZIO. Would the gentleman like me to have the words read back?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Would the gentleman yield?

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, 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. 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 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.

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.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it has been 7 weeks and 1 day since the terrorist attacks and more than 2 weeks since the Senate passed legislation 100 to 0, which was just referred to by one of my colleagues as a partisan bill. I thought the Senate had 49 Republicans and 51 Democrats. How could a 100 to 0 vote be partisan? We are still waiting in the House for needed legislation for aviation security because of one objection raised by a couple of the Republican leaders. The Federal law enforcement officers would provide screening for passengers and baggage. Guess what? When it comes to security for Members of Congress, for those same Members of Congress objecting to this, private security is not good enough. We have uniformed Federal law enforcement officers, but when it comes to the traveling public, it has to be the private, for-profit sector, that has been failing miserably. The largest in the country, Argenbright, is under criminal indictment for the second time in 2 years for hiring and maintaining known felons on staff and falsifying documents; and they say, Oh, well, the Federal Government will regulate these firms. We have been trying to regulate them. We are prosecuting them in Federal court. We are fining them millions of dollars. It cannot work. We need Federal law enforcement at the airports.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, nobody could have foreseen the devastating drought that has besieged Oregon over the past year. The lack of water has adversely effected agriculture, energy generation, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat. The Klamath Basin in Southern Oregon and Northern California has suffered particular hardship through this drought. The snowpack and rainfall that supply the Basin with life- sustaining water are critical to the economic viability of the Basin, and have been significantly below normal. Because the federal government, through the Bureau of Reclamation, has encouraged the Basin's dependence with nearly a century of promised federal water allocation, this Congress has an obligation to take further steps to provide further funding for relief and mitigation. The Chiloquin Dam, on the Sprague River, currently blocks as much as ninety percent of the spawning grounds for two species of listed as endangered suckerfish. This bill, H.R. 2585, to study the feasibility of increasing fish passage at Chiloquin Dam, would be a modest but important step toward providing a long-term solution for the Basin's water shortage. Last spring, the federal government announced that many of the irrigators in the Klamath Basin would not receive their annual deliveries of water from Upper Klamath Lake. This decision was largely based upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's portion of the biological opinion stating that water levels in Upper Klamath Lake must remain at a certain level to protect the endangered suckerfish. By improving fish passage at Chiloquin Dam in the Modoc Point Irrigation District, we can be proactive in recovering suckerfish populations. Hopefully, working toward full recovery of the species will eventually result in a delisting, thus providing for fewer restrictions on lake levels and more flexible water management. The situation in the Basin has been exacerbated by judges' rulings and the application of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 1995, as a member of the House Resources Committee, I voted in favor of reforming the ESA. The bill I supported, authored by a moderate Republican, would have maintained the core principles of the ESA, but could have prevented the fish versus people situation that we now have. The reforms would have involved the state in any proposed species listing. It would have allowed the state to propose an HCP or long term recovery strategy to prevent a listing. It would have also clarified the process to weigh social and economic impacts prior to listing. Unfortunately, the moderate, bi-partisan reforms I supported were rejected by Chairman Young. Instead, he pushed for a virtual repeal of the ESA. The Chairman's radical approach to reforming the ESA was flatly rejected by the Republican leadership. The ESA expired in 1992. With exception of the 1995 attempt, the Republican House leadership has scheduled no action to review, reform, or re-authorize the ESA. Unfortunately, it continues to be authorized year to year, without change, through appropriations riders. Hopefully, the dire circumstances in the Klamath Basin and elsewhere will be a catalyst for the House to properly re-authorize and reform the ESA. I am pleased to be working with Mr. Walden, and many members of the Oregon and California delegations, to find reasonable short and long term solutions to the situation in the Basin. This bill can provide for one of those reasonable solutions. I urge adoption of H.R. 2585, the Chiloquin Dam Fish Passage Feasibility Study Act.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, rapid population growth and urbanization have become catalysts for many serious environmental problems and are applying substantial pressures on infrastructure, manifested especially in pollution, transportation, health, sanitation, and public safety problems; making urbanization an issue cannot afford to ignore. Cities and urban areas today occupy only 2 percent of the Earth's land, but contain half of the world's population and consume 75 percent of its resources. It is therefore important for us to recognize the problems associated with rapid population growth and urbanization. Governor Kitzhaber has proclaimed the week of October 21-27 of this year as World Population Awareness Week in the great State of Oregon, and I would like to support the Governor in this effort by entering his proclamation into the Congressional Record. Proclamation Whereas: world population today exceeds six billion and continues to increase by one billion every 13 years; and Whereas: the most significant feature of the 20th century phenomenon of unprecedented world population growth was rapid urbanization; and Whereas: cities and urban areas today occupy only two percent of the earth's land, but contain 50 percent of its population and consume 75 percent of its resources; and Whereas: the most rapid urban growth over the next two decades is expected in cities with populations ranging from 250,000 to one million; and Whereas: along with advantages and amenities, the rapid growth of cities leads to substantial pressure on their infrastructure, manifested in sanitary, health and crime problems, as well as deterring the provision of basic social services; and Whereas: in the interest of national and environmental security, nations must redouble voluntary and humanitarian efforts to stabilize their population growth at sustainable levels, while at all times respecting the cultural and religious beliefs and values of its citizens; and Whereas: the theme of World Population Awareness Week in 2001 is ``Population and the Urban Future.'' Now, therefore, I, John A. Kitzhaber, Governor of the State of Oregon, hereby proclaim October 21-28, 2001 to be World Population Awareness Week in Oregon and encourage all Oregonians to join in this observance.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it has been 7 weeks since the attacks, and the House of Representatives has yet to consider one bill relating to aviation security enhancements. Not one. Two weeks ago the Senate passed a bill 100 to zero, nothing passes the Senate 100 to zero of any substance, 100 to zero; yet this House has failed to take up that or any other measure, because of one item in disagreement: Who should provide the critical screening function for baggage, carry-on bags and individuals passing into the secure areas of the airport? Should it be the private sector, as the majority whip and the majority leader say, or should it be a Federal law enforcement- national security function provided by competent, well-paid, professional Federal law enforcement personnel, the same way we do INS, Customs, and even agriculture inspection? Those are Federal law enforcement agents. But somehow, when it comes to the security of the public traveling on airplanes, no, they get second-class treatment. They get security on the cheap. The majority wants to maintain the status quo, which is failing them miserably. Guess what? That same majority has not mandated that we put private security firms at the doors of the Capitol. If they feel so good about this and if they can provide such a great service, why do they not do that? Because they are mindful of protecting themselves. But they do not care quite so much about the traveling public. They care more about their political sponsors. Let us look at who the political sponsors are here. There are three foreign owned, hear that, foreign owned huge companies that do most of the private airport security in the United States; and one of them, Securicor of Europe, threatened last week to sue the United States Government if we usurp their function at the airports. Let us look at how their subsidiary is doing in the U.S. Their subsidiary is Argenbright, one of the three largest security firms providing airport security to more than 40 major airports in the United States of American, including Boston's Logan, Washington's Dulles and others. Well, they have got a few problems. They were criminally convicted just a year ago of hiring known felons, maintaining known felons on staff, falsifying documents as to the screening and training of the known felons that they had hired. At Dulles Airport, 84 percent of their workers are foreign national; but, they assure us, most of them are legal immigrants. ``Most.'' Most? This is extraordinary, and this is the system that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) want to perpetuate under pressure from these generous firms. They are generous. Their U.S. subsidiaries can contribute to campaigns, and they do, generously. Now, let us talk about how they are going to resolve the problems. They do admit it is a little bit of a problem that they are hiring and maintaining known felons on staff; that FAA inspectors are able to get hand grenades, fully assembled guns and other things through the security; that many, many other lapses have been noted. Most notably, last weekend a gentleman was on a Southwest Airlines plane with a fully loaded gun in his briefcase which they had not noticed. They noticed, when he got up to altitude and told the pilot. It was nice of him to do that. But the security screening people from the private firm did not notice the gun. Now, so what the majority says is well, look, we will make it better. We will have Federal regulations. Well, guess what? We have got Federal regulations now. They are ignoring them. They are ignoring them to the point where they are about to be criminally convicted, in terms of Argenbright, for the second time. But not removed. But forbid we would remove them from doing this function and fail the American traveling public. They say they will also mandate wages, not usually something the Republicans want to do. So they say they will mandate wages, they will mandate benefits, they will mandate, and the Federal Government will conduct background checks since the private firms falsify the documents all the time, and then the Federal Government will either directly train or supervise the training by these firms because they falsify the documents about the training of these people, and the Federal Government will provide supervisors but it will be a private undertaking. Now, wait a minute. Did they just describe a Rube Goldberg device or what? So the Federal Government is going to do all of these things, but we are going to maintain these private firms, so-called, in place because why? They are doing such a good job? No. Why? Why are we going to maintain them in place? This system that they are describing is so much less efficient than an all-Federal system like we do with Customs, INS, agriculture inspection, and like we do here at the United States Capitol to provide our screening security. Why do they want to give Americans security on the cheap? Change this system. Change it this week. Agree to what the Senate did 100 to zero.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, about a week ago, the Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary O'Neill, referred to the Republican so-called stimulus package as a showboat plan. He implied that it was going nowhere with the administration, that it did not support many of its provisions. I guess I would say after the vote on the floor of the House today, we could say that the showboat is listing, taking on a lot of water and about to sink. By the narrowest of margins, despite the larger Republican majority, the bill passed the House by three votes today. It is not going anywhere. Why is that? Is that because the Members of the United States House of Representatives do not care about the economy, do not care about the millions of people who have lost their jobs, do not have continuation of their health insurance? No, it is because they knew that this bill was a charade, a farce. This bill does nothing to help average Americans, working families, those who have lost their jobs, the small businesses that have been hit by the recession and are struggling to make ends meet. No, it goes and gifts the largest, most profitable corporations in America, those who have to have a special provision in the tax bill, that have been able to shelter so much income that they do not have any apparent taxes, they have to pay something called the corporate alternative minimum tax. This was a reform put through by a Republican Senate, a Democratic House and signed into law by Ronald Reagan because of the outrages of the 1980s, when the largest, most profitable corporations of the world were not paying any taxes, who in fact were getting rebates for taxes they had not paid. So this loophole was shut. Guess what? They just blasted it back open again. This bill would provide $25 billion, paid for out of the Social Security Trust Fund, in retroactive tax rebates to the largest, most profitable corporations in the world. That is an outrage. $2.3 billion to the Ford Motor Company, $1.4 billion to IBM, $833 million to GM, $671 million to GE, with no requirement they pass on a penny to their workers, the workers they have laid off because of the recession, without a single word saying, they might cover the health insurance of those they have laid off because of the recession. No, in fact this money is a retroactive gift under the Republican version of a stimulus package which will do nothing to stimulate the economy, do nothing to help those workers or their families, do nothing to help small businesses who are crying out for relief. There are even more outrages in the bill. The bill also has $20 billion of tax incentives for corporations to make investments overseas. I guess the Republican majority is concerned about burgeoning unemployment in the Third World or in Europe or Japan or elsewhere but not here in the United States of America. They have given a bigger pile of money to corporations as a tax break, $20 billion, for overseas investments than they put in here to help out America's working families and small businesses who have been hit so hard in this tumbling economy. This is outrageous. This follows on the heels, of course, of the $16 billion airline bailout bill which, of course, did not contain a penny for workers or workers' health insurance or extended unemployment or even aviation security. None of those things are in the bill. But we were told at the time when I raised objection, offered a motion to recommit on the floor, wait till next week. Well, it is 5 weeks later. Guess what? We are still waiting for some assistance to those airlines workers and people in related industries and small businesses like the travel agents who have been hit so hard. Nothing has been done for them. We are still waiting for one penny to be appropriated by this House of Representatives for aviation security. We are still waiting for a comprehensive aviation security bill. All those things can wait. But a retroactive repeal of a tax provision that closed a loophole cannot wait. That had to be rushed through this House today. We just cannot wait to see the way those corporations will spend the money. I am sure they will put millions to work. Well, maybe not. Maybe they will give the money in dividends to stockholders, maybe they will give bonuses to the CEOs because they were able to maneuver this kind of a tax break through the Congress. It is not likely it will flow into the pension funds that have been raided by IBM and others. It is not likely that it will flow to the workers who have lost their jobs. It is not going into extended unemployment benefits. It is not going to give health insurance coverage to those people. This is simply an outrage. That is why this was such a narrowly divided vote in this House of Representatives. Not because we do not care, that we do not want to do what is right by the American people and the economy. We do. That requires a combination of assistance to people who have lost their jobs and small businesses that have been hit hard. That should have been one element of the bill; targeted tax cuts, those that would increase investment, increase jobs; and, third, investment in America, the transportation infrastructure of this country in a fiscally responsible way. That would have been a true recovery package. Maybe we can still get there if the Senate has the guts to stand up to the minor part of the majority here in the House.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, after the attacks, we rushed through $16 billion for the airlines, and we were told there was not time to take care of the workers. Their time would come soon. We were promised maybe the next week or the week after we would help the workers. Well, soon is not here yet. Today, a $100 billion so-called economic stimulus package, and guess what, $25 billion up front to repeal a loophole closing tax provision, $25 billion for the largest corporations in America in a retroactive tax cut to 1986, paid for by FICA taxes, paid for by the working people of this country, coming out of the Social Security Trust Fund going straight to corporate coffers. Mr. Speaker, guess what, they do not have to give a penny to the workers or provide assistance to the millions of Americans that have lost their jobs. This is in the form of a so-called economic stimulus. Reverse Robin Hood is continuing here on the floor under the guise of helping the American people and the economy. This has to stop. Let us give workers help with their health insurance. Let us stop dumping money into the corporate coffers.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, when the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) spoke in the well earlier about virtues of a privatized aviation security system and the handout of our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), I did not object to it being put in the Record. I should have, because it was not written by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) or his staff; it was written by a former FAA senior employee who is now earning hundreds of thousands of dollars representing the private security firms, including the private security firm currently under indictment and prosecution by the Federal Government, Arkenbright. So that is his information, and the veracity of it is definitely in question. In fact, according to an article in last week's Washington Post, at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, there are 1,300 police agents to supervise 1,500 private screeners, who are much better paid, trained, and have higher qualifications than in the United States. If that is the route they want to go, we would end up having something more expensive than a totally federalized system with one Federal law enforcement person to supervise every two private employees. It would be bigger. It would be absurdly bigger than what we could do with the normal scope of supervision in a Federal agency. The issue of private firms in the U.S., we have tried it. It has failed miserably. I am glad he had a good experience leaving Florida and they found his cuticle scissors, that is great; but they are missing other things, like fake hand grenades, fully-assembled weapons, knives, bombs, or simulated bombs, which the FAA regularly gets through these systems. The largest private security firm in the country, previously successfully prosecuted by the Federal Government, fined $1.5 million, Arkenbright, and put on probation, who still is providing security, is now being prosecuted again. Under the current system, the Federal Government cannot remove these incompetents and criminals from doing the job. This company is still employing known criminals, despite its probation. It is still hiring known criminals, despite its probation. Thirty-two percent of its files include new violations and false statements on their employees. Yet, today they are providing security at Dulles, Reagan, Logan, LaGuardia, Los Angeles, Trenton, Detroit, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Columbus, Dallas, Fort Worth, Seattle and Cedar Rapids. So my colleague, the gentleman from Florida, in his just visceral dislike of Federal employees, and more Federal employees and Federal bureaucracy, wants to continue a failing private bureaucracy that is not properly protecting the security of the American people. Mr. Speaker, when we come through Customs, those are Federal law enforcement agents. When we come through INS, they are Federal law enforcement agents. If we go to Hawaii, the agriculture agents are Federal law enforcement agents. Even the beagles that they use in the airport have been deemed to be Federal law enforcement agents. But my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a minority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, just cannot stand the idea that the people who are the first line of defense at the airport to screen the baggage and the customers might be Federal law enforcement agents. This is a blinding ideological position to take. After all that has happened, after all the documented failures, after the continued prosecutions in court, we have given the private firms every opportunity and they have failed the American traveling public miserably. We need legislation, and we should take the legislation up today. But instead, today we will take up, and no offense to any of these people, they are outstanding people, the Francis Bardanouve United States Post Office Building Act; the Earl T. Shinhoster Post Office Designation Act; the Congressman Julian C. Dixon, of whom I was a great fan, Post Office Building Designation Act; a bill to make permanent the authority to redact financial disclosure statements of judicial employees and judicial officers, et cetera, et cetera. It has been more than a month since the attack by the terrorists, and the use of our own civilian aviation as weapons. Yet, not one penny has been mandated by the House to change that system. Not one single line of statute has been changed. The first line of defense is still failing us; the House of Representatives must not fail us. The bill should come up today, and if they cannot bring it up today, how about tomorrow? They have got an alternative, we have got an alternative. Let us have a legislative process and see whose alternative wins. I do not think they want to do that, because I suspect that they know that many of their Members would vote for the more comprehensive approach, instead of continuing to buy the worst security we can get on the cheap.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank the majority for providing me a copy of the bill. This is still warm. It just came off the Xerox machine. This is not the bill that was adopted by a unanimous 36 vote of Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on the Judiciary. These are critical issues. This is what we are fighting for. These are our civil liberties. We need to give law enforcement the proper tools, yes, we do; and we need to strengthen laws where they need to be strengthened and give them more effective tools. But we also have to be careful that we do not dredge up some of the worst ideas of the past, of the fifties, of the McCarthy era, of the Hoover era. There could be problems. I do not know. I just asked a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary who voted for the bill in committee, a unanimous vote, a bipartisan vote, agreed upon the tools we needed with the limits we needed to protect our precious civil liberties, what is in the bill. He said, who could know what is in this? It was just handed to him. We are going to be required to vote on it in the next few hours. Why? Will these laws go into effect this weekend and make a difference in protecting people and making them more safe? No. We could be taking up an aviation security bill. We have not done a damn thing on aviation security in the House of Representatives since this incident. The Senate acted unanimously yesterday. We are being prevented from bringing forward a bill by a minority of the majority who is so set against more Federal employees that they do not want to do the right thing on screening, and they do not care about all the other issues in aviation security that are even bigger than screening. We are being prevented from doing that, while this bill, still warm in my hand, is being rushed forward. I do not know what is in it. I am not a lawyer. I go to my friends on the Committee on the Judiciary who are lawyers who helped craft a unanimous vote in the committee on this bill and ask them what is in it, and they said we cannot tell you; we do not know. Our copies are still warm in our hands too. This is not the way to defend liberty and fight terrorism. I fear that this bill, since I do not know what is in it, could be the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution for civil liberties, rather than the tools our law enforcement agencies really need. I would urge the majority to withdraw this marshal law resolution, withdraw this bill, give us a weekend to read it, and let us take it up Monday morning. Hey, I will come in and vote at 7 o'clock on Monday morning, if it is that urgent, or we can vote on Sunday. Give us at least a day to read it and understand what we are voting on.