Jay Inslee

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Let me express an American opinion, that is just not a legal opinion, which is whether you are a lawyer or not a lawyer, you want law enforcement information to be used by law enforcement personnel. The nature of your question points out the exact flaw of continuing this failed experiment of having private contractors provide this service. They are not in a law enforcement context and this is a law enforcement responsibility. We do not share law enforcement information with people that you might not be able to have total confidence in. Unfortunately, these contractors have shown nothing but something akin to a Keystone Kops approach to this law enforcement situation. That is why this bill, the Republican bill that passed out of this House last week, is generating nothing but disdain as far as I can tell all across the country.

Mr. INSLEE. That is a fair statement, that this Chamber put the financial security of special interests above and beyond the personal security of Americans who are in airplanes. It was a very sad day. That is why I hope the conferees will change the result that came out of this House.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, on December 7, 1941, our country experimented with parking our airplanes wingtip to wingtip. The experiment failed. On September 11, 2001, our Nation experimented with the concept of private contractors under government supervision providing security. That experiment failed. We must now end the experiment of private security under government supervision. That experiment failed. We tonight have been acting as if this was a theoretical discussion. We have had our experiment. The reason the experiment failed is every single time the FAA has tried to clamp down on this poor Swiss cheese process, the lobbyists have come up here and stopped us from requiring certified employees. I am pleased that we have finally prevailed, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Strickland), and myself, to make sure all checked baggage is screened for explosives. But we need more than good machines. We need good people. Let us put them in there and pass Ganske-Oberstar.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I have come to the floor tonight because we are in the cusp of a pivotal vote tomorrow. The vote will decide whether to make a full commitment of the United States to a secure and meaningful airline security bill or, at the bidding of some very well- paid lobbyists for some companies who have a large financial stake in this, will adopt a half-baked half-measure, a low-bid proposal that will continue the loophole driven, Swiss cheese, alleged security system we have at the gates of our airports. I think the choice is that stark. In the last decade the United States has engaged in an experiment. That experiment involved having private companies who sent in their low bids to airlines that were routinely accepted, that as a result got the cheapest employees with the least training, with zero certification under FAA supervision, under the supervision of the Federal Government. That was the experimental system that we have had for the last 10 years. That experimental system failed on September 11 big time, as someone said. Yet some of our colleagues, the leadership in the Republican Party, because of this fixation of anti-union sentiment, want to continue that failed experiment because the meat and bones of their proposal is this: Let us continue to have private companies with low- bid contracts supervised by the FAA handle security at airports. Members have to understand that they have dressed this up with a few ribbons, but the proposal is to continue this failed relationship. The reason it is a failed relationship is because of something that is happening tonight as we speak. The reason that this system has not worked is that every single time the FAA and the U.S. Congress has even talked about having meaningful training and standards for these employees, these employees with million dollar contracts, and to some degree the airlines, have gotten on the phone to the lobbyists and instructed them to go to Capitol Hill and tell Members to lay off. We do not want to spend another dollar on safety. It is going to cut into our profits. As a result, Congress has not acted. The FAA has not acted, and we have had low bid, no certification, no training, no citizens, no speaking English, felons hired to do this job. Our friends across the aisle, at least the leadership, want to continue this failed experiment. We are going to get the same result. If we do the same thing time after time, there is no reason to expect anything to change. Tonight we are seeing that same thing happen. On Halloween, Members are going to hear the kinds of things that one hears on Halloween, but we are also going to hear the sound of arms breaking, because some arm breaking is going on by the Republican leadership. We have Federal employees who are our border guards and our Capitol Hill police, and there is no reason these airport security screeners are not Federal employees. Lobbyists for these low-bid companies are so afraid they are going to lose their contracts they want Members to back off and adopt this half-a-loaf approach. These companies and their lobbyists who are asking our friends on the other side of the aisle to vote to continue their failure, they are afraid that they are going to lose their contracts, and they should be. They should lose their contracts and should be out of business. They should be seen as failures. We should not allow the Republican Party, at the largess and the request of their favorite lobbyist, to allow that continued failure. We should go in there and do what we ought to do. I have heard that they have said that some of the European countries, that there are some other countries that have some other systems, that have some private employees doing their work. I always kind of thought America was supposed to lead the parade, not follow it. If they pull this off in Lithuania or Germany, fine, but in Germany, apparently the companies cannot come in and tell the government not to enforce safety rules. They have been effective in doing that here, in part because of the effectiveness of their lobby. That is why in this country we need the same kind of safety we have with our border guards, to have government employees to be certified to do this job. I will mention one other thing before I defer. We have been working, many of us have been working for the last weeks, to try to convince the majority party to have an insistence that the baggage that goes into the belly of an airplane is screened for bombs, because as you know, 90, 95 percent of it is not screened today. Why is it not screened? It is the same thing we talked about. They send the lobbyists down to the FAA and say, we don't want to spend a buck to do this and the FAA has backed off and they have had some of their friends on the other side of the aisle back off. The same thing has happened.

Mr. INSLEE. To me, this is a relatively easy question. We can have arguments about what goes on in Europe and everything else, but the question is, are there certain functions that are so important to Americans' lives, the issue is if this job is done well, people live and if it is done poorly, they die; and are there certain functions that are so pivotally important to the continuation of human life that you make sure you have the government do it. We do that in certain cases. Firefighters, we do not privatize firefighters because people die if it is not done well. Police officers, we do not privatize police officers; people die if it is not done well. Capitol Police, the same thing. Border Patrol, the same thing. FBI agents, the nature of this function is a law enforcement function. It is not an administrative, baggage handling function; it is a law enforcement function. These people should be treated as law enforcement officers. I will just leave by saying one thing. It is a well-established American value that our law enforcement people ought to work for Uncle Sam. I think that is the right thing to do. I hope the House votes in that way. I thank the gentleman for letting me join him this evening.

Mr. INSLEE. That is right. As the gentlewoman knows, that is exactly what we have ended up with. And as has been pointed out, with a 400 percent turnover rate.

Mr. INSLEE. Yes. The good news is that these machines are built, many of them are in airports today, but unfortunately the airlines have not turned them on. They stick them in a corner. The U.S. Government spent $400 million 5 years ago for a technology called CTX-5000s; they are machines with a very good success rate of finding explosive devices. Many of the airlines took them, put them in a corner and did not even turn them on, literally. We have finally got them to turn them on, but the problem is, we do not have enough of those machines yet; we need to buy some more and we need to get them into these airports. We have finally prevailed on the majority party to put some at least sugar-coating language to say they are going to do this to get these machines into airports. That is great. We have finally got them to put some language in there like that. But if you have people falling asleep working for these low-bid contractors at the machine, it does not matter how good your machine is if you have still got incompetent ex- felons who cannot read directions on the machines, how to run them. So if we are going to do this, we need certified people to do it. We also need a way to pay for it. The Senate bill, which we are proposing, specifically allows the Airport Improvement Trust Fund to be used by airports to bring these airports up to speed. They do not have any way to pay for it. I have proposed an appropriation that was rejected by the Republicans. The Senate bill allows the Airport Trust Fund to be used to help airports. We have got to find a way to pay for this. So what I am saying is, if we are going to have a real screening of bags to keep bombs out of the belly of airplanes, we have got to pass the Senate bill.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues should be aware that when they get on their planes to go home to their districts this weekend, they should know that 90 to 95 percent of the bags that will go into the belly of their airplanes will not be screened for explosive devices. This is an enormous hole in our security system, and we applaud the efforts of the Secretary of Transportation and we applaud the efforts of the Congress, as we are going to do everything we can to take nail clippers away from passengers, but it does not do any good if they can put 40 pounds of C-4 high explosives in bags in the belly of our airplanes. Mr. Speaker, the bill that the majority party is bringing to the floor of the House is not going to solve that problem. It will have some nice rhetorical flourish language that some day, at some unspecified date, by some unspecified means, we are going to check these bags, but that is not good enough. We have offered an amendment, and I hope the majority party will allow this House to vote on our amendment, which will assure by a specific date through a specific authorization that 100 percent of the bags that go in each jet airplane get screened to keep bombs out of them. And if we do not do that, heaven help this House.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate that. I think you have to ask why there is such resistance to this idea. It is actually surprising to me. You have to ask, do the folks in the majority party who refuse to accept this idea, is it because they distrust the Capitol Police because they are employees of Uncle Sam? Is it because they distrust our border guards because they are employees of Uncle Sam rather than working for a private contractor? Do they distrust firefighters because they are governmental employees rather than working for private enterprise? I think the answer is no. My friends in the majority party would say, No, we trust firefighters. We trust our border guards. We trust our FBI agents. We trust our Capitol Police who work for Uncle Sam. It is not a lack of trust. And if you ask them what is it, then, they would say, I believe, in all sincerity, we just don't like government doing things. I think that is the bottom line. There is an ideological inhibition of some of our friends across the aisle who have refused to accept the proposition that there are times when Uncle Sam has to come to the aid of its citizens. And when you are under a threat from terrorists who are running airplanes into large buildings and somebody who is putting anthrax in our mail, it is time to accept the proposition that Uncle Sam needs to come to the physical assistance of its citizens. We hope that enough of our friends across the aisle forget the ideological debating points. This is not a Harvard debate. This is an issue of life and death, whether we are going to save people or not. And so we hope that this practical, common-sense attitude allows us to develop a bipartisan consensus here and for a moment we can put away these ideological, theoretical things, arguments we used to have in college at midnight. This is real life.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, just to make a closing comment, then I am going to yield to the Chair so the Chair can yield back to the gentlewoman for another subject. I wanted to thank the Members who have joined me this evening. This is the crunch time for the U.S. House. It has a duty. I certainly hope that we do our duty, which is to set a time-line to get every bag checked for explosive devices, that we have a professional force to do it. Heaven help us if we do not discharge that duty. I hope bipartisanship will actually blossom this week to get this job done. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the Chair.

Mr. INSLEE. I think that is a very good point, that the people who are working at these gates now, we are not blaming them. They are working hard. But they are given maybe minimum wage. They are given maybe a few hours of instruction. As a result of their poor treatment, some of these airports have a 300 to 400 percent turnover rate. And as long as you are having a low bid situation, you can expect those conditions to prevail. Now, I think we should talk a little bit about why this system has failed. Why has this experiment of having private contractors provide this service failed? We had FAA supervision of them. This is what our friends across the aisle are proposing. Private contractors hire the people, the FAA has supervision. That is exactly what we had in the last 10 years. The FAA has drawn up these rules for these contractors to follow. So you have to ask yourself, why has this been such a miserable failure? The sad fact is, because the contractors and the airlines they serve have been successful with their armies of lobbyists who do a good job who have come up here and have blocked, in Congress and in the FAA, any rules or statutes to significantly increase the professionalism of this workforce, because it would cost another dollar. And they have been successful in strangling any progress in our political system to do this. It is clear to me that until that stranglehold is broken, we are not going to get to a professional law enforcement oriented screening system in this country. That is why it is important to us to move in this direction. I would like to now yield if I could to my good friend the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the great prosecutor who knows something about law enforcement.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, some of us have come to the House floor tonight on the subject we have been speaking on for several weeks now, which is the importance of passing not just a sham airline security bill but a real solid, responsible, certain airline security bill that will accomplish what the American people need, which is to have full confidence that their airlines are safe. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the bill that is going to be introduced tomorrow or the next day falls short in several very, very important respects. We have had a long history in the last several decades of having failures in airline security which manifested themselves on September 11. We think the U.S. House cannot miss this opportunity tomorrow or Thursday to in fact plug not just some, and not just the easy holes to plug in airline security, but the ones that are meaningful, and to, in fact, plug all the holes in the net we have in order to catch terrorist activity. And we want to talk about some of those tonight. Let me start with one that in my view is the most glaring hole in our airline security system today, and that is the stunning fact that I learned about 3 weeks ago. When I heard this I just about fell out of my chair. I was receiving a security briefing at a major airport in the western United States and we were talking about all the recent efforts and changes to try to make sure passengers do not bring sharp objects into the passenger compartment of the airplanes. I started asking questions about the checked baggage that goes into the belly of an airplane, and I asked where the equipment was to screen the baggage that goes into the belly of an airplane to make sure nobody put a bomb on it. The people I was talking to had this kind of sheepish look on their faces and they said, well, we do not do that all the time. I thought they were sort of joking. But it turns out they were not. What I came to find out is that in airports across this country 90 to 95 percent of all the bags that go into the belly of an airplane have zero screening for explosive devices, and I mean zero screening. So nine out of 10 bags that go in the belly of an airplane that we are flying on with our loved ones are not screened for any explosive devices. That is a sad, pathetic state of affairs that this House needs to change this week with no ifs, ands or buts. Now, the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that although we have technology to do this, and the good news is we have technology that screens for explosive devices very thoroughly, the fact of the matter is that the bill that the majority party is proposing for this week does not have a certain requirement in it that these bags be checked by a certain date. That is sad, and that needs to change. We believe that the U.S. House needs to pass a law that requires 100 percent of all the bags that go into the belly of an airplane be screened for an explosive device with the best technology that we have. And we have some darned good technology. We have machines today that have been in use for several years, if the airline companies will turn them on anyway, that can find explosives with a high degree of probability. We need to make sure more of those machines are purchased. We need to require those to be turned on and put them in series so we can get in our airplanes in a timely fashion without bombs being in the baggage compartments. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will be offering amendments, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), myself, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), a Republican, who has been working on legislation to require that 100 percent of these bags be screened. We are very hopeful that the majority party will allow our amendment to be considered on the floor of the House. It would be a shame if politics keeps this amendment from being considered. We are very hopeful that we can have a solid bipartisan vote in this Chamber to make sure all these bags get checked. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who has been a great leader in advancing this issue.

Mr. INSLEE. I thank the gentlewoman very much. I want to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) for some closing comments. I intend to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to finish the hour.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment about confidence in the American people. The reason this has not happened to date is some folks have not wanted to make the investment to buy these machines or to take the trouble to install them. I cannot think of a more penny- wise and pound-foolish approach when it comes to safety. If we lose another plane, nobody is going to be getting on these airplanes. We are already down significantly. As a person who represents thousands of Boeing workers in the Seattle area, we have had 12,000 people laid off this year because of the drop of people getting on airplanes. The U.S. economy cannot withstand the devastation that will occur if we lose another airplane. As far as the expenses, it will cost about $2 billion to install these measures. If we put it in context, it is $2 per ticket for 1 year. I am convinced that people think it is worth $2 a ticket to make sure there is not a bomb in the airplane. That is for 1 year. It is a one-time investment. Our proposal has suggested that we simply appropriate funds from the general fund to make this investment. The other Chamber has made a proposal with a surcharge of $2 per ticket to assist in security. We think that it is just as well to take it out of the general fund. However it is financed, people who get on airplanes, if we poll them, do passengers want this $2 spent by somebody, they are going to say ``yes'' even if it is them. It is worth $2 to get over this known threat. I am hopeful that the majority party will hear our request to allow a bipartisan consensus to develop; but I think we need to describe why this has not happened to date. The reason it has not happened to date is that there has been this ideological resistance to the idea of having the Federal Government act to take care of the citizens it is supposed to protect. The first duty of government is to protect the physical security and safety of its citizens. That is the first duty of government. Frankly, government has not done as good a job as it should in this regard. Our government has engaged in an experiment in airline safety in the last 10 years. That experiment involved letting out to the low bidder the contracting out of the employees to screen passengers before they get on airplanes. We had that experiment and it was a grand failure on September 11, because we had multiple known failures of that system. We had these companies hiring ex-felons. We had these companies hiring people that had been fired at other places. We would have companies that did not screen their own employees for who their identity is. We have had test after test after test where we had these employees that were so poorly paid and so poorly trained and totally noncertified that at Dulles International Airport when they tried to get 20 weapons through out of 20, they got seven weapons through this alleged screening-porous system. So that was an experiment that failed. We should not be having this theoretical argument because that experiment failed. Having private contractors with government supervision is a known recipe for disaster. We need to have a federalized system of Federal employees who the Federal Government certifies, trains and employs to give passengers what they deserve which is a high level of confidence. To me, I have to tell you, if you ask people who is more important to your personal security, whose eyes and ears and judgment is more important to your personal security, a border guard or a screener at an airport check-in counter, I have got to believe the check-in counter is at least and I think more important to our physical personal safety. We make sure that the people who do the border guards are Federal employees so we can make sure that they hew to the standards that we set. But we do not do that for the people who your personal safety is in their hands when you get onto an airplane. I heard a flight attendant sort of ask a good question. She says Members of Congress have Federal employees protect their personal security, our police force here in the U.S. Capitol. We insist that we have government employees protect our personal security. But for the flying public, we let the lowest-priced, minimum wage, untrained, uncertified ex-felon get that job as long as a contractor can swing some low-ball deal. That is not the way we can do business anymore. So we are going to insist on having Federal employees do this work.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would like to yield to a person who is always a voice for common sense, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, if the majority party does not allow a vote on this amendment, we will have spent all of this energy debating who the employees will be doing the screening, and there will be substantial debate. There is a difference between the parties largely on that issue. Democrats believe there should be Federal responsibility like border guards, FBI agents, marshals, that these ought to be Federal employees because that is the safest way to go. The majority has an ideological hang-up, and there will be debate. To not have a debate on who will take nail clippers away from passengers, and not have a specific promise to the American people that by a date certain the bags are screened to determine that the bags are not packed with 30 pounds of C-4 high explosives, would be a criminally negligent act by this House. We are concerned and do not think that this ideological inhibition that my friends in the majority leadership have against Federal employees should stymie our ability to make a commitment to the American people that their bags are not going to have bombs in them. I have good friends on the Republican side of the aisle who back this provision. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has been a leader on campaign reform issues and has supported this. We have quite a number of other Republicans who are supporting this. We believe if we have a vote on this floor, we will have good bipartisan support for this provision. Mr. Speaker, the problem is if the majority leadership has a stranglehold on the rules and does not allow a vote, we are not going to have this bipartisan solution adopted. We urge all Members to see that the majority party allows this to the floor for a vote. Then we can have the other vote about who these parties should be. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. INSLEE. I hope the gentlewoman will report to your former skycap father that he has got something to be proud about, sending you to us.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I disagree a little bit with the gentleman who says we are technological giants. I have a door knob on my house that I cannot get to work; but there are others who have developed this equipment which is incredibly accurate. We do not have a war mobilization plan from the U.S. Congress. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and President Roosevelt gave his speech from this Chamber, we immediately went on a wartime industrial mobilization process. Nobody said we cannot build the Pentagon in 12 months, we cannot do that. The Pentagon was built from conception to completion in 12 months. When they needed big bombers, they built 12,000, maybe 14,000, I would need to check the numbers, B-24 complex bombers, 4-engine bombers, because they said we are going to do it. Now the House has to get up on its hind legs and say we are going to build 2,000 of those machines by a time certain. If we give an agency language as soon as we get around to it, I am not sure that it is going to be in this millennium.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is a necessity of the U.S. House of Representatives to have a date certain to do this by. It is made obvious by a couple of facts. The gentleman made reference to the Lockerbie bombing where there were hundreds of young people who were on that plane, and their families have now been working for 13 years to get the Federal Aviation Administration to move to require screening of checked baggage. Despite 13 years of advocacy with this agency, this agency has done nothing except give wish lists which they may do some day. Some day is just not good enough. It would be a sad failure if this House passed something without some time-line when we have this kind of experience of agency failure over this long period of time. Another example, the majority party's bill has language, and it is good rhetoric that rhetorically says these bags will be screened, I guess someday, we do not know when. But look what happened when we did similar language in 1995 when this House essentially directed the FAA to adopt regulations that would improve the screening and certification of the people who do the passenger screening. Six years later, the FAA had still not improved the certification and training of the folks who are supposed to keep weapons off airplanes. If the FAA takes 6 years to try to figure out a regulation to try to figure how to keep people from bringing knives or box cutters on airplanes, do we think that this language in this bill is going to get them to get these machines in airports? We do not think so. I do not have confidence in that. The American people will not have confidence in that. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this is the 43rd straight day that the Republican leadership of this House has blocked any votes doing any single thing to keep our airplanes from being hijacked or blown out of the sky. Imagine that. We are being sent home to our district for a 4- day weekend instead of voting here to do something about airline safety. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to think about this. When Members get on airplanes this afternoon or tomorrow morning, 95 percent of the bags in the belly of the airplane have not been screened in any way for an explosive device. Yet we have been blocked from having a vote on this or any airline safety issues for 43 days from an ideological hesitancy to allow the House to work its will. The Democrats are not blocking anything. The Democrats are in the minority. We are asking the Republican leadership to bring this bill to the floor. Let us have a vote and let us do something for airline security. After 43 days, it is high time.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we are now 42 days after the attack of September 11 and this House has done not a single thing for airline safety. Nothing. Zilch. Not one additional element of airline security. When you get on your planes next Friday to go home, it will be with the sure knowledge that 90 to 95 percent of the bags that go into the belly of your airplane are not screened for explosive devices. Those bags go in there with nothing to screen them from keeping C-4 explosives in them. Yesterday at the airport, or 2 days ago, I got on an airplane and they took the nail clippers away from the guy next to me and that is great. But we have not done a single thing to keep C-4 explosives out of the bags. Instead, the majority party is bringing this alleged stimulus package that is going to stimulate nothing except campaign contributions. It is really too bad that we are paying more attention to the corporate financial security and no interest in airline passenger personal security.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, how stimulated do we think the U.S. economy will be if the terrorists blow up a couple more airplanes in the sky and nobody gets on airplanes because the U.S. Congress has sat around on its duff for 6 weeks and has not done a single thing about airline safety? When my colleagues get on their airplane this weekend to get home, I can tell them one thing for sure: 90 percent of the bags on the airplane that they get on that go into the belly of that airplane will not be checked for an explosive device. For 42 days, what have we been able to accomplish to do something about that? Nothing. Now, we tried to put a provision in this bill in the Committee on Rules to make an investment in the machines that are capable of finding these explosive devices. I will ask my colleagues, although we may lose this vote today, I hope my colleagues will go to their leadership and tell them that we should get an airline safety bill up for a vote this week, because I do not think they will be proud going up to your constituents this weekend and say I cared more about the financial security of these corporations than I did about the airline safety of these passengers.

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman raises a very important point. You know, we have had to have a little bump in the road because of this anthrax issue to prevent us from working. But it is not anthrax that is keeping us from working, it is the poisonous special interests which have got the Republican leadership to refuse to allow the House to vote. I will tell you, we are going to get over this anthrax thing. We are going to find a way to open our mail, a way to vote. If we do not get the Republican leadership to put this on the agenda, the House is not going to be working. So I have confidence, we are going to get over the scare, but we have to get over the leadership decision to prevent us from voting.

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. INSLEE

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, this is day 42 after the attack of September 11, and still this Chamber has not had one single solitary itty-bitty vote to do a darn thing about airline safety. It is incredible to me that tomorrow we will be voting on these giant handouts, corporate tax breaks; and we have done absolutely nothing, Mr. Speaker, for the traveling public of this country to make airlines safer. Let me tell you why I feel so strongly about this. Thursday I was flying up to New York, and the fellow next to me was going through security. And we have got National Guardsmen standing there, and they are doing the great duty standing there. And our screeners are I think trying to do a little better job. The guy next to me had a nail clipper, and the screening people said, ``Sir, you can't have that.'' They took the nail clipper and ripped off the little pointed deal to take the nail clipper away from him. That is great, that we are taking nail clippers away from people. But they did not do anything about the guy's bag that he checked in that could have had 40 pounds of C-4 high explosives in it, that went right into the belly of the airplane I was getting on, with another 150 people getting on, who thought, who thought the bags are checked for explosives in this country. In fact, they are not, because, Mr. Speaker, the sad fact is that 90 percent probably-plus of the bags that go into our airplanes go straight into the belly of the airplane, and they are not checked for anything. They could have dynamite, they could have nitrates, they could have C-4, they could have gasoline, and they are not checked about that. Do you know what the House has done about that for the last 40 days is zip. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I am very frustrated by the majority's refusal to bring up a vote in this Chamber to do anything about airline safety when this incredible risk is being faced by the traveling public. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).