Ted Strickland

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), who is an attorney, has joined us; and I would like to inquire regarding a legal matter. Another Member of this body suggested to me because these private companies, at least two of the largest private companies that are responsible for airline security at many of our major airports are foreign-owned companies, as a result, their CEOs would be unable to get security clearance so that they would be able to get classified information. The question has been raised with these private security companies responsible for airline security, what would happen, for example, if the CIA or the FBI came across information that was classified in nature but was relevant to airline security or some incident that may happen. Would it be possible for these private companies to have access to that information so that they could work collaboratively or would that be possible? Would you have a legal opinion about that?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, we had quite a heated debate last week about two competing approaches. One would federalize our airline security workforce so the traveling public would know they were being protected by those who were answerable to Uncle Sam, who were law enforcement personnel, who were properly trained, who were adequately paid, and who were supervised. I would like to just share with the gentlewoman some thoughts that I saw in an editorial in USA Today on November 6. ``House Barters Away Strong Protections for Flyers.'' Want to know why at a time when tight airline security is needed, the House rejected a tough bipartisan bill and passed a weak version favored by the Republican leaders? First, stop looking at the House as a law-making body; think instead of a flea market. ``Last Thursday, the day of the vote, the House was one big bazaar. Lawmakers with swing votes were doing the selling. Their price: Last minute special interest amendments and political pay offs.'' That is the opinion of USA Today. After the Senate passed a bipartisan bill 100 to nothing, and as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) stated, we cannot get more bipartisan than 100 to nothing; yet there were Members on the other side of the aisle that accused many of us in engaging in bipartisanship. All we wanted was an opportunity to pass the bill that the Senate passed so it could have gone directly to the President, he could have signed it into law the next day, and today we could have a strong airline bill in effect. We were not able to do that; but I believe when the American people come to realize what is at stake here, they will force this Chamber and this Congress to do the right thing. I have another editorial from my hometown paper, The Portsmouth Daily Times: ``Federalize Airport Workers.'' The Columbus Dispatch over the weekend had a long, thoughtful editorial opinion chiding this House for not doing the right thing and saying we need to federalize this responsibility. We still have that opportunity because the House and the Senate will take their competing bills to conference, and we still have an opportunity to have a bill that federalizes these workers and makes the situation not perfectly safe because it will never be perfectly safe to fly, but as safe as we can make it. Thus far we have not passed a bill that makes the traveling public as safe as they can be or as safe as they should be.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for joining us tonight. I have some other colleagues here, including the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, the gentleman talks about the private security company that is responsible for the situation in Chicago. That same company is responsible for the security at the Columbus, Ohio, airport which I flew out of this morning. While I was standing in line waiting to get on the airplane, there was a lady who started talking about her frustration. She knew I was a Member of Congress, and she said we need to federalize these workers. Who can I write to and express my opinion. I shared with her some names that she could contact. Then she told me this story. She said when I came to the Columbus, Ohio, airport, and I am a quilter, I went through security and after I went through security, I realized I had a large pair of scissors and what she described as a rotary blade cutter. She got through security and realized she had these scissors and blade. She said they were valuable to me, and I knew if I was caught with them, they probably would take them away, so she went back through security and took them to her car and left them in her car and then came back to the airport. She said I am furious I was able to get through security this morning with those scissors on me. Madam Speaker, it is happening over and over and over. This one particular company, the Argenbright company, seems to be very, very lax in the expectations they have for their employees, apparently for the training they provide; and certainly they are very lax with the supervision. Otherwise, these multiple incidents would not happen. It is a dangerous situation. Some of my colleagues have expressed that they think I ought not to say that flying is not safe. So I will say it this way: flying still has a risk attached to it. Is that risk less than it was before September 11? Perhaps. In some cases it may be much, much less. But the fact is that people have a right to accurate information. The American traveling public has a right to know what kind of security exists before they choose to get on an airplane and fly, especially if they are going to put their family members at risk. We are trying to inform the public, and the public is the one that will ultimately force this Congress to do the right thing and force the airlines to do the right thing. Until they feel safe, they will not return to the airlines as they have in the past.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, tonight we are gathered to discuss a serious issue, and that is the issue of airline security. One of my colleagues from the great State of Texas is here and is on a limited time schedule, so I will begin this hour together by turning the time over at this point to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentleman for that clarification, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to engage my distinguished colleague from Minnesota in a colloquy to clarify one section of this bill, section 108, relating to the screening of passengers and property. Am I correct in my understanding that section 108 only applies to the screening of passengers and property that will be placed aboard passenger aircraft?

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. I would like to share an incident that happened with me at Dulles International Airport just within the last 2 weeks. I think it illustrates the fact that our current procedures are woefully inadequate and even dangerous. I went to the airport early one morning, I had a 7:20 flight so I arrived well before that time. I asked to have my bag checked. The person there at the ticket counter gave me my seat assignment and handed the ticket back to me. Then she said, Sir, you've been selected at random to have your bags further screened. They were screening them for possible explosive devices. Then she said to me, I would like for you to take your bag, walk down the corridor here until you come to the crossover, turn to the left, go to the next major corridor, turn to the left and you will see the machine where they are doing the screening over at your right. I said to her, With all due respect to whoever is responsible for this process, what makes you think that if I've got an explosive device in that bag that I am going to voluntarily, without being escorted or without being observed, carry it over there and ask someone to screen it for explosives? It just does not make sense. The fact is that if I had had an explosive device in that bag, I could have just simply left the airport and come back later in the day at a time when it was highly unlikely that I would be selected a second time at random to have that bag checked. But I think it points out a larger problem. I have been told that at Dulles, for example, 80 percent of the people who provide the screening are low-paid individuals with minimal training and some 80 percent are noncitizens. It is difficult to do adequate background checks and the like when you have those circumstances prevail. I would like to share something that was written in the Dallas Morning News just a few days ago regarding this matter. I quote from this Dallas Morning News story: We normally favor private sector responses, but it was troubling to hear from the Justice Department last week that a major handler of security in the U.S. airports had hired screeners who had criminal backgrounds and drug problems and who had lied about their histories. That record does not bode well for a dual system of private employees and Federal standards. It's better to think of airline screeners as important as border guards or custom agents, all of whom work for the government. There is a time for ideological arguments, but there is also a time when legislators need to compromise. We have reached that moment. The Nation needs better airport security and the House should not stand in its way. That, I think, is a very powerful statement from the Dallas newspaper, indicating that we need to move to have a system of screeners and employees that are answerable to Uncle Sam. My friend from Washington State said that we would not tolerate private employees guarding this wonderful Capitol building or providing security for those of us who are Members of the House of Representatives or the Senate of the United States. We want professional law enforcement, public law enforcement officials doing that. There should be no less concern for the traveling American public. They also deserve to have security personnel who are answerable to Uncle Sam, who are sworn, who are well-trained, who are dedicated to the public protection. Anything less than that will continue to put the traveling public at risk.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, there are those who say we cannot do that in a timely manner. But the fact is that we can do what we choose to do. If we think that it is important enough to do, we will see that it is done. This country is a technological giant. There is practically nothing we cannot do once we set our minds to it. To imply that we cannot build machines fast enough or modify the airports in a timely manner is simply underestimating the ability of the American people. This is a puzzling issue because it is something that nearly everyone says we need to do. Yet there is a lack of will to actually proceed to do it.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we are going to pass a bill this week, and it is going to have this fairly meaningless language in it; and then we are going to tell people that we have solved the problem. The American people are going to be led to believe that we have done everything we can to make their traveling on airplanes as safe as possible, and it simply will not be true. We need to be specific. We need to have a mandate and a time certain. If I can share a few other thoughts from this Columbus Dispatch editorial, it points out that the security procedures commonly in place have focused nearly entirely on the contents of carry-on baggage, and the screening for checked luggage is through a series of questions designed to reveal whether people had packed their own bags and kept them in sight and planned to board the plane for which they were ticketed. These measures were imposed after the Lockerbie explosion, and they were based on the theory that no one would board a plane that was going to blow up because the theory was a person would be highly unlikely to blow up a plane and kill themselves. But on September 11 we learned something. We learned that there are terrorists, fanatical terrorists, who not only are willing to die, but seemingly are anxious to die for what they believe in. We can no longer use this casual method of asking have you packed your own bag and has it been in your sight. We need to have the technology that will make it possible to screen for explosives. Some of these explosives are so powerful that a portion the size of a bar of soap can do incredible damage. We cannot afford to allow this to continue as it has. As I said to my colleague from Washington State, we are going to be debating these matters here in the House of Representatives, and there are going to be some who are going to contend that this language, almost meaningless language, is going to provide protection to the American people. If that is all we get in this bill, it is going to be a real failure, in my judgment.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I was in Athens, Ohio, this past weekend; and I had a discussion with a young man who told me he had planned a trip to Florida for himself, his wife and children; and he said I am not flying. I have gone to the airlines and asked for my ticket money back. They will not return my ticket money, but they have told him that he can use his ticket during the next 12 months. He said, I hope after a few months I will feel safe enough to use those tickets. We want the airlines to survive and prosper, and we hear talk encouraging the American people to go back to normal living and carry on their lives as they did prior to September 11, to buy goods, to enjoy themselves in social settings and the like. We also want them to fly. Congress gave the airline industry a $15 billion bailout less than a month ago because we were afraid the airline industry would not survive in this country without that kind of governmental assistance. I opposed that bill at the time; but many, many of my friends in this Chamber thought it was the right thing to do and voted for it. My feeling is the best way to get airlines healthy in an economic sense is to encourage people to fly. How can we encourage people to fly if flying is not as safe as it ought to be or could be? I want to be able to say to that young man in Athens, Ohio, and to all of my constituents, we have taken action in the House of Representatives that will keep you as safe as it is possible for you to be when you choose to use air travel. Once we do that, then I think the American people will return to the airports and they will take their vacations and business trips. I talked to another individual today who was in Florida, and he was coming back to Washington and I asked him how he was getting back here and he said, I am driving. Ordinarily this individual would fly, but he still does not feel comfortable in flying. We need to take this action. If we do, I believe the American people will return to life as they normally lived it prior to September 11.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I have heard some of the leaders on the other side of the aisle say that they did not want the federalization of these employees because they would join unions. But I think it is appropriate for us to recall that the young firefighters who gave their lives in the trade towers in New York City were, by and large, members of a union, that the police officers that sacrificed their lives in service on that terrible day of September 11, they were members of unions. I do not think we should fight this battle on the basis of whether or not the employees would be able to join a union or not join a union. What we want are people who are responsible to the government, to the Federal Government, to provide the kind of protection that the American people need and deserve. I doubt very seriously that if the firemen and the police officers in New York City were paid little more than minimum wage, were private contractors, that they would have been willing to do what those brave men and women did on September 11 in New York City. We do not privatize our FBI, we do not privatize our customs agents, we do not privatize our border patrol folks. We do not privatize the Capitol Police that protect this wonderful Capitol and provide protections for Members of the U.S. Senate and Members of the United States House of Representatives. They are not privatized. Why should the people who provide the protection for our citizens who go to airports and get on airplanes have to suffer under the protection of lowly paid individuals who are poorly trained and who cannot, even though they try, under those circumstances, they cannot provide the depth and the quality of protection that the traveling public deserves?

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would just like to close my remarks this evening by once again referring to the editorial in the Columbus Dispatch of October 16. The editorial ends with this question: Will there be no end to the revelations of how poorly the Federal Government, airport security workers and airlines have handled the job of protecting passengers? How many other rules are not being enforced, and how much evidence do House Republicans need to convince them that only a top-notch security force, paid by the taxpayers and not hired by the low bid contractors, will make the airways as safe as possible? A bill passed by the Senate and pending in the House would federalize airport security. The House should stop playing politics with this essential legislation and pass it. I would just like to point out in closing that in the Senate, they voted 100 to zero to pass this vital legislation. We need to bring it to this floor, and we need to pass it this week. If we do not, the American people should hold us accountable.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I thank the gentleman from Washington State for yielding to me. I think it is important for people to understand why we have not been able to bring a bill to the floor thus far, and why it may be that our amendment to require that all bags be checked will not even get a vote on this floor. I think the American people sometimes do not fully understand that there are certain rules and procedures that govern what happens in this House, and those rules and procedures are dominated by the majority party. And especially in terms of the amendment that we are trying to get brought to this floor, that is determined really by the Committee on Rules. We were just upstairs not more than 10 minutes ago asking the Committee on Rules if we could bring our amendment to the floor so that here in this Chamber, comprised of all the representatives of the people, 435 of us from across this great United States, that at least we would have an opportunity to cast a vote and to make a decision regarding this vital public safety matter. It is, I think, true that most Americans, in the past at least, when they have gone and purchased a ticket for air travel and placed themselves and perhaps their families, their children even on an airplane were assuming that all the luggage that went into the belly of that plane had been properly screened for explosives. We now know that that just simply does not happen. We found out many years ago, about 13 years ago, when the plane exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, that a simple explosive device, perhaps placed in a suitcase, if it is loaded into the belly of an airplane, can literally destroy that airplane. So many lives were lost there. And the gentleman and I had an opportunity just 2 or 3 weeks ago to meet with two fathers who lost sons in that Lockerbie explosion. So this is something that is a matter of life and death. As I just said to the Committee on Rules, what we decide on this issue may determine whether or not at some point in the future Americans will lose their lives. The American traveling public has a right to travel in conditions that are as safe as we can make them. And if we pass an airline security bill this week that omits this vital loophole, then the American public will not be as safe as they have a right to be. I would like to share just a few words from an editorial that appeared in the Columbus Dispatch, the major newspaper in Columbus, Ohio, which is the capital of the great State of Ohio, and this editorial pointed out the fact that the Department of Transportation's Inspector General recently reported that at 7 of the Nation's 20 highest risk airports there was no scanning of checked baggage. The editorial goes ahead to point out that some time ago $441 million were used to buy 164 of these high-tech bomb detection machines that were to be used in 50 of the most busy airports in our country. The editorial then points out that after this huge expenditure of millions and millions of dollars, and the actual purchasing of these machines, that they were not used. They were just left in warehouses gathering dust. So what our amendment does, it has a specific time line that will require that this be done. And unless there is a legislative requirement that it be done in a reasonable period of time, a date certain, I fear that it will never happen, and that at some point in the future we will lose an airplane needlessly because we have failed to take this action.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, this country is on a wartime footing, and I think we should be on a wartime schedule in this House of Representatives. The reason I say that is it is 1:15 in the afternoon. This House has completed its work for the day. The American people know that we left Washington last Wednesday evening. We did not return to Washington for session until 6 p.m. this Tuesday. Yesterday we went in to session at 10 o'clock in the morning. We finished at about 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon. Today we went in session at 10 o'clock. It is now only 1:15 in the afternoon, and we have finished for the week and will not return to this Chamber to our work until 6 o'clock next Tuesday. The reason I think that is unacceptable is the fact that we have yet to deal with the airline security legislation. And every day that passes, American citizens who get on our airlines, do so without being as fully protected as they ought to be. I have here today an editorial from the Columbus Dispatch, the major newspaper in Columbus, Ohio, which is the capital city of our State. It was written on October 16. The editorial says in part: ``Since terrorists blew up Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, many Americans have assumed that their checked baggage was being X- rayed. After all, without such a check, how could anyone be certain that a bomb hadn't been stowed in the cargo hold? As Americans know now, travellers who believe that baggage was routinely X-rayed were enjoying a false sense of security.'' Mr. Speaker, the American people need to know that when they buy a ticket and get on a passenger plane in this country today, that it is likely that 95 percent of the luggage that is placed into the belly of that airline has not been screened for explosive devices. Think about that. We are being urged to go back to life in a normal way. We are being urged to use the airlines, to travel by air, to fly. But the American people have a right to know that today this Congress has yet to take action, this House has yet to take action on a bill to provide them airline security and, especially, to require that all the baggage that is placed in the airplanes that we fly on, that baggage is checked for explosives. Now, it really puzzles me why the House has not acted. This is something the American people absolutely want to have done. The Senate more than 2 weeks ago voted 100 to nothing, every Senator of both political parties voted to pass this airline security legislation which would require the 100 percent check of all the luggage that is placed on our airlines. And yet day after day has passed, week after week has passed; and the leadership in this House has refused to even allow that legislation be brought to this floor for debate and a vote. It is unconscionable and the American people have a right to be outraged. I would like to share some other comments from this editorial written by the Columbus Dispatch on October 16: ``Will there be no end to the revelations of how poorly the Federal Government, airport security workers and airlines have handled the job of protecting passengers? How many other rules aren't being enforced? How much evidence do House Republicans need to convince them that only a top notch security force, paid by the taxpayers and not hired by the low-bid contractors, will make the airways as safe as possible?'' ``A bill passed by the Senate and pending in the House would federalize airport security. The House should stop playing politics with this essential legislation and pass it.'' Those are the words of the Columbus Dispatch. Many people are shocked to learn that here in the Washington area at the Dulles International Airport, 80 percent or more than 80 percent of the people who are responsible for screening our bags for explosive devices and making sure that weapons are not taken aboard our airlines, 80 percent or more are noncitizens. How can we do background checks on individuals who are noncitizens? Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that deserves immediate attention on the part of this House. It is absolutely wrong that on Thursday afternoon at 1:20 in the afternoon we would discharge this House until 6 o'clock next week on Tuesday. It is wrong. The American people will not tolerate this continued delay, because their very lives are at stake.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, this Nation is on a wartime footing and this House should be on a wartime schedule. We left this city last Wednesday. We came back and went into session at 6 o'clock on Tuesday. Yesterday morning, we went into session at 10 o'clock a.m. and finished our work by 5 p.m. We are leaving today by 2 o'clock. We have yet to pass an airline security bill. The American people who get on airplanes today and tomorrow and next week will do so knowing that at least 95 percent of the luggage that is placed in the belly of that airplane will not be screened for explosives. How can we tell the American people to go back to life as normal? How can we encourage people to get on our airplanes and fly as long as this House is negligent and refuses to bring an airline security bill to this floor for honest, open debate and a vote? All we are asking for is the right to have a vote on this airline security bill.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak this evening about this matter of the airline security, because most Americans when they buy an airline ticket believe that when they get on that plane that the luggage that has been loaded into the belly of that airplane has been screened for explosive devices, and the fact is that it has not. Probably less than 10 percent of all the luggage that is put on passenger planes is screened for explosive devices. Last week, this House left town on Wednesday evening. We returned this Tuesday at 6 o'clock p.m. We went into session at 10 o'clock this morning. We completed work before 5 o'clock this afternoon. And tomorrow we are told to be prepared to leave town by 2 o'clock in the afternoon. It has been 43 days since those two planes were hijacked and tore into the World Trade towers in New York City. It has been 43 days since the Pentagon was attacked and all those lives were lost. It has been 43 days since those innocent people went down in that plane in Pennsylvania. And we still have not passed an airline security bill in this House of Representatives. Two weeks ago, the Senate passed an airline security bill 100-to- nothing. Every Senator joined together to vote to protect the traveling public. Yet this House has not acted. Why have we not acted? It is because the leadership here is opposed to making the people who work in our airports, to provide the security for our traveling public, Federal employees. And they know the American people want this. They know that Republican and Democrat Senators alike wanted it, and they know if it comes to this floor for a vote, it will pass, because a vast majority of the Members of this House believe that those employees should be Federal employees, well-trained, well-equipped, well-paid professional people who are charged with the responsibility of keeping us safe when we fly. Many Americans are shocked to learn that in some of the major airports in this country, up to 80 percent of the employees who provide this security are noncitizens. They are noncitizens of this country. They receive little more than minimum wage. They received a day or two of training. Some of them receive less training than they would receive if they were hired by Starbuck's to sell coffee in our airports. Yet they are charged with keeping our airports safe and making it safe for us and our families and our loved ones to board those planes. It is shameful in my judgment that we are wasting so much time in this House, that we are completing work before 5 o'clock in the evening, that we are leaving town tomorrow in the early afternoon and not returning until 6 o'clock next Tuesday without acting on this airline security bill. We do not want Americans to be afraid to fly but Americans have a right to know. They have a right to know that today when they get on an airplane, it is likely that 95 percent of the luggage that is in the belly of that airplane has not been checked for explosives. They need to know that as they make decisions about themselves and their families and whether or not they want to fly. And we need to understand that if we want this economy to go downward, we will lose another plane or two and people just simply will refuse to get on our airliners. We can do this. The technology is there to check for explosive devices. We just simply do not have the will to make the decision to make it happen. Yesterday my friend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and I went to the Committee on Rules. We wanted a part of this stimulus package to provide the financial resources to enable our airports to have these devices that could check for explosives. That certainly was not made a part of today's package which passed here on the floor of this House. But if we lose an airliner as a result of an explosive device being placed on that airliner, the responsibility is going to be in this House and it is especially going to be on the leadership of this House if they do not move this bill forward. Bring it to the floor, let us debate it, let us vote. We owe this to the American people. The American people want it, and I believe as they become increasingly aware of the dangers they face that they will demand it. Mr. Speaker, we ought to do this and we ought to do it this week rather than waiting to some later time.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, Not to my knowledge.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. My friend from Washington, and I took an amendment to the Committee on Rules this evening asking that this be made a part of the stimulus package. That request has been denied. This is just unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a life and death matter this evening. And I think the American people, if they knew what is happening, would be justifiably outraged, because most people think when they go to an airport and they check their luggage, that that luggage is screened for explosive devices before it is placed in the belly of that airplane. So they get on that airplane, sometimes they allow their families, their children to get on those airplanes, thinking that it is safe to fly. Now, by law, we have to put a disclaimer on the packs of cigarettes that says if you smoke these cigarettes, you are endangering yourself in certain ways. I believe if we continue to allow the current situation to exist, we should be required to put a disclaimer on airline tickets that says if you get on this airplane, you need to know that it has not been screened, the baggage has not been screened for explosives, and this airplane may explode in midair. Now, I do not want to be overly dramatic or I do not want to be an alarmist, but the American people have a right to accurate, factual information. They have a right to know that although the Senate has voted 100 to nothing to move an airline security bill, this House has refused to even allow that bill to come to this floor so that we can debate it and talk about it and air our differences and have a vote. The leadership in this House, the Republican leadership in this House, is refusing to allow this bill to even come to this floor. And every day that an American citizen buys an airline ticket and gets on an airplane, they are in danger; and they need to know that. I had a young stockbroker call me from New York City the other day when he heard about our efforts to get this done. He told me that he had a sister-in-law who was on, I think, the 19th floor of the first tower that was hit by the plane in New York; and thankfully, she was able to get to safety. But this young man said, ``I am taking my family on a vacation in early November,'' and he said ``I am outraged because I have always assumed that when I check my luggage, it was screened for explosives.'' He said, ``What can I do to get this legislation passed into law?'' I suggested to that young man that he contact his Senators and that he contact his Representatives in this House, and I shared with him that the Senate has done their work, Republicans and Democrats alike. Not a single dissenting vote in the Senate. The most conservative Senators, the most liberal Senators, all agreed that it is time to take airport security seriously; and they joined together in a bipartisan way. They cast their votes, 100 to nothing. The American people have a right to ask why is the House not taking action? Why is the House preventing this legislation from coming to this floor for a vote? It is unconscionable. I am convinced that if we do not deal with this legislation, Mr. Speaker, that American citizens some day in the future will get on a plane and it will explode and they will lose their lives. And if that happens, it will be because this House has been negligent and derelict in its duty. We owe this to the American people. They want it, and the only thing that is keeping it from happening is the leadership on that side of the aisle that refuses to allow this legislation to come to the floor for a vote.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the previous speaker, it is true that 90 percent of the luggage that goes into the belly of our aircraft are not screened for explosive devices. If my friend, the gentleman from Texas, would like to challenge that statement, I will relinquish the remainder of my 1-minute so he can do so. A message from the heartland: The Columbus Dispatch wrote yesterday: ``How much more evidence do House Republicans need to convince them that only a top notch security force, paid by the taxpayer and not hired by low-bid contractors, will make the airlines as safe as possible? A bill passed by the Senate and pending in the House would federalize airport security. The House should stop playing politics with this essential legislation and pass it.'' Mr. Speaker, airline travel may be marginally safer now than it was before September 11, but it is still not as safe as it ought to be or as safe as we can make it. This House should pass airline safety so that when Americans and their families get on our airlines, they can have confidence that there is not a bomb within the belly of that airplane. Until we pass this legislation, we can never have that confidence.

Mr. STRICKLAND

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, we do not want our police officers to be privatized. We do not want our CIA or our FBI to be privatized. We do not want our firefighters to be privatized. We are talking about security here. Our airport security personnel should be professional. They should be accountable. They should be highly trained, and they should be government employees. The government should be responsible for their performance. I think this is what the American people want. The Senate voted 100 to nothing. Every Republican and every Democrat in the Senate of this country voted to federalize this security force. Yet we are not getting an opportunity in this House Chamber even to bring the bill to the floor for a debate and vote. I do not believe that we will get that opportunity until the American people express themselves, until the American people let the leadership in this Chamber know how deeply and how strongly they feel about this issue.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Washington State for yielding. The fact is that we believe the American traveling public has a right to be fully informed about the safety and security measures that are available to them, as well as those that are not in place, as they make decisions regarding whether they want to fly on an airplane. The fact is that today flying is somewhat safer than it was prior to September 11, but there is so much more that we need to do that we have not yet done. Every flight should have a marshal on that flight that is trained and armed and fully prepared to protect the passengers and the pilots. That is basic. Every flight should be a flight where the baggage that is carried on board has been thoroughly screened so that we know that knives or guns or other weapons have not been taken aboard that airplane. Another thing that needs to be done, and quite frankly where there is great resistance, is making sure that all the luggage that is placed in the belly of that plane, in the cargo space, is thoroughly inspected before it is placed on that plane. Last week, when we discussed this matter in this Chamber, we talked about the fact that we are currently inspecting approximately 5 percent of the luggage that is being placed in the cargo sections of airplanes. And the next day, I got a call from a young man from the State of New York; and he said, Congressman, I am outraged, because I am planning a vacation in November. And I plan to take my family on an airplane. I had no idea that the luggage that is placed on the airlines is not currently checked. The fact is that most of it is not checked, and we will never be as safe and secure as we can be and should be until we address this gaping hole in our security system. I would like to share with my friend from Washington State an editorial that was in today's Columbus, Ohio, Dispatch newspaper. They asked the question, ``What security?'' And I would read just a few paragraphs from this editorial. The editorial begins: ``Last week, Americans learned about corporations engaging in what has to be the most outrageous disregard for public safety displayed by any business in years. As Americans now know, travelers who believe that baggage was routinely X-rayed were enjoying a false sense of security.'' The fact is that most Americans, I think, believe that when they go to an airport and they check their baggage they assume that before that baggage is placed on that airplane that it will be screened; and it is not. What happened over Lockerbie, Scotland, which cost so many young lives, was a suitcase bomb that had been placed in the cargo of that airplane. And last week we met with two fathers who lost sons in that terrible tragedy. One lost a 20-year-old son and one lost a 24-year-old son. These two fathers stood outside this Capitol building and shared with us the fact that they had worked for the last 13 years trying to get this changed so that other parents would not have to face the kind of sadness and tragedy that they faced. Yet the airlines have consistently fought this commonsense procedure. We need to do this, and we need to make this a part of the airline security bill that this House passes. Before I yield back to my friend, I would just like to say this. We have done a lot in this Chamber since September 11. We have dealt with a lot of things. We passed a $15 billion bailout for the airline industry. We have attended to some other national needs, but the American people want to feel they are safe. And people who fly on our airlines want to feel that we have done everything that we can practically do to make sure they are safe. Yet there is great resistance in this Chamber, and I am sad to say that most of that resistance is coming from the leadership on the other side of the aisle. They do not want to federalize this security force. They do not want to pass this legislation that will guarantee that all luggage is screened. I would just like to share one other paragraph from the Columbus Dispatch editorial before I yield my time back. The editorial ends this way: ``Will there be no end to the revelations of how poorly the Federal Government, airport security workers, and airlines have handled the job of protecting passengers? How many other rules are not being enforced? How much evidence do House Republicans need to convince them that only a top-notch security force, paid by the taxpayers and not hired by the low-bid contractors, will make the airlines as safe as possible? A bill passed by the Senate and pending in the House would federalize airport security. The House should stop playing politics with this essential legislation and pass it.'' I say amen to what the Columbus Dispatch has written in their editorial. This is something we need to do, and we need to do it expeditiously. And lives can be saved if we act; and I believe if we fail to act, American lives will be lost. I yield back to my friend from Washington State.