HEADLINE: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN MICA (R-FL) HOLDS HEARING ON
ARMING PILOTS
SPEAKER: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN MICA (R-FL), CHAIRMAN
LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.C.
BODY:
HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE: SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION MEETS TO MARK UP LEGISLATION ON ARMING
PILOTS
JUNE 19, 2002
SPEAKERS: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN MICA (R-FL) CHAIRMAN U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TOM PETRI (R-WI) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DUNCAN JR. (R-TN) U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE STEPHEN HORN (R-CA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JACK QUINN
(R-NY) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE VERNON J. EHLERS (R-MI) U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE SPENCER BACHUS (R-AL) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SUE KELLY
(R-NY) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD BAKER (R-LA) U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE ASA HUTCHINSON (R-AR) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN
COOKSEY (R-LA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN THUNE (R-SD) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FRANK LOBIONDO (R-NJ) U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MORAN (R-KS) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL
SIMPSON (R-ID) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHNNY ISAKSON (R-GA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT (ROBIN) HAYES (R-NC) U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STEVEN KIRK (R-IL) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE TIMOTHY
JOHNSON (R-IL) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS REHBERG (R-MT) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SAM GRAVES (R-MO) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
MARK KENNEDY (R-MI) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON
(R-TX) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BILL SHUSTER (R-PA) U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE DON YOUNG (R-AK) EX OFFICIO
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI (D-IL) RANKING
MEMBER U.S. DELEGATE ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON (D-DC) U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (D-TX) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
LEONARD L. BOSWELL (D-IA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BALDACCI
(D-ME) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE PETER A. DEFAZIO (D-OR) U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO (D-IL) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT
MENENDEZ (D-NJ) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE CORRINE BROWN (D-FL) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD (D-CA) U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE MAX SANDLIN (D-TX) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE ELLEN TAUSCHER
(D-CA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE BILL PASCRELL JR. (D-NJ) U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM HOLDEN (D-PA) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE NICK LAMPSON
(D-TX) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY BERKLEY (D-NV) U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE BRAD CARSON (D-OK) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JIM MATHESON
(D-UT) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL HONDA (D-CA) U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE NICK RAHALL II (D-WV) U.S. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES L.
OBERSTAR (D-MN)
MICA: Good morning. I'd like to call the Subcommittee on
Aviation to order. The subcommittee is meeting this morning to mark up the arming pilots against terrorism act. It's H.R. 4635. The Chair
now recognizes Mr. Hayes for a motion.
HAYES: Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I move the chairman authorize the (inaudible) and the
subcommittee mark up today.
MICA: Is there a discussion
on the motion? If not, all in favor, signify by saying aiy.
(UNKNOWN): Aye.
MICA: All opposed, nay. The
ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. I know call up H.R. 4635. A copy of
the bill should be before each of the members. At this time, what I'd like to do
is have opening statements. And I'll open with a statement. We'll recognize as
many members as who seek recognition.
Today, we have
before us H.R. 4635, the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act.
This bill introduced by Chairman Young and myself will create a program that
will allow pilots on a voluntary basis to arm themselves to defend their
aircraft and their passengers. Under this program, the volunteer pilots will be
deputized federal law enforcement officers and will be trained in the use of
deadly force as a last line of defense against immediate threats of violence or
air piracy.
Pilots are already entrusted with the lives
of every passenger on their aircraft. A significant number of pilots have law
enforcement and a large segment of our pilots already have military background
and some experience with firearms. We've attempted to work very closely with the
Airline Pilots Association, ALPA, to craft this legislation. And to my
knowledge, all of the major pilots' organization in the United States stand
united on this issue.
The decision to arm pilots and
crew has not been taken lightly. You must consider our current situation. First,
unfortunately, our aviation system is in a very vulnerable stage of transition.
And any observer of what's going on will tell you it will be that way for some
time. Secondly, it's impossible to place air marshals on all of our at risk
flights. Third, full cockpit door security conversions will not be completed
until mid-2003 at best. Fourth, let me say that pilots have had the ability to
arm themselves in the past.
And I wasn't aware of it
and one of the pilots who recently contacted me gave me a copy of this
particular photograph. And this is the photograph of a weapon. And this weapon
was actually issued. It says the property of United Airlines. You can see it up
on the screen. But pilots have had weapons in the past. This one dates back to
the '50's, I believe. But in the '60's and '70's in a far less dangerous time,
pilots had the ability to arm themselves and were even supplied the weapons by
the airlines.
Fifth, we know that terrorists have been
trained to take over commercial aircraft by lethal and non-lethal means. If we
have another incident, I think people on this committee could be asked the
question what did you know and when did you know it. Well, we've seen this
presented before and we know that terrorists have been trained to take over
these aircraft.
We have intelligence photographs and
we've got one of them up there that show where they were trained in groups. And
they used lethal and non-lethal means. So, we knew what the current danger is
and will be for some time. Finally, if there's another terrorist hijacking, the
Department of Defense is left with our only option. And that option is to make a
difficult decision to shoot down a plane full of innocent passengers to prevent
that plane from being used as a weapon.
I strongly
believe under these circumstances and others that we can't go into details about
yet that we know of in our security system, that arming and - both trained and
qualified flight crew members is an absolutely necessary step to ensure the
safety and security of the flying public. Nothing else can provide the
deterrence or the effectiveness of a weapon wielded by a highly trained
individual. Pilots are nearly unanimous. They've come to us.
Again, this isn't something members of Congress came up with. But
pilots have come to us, their elected representatives, and asked for the ability
to defend themselves, their passengers and their planes. Let me say, finally,
all of the people who look at aviation security and, in my opinion, there's no
one more experienced than a pilot who looks at the system each day. But each day
they see and they know the weaknesses of the system.
And they are asking us for the ability to arm and defend themselves.
Congress has a responsibility to hear this plea and act on this matter. In the
spirit of compromise, we've worked hard with the Democrat leadership of the
committee and individuals members on the committee to develop a bipartisan
substitute amendment which I'll explain in a minute. I believe this is one of
the most important issues we face as far as aviation security today in the
United States. And I ask for its full support from my colleagues. I'm now
pleased to recognize the ranking member of our subcommittee, the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Lipinski.
LIPINSKI: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Excuse me. First off, I want to thank Chairman Mica and Chairman Young
for their cooperation in developing the bipartisan substitute amendment that he
will be introducing very shortly. I also want to thank the pilots' association
for their significant contribution to us reaching this bipartisan substitute
agreement.
The cooperation, as usual, between the
Democratic side and the Republican side, I think, was outstanding. And if we
didn't have that cooperation and that understanding, we would not be at the
point that we're at today where the majority of the members on both sides will
be able to support this bipartisan substitute amendment. And I yield the balance
of my time to the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar.
OBERSTAR: Thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman,
it appears that we're - you've ushered in the show and tell era of committee
mark ups with the screen and the display, the flat panel displays on either
side. It's a new era for the committee. Very interesting.
MICA: They're available to you, sir, at any time.
OBERSTAR: No, you've ushered in a new era for the committee. I'm just
making the observation. I've had very serious reservations about arming pilots in the flight deck. In fact, I was outright opposed
to the idea as is the Secretary of Transportation and the Undersecretary for the
Transportation Security Administration.
The substitute
to be offered marks a significant move away from the initial proposal and toward
a measure that we can support because of the cooperation extended by the
majority side and working out some very serious questions that we raised on the
Democratic side. And not in a partisan nature, but just from our perspective and
for my own personal years of legislating in aviation security.
Security like aviation safety depends intrinsically on an interlocking,
interconnecting web of redundancies that cover all of the possible circumstances
that one can imagine could occur in the course of flight. This measure would not
be in the remotest under consideration if all the other provisions of aviation
security were in place, fully operational, fully effective. The Transportation
Security Administration is now going through spring house cleaning, sweeping out
the old, trying to bring in the new.
And it is not
fully established. The principle features of the, of the new screener system,
for example, are in the works, but not implemented except to a considerable
degree at Baltimore-Washington International Airport. The curriculum has been
developed for training the instructors. Instructors are now being trained. The
recruitment program is under way to bring in qualified airport security
screeners. And then the training will begin on a massive basis throughout the
United States.
And then they will be deployed. And then
there will have to be a break-in period, not a testing period. And the explosive
detection systems - and the orders have been placed, but not all the production
is cranked up. We have not yet proven out the explosive trace detection system
to be able to detect all major forms of explosives. And the purchase program for
trace detection systems has not yet begun in earnest. The flight deck doors have
been strengthened on a temporary basis, but as we have already seen, can be, can
be breached.
And the more effective, full fledged
security doors have yet to be certified by the FAA and put into production by
the major manufacturers, Boeing and Airbus. Additionally, modifications to the
flight deck to expand the flight deck so you have a lavatory in it and water,
coffee, whatever the flight deck crew will need so they don't ever have to open
the door in flight. Now those are the measures that need to be in place that are
not now in place and what have given principally concern to the pilot
community.
Against that backdrop, I am prepared to
support the substitute that we have worked out that I think has some important
provisions to stop, take stock at a certain point before going ahead with a full
fledged permanent program. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience in
working these matters out with us. I want to compliment the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Lipinski, for carrying the burden of the day and on our side in
the committee.
MICA: Again, I thank the ranking member
of the subcommittee and my ranking member of the full committee for their
support, cooperation. Let me recognize former Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr.
Duncan, the gentleman from Illinois.
DUNCAN: Well,
thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to commend you and Mr. Lipinski
and Mr. Oberstar for working out this compromise agreement. This continues a
pattern of bipartisanship, a spirit of bipartisanship for which this committee
is famous. This will start a pilot program for the arming
pilots that I think will work well and probably will show that this is
program can be expanded in the future.
The Boston
Herald a little over three weeks ago ran an editorial about this and stated that
- pointed out that while no pilot would be required to carry a gun, only that
they should have that option and that there is probably no more professionally
responsible group of people in American than airline pilots.
And they went on to say if pilots will be reassured, if they will gain
a little more confidence on the job from having a last ditch defense before an
F16 shoots down the plane and kills everybody anyway, they should be allowed to
carry arms. A large fraction have military backgrounds and will need little
training. Arms are not new in aviation.
In bygone
years, every plane carrying the U.S. Mail carried a pistol for the pilot to use
against would-be robbers. I want to place in the record at this point editorials
in support of this proposal or editorials in support of allowing pilots to be
armed from the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times, the Boston Herald
and also a column by George Will. And I want to say that - and also a Chicago
Tribune editorial. And I want to say that I support this legislation and I thank
you for bringing (inaudible).
LIPINSKI: Would the
gentleman yield just for a moment?
DUNCAN: Yes, I
certainly would.
LIPINSKI: The chairman, when he
introduced you he introduced you as the gentleman ...
DUNCAN: I know. I noticed.
LIPINSKI: ... from
Illinois. And I just want to say to everybody that we are enormously proud to
have Jimmy Duncan as a member of the Illinois delegation. We couldn't be
happier. Jim, just remember next year when we do the highway bill that you're
from Illinois. Thank you very much.
DUNCAN: Well, Mr.
Lipinski, thank you. You know I have great respect for you. And I'm so pleased
that we now have your son living in my district in Tennessee. But Tennessee's
better, but Illinois is really a great state, too.
LIPINSKI: I'm glad to see we keep it all in the family.
MICA: If I did say Illinois, I was inadvertently referring to the very
distinguished gentleman from Illinois who's the ranking, current ranking member.
And I'd never forget that Mr. Duncan is from the beautiful state of Tennessee.
Further opening statements, Miss Johnson, from Texas.
JOHNSON: Thank you very much. I love that emphasis on Texas. Mr.
Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation for your willingness to work
with ranking members Oberstar and Lipinski to negotiate a compromise that will
attract broader support. Despite these efforts, I still intend to vote against
the passage of this bill. As I understand it, the substitute amendment changes
the program to arm pilots from a permanent program to a two-year pilot
program.
After this period, the TSA is required to
evaluate the program and make a decision on whether to proceed further with
deputizing pilots or to terminate the program altogether. I do not believe a
two-year test will change the views of the Administration and the Department of
Transportation officials regarding the wisdom of deputizing and arming pilots.
At a recent hearing in
the Senate, Undersecretary Margo Maggaw (ph) was unequivocal in stating his
opposition to arming pilots. In my view, a two-year test will
yield further evidence to reinforce the secretary's view. Unfortunately, a
mandated pilot program to arm pilots will also divert precious time and
resources that the TSA could devote to more pressing security concerns.
I agree with the undersecretary because fundamentally if a
hijacking occurs, pilots must concentrate on maintaining control and landing the
plane safely as soon as possible and not on confronting terrorists where you
have a retrofitted door as well as marshals on the plane. Armed pilots is also
inconsistent with security strategy that we developed to prevent attacks like
the September 11th hijacking.
We are spending millions
of dollars reinforcing the walls between the cockpit and the passengers' cabin,
passenger cabin to prevent access to pilot controls. If these walls are truly
effective, arming pilots will not enhance security. In fact,
doing so may make planes less secure because pilots could be tempted to confront
situations occurring in the passenger cabinet and thereby breach the secure
barrier. I believe the temptation exists despite the liability language which
states that the pilots are not exempt from liability if they use firearms for a
purpose other than defending the flight deck.
Many of
you know that the National Rifle Association has become involved in this debate
and made this bill a test of members' willingness to support the right to bear
arms. I would remind my colleagues that this debate is not about gun control.
Law enforcement officials necessarily must be armed in order to protect
citizens, be they ordinary pedestrians on the street or in this case, the flying
public. No one disputes whether law enforcement officials should bear arms.
My problem is that I do not believe that pilots should
serve a dual role as a federal law enforcement official while also bearing the
responsibility of navigating the aircraft safely. When the Aviation Subcommittee
held a hearing on this bill and other issues related to arming flight crews, I
noted that there is no other area where we allow private sector employees to
serve in duties assigned by the employer while simultaneously ensuring public
law and order.
I still have not found such an example
and I'm not surprised. Being a law enforcement officer is a full-time job. It
requires the individual's complete attention. I know that many local
jurisdictions do not allow police officers to moonlight. Law enforcement
officials undergo rigorous training. And after initial qualification, they still
must spend a great deal of time to maintain their proficiency. We must also
consider the added dimension involved in mid-air incidents.
Aircraft are relatively small, confined environments containing
passengers and sensitive navigational instruments. Gunfire could not only injure
other passengers or crew, it could damage the aircraft in flight systems. For
this reason, we qualify candidates to become federal air marshals only after
they pass a rigorous training regime that demonstrates that they are physically
and mentally equipped to respond appropriately to hijacking and other violent
situations occurring mid-flight.
The training needed to
become federal air marshal is hardly routine and not every applicant who aspires
to be an air marshal is entrusted ultimately with this duty. I believe that
given time, we will witness many qualified individuals passing the rigorous
demands involved in qualifying for the federal air marshal program.
At the same time, I truly wonder whether pilots whose
primary duty involve manipulating complex electronic equipment can devote the
time and attention necessary to qualify to serve as a flight deck officer while
maintaining their flying skills. Most travelers who decide to fly take it for
granted that the men and women who pilot aircraft are more than capable of
navigating airplanes safely.
One of the reasons why
travelers can take comfort is because we have established airlines that despite
their periodic complaints on customer service, have seldom been questioned on
their ability to ensure that their pilots are highly qualified. Airlines are
competent at ascertaining whether pilots are physically and mentally fit to
literally take lives into their own hands.
That is why
I am bewildered at why the legislation leaves no role for airlines in
determining whether their own employees should become federal flight deck
officers. Because of these concerns, I have coauthored an amendment with
Representative Ehlers to ensure roles for the airlines.
Moreover, I strongly believe in strengthening the air marshal program.
I am convinced that if we are to increase the number of armed law enforcement
officials in our airports and airplanes, we should rely on specifically trained
personnel who can devote their full time and attention.
I understand the reasons why the substitute amendment requires
candidates for the flight deck officer program to undergo the same training that
is required of federal air marshals. However, I do not want for even one
candidate for an air marshal program to have his or her training delayed because
TSA has decided instead to train a pilot under the flight deck officer
program.
This is the subject of a second amendment I
plan to introduce. I thank you very much. And I will file the rest of this
statement.
MICA: I thank the gentle lady. Let me
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Horn.
HORN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you and our Democratic
leadership to have this nature of a substitute that you're going to offer. And I
am 100 percent for having arming the pilots. But I also,
obviously, want flight attendants to have different types of situations, whether
it be arming or whether it simply by Karate or whatever they want.
But we also must keep at least an air marshal situation
and we ought to try it out in different patterns and see if any terrorists are
given to try and take over. We need to do the best we can because it just isn't
enough. A lot of people's lives could have been saved if this law had been
around September of last year. And I think we ought to move this very rapidly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MICA: I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Boswell.
BOSWELL: Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the work you've done and along with our ranking
member to bring this to this point. As you know, I support what you're trying to
do very strongly. And I won't repeat everything I've already said both in this
room as well as in working in smaller groups.
So I'm
going to not burden you with that. But I just would remind you, just remind you
that these are highly trusted, qualified people. There's two in the cockpit. And
either can fly the airplane or they wouldn't be there. So be reminded of that.
And yes, we're going to have these reinforcement doors, and so on. And I'm all
for that.
But understanding how an airplane is put
together to keep it light. You know, there's not reinforced steel in these
airplanes. It's some form of aluminum or some other lightweight material. And
some sophisticated smuggling on board of a little plastic whatever could make
probably short order of any door. So in the worst case situation, and I pray it
never happens, I can't imagine that anybody wouldn't want their pilot to be
armed for a last chance, particularly that worst situation and an F16 is pulling
up alongside.
I would guess every one of us would be
hoping for that last chance. So I think this is a good beginning. The pilots are
willing to be trained. A lot of them are already trained. And we trust them with
hundreds of lives on a particular airplane. They go in all sizes. But you get
into the jumbos, the '47's and the 777's and so on, I mean, it's several hundred
people we trust them with. And these are high quality people.
And I just feel that if this is something they want to do, to have a
last chance, then why on earth wouldn't we give it to them? So I'm supportive of
it. I appreciate the work that's gone on to make this come to this point today.
And I'll be short as I promised so we can move on. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
MICA: Other opening statements. Mr. Thune.
THUNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank you
for moving this important airline security legislation forward. I think that
Congress and the Department of Transportation have put in motion a plan that
will help make commercial aviation more secure. The airport security personnel
changes that have been made, passenger screening, explosion detection technology
that is being implemented, reinforced cockpit doors, obviously, air marshals on
planes help create those multiple layers of security that we want to be in place
to prevent terrorists from gaining access to or controlling the aircrafts.
But I do believe there is something that will further
enhance security on our airplanes. And as I said at the May 2nd hearing on the
subject, I believe that giving pilots, properly trained pilots the option to
defend the cockpit with lethal force is needed to ensure a last line of defense
against future hijacking attempts. We trust our very highly trained pilots with
our lives every time we fly.
And personally, I'm
willing to trust them with a firearm if it means reducing the likelihood of
another September 11th type attack. We all need to remember that in spite of all
our additional security measures that are being taken, all those things that
we're attempting to do to secure the aircraft, airports, if in fact something
were to happen, the last option is to shoot down an airplane. And I think we
want to avoid that at all costs.
THUNE: And if we can
give pilots trained in firearm use an opportunity to defend the cockpit with
lethal force and save the plane, the passengers and avoid a potential shoot down
situation. I think that's something that just is very - makes a lot of sense.
And so, we can't ignore that there are certain risks associated with that.
But at the same time, I think the risk of not arming them
is just as real. And so, I am pleased to support your amendment in the nature of
a substitute would like to thank you for your leadership, for your leadership on
this important issue and indicate again that I think this is important
legislation. And I, too, hope that we will move it quickly to the floor. Thank
you.
MICA: Thank the gentleman. Mr. DeFazio.
DEFAZIO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, you know,
I'm certainly - no one knows where terrorists might strike next. I don't know
that they are likely to try and repeat the pattern of commandeering airplanes
using them as weapons. You know, perhaps it's more likely if they turned
aviation they'll just try and take some planes down since they seem to repeat
patterns and they had a plan to do that once over the Pacific, 12 747's at once.
And I think we need to focus in those areas in particular.
But, you know, the fact is the FAA has not yet approved the better
strengthened flight deck doors. What we have are the K-Mart specials as of today
which are not at all impregnable. The pilots still have to come out to use the
lavatory as the flight attendant stands there menacingly in the aisle behind the
food cart.
That is not great security. The, you know,
the issue seems to me, really, I'm not certain why we're taking such a limited
approach to this. I believe if guns on the flight deck are needed - and I
believe until we've made other major improvements in the system, that they are
desirable - then the question would be why not equip all planes, make it part of
the minimum equipment list, put them in gun safes which are electronically
controlled. They have these little reader cards.
The
pilots could be issued on a daily basis that change the code every 30 seconds or
every minute. So what I hear is oh, you can't leave guns on the plane at night,
the mechanics will steal them. Well, not out of a gun safe, unless they're going
to, you know, take their safe cracking tools to work.
And I don't believe that. I don't buy that argument. Put them on all
the planes and train every pilot who wants to be trained in their use. But what
we're going to pass here today is going to be one percent of the pilots, one
percent. That means chances are 99 out of 100 that your pilot isn't armed as a
last resort on that plane. I don't think it's an adequate measure, personally. I
will support it because there's nothing better on the horizon.
But, you know, I think that we need to be pushing the FAA hard to move
ahead on the reinforced flight deck doors, to take other measures, to take
explosives off the plane and yes, during these uncertain times until we've got
much better security in place, arming the pilots. But arming
more than we're going to arm through this legislation. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
MICA: I thank the gentleman. And it's
actually double what you have stated publicly. It's two percent which is all we
could get an agreement on, about 1,400 pilots as opposed to ...
DEFAZIO: I thought it was 250 pilots.
MICA: As
opposed to - well, you read the Washington Post. Let me give you a copy of the
Washington Times. Mr. Isakson, the gentleman from ...
DEFAZIO: Two percent is not enough either, Mr. Chairman.
MICA: Well, I agree with you. You want to bring that
motion up, I'll support you. Right now I don't have the votes on your side. Mr.
Isakson.
ISAKSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I
commend you and the ranking member for the substitute and a bipartisan approach
to what I would define as a two year pilot test on the part of the TSA to
develop a program for a last line of defense in the cockpit which I think we
have an obligation to do.
And I think this is an
appropriate way to approach it. I would comment that I hope during this two year
test we give some consideration to two important issues. Number one, as I read
the definition of flight deck officer and who is qualified, there is no
difference between a cargo carrier and a passenger carrier. Cargo carriers
control all of the employees who are on the airplane and not have general
commercial aviation customers on there and whether or not they should be
included in the test is something I think that we should consider as we move
toward the full committee.
Secondly, as a Congress, we
pass any number of laws that affect employees and employers. But I'm not too
aware of many things that we do that take the employer of the individual out of
the loop. And I hope as we do this test and that we move toward the committee,
we will understand that the purchaser and obligated entity on that aircraft of
millions of dollars is the airline. And it's also their policies and procedures
that affect the activity of the airline.
And I think as
a part of this test product, they should be a part of the process that we move
toward at the end of the two year period of time when whatever the study and the
test indicates is implemented. But I repeat again, I'm in support of the
substitute. And I'm very appreciative of the chairman, the ranking member and
the others who participated in coming up with the substitute. And I yield
back.
MICA: Thank the gentleman. Mr. Lampson.
LAMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since September the
11th, the issue of how to provide security at our airlines has taken on
obviously a considerable momentum. And first and foremost, of course, we must do
the obvious. And that is to secure the cockpit doors and ensure that security at
our airports is deployed as required in the Aviation Security Bill that Congress
passed last year.
But beyond the issue of securing
cockpit doors and increasing security at the terminals and throughout the
airports is the issue of providing pilots with the means to defend aircraft
against terrorist attacks. And as morbid as it might seem to imagine a sequel to
September the 11th, it's our job as public officials to provide the resources
necessary to subvert and prevent terrorist attacks.
The
bipartisan compromise that has been worked out in the last several weeks would
provide our pilots with the training and resources to use firearms as a last
resort to prevent terrorist attacks. It's a common sense proposal that provides
pilots on a volunteer basis with the training, the supervision and equipment
necessary to become a flight deck, federal flight officer capable of using
deadly force in the event of a terrorist attack upon an airline.
And this legislation would lead to the purview, to the -- of the
Transportation Security Administration the regulatory details in implementing
such a program. These trained law enforcement professionals at the TSA would
establish a rigorous screening process for pilots who seek to participate in the
program, administer TACA approved firearms training and require that firearms
proficiency be demonstrated by pilots before they would be allowed to carry the
weapons.
Also the TSA would be charged with
establishing the protocols for how the guns would be carried and kept. I believe
that this bipartisan agreement provides a common sense solution to allowing
pilots to carry guns in the cockpits.
Now, I also
believe that we aren't fully utilizing all of the resources currently at our
disposal to prevent these terrorist attacks. Every year thousands of armed
federal law enforcement officers travel on our commercial airlines. Yet there is
no system in place that utilizes their federal training to further secure our
airways. If we were able to provide each of these officers with aircraft
specific, anti-terrorism training comparable to that of federal air marshals, we
could greatly, further greatly reduce the threat that terrorism poses to
commercial airline passengers.
And as we all know, the
number of air marshals is currently - that's currently deployed is not
sufficient enough to provide for a marshal on each flight. So it's - that's the
reason why I intend today to offer an amendment which would mandate that the
Secretary of Transportation conduct a study and report back the findings within
six months to Congress detailing the possible utilization of armed federal law
enforcement officials already traveling on our airlines and already trained.
The study would require that the Department of
Transportation compile figures on the number of law enforcement officials who
travel on commercial airlines, the frequency of their travel, the cost and
resources necessary to provide these officers with supplemental training
comparable to that of the federal air marshals, the cost of establishing a
permanent program at federal law enforcement training facilities to supplement
existing federal training, the feasibility of implementing such a program on a
permanent basis and the feasibility of establishing a system to ensure the
maximum amount of flights.
Have a certified, trained
federal officer aboard. This legislation is about providing safeguards for the
flying public that will significantly reduce the chances of a terrorist attack.
And this committee would be remiss in its duty if we overlooked resources
already in place that could help us accomplish that goal. So I would once again
like to lend my support for the underlined bipartisan substitute and ask that
the members of the committee to support my common sense amendment to utilize the
existing resources for the benefit and safety of the flying public. And I yield
back my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
MICA: Thank the
gentleman. I am pleased to chair this subcommittee and be a frequent flyer. But
in the tradition of the subcommittee so far, we've had pilots who've been our
vice chair. We've lost Mr. Cooksey (ph) and I'm pleased that the gentleman from
North Carolina, Mr. Hayes has agreed to serve as our, as our vice chair and one
of the most knowledgeable people who is not only a frequent flyer, but a
frequent pilot every week. Mr. Hayes, you're recognized.
HAYES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to my co-pilot, Leonard
Boswell for giving me additional experience to train (ph). Thanks to all of you
on both sides who have worked very hard. I'd like to ask unanimous consent to
submit a written statement for the record.
MICA:
Without objection, so ordered.
HAYES: Restrict my
remarks and if the time, just a couple points. When we had our initial hearing,
I offered to anyone in the audience and anyone listening that had opposition or
concern about this to come and talk to me about it. And no one has done that. I
have polled some people who are interested and I have experienced some concern
and opposition which generally has been overcome. So I make that offer again.
I'll be here after the meeting and during recess. First
and foremost, let me simply say that this is an offer made to pilots which will
simply enhance safety. The pilot in this instance is a defensive individual. An
air marshal has potentially offensive role. The defensive role provides
additional security for the passengers and the aircraft and the crew where if
necessary not only can we prevent the F-16 incident that's been described, but
also the fact that this airplane could be seized and used as a weapon. Very
important. It's not mandated.
This is again, an
addition to what's being done now to help provide security. It's neither
mandated nor is it in any way intended nor will it take away from training for
other issues. Last but not least, in my opinion as a pilot, this frees up the
pilot to concentrate on flying the aircraft, not looking over his shoulder.
Thanks again, Mr. Chairman.
MICA: I thank the
gentleman. The gentle lady from the District, Miss Norton.
NORTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be a dissenting voice,
I'm sure on this vote. And I was sure about that from the moment the pilots came
flying in here and saying that they must have guns. In this atmosphere I'm not
surprised that most people will put aside virtually every concern and decide
that they have to do whatever it takes to stop a terrorist, even if they don't
know that that's what it would take. We are moving against the weight of the
evidence. All of the experts except the pilots argue against arming pilots.
The experts in the
Transportation Security Administration, the airlines themselves and of course,
the President of the United States all of whom are being put aside. I must say,
Mr. Chairman, Congress seldom moves precipitously on anything. If anything,
Congress moves not with deliberation, but drags its feet on urgent matters.
There is no indication of either the benefits or the
dangers that arming pilots will bring. We have outstanding a
study of non-lethal safeguards and haven't even mandated an investigation of
lethal safeguards. Pitifully our ranking member wants to make sure that you,
that you are skewered (ph) into planes so that we can make sure that if a bullet
goes to parts of the airplane it won't be brought down. We haven't even done
that work. So to move on something as serious as arming pilots
with no indication whatsoever of what the consequences will be is nothing short
of irresponsible.
I would like to comment on the two
percent notion, though, because I think that is the best evidence that this is
no safeguard for the aviation industry. If you all put in the plane something
that you let people voluntarily carry and it's only going to be in two percent
of - for two percent of the pilots, shame on you for telling the American people
that you have done something for aviation. You know full well that this will do
nothing for all, for virtually everybody flying in a plane.
Because if you think it will help, then it will help almost nobody
since everybody here has said it will either be one percent or two percent. So
you at least ought to give notice to the American public we are putting guns in
planes, but beware if you think this will help you. Almost surely, there will be
no gun in your plane. So if you're scared now, continue to be scared. We've done
nothing for the American public. I will vote against this bill.
MICA: Is the gentle lady finished?
NORTON: I
yield back the balance of my time, sir.
MICA: Thank
you. Wasn't sure, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. Mr.
Culberson.
CULBERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want
to express my strong support for the bill and my only regret is that we were
unable to extend this opportunity to all pilots. I hope that will occur in the
future. I'm sure the pilot program will be successful.
And also to say that the very best idea that I've seen for increasing
the safety and security of the traveling public is the trusted traveler card
which I hope this subcommittee will move towards making mandatory as the
Israelis have done. Because it's a good idea whose time has come. And it'll make
it easier for the traveling public and safer for all of us to fly. Thank you,
sir.
MICA: Thank the gentleman. Last I think, but not
least, Mr. Sandlin. Thanks for your patience. Gentleman from Texas.
SANDLIN: I'd like to thank the chairman and the ranking
members for holding this mark up on H.R. 4635 which would establish a program
providing airline pilots with lethal and non-lethal weapons, including firearms.
As a co-sponsor of this legislation, I am pleased to see that the subcommittee
is moving forward on this legislation.
I commend the
leadership of this subcommittee for working with pilots and other stakeholders
in developing a comprehensive amendment that strengthens the bill. Every member
of this subcommittee agrees that the safety and security of the flying public is
the ultimate goal of any action we take.
The
Transportation Security Act developed by our committee was an important first
step in enacting comprehensive security legislation. Congress and this
subcommittee in particular must monitor the implementation of this law.
I, along with many in this subcommittee am concerned that
the Transportation Security Administration and Federal Aviation Administration
are not moving quickly enough to ensure that every possible security measure is
being adopted in a timely manner. Today not all cockpits have secure flight
doors and bureaucratic obstacles create gaps in both the airlines' response to
and the Administration's implementation of the law.
This subcommittee must now fill in the gaps. Allowing pilots who have
become deputized as federal flight deck officers to carry lethal and non-lethal
weapons including firearms in cockpits represents an important step in creating
the safest possible environment for airline crews, passengers and the public.
As a gun owner myself, I am personally aware of the great
value that careful and extensive training has on effective but safe firearm
usage. Likewise, this legislation requires that only pilots who want to and who
are properly trained and certified will be allowed to carry lethal weapons. This
legislation is a bipartisan effort. I'd like to, in the interest of time, ask
that the chairman allow me to file a written statement.
MICA: Without objection, your entire statement will be made part of the
record. If there are no further opening statements, I'd like to proceed. And the
chair would recognize Mr. Hayes for a unanimous consent request.
HAYES: I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and
open the amendment at any point.
MICA: Without
objection, so ordered. I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute which
should be before each member. Without objection, the amendment is considered as
read. I'm going to take a minute to explain my amendment, yield to myself and
then to anyone who would like to speak on this amendment.
The amendment that you have before us today is a bipartisan compromise
that was hammered out by - with the consent of the Democratic and Republican
leadership of the committee. It modifies the original underlying structure of
H.R. 4635 by creating a two-year test period to deputize pilots to carry
firearms to defend their aircraft. No later than two months after the date of
enactment, the Transportation Security Administration, the TSA, will establish
this program based on the similarities with the federal air marshal handgun
training program.
The TSA will have discretion to
modify this process where appropriate. It will include basic elements of
markmanships, defensive maneuvers, weapons retention and the use of force
guidance. To be deputized, the pilots must demonstrate a firearms proficiency
comparable to that of air marshals.
The TSA will also
establish protocols for transporting and storing of guns, pilot interaction and
procedures to ensure that the pilot does not take the gun into the passenger
cabin. Once the elements are completed and no later than four months after the
date of enactment, the TSA will begin deputizing volunteer pilots. The number of
pilots who can participate in the program is limited to two percent of the total
work force. And to clarify that, that's approximately 1,400 pilots.
And we feel that in that timeframe, they will be able to
get the program underway and train a fairly substantial number up to 1,400 who
can make a difference. Anyone who sits in on our classified briefings and
understands the difficulty of deploying and acquiring air marshals will see that
this can, in fact, make a difference.
At the end of the
two-year test period, the TSA will issue a report to Congress and decide whether
the program is to be continued, expanded or terminated. The amendment also
requires additional training for flight attendants in self-defense and also on
conducting cabin searches. There are many on our side that believe we should
move on the original bill. I just said to Mr. Lipinski this is the great part
about our democratic process.
There are others who feel
that guns do not belong aboard planes in any fashion. However, we have reached a
compromise with this amendment. It's a good middle ground. And it's supported
also by our pilots' association. So I urge all the members to vote affirmatively
on this amendment. And I'm pleased to recognize the ranking member at this
time.
LIPINSKI: I thank the chairman. As I mentioned
earlier, I'm in support of this bipartisan substitute amendment. And I want to
say this is an extremely difficult issue for this committee, particularly for
the Democratic side of this committee.
We have some
individuals on the committee who obviously are very strongly against guns in the
cockpit. We are also blessed with some individuals who think guns in the cockpit
will enhance security very significantly. We have gotten together, the
Democrats, and discussed the issue to a great extent.
I
appreciate all the members' input. I myself started off with being opposed to
guns in the cockpit. But after meeting with the Airline Pilots Association, they
convinced me that the pilots were very, very sincerely and strongly in favor of
this legislation. As I mentioned earlier, with their help and cooperation and
with the help of the Republican side, the members and the staff, we have come up
with a compromise.
A compromise that obviously does not
please everyone on this committee. But in the democratic process with a small d,
I firmly believe it is the best that we can do at this time in this place. And I
do believe it moves aviation security in the right direction. So I ask all the
members on this committee to support this bipartisan substitute amendment. Thank
you.
MICA: Other members that wish to be recognized on
the amendment. Miss Tauscher. I'm not taking amendments yet, but I'll entertain
statements on this amendment.
TAUSCHER: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Chairman and ranking member Lipinski, I respectively must strongly
oppose this amendment. But I am happy to hear the comments of the chairman and
people like Mr. DeFazio that perhaps with a little work, we can make this a more
perfected bipartisan substitute amendment to arm all pilots.
I support equipping cockpits with non-lethal weapons to allow pilots to
defend the cockpit in the event of an air piracy. United Airlines has taken a
leadership role in installing these security devices and training their pilots
to use them. And I commend them for their efforts. The option of using
non-lethal devices to defend the cockpit is not part of the underlying bill, nor
is it part of this amendment.
But this limitation is
not why I oppose this amendment. I oppose this amendment because of its
overarching limitations, lack of uniformity and the little gory details of how
to secure weapons in a voluntary program. The weapon is not part of a permanent
equipment. The FAA has not met this committee's expectations with regard to
installing secure armored cockpit doors.
And until
these doors are in place, pilots should have some type of weapon to defend
themselves in the cockpit. Pilots and members of this committee have made
compelling cases about the threats facing the security of the cockpit. However,
the amendment before would not - would only authorize one or two percent of all
pilots to carry weapons to protect themselves and their cockpits.
If this is such a vital national security threat, and I
agree that it is, then why wouldn't this committee insist that every cockpit and
every passenger be protected equally? Mr. Chairman, this committee rightly
relieved airlines of their security duties when we passed the sweeping aviation
security legislation last year.
We had a spirited
debate over federalizing airport security that has resulted in a new
Transportation Security Administration and an attempt to bring some sense of
uniformed security standards to all our different airports and all of our
carriers.
Why then would this committee take a step
backward in proposing new aviation security program that is not universally
applied across the industry and relies on volunteers to provide the added layer
of cockpit protection that a majority of pilots tell us we need? We worked in a
bipartisan way last year to enhance security at all of our nation's airports and
for every passenger traveling through them. Granted we have a lot of work to do
to meet these security requirements.
But we should
apply these same uniform standards to any new security measure we propose. And
these security measures should benefit everyone, not just those passengers who
are lucky enough to be on an airplane with a pilot who happens to be
volunteering to carry a weapon that day.
Mr. Chairman,
another major concern I have with this amendment deals with the new security
challenges that would be created by transporting weapons to and from the flight
deck. I believe if this committee is going to arm pilots, that the program
should not only be universal, but that the weapon be part of the standard
cockpit equipment and secured on the flight deck, not transported through the
airport.
Where would a weapon be secured, for example,
during overnight crew rests at an airport hotel? This amendment before us is
silent on how this would impact existing standard screening procedures at our
airports, about the liabilities and potential risks for the pilot transporting
firearms from their homes, hotels and other locations to the airport.
The amendment does address the legal ramifications of many
different state laws on carrying a concealed weapon by preempting them all.
Should this become law, not only would it preempt all U.S. state laws, but
international laws as well, opening up new challenges for its carriers servicing
international designations. Finally Mr. Chairman, I can't support the liability
provisions in this amendment.
The amendment goes
further than the underlying bill by not only relieving airlines of all
liability, but explicitly putting the Federal Government on the hook by
classifying these part-time volunteers as, quote, "employees of the government
for core purposes only". I cannot support exposing 100 percent of federal
taxpayers to liabilities under this amendment which would establish a security
program that would only protect a small fraction of passengers.
Mr. Chairman, my concerns with all the provisions of this amendment
culminate in its lack of uniformity. If everyone agrees that arming pilots is paramount to securing our cockpits and the
flying public, then why not secure them all? If all cockpits are equipped with
weapons and all pilots are trained to use them as they are with all other
cockpit equipment, then the added security challenges of transporting weapons
through terminals would be eliminated.
I am working on
an amendment that I intend to offer at full committee next week to address these
concerns. I believe we can do better. I believe the American people expect us
to. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment until it is perfected and
yield back the balance of my time.
MICA: I thank the
gentle lady. Other further statements? Mr. Oberstar.
OBERSTAR: Mr. Chairman, in addition to the remarks I made at the outset
about viewing this issue in the context of an interlocking web of redundancies
in security, many of which are not in place yet, the further concerns that the
pilot community have expressed that the NORAD, North American Aerospace Defense
Command has been ordered by the President to shoot down an aircraft believed to
be hijacked.
Now pilots have said during the week when
I'm flying, the captain said to my co-pilot is in the National Guard, goes home
on the weekend, flies for the National Guard, may well be ordered to scramble
and shoot down the plane that I am flying because we have a disruption on board
that may in fact be a terrorist incident. I don't want to have that happen. And
I want to be able to be the agent of last resort. In retrospect after my first
opposition to guns in the cockpit under any circumstances, in the interim, that
makes sense.
It's a, it's a, it's an appealing
argument. Secondly, the very legitimate issues raised by the gentle woman from
California are in fact addressed in this substitute as a result of very
extensive negotiations that we have conducted with the majority.
OBERSTAR: This is a two-year pilot program. We are not authorizing a
permanent program. There's a stop, take stock before you go ahead with any kind
of permanent program. Secondly, the Transportation Security Administration is
required, shall address these issues: type of firearm, type of ammunition,
standards and training to qualify the pilots, where the firearm shall be placed
on board the aircraft to ensure that it can be placed there in a secure manner
and it could be readily retrieved in the emergency.
To
assess the catastrophic failure of an aircraft, I want them to actually take a
gun and shoot out the autopilot. I want them to take a gun and shoot out the
computer on board the aircraft and test it before anybody goes into the air with
a gun and has an accidental discharge that disables one of the operational
controls of the aircraft. I want to see what happens.
The provision in this, in this substitute requires that this be done to
ensure that the firearm does not leave the cockpit if there is a disturbance in
the passenger cabin. The idea is the flight deck crew is supposed to protect the
flight deck, not the cabin against a break and entry into the, into the flight
deck. We have a very strict provision in here to assure that the gun stays in
the flight deck and doesn't go beyond that point.
And
then a very careful process for selection of pilots to participate. Storage of
transportation of the firearm between flights, including international flights.
None of these were present in the original legislation. I think we've made a
great step forward.
And I would hope also that as we
get into this program, that all the other measures, the interlocking web of
security measures, the new secure doors that have not yet been certified, the
positive passenger bag match for luggage that is checked aboard aircraft to be
sure that the passenger's aboard with his luggage, that cargo is screened aboard
passenger aircraft as well as aboard cargo, all cargo aircraft.
That when all these measures are put in place, as it were done in
Israel with El Al, at that point, the El Al and the Israeli security removed
guns from the flight deck and said we have now created a secure system within
which guns are not necessary in the flight deck. That must be our objective. And
in that spirit, I am prepared to support the substitute. Thank you.
MICA: I thank the gentleman. Are there further statements
regarding to the pending amendment? There being no further ...
UNKNOWN: Mr. Chairman?
MICA: Who speaks? Mr.
Baldacci.
BALDACCI: Mr. Chairman, I just first I want
to thank you and the ranking member and the bipartisan leadership for coming
forward on the amendment and just to share with you a couple of concerns in the
amendment which I hope that we will be address in full committee when we do take
this up.
According to the summary sheet that I have, it
indicates that on D, on the second page on the back it said that the two-year
test period doesn't begin until 250 pilots have been deputized. And I'd like to
be able to discuss that with the committee to begin the process once pilots do,
in fact, become deputized without hitting the 250 mark.
Because if we're going to do this as a pilot program with pilots, I
think that the magic number of 250 and the percentage that it represents is
something that I'd like to discuss with the committee maybe when Mrs. Tauscher
brings up her amendment in front of full committee.
And
the other point that I wanted to raise was to make sure that because of the air
marshal program that we set forward the importance was to make sure that that
program was up and running and to be able to address the competition between the
air marshal program and the protocols established for arming
pilots or types of pilots being selected in terms of their training.
And it was brought forward by Representative Bernice
Johnson earlier. And I'd like to move - I'll move - I vote in favor of moving
the amendment along for the full committee, but I wanted to be (ph) on record
and being able to address those two concerns in full committee.
UNKNOWN: Would the gentleman yield?
BALDACCI:
I yield to the gentleman.
UNKNOWN: There are further
complexities to this issue that we can discuss with the gentleman and would be
happy to do that. Yes.
MICA: I thank the gentleman. And
I do assure members if they have points that want to be raised and amendments
and other issues that can be worked on between now and the mark up in the full
committee or even beyond that, we'll be glad to work with them. I hope there are
no further statements because this room is going to be used in just a few more
minutes. No further statements? Then are there amendments to my pending
amendment? Mr. Ehlers, you're recognized.
EHLERS: Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your work on preparing this substitute. And
thank you also to the ranking member for that. It's an improvement over the base
bill, but still leaves very little to be desired. My position has been
consistent since this issue first came up several months ago.
And that is I approve of the use of guns in the cockpit if the pilot
wishes to do it, if the airline is willing to allow them to do it and if they go
through the appropriate training. This takes care of two out of those three
items. If there's a pilot, it has to be a volunteer willing to do it, has to
receive appropriate training, but totally leaves out the airlines and gives them
no choice at all.
I think that is inappropriate. I
don't know of any other case where the Federal Government has come in and told a
business that regardless of their feelings, regardless of their business
practices, they must allow their employees to carry guns into the workplace. And
if we're going to follow this path, then the next step, obviously, would be to
require banks to allow tellers to carry guns in. Because the probability of a
teller facing an armed robber is greater than the probability of a pilot facing
a hijacker.
The point I'm simply making is we can't
leave the airlines out. They are a very important part of this. I know several
of them are adamantly opposed to allowing their pilots to use guns in the
cockpit. We have contacted a number of others. None of them have registered
support for this issue.
The majority of them do not
want to allow their pilots to have guns in the cockpit. And yet we're totally
leaving them out of this discussion. The amendment which Eddie Bernice Johnson
and I are offering as she eloquently described in her opening statement would
simply add to this that the airlines have the ability to choose whether or not
to allow their pilots to participate in this program. I think that is an
intrinsic right of an employer.
I think it is wrong for
us to force them on the employer regardless of whether it's an airline or any
other business. And I appreciate also the objections raised by Congresswoman
Tauscher that also relate in some ways to this, although she is going in a
different direction. At least she is concerned about some of these same
issues.
So on behalf of Congresswoman Johnson and
myself, I wish to offer this amendment. At the same time, I recognize that this
has come up very suddenly. We just prepared the amendment last (inaudible). We
really have not had time to discuss it with the chairman, the ranking member and
other members of the committee. And so my intent is to withdraw this amendment
with the permission of Congresswoman Johnson. But I would first like to have her
be given an opportunity to express her views on this as well.
MICA (?): (inaudible)
EHLERS: The point has
been made that this bill is supported by the pilots. The point is you're leaving
out a major player here, the employers, the airlines. And I don't think we
should proceed without working that out with them.
MICA: Did you want to yield to Miss Johnson? Miss Johnson.
EHLERS: I'll be pleased to yield to her.
JOHNSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I fully support this. I
really do believe that the airlines should have some type of say so in it.
Because let me assure you that if anything happened on a plane, the airline
would not be exempt from being sued by the family or the survivors.
And so I hope that between now and the time we get to full
committee we could work something out here. Also the second amendment that I
have is training of a federal flight deck officer candidate should not cause or
contribute to delay. And I just wanted to comment on that when the time comes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MICA: I thank the gentleman.
And the gentleman ...
EHLERS (?): Reclaiming my time,
let me just say I appreciate the consideration of this and hope to have
discussions with the chairman, ranking member and others in this committee and
intend to offer this amendment when it comes before the full committee.
MICA: Gentleman yields the offer the amendment at this
time. Are there other amendments to the pending amendment? There being ...
JOHNSON (?): Mr. Chairman?
MICA:
Mr. - Miss Johnson.
JOHNSON: I have a second amendment
that refers to ...
MICA: The lady is recognized to
explain her amendment.
JOHNSON: Thank you. It refers to
the training of the federal flight deck officer candidate should not cause or
contribute to delaying the training of the federal air marshals candidate
because I think that the person who is going to be - the persons who would be
first to be aware of any difficulty will be those air marshals.
And I think they should be trained as quickly as possible and not have
interference of the training of theirs and make it difficult for them to be well
trained. I offer it, Mr. Chairman, for discussion. I hope that between now and
full committee, we could work out some language and to refer to this statement.
(inaudible)
MICA: I thank the gentle lady. And we will
try to work that out. And I appreciate her not offering the amendment but
explaining it at this time. Are there other amendments?
JOHNSON: Thank you.
MICA: Mr. Lampson. You've
got about one half a minute here. The gentleman from Texas is recognized. He has
an amendment.
LAMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have
an amendment I'd like to offer. It is a common sense amendment that I believe
will help utilize preexisting resources to provide greater safety for the
traveling public. After September 11th, Congress moved quickly to secure our
airways by passing into law the Aviation Security Bill which created the
Transportation Security Administration and subsequently the Federal Air Marshals
Program.
However, there's been much concern levied from
members of this committee as well as the flying public regarding small numbers
of federal air marshals currently deployed on flights throughout the country.
Chances are the next plane that you board will not have a federal air marshal on
board. Every year, thousands of armed federal law enforcement officers travel on
our commercial airlines in their capacity as agents of the Federal
Government.
If there's no system in place that utilizes
their training as federal officers to further secure our airways, these people,
trusted agents of the Federal Marshal Service, the FBI, Secret Service, many
other federal agencies have received extensive training, including federal
firearms training. However, we have no system in place which utilizes that
resource.
Today, we debate the legislation to provide
further safeguards for the flying public that will significantly reduce the
chances of terrorist attack. Yet we aren't using, again, the resources already
available to do so. So I offer the amendment that would mandate that the
Secretary of Transportation conduct a study and report back the findings to
Congress within six months detailing the possible utilization of federal law
enforcement officials already traveling on our airlines.
And the study would require DOT to compile information on primarily
four areas. Number one, the number of federal law enforcement officials who
travel on commercial airlines and the frequency of their travel. And, Mr.
Chairman, I reserve the right to ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment at
this point and get the gentle lady from New York, Miss Kelly to engage in a
colloquy.
MICA: The gentle lady from New York is
recognized for the purpose of a very brief colloquy with the gentleman from
Texas.
KELLY: Thank you. I would like to understand
more about the paragraph one under your study, Mr. Lampson. I clearly do not
understand why we would want to have the report come back from the Secretary of
Transportation including what is classified information.
You have here the number of armed federal law enforcement officers who
travel on commercial airliners annually and the frequency of their travel as a
part of that study. Quite frankly, that is classified information and I'm not
sure it should be coming back in on that, in that study. I believe that while
you have good intent with the idea of the study, that part of the study, I would
like to work with you and see you - I'd like to see that one paragraph
dropped.
LAMPSON: You do understand the need to have
the general information in order to determine whether or not it's feasible to
create a plan that would actually use these already trained federal law
enforcement officers.
KELLY: I understand the need for
general information, Mr. Lampson. But my concern is that this type of
information because you are asking for it to be delivered to Congress as a whole
and it is classified information could work to the detriment of the nation. And
I feel very strongly that that should not be something that should be a part of
public record. If it's released, that piece of it is released to the
Intelligence Committee and the Intelligence Committee alone, then I would
understand. But I have a strong objection to that.
LAMPSON: Would the gentle lady agree to working out adequate language
that would satisfy both of us on ...
KELLY: I would be
happy to.
LIPINSKI (?): Would the gentleman yield for a
moment?
LAMPSON: Yes, indeed. I talked to the chairman
of the subcommittee here and he and I are generally in support of your
amendment. But it apparently needs some refining. If you would allow us, we
could work on it between now and the mark up of the full committee next week
Wednesday and you could reoffer it at that time. Because the chairman is very
anxious to move along over here because we have to give up this room to another
group.
LAMPSON: I concur, Mr. Chairman.
MICA: Thank you. If the gentleman withdraws his amendment with the
caveat that we do work together to see if language can be drawn that is
acceptable. Are there any further amendments?
UNKNOWN:
Mr. Chairman?
MICA: The gentleman from Illinois.
JOHNSON (?): To clarify with you on page nine of the
substitute, subparagraph F2, when we preempt federal and state laws to permit
the carrying of a weapon, I want to make sure that we include report language
that we are not overriding state laws with regard to concealed carry, either
permitting that or not permitting that once the pilot enters the airport and is
in the state.
MICA: I want to assure the gentleman that
we have checked with council and that does not override out that clarification.
It helps.
JOHNSON (?): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MICA: Any further amendments? There being - if there are
no further amendments to my amendment, the vote now occurs on the amendment and
the nature of the substitute. All in favor signify by saying aiy.
ALL: Aye.
MICA: Opposed, nay. The
ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. The chair now recognizes Mr. Hayes
for a motion.
HAYES: Mr. Chairman, I move that H.R.
4635 as amended be approved and recorded favorably to the full committee.
MICA: Is there discussion on the motion? If not, all in
favor say aye.
ALL: Aye.
MICA:
All opposed, nay. The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to. The chair takes
note the presence of a quorum for the vote just taken. I ask unanimous consent
that the staff be authorized to make necessary technical, clerical and
clarifying changes to the bill approved today. Without objection, so ordered. If
there's no further business before the subcommittee, I want to thank the members
for their assistance, cooperation. The subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank
you.
END
NOTES: [????] - Indicates Speaker Unknown [--] -
Indicates could not make out what was being said.[off mike] - Indicates could
not make out what was being said.
PERSON:
JOHN MICA (94%); JOHN DUNCAN JR (57%); JACK
QUINN (56%); RICHARD H BAKER (55%); SUE
KELLY (55%); SPENCER THOMAS BACHUS (55%); JOHN R
THUNE (54%); JOHN COOKSEY (54%); WILLIAM ASA
HUTCHINSON (54%); FRANK A LOBIONDO (53%); JERRY
MORAN (53%); ROBERT (ROBIN) HAYES (52%); DENNIS
REHBERG (51%); SAM GRAVES (50%); CHRIS
JOHN (50%); MARK KENNEDY (50%);
Document 14 of 24. 