ROBERT NOVAK, CO-HOST: Should workers that screen your luggage
be added to the federal payroll? Who can keep the skies safer,
the government or the private sector? And
should we have pistol-packing pilots?
This is CROSSFIRE.
Good evening. Welcome to CROSSFIRE. Guess what bill won't be passed
when President Bush leaves for China Thursday? The airport
security bill. Even with 6000 people dead
because terrorists hijacked four airliners
September 11, a legislative remedy has been held up in Congress. The
reason is ideology.
Shall luggage screening be handled by profit-hungry private firms or
by the same federal government that has
brought us the IRS and the U.S. Postal
Service? And then there's the question of who should be armed on board
airliners: air marshals making $80,000 a year, or pilots burdened
by a lot of other duties.
Debating the issues are Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio of
Oregon, a member of the House aviation
subcommittee. And Republican Congressman
John Shadegg of Arizona, a member of the House commerce
committee. A former Democratic
Congressman from New Mexico, the Honorable Bill
Richardson, is sitting in for Bill Press on the left. Bill.
BILL RICHARDSON, GUEST HOST: Congressman, the current system of
airport security run by private firms is a disaster. Even since
September 11th, seven out of our 20 airports
are not meeting minimum federal standards. Still
we have baggage not X-rayed. Background checks on airport
personnel near airports, near planes, is not
happening. Why can't House Republicans
supports a bill that passed the Senate 100 to nothing that federalizes
airport security.
REP. JOHN SHADEGG (R), ARIZONA: I think there are serious
flaws in that bill. Number one, it requires
that all screening be done by federal
employees, but it doesn't define term screening. I think the issue is
not who pays them, but rather their
competency. I think we ought to be doing this in
an appropriate, thoughtful fashion and legislation ought to
follow what we call regular order. It should
go through the committee process. That's what will
happen I believe this week, and I think we will pass a good piece
of legislation, as we have done in other areas
since this crisis.
NOVAK: Congressman DeFazio, what's wrong
with just having very strict regulations that
we don't have now, stopping having minimum wage people in the private
sector but don't add a whole new bunch of government workers. Why
not just have that government regulate private
workers?
REP. PETER DEFAZIO (D), OREGON: Law enforcement is a legitimate
federal government function. The private firms are failing us
now. The largest firm in the United States is
in court again. Second criminal complaint in
two years: violating their probation, still hiring known felons and
still maintaining known felons on staff.
We have those regulations. They are
violating them. The government does the
agricultural inspection service. Even the Beagles are federal law
enforcement officers in Hawaii sniffing your bags. The INS,
customs, the model is there.
We know we can do the background checks.
We know we can get the job. We can have the
highest standards and give them a good salary and benefits
and get rid of the turn over. And make them all U.S. citizens.
RICHARDSON: Congressman, let me take off on what Congressman Peter
DeFazio said. Here you have this firm called Argenbright. Our
justice department is saying they are not
following procedures for screening employees,
for screening all types of baggage security. They are hiring
felons. This is a disaster. This is still happening after
September 11. You mentioned we should go
through regular order, the committee process.
We have a crisis here, and I think Democrats -- rightfully so -- have
supported the president on national security, on terrorism
issues. Shouldn't you just give up on this and
move ahead?
SHADEGG: They should support the president on this issue. The
president has taken a position that of course
this should be federal responsibly, that air
support security should come under the aegis of the federal government:
the hiring, the training, the supervision of
all this personnel should be done by the
federal government. But he's also
followed the model that's worked around the world. In Europe
there are 16 countries which have moved to a private and
government system, where the government
supervises the process, but not all employees
are federal government employees. That's what the Senate bell does. It
says every single employee involved in the
screening must be a federal employee, as
though that would solve the problem. The issue here is not where the
paycheck comes from, Bill. The issue is the competency of the
people doing the work. And nobody is defending
the current system.
NOVAK: You want to the get in there?
DEFAZIO: Yeah. First, I agree with John on regular order. I believe
if we could bring this bill up in committee,
that in fact we would win the debate. We have
a better Democratic alternative. It's more comprehensive. It
requires that all baggage, all luggage and all packages shipped
on planes be screened as soon as practicable.
But it also does have a federal law
enforcement work force. I mean, if the
Beagle sniffing your bag in Hawaii are federal law
enforcement officers, why aren't the first line of defense for
screening a passenger, for keeping criminals
and illicit substances off airplanes, why
aren't they federal law enforcement officials? You could have
better-supervised private people, but they aren't going to have
the powers of arrest, interrogation.
I'm worried about the failing private
system we have now. It's failing. This company
in is court. They are violating probation. This is the largest one in
the United States. Come on. It's not working.
SHADEGG: You are debating an issue that isn't the issue.
(CROSSTALK)
RICHARDSON: What the president and some of you are proposing is a
classic compromise. Federal supervision of private workers. Why
don't we just do it right and federalize this?
You gave the example of Europe. You can't
compare the United States to Europe. We have 140 airports here. In
Europe, you have all kinds of different systems. Why isn't -- for
instance, El-Al spends eight percent of their
revenue on airport security. Our airlines less
than one percent. The present system is not working.
SHADEGG: I agree. The present system is not working. I'm glad
you cited El-Al. In point of fact, El-Al uses
a mixture of government supervision -- law
enforcement employees, as Peter talks about. But the work force itself
is actually contracted from a private
contractor. That's how El-Al does it. These
16 countries that have moved to a private system originally had an
all-government employee system. That system didn't work. The head
of Belgium's aviation inspectorate, who is the
chairman of Europe-wide task force on aviation
security, said it's harder to do quality control on our
government people. Civil servants are hard to get rid of if they
aren't performing.
DEFAZIO: The Democratic version of the bill, John, would suspend
civil service protections for these employees.
We in fact would say they could be fired
promptly on a performance basis.
SHADEGG: You are not urging to us to just vote for the Senate
bill?
DEFAZIO: No.
NOVAK: Congressman DeFazio, I have waited patiently with all these
highfalutin arguments. But let's get to the real meat of this:
there hasn't been this many additional federal
workers added to the work force since Lyndon
Johnson's Great Society. These people will be in labor unions. The labor
unions are controlled by the Democrats. What you are looking for
is 28,000 additional Democratic votes and more
clout for the labor movement. Isn't that
what's at stake here?
DEFAZIO: That's an extraordinary charge. You
know, I just can't believe you are going there. We are talking
about the best system we can provide to make
people safe. We have a failing private system.
The argument is: regulate them better. Guess what? We have been
trying to regulate them better for six years. The airlines, the
private security firms and the Office of
Management and Budget under this administration
held up those rules. Now we are
saying, "We are ready for the rules. We are going to put more
rules on these firms that are failing us, that are in court, that
are hiring felons, and make the system work
better." I suppose you're going to have to
mandate wages, because that's a big problem, the turnover. You're going
to have to mandate wages, benefits, you're
going to have to mandate the background
checks, you're going to have to train them, you're going to have
to do all these things. When you get to the end of the day, why
not just make them into federal employees?
SHADEGG: In a way, you didn't answer the charge. What is there
about their status as a federal employee that
changes everything. How does that suddenly do
something...
DEFAZIO: They can't be in a labor union if they're private. In fact,
FDIU is opposing this because they have
organized Los Angeles Airport and they want it
to stay private, because they've organized the people there.
NOVAK: Congressman DeFazio, I just love this fascination with people
who work for the federal government. I would
like to read you something that was written by
Perry Flint who is the executive editor of "Air Transport
World Magazine." He had a little tongue and cheek. I want to ask
you: "Will the security staff be required to
stay at their scanners when bad weather delays
departures and arrivals past quitting time? What happens on federal
snow days?" I mean, federal
workers don't have a very good reputation. You may love
their votes, but they don't do a very good job, do they?
DEFAZIO: Bob, you are stuck in the pre-September 11 world, where
everybody wanted to bash the federal government. Guess what? My
constituents and people across America are looking to the federal
government to make them safe against terrorism. This isn't the
old days where you can just bash federal
workers.
NOVAK: Who said anything about bashing federal workers?
DEFAZIO: You are bashing federal workers. You're saying they won't
come to work on snow days. That they won't do this or they won't
do that.
SHADEGG: You said that. Let's talk about the merits of this
issue. You say, for example, that they will be
prohibited from striking and that they will have
limited civil service rights. You never heard of a blue flu
amongst a police force? You've never heard of
teachers taking strikes?
DEFAZIO: Look at the current record. In one year...
SHADEGG: The record is that in Europe, they had totally a
government system.
RICHARDSON: Apples and oranges.
SHADEGG: And beginning in 1982, they want to a combination of
federal support...
(CROSSTALK)
DEFAZIO: At Schiphol Airport it's two private employees to one
federal supervisor.
SHADEGG: I actually have a mix that shows what the mix in all
of those airports. This is for all of those
airports.
DEFAZIO: Mr. Quinn, a former FAA employee who now lobbies
Congress...
(CROSSTALK)
RICHARDSON: Let me just bring in one statistic. 126 percent turnover
in the private system right now of airport
screening personnel. 126 percent. Lamburg
Field, 145 percent. Within one year, 98, 99. You talked about the
politics issue. Aren't we also talking about private security
companies that mainly help you guys that get
$500 million worth of contracts every year that
would be lost.
SHADEGG: No. What we're talking about is a system that works.
The turnover in Europe is dramatically lower
than ours. It's in the neighborhood of five
percent a year.
DEFAZIO: So you are willing to set wages at those levels?
SHADEGG: I'm willing to do what is necessary to make them
competent, and not to do the simplistic
approach that the Senate bill does. It simply says
"all employees." Let's go there.
DEFAZIO: If you're going to stop the turnover you're going to have to
mandate...
SHADEGG: Absolutely. Do I think they should be paid well?
Absolutely. Should they be screened? I think
they should even perhaps be licensed the way
we license aircraft mechanics. But making them federal employees
doesn't solve the issue.
NOVAK: Congressman DeFazio, let me ask you a really simple question,
because all talk about screening -- there was nothing that
happened on September 11th that violated the
Federal Aviation regulations on screening. You
could have had Ph.D.s in there doing the screening process and we
would still have had this disaster. Am I correct?
DEFAZIO: The FAA... NOVAK: Am I correct?
DEFAZIO: You're partially correct. We don't even know that these
knives went through screening, to tell the
truth. We shouldn't just be arguing about
screening. There is whole host of other things we have to do in the
airport on which there is more substantial
agreement.
NOVAK: Right. But if you have
(CROSSTALK)
NOVAK: ... workers wouldn't have made any difference, would it?
DEFAZIO: But the problem is, you have known felons working for the
largest firm.
SHADEGG: Now you're talking about the whole system.
DEFAZIO: The FAA Red Team gets through a very large percentage
classified of the time with...
SHADEGG: Now you're talking about current system. Nobody is
defending the current system. But look at the
flaws in the Senate bill. I'm perfectly
willing to work toward good legislation. The Senate bill is absolutely
silent as to the people who come on the plane
and clean it, as to people that come on and
provide the food.
DEFAZIO: Not the Democratic version in the House.
SHADEGG: So far as we know, for example, these box cutters got
on the plane by either cleaning crews or food
crews.
DEFAZIO: That could well have been.
SHADEGG: So just rushing and saying, "this is an outrage that
the president is going to go to China before
we pass this bill..."
DEFAZIO: I didn't say that. That was Mr. Novak.
NOVAK: That was me. That's OK. It doesn't matter whether you passed
it or not.
DEFAZIO: No, we should have passed it. I tried to append this to the
original airline bailout. I said, the airlines really care about
the $16 billion bailout. This is the time to
help the workers and get security. I wasn't
allowed to have those amendments put on the bill.
SHADEGG: This is a national emergency. To his credit, Peter
has been working on this issue for a long
time.
NOVAK: We're going to have to take a break. When we come back, we
will ask these Congressmen what they think of pistol-packing
pilots.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When
Americans fly, there need to more highly-skilled and fully
equipped officers of law flying alongside
them. These marshals, of course, will wear
plainclothes. They are going to be like any other passenger. But
Americans will know that there is more of
them, and our crews will know there is more of
them. And the terrorists will know there's more of them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARDSON: Welcome back to CROSSFIRE. I'm Bill Richardson,
sitting in on the left for Bill Press. We're debating who's
responsible for keeping the skies safe. Should
the federal government foot the bill for airport
luggage screeners? Democratic Congressman Peter DeFazio of Oregon
says yes. Would you be comfortable with armed pilots in the
cockpit? Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona
says the pilots must be able to defend
themselves. Bob?
NOVAK: Congressman DeFazio, I would like you to listen for a moment
to Captain Duane Woerth of the Airline Pilot's
Association and something he had to say the
other day. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CAPTAIN DUANE WOERTH, AIRLINE PILOT'S ASSOCIATION: The
arming of the pilots should still be under serious consideration.
6,300 people are dead for one reason: eight
pilots were killed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NOVAK: The airline pilot's union wants the pilots to be armed. Of
course, they would have to be trained. They
want them to be armed so they can protect
themselves. And we would have saved 6,000 lives. What is wrong
with that?
DEFAZIO: Actually, the Democratic version of the bill says that the
undersecretary could authorize appropriate defensive measures --
and weapons -- for all members of the crew.
The flight attendants want to have tasers or
something like that. First off, we've got to check out the electronic
weapons, because we don't what they will do on fly-by-wire
aircraft. The FAA hasn't checked that out yet.
There are electronic weapons that can take
down a plane. Today I talked to a pilot that said, "Couldn't you at
least in the interim give us pepper spray?" I
said, "Yes. Why not?" Sure. Give them something. When
you get to the question of guns, a lot of pilots are nervous
about guns on the flight deck. They say, if
they get to the flight deck, we have failed. That
means the CAPS systems didn't work, the screening didn't work and
our reinforced door didn't work. You know,
will we be able to defend ourselves.
NOVAK: Wait a minute. The Airline Pilot's Association, which is a
union -- I thought you guys liked unions over
on the Democratic side. They have voted by the
Democratic process in favor of guns, and that makes them feel
more secure.
DEFAZIO: I'm not aware -- they have not had a vote. There is
considerable dissension within the union.
NOVAK: Isn't it true, Congressman, if you had had airline pilots with
guns and these terrorists with their knives or
their box cutters had come in there, we would
not have had 6,000 dead people.
DEFAZIO: I tell you what, Bob. This isn't going to happen like this
again. Most of those pilots -- because they
were looking at 1970 tapes; take me to to Cuba
-- and that's how they were trained. They were trained to be
passive. They didn't fight at all. In
fact, people with knives are not a very awesome force. You saw what
happened in Pennsylvania. The people took the plane down after
they had allowed the hijackers to take it
over. I don't think it's going to happen like that
again. But the point is, we are saying the undersecretary should
determine what is an appropriate level of
force. We're not going to mandate guns. We're
not prohibiting them.
RICHARDSON: Congressman John Shadegg, I want to find something
where you and I agree.
SHADEGG: Why is that, Bill?
RICHARDSON: Because he is from Arizona and I'm from New Mexico.
We have now enhanced cockpits, sky marshals.
SHADEGG: Unfortunately, we don't have them yet. But we need
them.
RICHARDSON: We need them badly. Do you really think we need to arm
the pilots? I mean, don't you think they should concentrate on
flying? If we have sky marshals, if we have
all this dramatically enhanced security.
SHADEGG: Of course they should concentrate on flying. But for
those pilots -- and this was mentioned earlier
in Bob's exchange with Peter -- those pilot
that want to be armed would be armed with low- velocity weapons. I
think they should have that right, certainly right now.
And Peter talked about the climate.
These hijackings occurred because people
believed it was a good old Cuban-style '50s hijacking where we are
going to be taken to the ground. That climate has change forever.
One thing that we're changing is the message
went out across the world that American pilots
who want to be -- and are trained -- and who choose to be armed are
in fact armed with weapons that fire low-velocity bullets or with
tasers weapons or...
RICHARDSON: So we're going to have sky marshals armed. You're going
to have pilots armed.
SHADEGG: I have to tell you, I personally believe this kind of
hijacking will never happen again in America,
because the passengers won't sit still for it.
But I think for those pilots who give their lives to this service, most
of whom are ex-military, most of whom are very
experienced with weapons, and they are saying
to us -- many of them are staying to us -- individual pilots on the
flights that I fly on back and forth here to Washington. They are
saying to me, "Congressman, I would like to be
able to be armed." I applaud Peter for saying
that is a reasonable request and it certainly ought to be studied.
RICHARDSON: Let me turn to minority leader Gephardt, something that
he said today about this issue to try to wrap
up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLES GEPHARDT, HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: A minority
wants to maintain the status quo. Unbending to consensus,
uninterested in collaboration and compromise.
They have refused to think anew and act anew
in light of the attacks because of unwavering ideological opposition to
expanding the number of federal law enforcement officers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SHADEGG: Now that's an outrageous statement that ends
bipartisanship.
RICHARDSON: No, no, Congressman. No, no.
SHADEGG: Their position is, the Senate bill or no bill. We
should have voted on it yesterday.
RICHARDSON: 100 percent of the senators voted for the bill. Isn't
this an issue? Don't we have system now where
the lowest bidder wins to deal with our
airport security?
SHADEGG: Again, you are defending the current system. Nobody
is defending the current system. The president
has proposed the system that works in Europe,
and it's the system that works for El-Al.
RICHARDSON: It's not the same.
SHADEGG: OK. I asked Peter to tell me what about the fact that
their paycheck comes from the federal
government would makes the skies safer. Peter
never gave me an answer. Here is your turn. Give me an answer.
RICHARDSON: Federal employees would be well trained. They would well
paid. Congressman.
DEFAZIO: It's not where the paycheck comes from.
SHADEGG: Good.
DEFAZIO: It's the fact that they would be federal law enforcement
officers. If we think we need federal law
enforcement officers to keep illicit
agricultural goods out of Hawaii or from coming back to the U.S., if we
need them at INS, if we need them at customs,
why don't we need them to screen at the
airport? They would then have the powers of detention, interrogation,
arrest.
SHADEGG: Someone with the power of detention and arrest and
interrogation should be at every single gate. That doesn't mean
every single person standing in front of every
single screen and saying, "Empty your pockets
of change," has to be a federal law enforcement person. That's
crazy.
NOVAK: Congressman DeFazio, I want you to be a profile in courage now
on national television.
DEFAZIO: Again? I'm ready.
NOVAK: Wasn't that an outrageous partisan tirade by my friend Dick
Gephardt?
DEFAZIO: I'll say -- I have been savaging Dick in the caucus back
during the airline bailout. He has been
incredibly patient and bipartisan beyond the
means.
NOVAK: Until today. That was an outrageous partisan statement.
DEFAZIO: We need to disagree on principal and we are disagreeing on
principle.
SHADEGG: So you and I are disagreeing on principle.
DEFAZIO: No. But let's have an up or down vote. That's what he said.
He said, "let's bring bill up and let's have a
legislative process."
SHADEGG: He made a purely partisan charge and said that we are
the ones who were insisting that it be our
way. The Senate is insisting that it be his
way.
DEFAZIO: That was the fight, John. I was there. I was standing behind
him.
NOVAK: Let me bring up a non-ideological, nonpartisan question. You
are on the aviation subcommittee. You know
this plan. Isn't the rule that a plane coming
out of Reagan National Airport, nobody can stand up for the last 30
minutes. isn't that FAA stupidity?
DEFAZIO: You know, the FAA -- I'm not going to defend them. They have
done things that I have disagreed with over the years. I have
been on planes where pilots won't let you use
the first-class bathroom because it's too close
to flight deck. I said the first week, "I'm kind of a home
handyman. I know how to reinforce these doors.
Why are we delaying putting cross bars on
planes."
NOVAK: Answer my question, please. Isn't that stupid? You have an
hour-long flight from New York to Washington and you can't stand
up for the last half hour of the flight. Does
that make any sense?
DEFAZIO: They are just be extraordinarily cautious.
NOVAK: Stupid, I would say. DEFAZIO: Extraordinary cautious. They
have armed sky marshals on board. They will have fewer people to
watch if people aren't standing up, I guess. I
haven't discussed that with them. There are
other concerns I have. But let's go back to the guns. In an interesting
exchange I had with El-Al representatives, they've actually taken
the guns out because they are so satisfied
with their flight deck security that they have
taken the guns out.
SHADEGG: And the pilots themselves may in fact agree to that
at some point in time, but we don't have
secure cockpits right now. We do not have
competent screeners right.
DEFAZIO: It's a scandal that we don't have reinforced doors.
SHADEGG: I think president ought to move by executive order.
He ought to move by executive order today. I
wish he'd moved by executive order last
Friday.
NOVAK: We are out of time. Thank you very much, Congressman
Shadegg, Congressman DeFazio. And ex-Congressman Richardson and
never-Congressman Novak will be back with closing comments.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NOVAK: Bill, let's be frank. Your old colleagues on the Democratic
side of the aisle salivate at the thought of
the first new infusion of federal workers
since LBJ. The idea of all these union, dues-paying members voting
Democratic. They just love that. It has nothing to do with
security.
RICHARDSON: I think the politics here, Bob, is on the Republican
side. Here you have an issue; responding to
the terrorist attack, where the country, the
president, the Congress have been together. This area, airline,
airport security, is really gotten into total partisanship. 100
to nothing in the Senate. Republican senators
supporting the Senate bill to federalize.
NOVAK: They were bullied. There was bullying.
RICHARDSON: But what you have now is a few idealogues in the House
holding up a bill. We should have one right before Thanksgiving.
NOVAK: I don't understand why we can't have private firms with
workers regulated by the government. We are
out of time, Bill.
RICHARDSON: From the left, I'm Bill Richardson. Good night for
CROSSFIRE.
NOVAK: Thank you, Bill. From the right, I'm Robert Novak. Join us
again next time for another edition of
CROSSFIRE.