THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display Mrs. TAUSCHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This legislation is not perfect, but we must streamline the current bureaucracy if we are going
[Page: H8703] GPO's PDF
This legislation today accomplishes that by bringing together the homeland security components of our government, including the national laboratories, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and first responders. I am glad that this bill gives the TSA flexibility to allow larger airports like Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and Sacramento more time to configure their explosive detection systems. This will save commuters from long lines and ensure that limited resources are being spent on the best equipment available. I also support the extension of war risk insurance for the aviation industry that is included in this bill.
To those that claim that this bill will only create a bigger government, I say this is not about making more bureaucracy, this is about making the bureaucracy work better. To those that think it is far from perfect, I say, I agree. I am concerned that this bill does not create a center to analyze intelligence inside the new agency. And I am deeply concerned that this bill could allow the President to weaken the labor protections of civil service employees. But this bill is just a starting point, and I am committed to work to fix these issues.
We must take this important step toward coordinating the dozens of government agencies responsible for fighting terrorism. Just as we must transform our military to be lighter, faster and more lethal at the time of asymmetrical threats, we must transform this Federal bureaucracy to be more responsive to threats to the homeland.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge this Congress to continue to work to cure this bill.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Who could be against homeland security? I guess anybody out there in the public would want to know why should there even be a debate about what we do about homeland security. But the reality is that all of us are for homeland security. The question is how do we get there. That is what this debate is all about.
About 2 weeks ago I participated in a debate on homeland security at Case Western Reserve University in my congressional district. On the panel with me was a gentleman from GAO and a professor who has looked over departments and consolidation over the years. One of the things that the professor raised was the fact that even with this new Department of Homeland Security, there are going to be so many more responsibilities placed on local governments, at the State level, at the county level, at the Federal level. And in this bill, though it is presumed that it is, there are not dollars there to support these local agencies to do that job.
When I think about it, and we thought about it in the session, if something happens in Cleveland, Ohio, I am not going to call the FBI; I am going to call 911, and 911 is going to call the Cleveland Police Department. But in this legislation, I do not believe there is adequate increase of dollars going to cities. It would have been nice when we had the opportunity to continue the COPS program that we had given or designated more dollars to local police departments. Another question I have is coordination. Another question I have is this whole issue of public employees who have given their time and effort to the Federal Government losing their labor rights as a result of a consolidation.
I think that all of us are concerned about homeland security, that all of us want to tell this world and the people that live in the United States that we are going to protect them. But before we rush down the line to make a decision on this new 170,000-person Department of Homeland Security, we must make a commitment to the people of the United States that we are really going to secure their homeland.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and, with heartfelt congratulations, the whip-elect, for the purpose of having a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Alaska, the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for his kind comments and for yielding me the time.
I would like to engage in a short discussion with Chairman YOUNG on two issues which are very important to me and I feel need some clarification. This relates to the training of pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit of our commercial airlines and to the training of cabin crew members in self-defense methods. As the House knows, these provisions were included in this bill; and I feel they are important provisions. However, I want to make clear in my own mind and in the record that these programs are not intended to be a new cost factor for the Federal Government or for our economically challenged airline industry. I understand they are voluntary. Just as our Constitution protects the rights of all citizens to own firearms for self-protection, we have provided the ability for airline pilots to voluntarily request that they be allowed to carry firearms for the protection of their passengers and crew while performing their duties in flight and other cabin crew to be trained in self-defense methods if they choose to do so. Nevertheless, I want to make sure the following is completely clear:
One, the Federal Government and air carriers are not obligated to compensate a pilot or cabin crew member for participating in any training program, qualification or requalification to carry a firearm or to train in self-defense. Again, the word there is ``obligated.'' It does not mean that they cannot do it at the airline level, but they are not obligated to do it. And, number two, these training programs cannot be an excuse or reason to disrupt or otherwise interfere with any carrier's scheduled service. Therefore, an air carrier will certainly not be required to disrupt its scheduled service to accommodate a flight crew member's training after that crew member has already been scheduled for duty. These sections are not intended to cause further operational burdens on the airline industry. I just want to be sure in my own mind in this discussion with Chairman YOUNG that I understand what this does in a proper way.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this gentleman, of course, is the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I agree with the gentleman's points. As the sponsor of the original bill for allowing the pilots to be armed in the cockpit, this is neither a mandate to disrupt schedules nor a requirement that either the Federal Government or air carrier compensate any crew member for these voluntary programs. I want to stress voluntary programs. It just gives a chance for the pilots themselves to arm and to properly train.
Mr. BLUNT. I thank the gentleman for that clarification.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).
(Ms. BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I do have a question for Chairman YOUNG at the appropriate time. I want to make my statement and put it in the RECORD, but on that same subject as far as the gun provision as put in the RECORD and the colloquy, can you clarify for me whether or not these pilots are going to be trained to carry these guns and how will it affect the public if the pilot accidentally kills someone?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. If my good friend will yield, I can suggest to her respectfully, under the bill they have to have the training; and I would rather have my pilot be armed and defend that cockpit as against an F-16 to be shot down. That is the whole intent. So in the bill they are trained, yes. All this says is that it is a voluntary process they go through, but the training is necessary.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. But they will be trained?
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Oh, absolutely.
[Page: H8704] GPO's PDF
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Yes, sir.
Let me just say as far as the bill is concerned that it is still the same flawed bill that this House passed in August. The problems with creating an agency of this size are still there. I do not see any new solutions. This bill is still taking agencies with important non-homeland security duties and placing them in agencies with no mission statement.
[Time: 19:15]
The first agency to respond to the terrorist acts of September 11 was the United States Coast Guard. Within minutes, they were guarding our ports, bridges, and waterways from home. It was so reassuring to know that they were out there protecting us while other agencies were still in shock, all under the supervision, by the way, of the Department of Transportation.
I am strongly opposed to transferring the Coast Guard to the Department of Homeland Security. Moving the Coast Guard to the new department is not in the best interest of the Coast Guard, the Department of Homeland Security, or the American people.
Each year the Coast Guard conducts over 40,000 search and rescue cases. They inspect U.S. and foreign flag ships and protect millions of U.S. citizens who travel on cruise ships and ferries each year. Over 80 percent of the Coast Guard's operation budget is spent on missions that have nothing to do with border protection or Homeland Security.
Another reason why I oppose this bill is because of the horrible labor provisions. This bill does away with American workers' basic right to join together and stand up for their rights. This is just another example of the Bush administration's union-busting policy. Under the pretext of national security, the compromise legislation does away with all provisions of our Nation's civil service laws for employees of this new department and allows the President to strip employees of their rights to collective bargaining. In this bill employee unions could appeal even anti-worker personnel rules; yet they have no real power to overturn this.
We have heard many problems with the new Transportation Security Agency. The problems TSA is facing are a perfect example of why we need to be more deliberate in creating a homeland security agency. The Republican Party is supposed to be the party of small government, but today they are creating a huge monster.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 1/2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, who has held over 30 hearings on this subject.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, we have been given a great opportunity to protect our countrymen and the world.
The Bremer Commission, the Gilmore Commission, the Hart-Rudman Commission, all warned us to wake up to the terrorist threat. Unfortunately that call came on September 11.
We need to know, as these commissions urged, what is the threat, what is our strategy? And how are we going to reorganize to deal with implement this strategy?
The threat is real. We are at war with terrorists to shut them down before they use weapons of mass destruction against us. This threat requires a new strategy. It requires detection and prevention. It requires us to be proactive and in some cases preemptive.
This new strategy requires us to reorganize, to take various government departments and bring them together in a focused, unified approach under the four pillars outlined by the President. The first has a border and transportation focus. The second is emergency preparedness and response; one place for first responders to come to in our government and one place for resources to go out to them.
The third pillar provide chemical, biological, and nuclear countermeasures. And the final pillar is information analysis, the plug into the intelligence community.
We need to reorganize our government to be able to implement our new strategy and confront the new terrorist threat facing this Nation and the world. We need to wake up and do it now.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
(Mr. OBERSTAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the homeland security bill has a number of problems with it that invite my opposition. First, it has aviation provisions that will diminish security and safety. It will give inequitable benefits to airlines and private security companies. It extends the current deadline for screening all checked baggage for explosives, with the most modern explosive detection systems. Rather than encouraging delay, we ought to be pushing the Transportation Security Administration to meet existing deadlines. We should force TSA to use equipment that is now sitting in warehouses and give them the funding they need to acquire that equipment and meet the deadline rather than extend the deadline.
The bill requires TSA to allow unlimited numbers of pilots to carry guns. The Bush administration, their Secretary of Transportation, the Transportation Security Administration agree with me that there are many unanswered questions about widespread arming of pilots, whether that would create more safety hazards than security benefits. There should be no more than a trial program until these issues are resolved with a very small number of pilots.
The bill gives much needed relief to the airline from insurance costs. Yes, I am for that. But it provides no help, no assistance to airline workers who lost their jobs, lost their health insurance , deserve better from this Congress, were promised better by this Congress from this very well. The bill limits the liability of private security companies, including foreign-owned companies, for the tragedy of September 11. That is an abomination. That should not be permitted in this legislation.
The bill continues to have the Commandant of the Coast Guard report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. It allows all of the Coast Guard's homeland security missions, however, to be transferred from the Coast Guard, an agency that has defended our shores for over 200 years.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5710, the Homeland Security Act of 2002.
The aviation provisions in the bill will diminish security and safety, and give inequitable benefits to airlines and private security companies. In particular, H.R. 5710 would extend the deadlines for installing explosive detection systems (EDS) to screen checked baggage at airports; provides the airlines with $1 billion in relief from insurance costs, while providing no assistance to those airline workers who have lost their jobs and their health insurance ; limits the liability of private security companies, including foreign owned companies, for their roles in the tragedy of September 11th; and requires the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to allow unlimited numbers of pilots to carry guns.
Screening of checked baggage is a major building block in the comprehensive security program we need--a program with redundancies similar to the redundant safety systems, which have resulted in our airlines' outstanding safety record.
Extension of the December 31 deadline will do great harm. It will take all the pressure off TSA and the airports, and we will fail to install many explosive detection machines that could have been in place by December 31. This will increase the risk that we will fail to detect an explosive device in baggage checked by a suicide bomber.
Rather than encouraging additional delay, we should be pushing TSA to make every effort to meet the existing deadlines. We should force TSA to use equipment now sitting in waterhouses, and give them the funding they need to meet the deadline. Existing law allows TSA to deal with cases where a brief delay is needed. The Aviation Security Act requires that all baggage that cannot be inspected by EDS must be either matched with a passenger on the aircraft, or inspected by another means, such as a manual search, or canine detection in combination with other means.
Before we extend any deadline for EDS deployment, we should ensure that such extension requires the TSA to improve the interim program by mandating positive bag match for connecting passengers, and by requiring that more bags be subject to direct inspection.
The American traveling public wants to feel secure when they fly, and part of that security is knowing that their bags have been thoroughly screened for explosives when they board an aircraft.
As to extending the war risk provisions for another year, I support legislation to give the
[Page: H8705] GPO's PDF
But there is a dark cloud hanging over our efforts to help the industry. While H.R. 5710 gives the airline industry financial relief from problems created by terrorism and war , the bill does not extend the same fair treatment to industry employees, who have also suffered disproportionately from terrorism and war . I and my colleagues on this side of the aisle insist that there must be balance in any relief package for the airline industry. H.R. 5710 does not remedy this problem, and therefore I am unable to support it.
This is not a new issue. When we passed a $15 billion assistance bill soon after September 11, I, and many of my colleagues, insisted that if the airline companies were to be afforded relief, so should employees who had lost their jobs. The Republican leadership told us that there was no time to develop a consensus proposal on employee relief, but on the House Floor, Speaker HASTERT promised prompt consideration of employee relief, including financial assistance, ability to retain health insurance , and training for new careers. Regrettably, the leadership has not followed through, and the House has never considered assistance for displaced airline employees.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display