Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2005

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005 -- (House of Representatives - June 18, 2004)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 675 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4567.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 10 OFFERED BY MR. MARKEY

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Chairman pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 10 offered by Mr. Markey:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

SEC. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to approve, renew, or implement any aviation cargo security plan that permits the transporting of unscreened or uninspected cargo on passenger planes.

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes and that the time be equally divided between myself and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 20 minutes.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, every time we fly we wait in security lines. We empty our pockets, we remove our shoes. Sleeping babies are taken out of their baby carriers. We have to walk through metal detectors, we have to have our baggage inspected. Even grandma with her walker needs to be physically inspected at security checkpoints.

We do not complain much as Americans because we all know this is all aimed at improving the security of every single flying passenger in our country. But what people do not realize is that right next to our baggage, right underneath our now-screened shoes, cargo is placed which has not been screened at all.

For example, if a passenger were carrying onto a plane a package this size, it is going to get screened. It is going through the metal detector. It is going to be looked at. But if it is shipped as cargo and it is 16 ounces or less, it automatically does not get screened at all. They think this is not dangerous if it comes as cargo. But if a passenger carries it onto that very same plane, it is going to be checked. The only difference is if you are carrying it, you are on the plane with it. But if someone sends it as cargo, they are not on that plane.

What is dangerous about that? What is dangerous about it is that the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie was brought down by a package this size. That is what is wrong. We should not have passengers on American planes that have this kind of danger that al Qaeda could exploit that could wind up with a catastrophe which shocks the world.

Moreover, cargo which is this size, which is not too much bigger than a lot of people's traveling bags for the summer, this does not get screened except in very rare instances. It goes right into the belly of the plane, the same way that your baggage goes there but without the screening. So that is a loophole, unfortunately, that al Qaeda could exploit and we know that al Qaeda continues to say and our Bush administration security officials confirm that al Qaeda continues to put passenger aircraft at the very top of their terrorist target list.

So the amendment which we are making here today, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and myself, is the same amendment which we made last year to this bill which passed on the House floor 278-146. The reason it passed is obvious, it makes no sense to put all of the families in our country, especially as vacation time is arriving, on planes that have all of these packages that are unscreened even as they, the American families, have been put through the toughest possible screening possible.

So our amendment calls for the screening of this cargo, that it should not go onto the planes unless it is screened. Why should bags in the bay of a passenger plane be screened, that is the bags of the passengers, but the other half not be screened even though the people who put those packages on are not even flying on the plane? This is something that in our opinion makes no sense whatsoever.

We continue to see data on the number of planes. It turns out that al Qaeda was targeting 10 planes for hijacking. We know they are obsessed with them and we know that we are obsessed with the planes that are the passenger planes. Let us not allow our people in our country, our passengers, and yes, yes, we are talking about the American family here. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about the people who are in the galleries today who flew here to Washington. It was on their planes, and as they fly out of Washington today, as they fly anywhere in America today, it is the baggage on their planes that had cargo on it. These people deserve protection.

That is the simple heart of our argument; that it is just plain wrong to put Americans on planes with unscreened cargo, especially since the technology is already there. The vast majority of cargo could be screened with the existing technology that already screens our bags. It is the same size as our bags or smaller. How can they escape being screened?

Mr. Chairman, I ask for Members' support. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and I will make the argument over the next 30 minutes or so and we hope that we once again send a strong message that we want to have all of this baggage screened.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the cosponsor of my amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) for a colloquy.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. HOLT. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention, the gentleman from Connecticut's (Mr. Shays) intention, that once we close the loophole on passenger planes that allow for cargo to go on unscreened, then we will move on to the next step, which is the cargo that goes on cargo planes. But I think the first job is to make sure that passengers are protected and then in the next step, as the gentleman said, we will move on to do the same for cargo planes.

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, that will be safer for the public and the workers of the airline industry, and I thank the gentleman for his answer.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Let me inquire of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), is the gentleman the last speaker?

Mr. MARKEY. I will be the last remaining speaker, yes, sir.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me begin by saying that Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie did go down, but it went down because a package this size was not screened in the baggage. We now mandate that all baggage be screened. We closed that loophole, but the reason the Pan Am 103 families endorse the Markey-Shays amendment and have sent a letter to Congress endorsing it is because they know that this same package in the cargo is not screened on passenger planes. The Pan Am 103 families endorse this amendment.

Secondly, the technology already exists. The Israelis screen cargo. The United Kingdom screens cargo. The Netherlands screens cargo. Australia, Singapore, Spain, Hong Kong, Italy, they already screen the cargo which goes onto passenger planes; and there are American companies lined up to do the job. American Science and Engineering, Incorporated, L3 Security and Detection Systems, Raytheon Cargo Screen, they all say they are ready to go to deploy the technology today. It is not a question of technology. It is a question of money. The same argument was made right after September 11: we do not have enough money to screen the bags of every passenger going on planes.

Well, we do not have enough money not to do it, because the next plane that goes down is going to cripple the American economy. That is the price of leaving a loophole that could lead to an explosion on a plane. That is the price our country is going to pay, and it is going to look like one cent on a hundred dollars if it happens.

We cannot afford to allow this kind of loophole to exist. This known-shipper program, it is not even certified by the Federal Government. The Federal Government lets the airlines decide who these shippers are, who put these packages on without even screening. It is not even a Federal Government program; it is an airline program. That is no security for the American flying public.

These people who fly into Washington as tourists, people going on vacations, they should not have to be putting their families on planes with cargo this size or this size, that has not been screened, even as they have been forced to take their nail clippers out and have them confiscated. It is wrong.

The Markey-Shays amendment should pass. If you want to see security on the airlines of our country, if you want to
avoid another airline disaster in our country that will cause an economic catastrophe, vote "aye" on the Markey-Shays amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

MR. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT