| |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
|
Guest Commentary: September 25, 2001
Airlines Out of Touch on Security Issues
The Honorable Peter DeFazio
|
Last Friday night, Congress rushed through a $15 billion airline bailout, and I am not going to revisit all of the problems with that legislation, with one exception. That legislation failed to allocate one cent toward additional airline security or mandate an iota of change in a system that we know has failed.
Now, the failings of aviation security were well documented before the terrorist attack. I introduced my first bill to enhance screening at airports and checking of baggage in 1987. Many other Members of Congress have introduced legislation in those intervening 15 years and even before that, but they were always opposed by the Air Transport Association acting on behalf of a number of their member airlines successfully and even in those few cases where we were able to mandate enhanced measures such as credentialing and standards for training and background checks for the screening companies.
The ATA and member airlines and the private security industry itself fought tooth and nail to delay the implementation of those regulations for 5 years. Amazingly, on the floor on Friday night, some of my [Republican] colleagues said we need to privatize the system that failed us.
It took them so long to get out these regulations. It took so long because the private industry, the private security companies fought it. There was not one single airline passenger in there objecting to these regulations, raising concerns, threatening to sue and making comments, except favorable comments, on these improvements.
In 1996, Ms. Hallett, the head of the Air Transport Association, in testimony to the White House commission said it has been suggested by some that we must radically alter our Nation's air transportation system in order to make it secure from terrorism. Based upon our understanding of the threat presented, this is not the case. The measured and deliberate steps to enhance security which we have put forward are responsive to the need. They then began to fight the recommendations of that commission.
It has always been driven by costs. We had the best system of security you could get by pinching pennies and always, always hiring the lowest bidder to provide the screening at the airports.
A year and a half ago in a hearing I said, and this is what I think has prevailed among the American public for a long time, I have got to tell you, when I am flying, I doubt that I could ever find one person in the plane who would say, gee, I would be really upset if I had to pay one-half of 1 percent more for my ticket to know that the person who screened me was not convicted of various felonies and at high risk of allowing something to happen on this plane. It is just extraordinary to me that we would let this system continue in this way, the lowest bidder.
Tragically, we have. In fact, last week, amazingly, after the tragedy, the CEO of Alaska Airlines told me directly in response to my suggestion that we levy a $3 surcharge on tickets for security, he said no one would ever fly again if I was successful in getting that $3 security surcharge. He said there is only one thing people respond to, quote, "people do not respond to anything other than total price." I guess he probably flew out here on his own executive jet, and he was not too worried about security. That is how out of touch this industry is.
Then last week at Miami International, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent acting on his own, having notified authorities, attempted to smuggle at one time on his person three knives through security. He was successful. He even stopped and said to the people, is there anything wrong here, did something go off? And they said, oh, go, go, go. So he had given them an extra chance to ask him some questions.
Now, this same firm had been fined $110,000 in fines and restitution for failing to do background checks on at least 22 employees and then lying about it to Federal regulators, sentenced to 2 years' probation, but they are still providing security at that airport; and their manager was sentenced to 5 years in Federal prison, and they are still providing security at MIA. This is the system we get with privatization.
Security at airports needs to be and is a legitimate function of the Federal Government of the United States, a security function, a law enforcement function. We should no longer resist that on some sort of ideological bias or an attempt to buy security on the cheap. The administration has convened a task force on kind of a slow timeline; they are proposing to come forward on October 1.
We know what we need to do. Let us not delay another day. I am amazed that [the House of Representatives] rejected my motion last Friday night to begin the federalization process now to begin to put firms like this one in Miami International convicted of violating the law and leave them in charge. We need to take charge and make flying safer.
Note: The above commentary has been adapted from a speech Rep. DeFazio made on the floor of the House, September 24, 2001.
 How to contact Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Reading a past guest commentary? Click here for the most current one.
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
