Addressing the Vulnerabilities in Aviation Security
Floor Speech
ADDRESSING VULNERABILITIES IN AVIATION SECURITY -- (House of Representatives - December 11, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I had the honor and privilege of chairing the House Aviation Subcommittee for some 6 years. I inherited that responsibility some months after September 11 and concluded my service as the Chair of that important subcommittee January of this year. I now am the ranking member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Just by way of my background, I have been involved in both the creation of TSA and the evolution of TSA over these years, and, trying to make certain, as I know Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite is doing, Representative Nita Lowey is trying to do, and I think they are very well intended and actually I hope to work with them, I just found out about this proposal coming up today last night, and I do pledge to work with them to try to make their intent the most effective intent, protecting the American public. And I know that is what Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite does. That is her intent. And I think that is Mrs. Lowey's intent here.
But what we have got to do is make certain that we aren't doing something that really won't achieve the results. And I think the normal screening of workers, as it has been done as we screen passengers, would not be that effective. So I have no objection to a demonstration project, but I think what we need is one that is sophisticated to try to deal with finding out what the bad intent of supposedly good aviation system workers may be.
Most of what we have at the airport today, I hate to tell you, the technology does not deal with the current threat. The current threat is not someone taking a gun or a weapon, as we traditionally know it, through airport screening checkpoints. In fact, USA Today has shown even how flawed this system is, in revealing some of the results of taking through not only those type items but also other items that may pose a risk today.
The problem we have is people with bad intent who obtain employment in this industry can do great harm. What we need to do is focus the screening on going after that bad intent, because once they get past the worker screening or passenger screening point, a worker has access to chemicals, substances, tools, a treasure trove of items that can be used to take down an aircraft, and that is what we want to prevent.
So I am not going to try to kill this measure. That is not my intent. In fact, I didn't come out here to call for a roll call vote on this. But what I would like to do is work with them to see that their intent, which is to make certain that workers who may pose danger to the system, we find a way to screen them that would be most effective in protecting our passengers.
The worst thing we can do, and I will tell you this, I helped create the Department of Homeland Security, I helped author the TSA bill. But TSA and the Department of Homeland Security is 177,000 employees. I compare it to sort of like pigeons you may see in a plaza, and when Congress claps its hands, they will all fly off in whatever direction we send them, but it may not always be the best-intended.
I give you one final example. We ban lighters from being carried onboard aircraft. We ban lighters, but we didn't ban cell phones or cameras with a battery. Here's my cell phone. This is much more dangerous as an ignition electronic device than any lighter that you can carry onboard.
So sometimes we do things here with good intentions, like the lighter ban, but they may not have the results we would like to achieve. So I came here to tell both of the sponsors I appreciate what they are trying to do, but I think we can take and craft their demonstration project into a demonstration project that truly screens workers in a way that will be beneficial to catch the potentially bad players and that we can make this system safer.
So I compliment you on your well-intended efforts. I pledge to work with you, and we will take it from there.
Source