Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the senior member from the Northeast on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, made the following statement on the floor of the House of Representatives in respect to H. R. 2200, the Transportation Security Administration Authorization Act:


Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Authorization Act (H. R. 2200). For the most part, this bill is a good bill. However, it contains a troubling provision extending the deadline to screen 100% of air cargo on passenger planes bound for the United States.

Each year, over 6 billion pounds of cargo are transported on passenger planes within, or to, the United States. Almost half of this amount, 3.3 billion pounds of cargo, is carried on passenger planes that originate in foreign countries bound for the United States. There is no active requirement that this cargo be screened for explosives. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress passed legislation to strengthen aviation security, but it failed to address this glaring loophole.
Just two years ago, Congress finally passed legislation implementing all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations (H. R. 1 in the 110th Congress), requiring 100% screening of air cargo by August 2010. Even though this deadline is more than a full year away, Section 201 of H.R. 2200, as reported by the Committee, appears to grant TSA up to an additional two years from the date of enactment of this bill to screen inbound cargo for explosives. It makes no good sense to provide an extension a full year in advance of the current deadline.

We must not wait to impose security measures until cargo reaches the United States. If we wait to check for a bomb on a plane when it arrives in Newark, or Miami, or Los Angeles, it may be too late. Congress recognized this and intentionally set a deadline for screening all air cargo abroad. We will have to reach international agreements to implement the requirement, and in some cases that could be challenging, but it is precisely for this reason that Congress set an aggressive deadline. It has been almost eight years since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. We should have implemented 100% air cargo screening years ago. Only with vigorous oversight can we be sure that all stakeholders involved finally take action on this vital national security measure.

The Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (CAPA) and Families of September 11th also oppose the inclusion of this provision. We search little old ladies’ shampoo bottles. Certainly, we can screen cargo in the belly of the plane for explosives.

I am also concerned about Section 405 of the bill, which would require that any person detained at the Guantanamo Bay facility on or after January 1, 2009 must be placed on the no-fly list. As the Distinguished Chairman has made clear, this would be carried out “regardless of the nature of the disposition” of their case. This provision could lead to extremely bizarre results. For example, a person who was cleared of any wrongdoing, and who has been shown not to be a threat to the United States, would still be required to be placed on the no-fly list. Where is the sense in that? We now know that most of the people who have been held at Guantanamo at one time or another were not a threat, and were not in fact guilty of engaging in hostilities against the United States.

There are people still imprisoned at Guantanamo today who are there, not because they are a threat, but because our government can’t figure out what to do with them. The Uighurs, who are viewed as terrorists only by the repressive regime in Beijing, would be labeled as terrorists and added to the no-fly list. Is that the policy we want on the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre?

I must reluctantly vote “No” on final passage.