I think we have made a good start here and I think this is a good piece of legislation, but there is an unresolved issue which I think cries out for attention. It was addressed briefly in the Public Works committee. It is still unresolved. And it comes under the heading of the promises that have been made primarily to the families and the others interested who are directly involved emotionally with the consequences of the air terrorism and the deaths of Pan Am 103. We promised we would do everything we could to help stop this type of thing and we have fallen short of that. And one of the reasons is that terrorism is a very, very difficult proposition to deal with. But when the consequences of terrorism are death to innocent victims, it appears to me that the perpetrators of that death should face the same consequences. And that is the death penalty. This bill does not quite get there and I think that it should. And I think that is a debatable subject and my request is this: I realize that we have gone a long way and I do not want to in any way intercede at this point or make any objections or offer any amendments today, but I do believe that this issue is hot enough and germane enough and worthy enough to come to the floor for consideration by the Members of this House and I surely hope that we will be able to have an open rule or at least have a rule made in order that will allow this discussion when this matter comes forward to the full House. This is not just my request or my feeling. This is certainly the feeling of many of the families of Pan Am 103 and I think if we fail to do this, we cannot live up to the promise that we actually did do everything we could to address the concerns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman FASCELL. Mr. Burton. Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks made by Mr. Weiss and Mr. Goss. And I want to congratulate all of those who worked on this en bloc amendment. I think it is a very good one. I would just like to say that with the ever present threat of terrorism around the world and even in the United States, I think that the sniffer dog amendment that we worked hard to put in here is going to be a real benefit at some point in the future. And once again, I just want to congratulate those who worked on the amendment to make sure that it was in there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman FASCELL. Let me say on the matter that my distinguished colleague from Florida brought up a very important matter and I think I should start out with just a visceral reaction immediately saying, I would support the death penalty. The problem that we have is, first of all, a jurisdictional one. The amendment is not within the jurisdiction of either committee. I think what we would have to do would be to see about getting consideration on the Crime Bill. They are going to have write a new rule anyway. And they made what? 44 amendments in order? So one of them was the death penalty. I think a definitional change would certainly be included in that, but I have not examined that. So I cannot give you any assurance. I simply wanted to point out to my colleague what he knows already which is that we could not very well get it on this bill. Mr. Goss. Will the gentleman yield? Chairman FASCELL. Sure. Mr. Goss. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the explanation. I understand the complication and I realize that we have to live by our rules. What I think we need to be in a position to do is to make sure that once we pass this bill, and the reason I made the specific suggestion I did is I understood that this was going to go forward under suspension and I did not want us, therefore, to park this issue and say, "Well, we just could not get to it." Chairman FASCELL. No, I understand. I understand. Mr. Goss. If there is resolve to do it as one of the other, the 45th or whatever number it is going to be on the crime packet, so much the better. That is what we need to be able to promise. Chairman FASCELL. Well, I am willing to join you in an effort to get that done. I just did not want either you or the public to think that when we go forward under suspension that that was an effort to foreclose out what you are talking about. That is all. I want it to be absolutely clear on the record. Mr. Goss. Thank you. Chairman FASCELL. That was the main purpose of the discussion. Mr. Goss. Thank you. Chairman FASCELL. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Burton? He finished. Chairman FASCELL. If not, the question is on agreeing to the en bloc amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying, "aye". [Chorus of ayes] Chairman FASCELL. All those opposed, "no". [Chorus of noes] Chairman FASCELL. The ayes have it and the en bloc amendment is agreed to. The question now is on agreeing to the committee print or the amendments to the committee print. The amendments to the committee print, all those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying, "aye". [Chorus of ayes] Chairman FASCELL. All those opposed, "no". [Chorus of noes] Chairman FASCELL. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. The question now occurs on the committee print as amended. All those in favor signify by saying, ‘aye". [Chorus of ayes] Chairman FASCELL. All those opposed, "no". [Chorus of noes] Chairman FASCELL. The ayes have it and the committee print reported as amended. I would propose that we introduce a clean bill which incorporates the work of both committees and schedule the bill on suspension on the first day for suspensions next week. [Whereupon the Committee proceeded to other business.] APPENDIX 1 THE URBAN INSTITUTE 2100 M STREET, N. W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037 ANN MCLAUGHLIN Visiting Fellow Robert Planansky Executive Assistant (202) 857-8537 (202) 223-3043 FAX August 1, 1990 Honorable Dante B. Fascell Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs U.S. House of Representatives 2170 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-6128 Dear Chairman Fascell: I appreciated the opportunity to testify before your Committee's joint hearing with the Aviation Subcommittee of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee on July 26, 1990. I submit this letter to supplement my remarks and testimony at that hearing and request that it be made a part of its official record because I disagree with the Secretary of Transportation's assessment, as stated by Administrator Busey, that "... the establishment of this new office fulfills the need identified in the Commission's Report, although the establishment of this office does not preclude the future establishment of a different organization structure should circumstances warrant." As I stated, the Commission sought to avoid in its recommendations, the micromanagement of the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration. However, after considerable discussion, the Commission reached the conclusion that this government needs an Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Security and Intelligence to whom the function of the F.A.A. Intelligence Division would be assigned. In so doing, the Commission, after considerable study, specifically rejected proposing a recommendation which would leave the existence of this important function at this level to the unilateral discretion of this or any subsequent Administration. While the Commission recommended that security be elevated within the (303) should be performed by the new Assistant Secretary for Security and Intelligence. The Commission intended that this position be a permanent, Presidential appointment, with Senate confirmation to engage the oversight of the Senate, through its advise and consent role, as to the qualifications of any nominee to fill this critical position. The Commission was determined that it be an appointment "... with tenure, to ensure continuity and a measure of independence, and should be filled with a person uniquely qualified by extensive experience and background in the intelligence field." (emphasis added). Legislation would ensure that the Congress, in its oversight capacity, would agree with any subsequent decision to dismantle this office. These recommendations are the keystone in the Commission's effort to elevate the inadequate priority that security and intelligence have historically received within the Department of Transportation and the F.A.A. I strongly encourage that these recommendations be reflected in this legislation and that the Department of Transportation's efforts to address these recommendations be examined carefully in light of the Commission's concerns. The members of this President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism have publicly stated their determination that the Commission's recommendations would not gather bureaucratic dust. We made this commitment to the families of the victims of Pan Am 103, who will be monitoring the government's reactions to these recommendations meticulously. |