|
DeFazio
Goes to War
Local
rep rails on airlines, security and the Republican right.
by Alan Pittman
Congressman Peter DeFazio voted against the Persian
Gulf War but in favor of use of force after Sept. 11. Long a critic
of airline security and deregulation, he voted against the recent
$16 billion airline bailout. DeFazio is on the front lines of America's
political battles in the war on terrorism. This interview was held
Oct. 5 and has been edited for length.
Q: You're in favor of a federal takeover
of airline security. Why is that?
A: We've been receiving reports for years
on the problems with the [baggage screening] systems. When I first
came to Congress I got briefed on this and I was so appalled that
I introduced my first bill on baggage handling and enhanced screening
back in 1987. The screeners were failing the test a very large and
classified percentage of the time. The test at that time when I came
to Congress was, take a fully assembled .45, encase it in a large
block of Lucite and put it into a suitcase with no more than three
articles of clothing and see if they can detect it.
I'd like to say that's all changed. Well, it is and
it isn't. There's another team of FAA folks, called the Red Team,
who go around and try to do more sophisticated things to penetrate
security and they have a very high success rate in terms of getting
things through screening or gaining access to restricted areas of
the airport.
In a hearing 18 months ago, the Association of Airport
Security Systems and the Air Transport Association could not tell
me of a single instance where anybody other than the lowest bidder
had gotten the contract to provide screening security. St. Louis Airport
has over 400 percent turnover among screeners; it's the lowest entry
level job into the airport and people really want to move up to a
fast food restaurant. That's a really kind of pathetic comment on
the priority the airlines have put on this over the years.
This [federal takeover of airline security] has now
become one of the two major bones of contention in a package of increased
security. A minority of the [Republican] majority in the House is
saying, hell will freeze over before they'll allow the hiring of another
federal employee. They are just absolutely ideologically opposed,
even if it's the best way for providing better security. It's mind-boggling,
it's absolutely mind-boggling.
Q: You were against the airline bailout, why is that?
A: It's a horrible bill. We rushed
it through without understanding what was in it. In fact our senior
senator has now asked for a GAO investigation and audit of the bill
he voted for 10 days ago.
It was bad. You start with the formula. The formula
is prejudiced toward the worst operating of the big airlines. So it's
an inordinate bailout for Continental and U.S. Air.
There were no conditions put on the cash. There's
a problem. If you don't require them to treat their employees well
or to pay their vendors, or you don't put a requirement that since
they're canceling orders that they first cancel the orders of foreign
made airplanes before they cancel Boeing planes, because we're worried
about layoffs at Boeing, if we don't effectively condition CEO salary
and stock options, if we don't require that something be contributed
by the creditors, by the stock holders, this is all just going to
be a big birthday cake for them.
The real sleeper in the [bailout] bill is that the
federal government assumed from the airlines all liability on the
ground without limit for all damages. I was incredibly moved by going
to New York, but to not even put a generous cap and say in no case
shall the federal compensation exceed $5 million per person ...
They've opened the door here for economic losses.
So, for the tragic loss of a young bond broker with a family who was
earning $20 million a year, or $10 million a year, that could be a
$100 million or $200 million settlement for economic damages. The
guy that was waiting tables at the top in the restaurant who was 55
years old, well, he might get $50,000 or $100,000. There's no equity
in it, and there's no limit to exposure in it.
Part of this is very political and it's pathetic that
in a time of crisis when people have died, people are losing their
jobs, that it should be so political with this supposed veneer of
bi-partisanship.
Q: What about all the airline workers that got laid off, will they
get anything?
A: They were stiffed in this package and
that was one of my major objections -- and the objection of a
number of others in the Democratic caucus. Where was the U.S. Senate
which is controlled by Democrats? The argument maybe made was, you
got leverage here. If they want agreement, we want something for the
workers. In the end our leadership said they just couldn't get it.
[Rep.] Dick Gephardt [D-Mo.] said, I will get a very
strong colloquy [agreement] guaranteeing health and other benefits
for airline employees. I haven't seen, nor have they yet delivered
on, a package for these people. Now, the Senate Democrats are trying
to tie it to the security bill. The airlines care a lot less about
the security bill than they did about their $16 billion. The time
to do it was when you were giving them a gift of billions of dollars.
Say, look, we're going to give you this money, but we want to see
that you minimize layoffs, extend health benefits to these people,
do something to keep these people employed.
But there were no strings attached. So the airlines
as soon as they got the bailout bill started invoking the War Clause
which vitiates their labor agreements and a number of the airlines
laid off people with no severance, no notice and no benefits.
Q: You fly a lot, in and out of Reagan National Airport by the Pentagon
on planes that have a lot of fuel. Are you afraid?
A: I've never
been a comfortable flyer. I'm on the aviation committee, I know too
much. I've fought too many battles over safety and security. I've
had members of our own [Oregon congressional] delegation say they
don't even want to sit next to me any more because sooner or later
I'll get talking about something that relates to it, and they don't
want to hear it.
Now, it just adds another element. We know that in
the past they [terrorists] have been happy with just taking down airplanes
and not using them as weapons. We've done very little to go to the
issue of that threat. I've raised some very obvious concerns with
the head of the FAA, and they've yet to take steps in those areas.
I really don't want to put the [security concerns] in print.
Most intelligent people are saying [the terrorists]
are going to go somewhere else. They're going to go for a port, they're
going to go for this or that. I don't know. A nuclear plant would
be really spectacular, and I'm very worried about that. I've talked
to the NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] about that because we have
the same crack security at nuclear plants that we have at the airports
-- the cheapest security you can get with private security firms.
Q: Tell me about the use of force resolution. You said in the past
that you admire Wayne Morse and he voted against the Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution in Vietnam --
A: And
he didn't vote against World War II and didn't move against Korea
and probably, like me, would have voted against the Persian Gulf Resolution,
which I did.
This is a lot more akin to a World War II situation,
where we are actually attacked, than it is to a proactive use of force
for political purposes as we did in the Persian Gulf.
Beyond that, the original draft which the Republicans
put forward said that the president was not only authorized to use
any and all means to respond to this incident and those that might
have been behind it, but that he could use any and all means to prevent
future incidents by anybody. It would have basically just said the
president could proactively use the military anywhere anytime he wanted
-- a total abdication of congressional authority, a violation
of War Powers and everything else.
I said look, the president clearly already has all
the authority he needs to respond to these attacks. Under the War
Powers Resolution, it says the president can use the full might of
the U.S. armed forces, law enforcement and whatever else against anybody
who either attacks the citizens of the U.S. or the armed forces of
the U.S.
We basically went back to a restatement and an affirmation
of War Powers and the fact that the president had the authority to
do these things. We didn't extend him any new powers. I considered
that a responsible way to deal with it. I believe, probably, Wayne
Morse would have acted the same way.
Q: At a UO teach-in recently there was a lot of talk about how U.S.
actions and policies in the Middle East had created some hatred of
the U.S. Should we look at the root causes of terrorism and address
them somehow?
A: Absolutely.
I've long been a critic of a lot of U.S. foreign policy or trade policy
and things that contribute to hosts of people who are totally deprived
and have no hope overseas. They are the recruiting ground for the
fanatics.
We need to distinguish between the maniacal killers
-- which is what Osama bin Laden and many of his closest colleagues
are -- who recruit among these despondent people, and the despondent
people. The target should not be the people who are despondent or
oppressed; we should do things to help them.
But I have now been through many briefings and read
a lot about bin Laden. He is someone who just has a whole different
value and belief system. It doesn't really necessarily relate as directly
to our policies as some people would like to say. Even if we had the
most enlightened foreign policy and trade policy in the world, Osama
bin Laden would still want to destroy the U.S., because we're in his
way.
Q: If the U.S. does have a war in Afghanistan, there will probably
be civilian casualties. Is there a point where there would be too
many?
A: There should
be an absolute minimum, preferably no innocent people killed. I think
thus far the administration, particularly as lead by [Secretary of
State] Colin Powell, is taking that very seriously. Powell, at least
thus far, is transcendent in the administration over and above the
hawks, like [Deputy Defense Secretary Paul] Wolfowitz and these other
people and quite a large contingent in the Republican caucus in the
House, who I've heard screaming at Colin Powell in classified briefings
I've been in. They do not have that value [of sparing civilians].
Q: There's a lot going on in Congress right now. Are Republicans exploiting
the terrorist attacks to pursue their political agenda?
A: There's
always going to be people that try and exploit a crisis to their own
ends -- whether it's an industry, like the airline industry,
or whether it's some of the harder right people in the Republican
Party. [Rep.] Bill Thomas [R-Calif.], the chairman of Ways and Means,
announced one or two days after the incident that he had a recovery
package, and it was a huge reduction in capital gains [taxes] and
fast track trade authority for the president. He's still pushing to
use the cover of this crisis for fast track trade authority for the
president. There is some of that going on. It's unfortunate, but it's
also just the nature of Washington, D.C.
Q: What do you think should be done to help the economy now?
A: The
progressives unveiled a very large package yesterday. Some of the
core elements would be an enhanced unemployment system, worker retraining,
some help with health insurance for unemployed people, a big emphasis
on infrastructure -- high speed rail, water infrastructure. We
would reinstate revenue sharing with the states, because almost all
the states are experiencing revenue shortfalls. A personal favorite
of mine is a major investment in energy efficient technologies. We
would also give a tax rebate to those [low income] people who didn't
get a tax rebate under the president's plan.
We pay for it by delaying any further reductions in
the [tax] bracket for people who earn over $373,000 a year. And we
would [make] go away the total forgiveness of [inheritance] taxes
on estates over $5 million a year. If you do just those two things,
you can pay for a $200 billion stimulus package and not threaten or
take more money out of social security.
Q: There's a lot of debate about whether we need to sacrifice civil
liberties for security. What do you think?
A: I
don't think that's necessary. [Attorney General John] Ashcroft, as
someone said, trotted out all the rejected and bad ideas of the last
20 years and four or five presidents and threw it into his package.
I don't think Congress is going there.
Q: Why aren't you running for governor or for Senate?
A: At the time
when I decided not to run for governor, I thought, as did many pundits,
that the Democrats had a pretty good chance of taking back the House
or holding or enhancing their hold on the Senate because of the way
the economy was going and the issues that were most salient at that
time. I figured my place could be either staying in the House or running
for Senate. That's changed now. I don't know how it's changed. But
obviously many of the issues that were so salient before Sept. 11
are subsumed at the moment. I think they are still there. The question
is when we will get back to them.
I have just not had any time to think politically
[after the terrorist attacks]. I was called by [Sen.] Patty Murray
[D-WA] of the DSCC [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] last
week. She just wanted to know that I hadn't absolutely closed the
door completely to running for the Senate. I said, no, but I haven't
opened the door, either.
Table of Contents
| News | Views | Arts &
Entertainment
Classifieds | Personals
| EW
Archive
|