In the post-September 11th era, the need for increased security at our nation?s airports and on our domestic flights has taken on a new, rejuvenated sense of urgency. In the aftermath of such a tragedy it is natural to want to immediately react with new tougher standards and regulations. This reaction, while considered understandable by most and even absolutely necessary by others is often not the correct action. It is so the case with bill HR 15 which is ?A bill to require? Federal Air Marshals on every scheduled passenger flight in air transportation.? This action at a first glance seems plausible and possibly desirable to avert another such tragedy as occurred September 11th. However, we must overcome our anger and our prejudice towards airport security and look at not only what this bill would accomplish, but more importantly, what problems it would create. I, Congressman C.W. Bill Young would vote against HR 15 due primarily to the amount of money that it would cost and because of other less major issues. .
This bills origin is clearly legitimate. On September 11th, 2001 terrorists essentially raided 4 airplanes with multiple box cutters. They gained access to the cockpits by slitting flight attendants throats until the pilots opened the door. They proceeded to deliberately crash the planes. Many say bill HR 15 would have prevented this from ever happening. If there had been an armed Air Marshal on board the box cutting wielding terrorists would not have gotten that far. Few would dispute that. In there lies the reason bill HR 15 was born. Politicians were eager to confront the porous security that endangered our nation. Some of these politicians were fueled by an FAA report that had been somewhat brushed away from the public eye. In the 1990?s the FAA had compiled a ?Red Team?. This teams sole purpose was to deliberately attempt to pass guns and explosives through metal detectors and report on their findings.