[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 124 (Friday, September 21, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9580-S9584]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  MEASURE READ THE FIRST TIME--S. 1447

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I understand that a settlement has 
been reached between the leadership of the House and Senate relative to 
the airline assistance measure. This measure, an attempt to propound a 
bare bones solution, does not encompass all the main considerations 
that came out at the hearing we had in the Commerce Committee 
yesterday.
  It is more or less a gentlemen's agreement that safety is just as 
important, or this particular Senator was trying to get safety and 
security ahead of money. Be that as it may, the money has prevailed and 
the bill will pass, perhaps this weekend or perhaps this afternoon. I 
want to save time by speaking now so that when the bill is under 
consideration, I will not be holding up my colleagues who are trying to 
catch transportation to get home for the weekend.
  In that light, I have at the desk a bill by myself, Senator McCain, 
Senator Kerry, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, Senator Breaux, 
Senator Cleland, Senator Nelson, Senator Edwards, Senator Burns, 
Senator Smith, and Senator Reid. I ask it be given its first reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1447) to improve aviation security, and for 
     other purposes.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair. Madam President, there 
is not any question when we are talking about financing that we can 
give the airline industry billions upon billions of dollars in the next 
10 minutes, but the sustenance, success, and the full resumption of 
airline travel will never occur until the traveling public is confident 
of safety and security at the airports and on planes in America.
  First and foremost, of course, is the matter of the cockpit. Pilots 
do not want to get into the position of those pilots on 9-11. So they 
are not only asking for a secure door that can only be opened from the 
inside, going along with the rule that it not be opened in flight, but 
that they also be equipped with stun guns. That is going to be taken 
care of.
  We have Federal marshals. We need to extend that program, there is no 
question about it. But the main kick in the arm of security at all 
airports of America is the reliance upon the industry itself to provide 
for that security. It has been going to the lowest bidder, to temporary 
workers paid minimum wage, their average stay not exceeding 5 months. 
So there is no professionalism, there is no experience and, as a 
result, there is no security. Everyone knows this. This was not just 
revealed at the hearing.
  The bill establishes a Deputy Administrator at the Federal Aviation 
Administration for Aviation Security. We need a central command with 
fixed responsibility for this security.
  The bill also establishes an Aviation Security Council comprised of 
representatives from the FAA, the Department of Justice, the Department 
of Defense, and the CIA to coordinate national security, intelligence, 
and aviation security information and make recommendations.
  There was a question about curbside check-in. Employees stationed 
there look at their computers. They are well trained to look for 
certain persons that Interpol, other countries, or the FBI in this 
country have given as known security risks.
  With those that they may have some suspicion about, they check that 
baggage. Obviously, if the distinguished Senator from California was 
going through, and she comes through every other week or so, going back 
and forth to the west coast, she is a discernible public figure, no 
security risk whatsoever and there is no reason to open the bag. That 
facilitates airline travel and that is understood.
  Even at curbside when they use the computer and bring up the name 
``Hollings'' on the computer, they can see exactly what his travel 
practices are and other important information to the security of air 
travel, and either give a double-check through his luggage or maybe a 
personal check.
  El Al Airlines requires that in Tel Aviv. The truth is, we invited El 
Al's safety executive, and due to the holidays he could not make it, 
but he will be here the first of the week and is going to brief our 
committee.
  We know there is required security in the country of Israel, and as a 
result we want to try to emulate their success in that regard. First, 
put in a deputy administrator with a coordinated council and strengthen 
the cockpit doors and locks.
  We have heard from the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts of 
his constituent who manufactures such a door. He will be momentarily 
addressing that.
  There is no question in this Senator's mind that once the door is 
locked securely with a substance such as Kevlar that it cannot be 
penetrated. Once that is secured and you get the security personnel at 
Reagan National Airport, you can open up Reagan National. There is no 
difference between opening up Dulles Airport or Baltimore-Washington 
Airport and not Reagan with respect to the proximity because, after 
all, it was the Dulles flight that hit the Pentagon.
  Once a flight takes off, to turn around and come back into 
Washington, it is just as easy to turn from, say, Baltimore or Dulles 
before anything can really be done to stop its course and come right 
into the Pentagon again.
  I understand what the Secret Service and the National Security 
Council are saying, but this is no time for debate. As the President 
said, this is a time for action. So let us start with action, get

[[Page S9581]]

in the security personnel in a studied, incremental fashion. Start with 
the shuttle flights to New York and Boston and immediately have enough 
security personnel in those particular planes already equipped with the 
secured cockpit.
  This particular measure also increases the number of Federal air 
marshals. In the interim, the FAA can use personnel from other Federal 
agencies to serve as those air marshals. It federalizes airport 
security operations. I heard a while ago at a conference that the 
Secretary of Transportation said we did not have the money to do this. 
We do have the money, and we have voted the money. That is why this 
Senator voted the $20 billion. Someone has said it is $3 billion, and 
that $3 billion is enough. Put some 23,000, 24,000 security personnel 
in the airports around the country as Federal service employees, civil 
service Government employees, skilled, with training, with adequate pay 
and retirement and health care benefits. That is when you are going to 
get the competent personnel.
  I have had this struggle for the past several years about privatizing 
the comptrollers. I do not see anybody in the Chamber this afternoon 
talking about privatize, privatize, privatize. We can see what 
privatization has done to security.
  Europe affords government workers in its airports. If Europe can 
afford it, we can. In fact, after 9-11, we must afford it. We cannot 
play games with the number of employees and everything else of that 
kind when it comes to security, and this is just as important or more 
so to this particular Senator than the money.

  I am going to explain the money in a little while. You can give 
airlines all the money in the world, but if nobody comes to fly on 
their planes, if the airports and the planes themselves are not secure, 
then they are going to suffer badly financially and there is not enough 
money in the Government Treasury to keep them alive unless we do this 
No. 1 thing; namely, provide for airport security, which is on 
everybody's mind.
  The bill also improves screening procedures for passengers. It checks 
the passenger's name against a coordinated list comprised of criminal, 
national security intelligence, and INS information.
  I heard the previous administrator of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service, Doris Meissner, on TV the other evening. She 
was talking about checking names off as they come in. The INS gets this 
information. The FBI gets this information. It ought to be absolutely 
certain that it also goes to all of the airports and is disseminated, 
because there is some question that they had some information about the 
9-11 attack ahead of time but it was not properly dispensed among those 
responsible.
  The bill provides for hijack training for the flight crew. It calls 
for background checks on students at flight schools for large planes 
and increases perimeter security at airports and air traffic 
facilities. It assesses a dollar-per-passenger security charge and 
authorizes funds to carry out the security initiatives.
  This bill is totally bipartisan, but there was a concern amongst 
several of the Senators about assessing a charge. I think all members 
of our committee more or less will cosponsor the bill, once we can 
check this afternoon, in a bipartisan fashion.
  Now, that charge will bring in $250 million. Assuming the security 
responsibility at airports is federalized, it relieves the private 
airline industry of $1 billion. So $250 million for passengers to start 
contributing toward taking care of some of these expenses is definitely 
in order, in this Senator's mind.
  I want to cover one particular thing with respect to the bill itself. 
The bill might have to be repaired if there is not a cap on claims. We 
are establishing a Federal claims procedure so the injured are not 
further damaged and do not have to chase around several jurisdictions 
and file all kinds of legal motions. So the Federal claims provision 
will be included in the bill this afternoon.
  My understanding, because I was trying to get it on as a cap, if you 
do not have a cap on these particular claims, there will not be enough 
money in the Federal til. That will have to be repaired.
  I could give the example of this high paid group on the top of the 
World Trade Towers, and they are very deserving people, but if they 
make $8 million or $10 million a year, if I were a lawyer I know I 
could get a $200 million to $300 million verdict of some kind, and 
while I am getting the $200 million to $300 million verdict, the poor 
fireman's lawyer comes in and says, ``Wait a minute. You are paying 
that high paid individual a couple of hundred million dollars, but this 
is a poor fireman who rushed in and saved his life, I want $200 
million,'' and up and away it goes. Or the insurance company takes a 
traveling passenger who was on one of those planes and the lawyer goes 
to the insurance company and says, ``Go ahead, give us the $50 million, 
give us whatever million you want because you are subrogated, you can 
go against the Government claims, no limit on the government claims, 
and you can be reimbursed.'' They say I am out here shilling for the 
trial lawyers, but right is right. I am confident most of my trial 
lawyer friends would understand, in an act of war of this kind, there 
have to be some limits. If there are not limits, we will not sustain.

  I hold the bill up with an amendment. I was prepared, but I have been 
talked out of it by the leadership, to have the airline security 
measure that could be passed this afternoon in the House and Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, since others are prepared now, let me 
read the most significant testimony of Harry Pinson of Credit Suisse 
First Boston, in Texas, and the head of the southwest regional 
investment banking group based in Houston that handles all of these 
industrial accounts. I ask unanimous consent it be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Testimony of Harry Pinson, Hearings on Airline Industry Finances, 
            Senate Committee on Commerce, September 20, 2001

       Good afternoon Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 
     holding these hearings today and allowing me to appear before 
     the Committee.
       My name is Harry Pinson and I am a Managing Director of 
     Credit Suisse First Boston (``CSFB''), and Head of the 
     Southwest Regional Investment Banking Group, based in 
     Houston. I joined CSFB in 1984, and moved to Houston in the 
     summer of 1995 from New York. I am responsible for 
     coordinating the coverage of industrial accounts in the 
     Southwest, including the airline industry. While in New York, 
     I was Head of the Transportation Group in the Investment 
     Banking Department from 1990 through 1995.
       I began my business career as an Associate in the public 
     finance department of Merrill Lynch, where I specialized in 
     the transportation industry, prior to joining CSFB. I have 
     managed a variety of financing and strategic advisory 
     assignments for major U.S. industrial companies including the 
     acquisition of McDonnell Douglas by The Boeing Company, the 
     strategic alliance between Continental Airlines and Northwest 
     Airlines, the sale of United Airlines to its employees, 
     advising the creditors of Continental Airlines in the 
     reorganization of the Company, the privatization of Quantas 
     Airways and the acquisition of TWA by AMR.
       The U.S. air transportation system, for all its faults, is 
     the envy of the world. Its cheapness and ease of use means 
     that more Americans fly more often than the citizens of any 
     other major country. Whole industries are built around this 
     unquestioned principal of mobility: hotels, resorts, car 
     rental agencies. It binds us together as a nation, and 
     connects us to the world.
       The events of last Tuesday and their ramifications are 
     threatening that principal of mobility in a number of ways.
       First, the cash losses suffered while the industry was 
     grounded and as it rebuilds this week are weakening an 
     industry already made vulnerable by a weakening economy.
       Second, the reduction in demand caused by the loss of 
     passenger confidence and the impact on travel times caused by 
     the security guidelines necessary to restore that confidence, 
     coupled with the increased operating costs and lower fleet 
     utilization that those same safety guidelines are likely to 
     require, means that the profit model for the industry will 
     change, perhaps permanently. For the first time ever, an 
     industry conditioned to growth will have to find a way to 
     shrink to profitability. It will take a lot of Yankee 
     ingenuity to find that path, and many will not succeed.
       Third, the catastrophe last week and our government's 
     response to it have served to raise the perceived potential 
     liabilities of operating an airline while simultaneously 
     reducing the availability of insurance for that

[[Page S9582]]

     risk. This means that airline shareholders, creditors, and 
     potentially even the officers and directors of these carriers 
     are being asked to bear the risk of potentially catastrophic 
     losses: an unprecedented and highly disruptive situation.
       Finance, the industry I participate in, has always had a 
     big role to play in this industry because its persistent 
     growth, capital intensity, fierce competition and low profit 
     margins mean lots of external capital needs to be raised: 
     about $10 billion so far this year. Because the airplanes can 
     be deployed anywhere in the world, have long useful lives and 
     a long history of holding their value, the vast proportion of 
     the capital raised is in the form of long-term debt secured 
     by these aircraft. This form of financing keeps annual 
     ownership costs low and has generally been available in large 
     amounts in virtually all operating environments, allowing 
     airlines to fulfill purchase commitments even when business 
     is bad. It also means that the airlines have accumulated 
     enormous debt service and lease payment burdens which will 
     not diminish soon.
       We, in our industry, are eager to get back to the business 
     of financing this industry, as we are eager to get back to 
     business generally. It is our livelihood. The rebuilding of 
     this industry will generate terrific investment opportunities 
     which will attract the capital necessary to fund the future 
     of this industry and eventually supplant the aid you are 
     considering.
       The fact that these investments will be risky does not 
     necessarily diminish their appeal. The assessment of risk and 
     speculation about an uncertain future are at the core of the 
     investing process. There are, however, some types of risks 
     that financial markets find hard to deal with which the 
     current situation contains, and act as barriers to restarting 
     the investing process.
       For example, the more stringent security procedures which 
     are essential to attracting passengers back to the airlines 
     will be costly and disruptive, but we don't know how much 
     because we don't understand them yet nor do we know who will 
     bear the costs. Clarity on the ``rules of the game'' will be 
     essential for the investment community to begin to assess 
     rationally the future of the industry and its various 
     participants. Until the rules are clear, investors will put 
     their brains to work elsewhere. Since this issue also affects 
     the likely size of the fleet for the foreseeable future, it 
     makes the value of aircraft the bedrock collateral for much 
     of the industry's financing, also hard to determine.
       Second, investors are conditioned to assessing management 
     turnaround plans and placing their bets, but liquidity 
     concerns will make analysis again difficult. ``Shrinking to 
     profitability'' is a new concept in the airline industry. 
     Given the rigidity of airline cost structures in both capital 
     and labor, it will take a long time, years for a turnaround 
     to take place. No airline has anything like the resources 
     necessary to fund this turnaround and investors in the 
     current poor general investment climate are not likely to bet 
     on a company's ability to raise money in the future to fund 
     its plan. Therefore another, necessary condition to getting 
     private capital moving back into this industry is to give the 
     airlines access to sufficient liquidity to fund a turnaround, 
     so that investors can focus on the business risks they 
     understand.
       It is in the nature of these support arrangements that, if 
     the process goes as intended, much of this support will not 
     be used because it will act as a catalyst for private capital 
     to flow to the industry and take back from the government the 
     role of financing the industry.
       Third, new kinds of liability issues have arisen because of 
     the catastrophe itself and the state of war resulting from 
     it. The industry's insurance arrangements are not adequate to 
     deal with this situation, and the war risk is effectively 
     uninsurable at present. This has the potential to paralyze 
     the industry as investors and creditors are faced with the 
     potential of catastrophic loss. This is an impossible 
     situation for investors to grapple with.
       Clarity, liquidity, liability. Address these issues and 
     we're in business.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will start on page 3:

       First, the cash losses suffered while the industry was 
     grounded and as it rebuilds this week are weakening an 
     industry already made vulnerable by a weakened economy.

  This measure is not going to save a couple of airlines, in this 
Senator's opinion.
  Continuing:

       Second, the reduction in demand caused by the loss of 
     passenger confidence impact on travel times caused by the 
     security guidelines necessary to restore that confidence, 
     coupled with the increased operating costs and lower fleet 
     utilization that those same safety guidelines are likely to 
     require, means that the profit model for the industry will 
     change, perhaps permanently. For the first time ever an 
     industry conditioned to growth will have to find a way to 
     shrink to profitability. It will take a lot of Yankee 
     ingenuity to find that path, and many will not succeed.
       Third, the catastrophe last week and our government's 
     response to it have served to raise the perceived potential 
     liabilities of operating an airline while simultaneously 
     reducing the availability of insurance for that risk. This 
     means that airline shareholders, creditors, and potentially 
     even the officers and directors of these carriers are being 
     asked to bear the risk of potentially catastrophic losses; an 
     unprecedented and highly disruptive situation.
       Finance, the industry I participate in, has always had a 
     big role to play in this industry because its persistent 
     growth, capital intensity, fierce competition and low profit 
     margins mean lots of external capital needs to be raised: 
     About $10 billion so far this year. Because the airplanes can 
     be deployed anywhere in the world, have long useful lives and 
     a long history of holding their value, the vast proportion of 
     the capital raised is in the form of long-term debt secured 
     by these aircraft.

  Madam President, jumping forward:

       Second, investors are conditioned to assessing management 
     turnaround plans and placing their bets, but liquidity 
     concerns will make analysis again difficult. ``Shrinking to 
     profitability'' is a new concept in the airline industry. 
     Given the rigidity of airline cost structures in both capital 
     and labor, it will take a long time, years, for a turnaround 
     to take place. No airline has anything like the resources 
     necessary to fund this turnaround.

  Madam President, we are going to do our best at the Washington level 
to re-instill confidence in airlines, their operation, and, more 
particularly, the airline traveling public. We have been watching it 
day by day, and incrementally we have to address the insurance problem, 
we have to address the warrant problem with respect to payments to 
dividend.
  I am not worried about the pay of the airline executives right now; I 
am worried about more substantial things for the moment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Could I ask for 10 seconds? I ask unanimous consent, 
following the Senator from Illinois, I be allowed to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are you propounding a unanimous consent 
request?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes, that after the Senator from Illinois, I be 
allowed to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Senate Commerce Committee for his leadership on this issue over a 
number of years. It has been almost 10 years that the Senate in 
committee has been advocating at many levels the notion of the 
federalizing of airport security. I guess it is part of the nature of 
all Members not to mention just the nature of our politics, that 
sometimes things of good common sense don't happen for inertia, for 
indifference, for other interests that weigh in, until there is a 
tragedy such as we experienced a week ago.
  The Senator from South Carolina has talked for a moment about the 
issue of the finances of our airlines. I emphasize that we obviously 
need to do something and do it fast. But that something has to be 
smart. That something has to recognize the distinction between the 
airline industry that existed on September 10 and the airline industry 
that was impacted on September 11 and what happens as a consequence 
there of. It is clear that prior to September 11, the airline industry 
was already experiencing a significant downturn in passengers and 
ridership because of the state of the economy. That has now been 
exacerbated a hundredfold.
  I say to my fellow Americans today as forcefully as I can, there is 
no reason not to fly in an airplane in the continental United States or 
to fly out of the United States in today's system. There really isn't. 
That system is safer than the air system has been in years. The 
scrutiny level already in our airports today is significantly higher 
than it has ever been. The level of safety today as a result of the 
redundancy of checks and the level of concern by air marshals and State 
police, local police, and others is raised to the highest level it has 
ever been in our country. It is safe to fly in aircraft in the United 
States today. It may be that some people in this country would deem 
most of those in Washington expendable anyway, but if it is any 
consolation, Senators, Congressmen, and others are flying those planes 
now, and the American public should not hesitate to do so.
  Here is also a truth, a reality. We can do things that create almost 
a fail-safe capacity, that raise the scrutiny level

[[Page S9583]]

often further in order to establish an even greater level of confidence 
notwithstanding that what we are doing today is the greatest level of 
scrutiny we have ever had. That is what brings the Senator from South 
Carolina, Mr. Hollings, Mr. McCain, myself, and others to the floor 
today to introduce an airport security bill that will, in fact, raise 
the level to the point where there is no excuse for anybody having any 
fear or any sense of dread about flying.
  How do we do that? Let me remind people that what happened last 
Tuesday was not high technology, nor was it even force at the end of a 
gun barrel or a bomb that had somehow gone through and evaded security. 
In fact, everything that was used as a weapon was used within the 
permissiveness of the system as it existed then. It wasn't as if 
somebody walked through security and had a weapon that wasn't detected. 
What these terrorists evidently did was use terror in a low-tech way as 
effectively and as deviously, as hideously, as any of us could ever 
have imagined; using a box cutter, using a minimalist kind of weapon, 
they managed to terrorize flight attendants and terrorize passengers 
who, up until that point in time, had an understanding of hijacking 
that you sort of behave. You try not to unsettle the hijackers. In 
fact, the tapes that were used by the flight attendants were 1970 
tapes, a 1-hour tape that taught them to try to calm the hijackers and 
perhaps persuade them to seek political asylum, or at least not to harm 
the passengers while they took them to Cuba or took them to some other 
country.

  What we learned on September 11 was that now there is a completely 
different strategy that we now know people are willing to employ. 
Someone is willing to commit suicide and try to take over an airplane 
and use it as a weapon.
  The task now is to make certain that no one can again use an airplane 
as a weapon. I again point out that, in an act of absolutely 
extraordinary heroism, three American citizens who were informed of the 
change in tactic, who were told by loved ones on the ground that the 
planes prior to them had been used as weapons, understood the new 
equation. They understood that they were faced with the potential of 
imminent death and, if that was true, they were going to take matters 
into their own hands.
  I think that forever changes the equation with respect to the 
potential of an aircraft again being used as a directable weapon by 
someone moving into the cockpit, taking over and actually flying the 
aircraft, using it as an instrument with specific targeting.
  It may well be that through some extraordinary lapse, even after all 
the security measures, although it is hard to imagine how that might be 
if we do our jobs properly, someone might be able to terrorize 
passengers. But they could walk into any restaurant anytime, anywhere 
and do that. They could walk into any mosque, any church, any 
synagogue--they could walk into any place where crowds gather and, if 
they were willing to die, tragically they would have the ability to 
wreak havoc and chaos and mayhem in the area of their choice.
  But we have the ability to do something to make it safe to fly, 
beyond any doubts whatsoever, beyond what I think is the extraordinary 
level of safety that exists today. One of the things that would give 
greater confidence to our fellow citizens is the awareness that all 
across this country there is a standardized, uniform system by which 
people are being screened as they come to an airport, not some 
individual company in Boston and a different company in New York and a 
different company in another city with different supervisors and no 
accountability across the board except to those particular airports and 
to some Federal standard which is not applied in a Federal way.
  It seems to me we could guarantee that safety. A lot of people in 
America are not aware of it, but the turnover rate of the current 
employment of those security operators is simply unacceptable: in some 
places 100-percent turnover, 200-percent, 300-percent turnover within 
the span of a year. And that is even among supervisors.
  If we federalize the process we not only have the opportunity to hire 
people at a decent wage, to guarantee the continuity, to guarantee the 
level of supervision, but we also will have an ability to do one of the 
most critical things now. We recognize that airport security is also a 
matter of national security. If it is a matter of national security, 
then those airport personnel have to work within a system that has the 
ability to share information that comes from law 
enforcement, information that comes from national security--the CIA, 
NSA, FBI, Defense Department.

  If someone is on a watch list or if someone is a frequent flier with 
patterns that raise suspicion because of those prior trips and 
travels--which, incidentally, do show up in your passport check when 
you come through INS, and you can begin to make those determinations 
but there is no such similar kind of cross-tabulation or verification 
in the processing of passengers' manifests and flights--in a virtual 
world where we have computers at our fingertips with instantaneous 
communication of the Internet, shame on us for not having a system that 
has that kind of cross-pollination between our law enforcement agencies 
and security agencies across the Nation.
  This is now a matter of law enforcement and national security. The 
only way to raise the airport security issue to that level is to 
federalize the process.
  We are here to talk about how we are going to bail out or help the 
airlines. The airlines pay $1 billion a year for their security costs. 
So if the Federal Government indeed takes over those security costs, we 
are automatically reducing the burden of $1 billion a year or more, 
under increased status, from the airlines. Given that the airlines are 
working, hopefully, for profit and this affects the profit line, and 
therefore affects the kind of bids and expenses they are willing to put 
out in it, we should guarantee to Americans that security at our 
airports is not going to be subject to the bottom line of an industry 
that is already in difficulties. It is going to be subject only to the 
judgment of our public officials about what offers the greatest level 
of security.
  In the legislation that Chairman Hollings and Ranking Member McCain 
and I and others on the committee are offering today, we are suggesting 
the establishment of a Deputy Administrator at the FAA for airport 
security. We establish an Aviation Security Council with the FAA, the 
Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the CIA, to 
coordinate national security intelligence and aviation security 
information and make recommendations.
  We require the strengthening of cockpit doors and locks with limited 
access to the cockpit so every passenger who boards an aircraft will 
know that unless it is at the choice of the pilots, no person will 
enter that cockpit from the time they leave the gate until the time 
they arrive at their destination.
  We increase the number of Federal air marshals so people will know 
that while riding an aircraft, particularly those with the greatest 
potential of diversion, they would be protected by the use of Federal 
air marshals riding in the air with them.
  We federalize the overall airport security operations, providing 
improved training and testing for screening personnel.
  We improve the screening procedures for passengers, checking 
passengers' names against a coordinated list comprised of criminal, 
national security, intelligence, and INS information. I might add, the 
INS component is a critical component in the context of security.
  We will provide new and modern hijack training for flight crews based 
on what we now understand to be the threat. We perform background 
checks on students at flight schools. We increase perimeter security at 
airports and air traffic facilities, and we authorize the funds to 
carry out these initiatives.
  Let me echo what has been said here previously. We can pass a bill 
that provides funding for the airlines through these next weeks. But we 
need the passengers of this country to come back to those airlines. I 
reiterate, I am convinced--I know the Senator from Florida is; he has 
flown commercially in the last days, as have others--this airline 
system is safe to fly today. But to whatever degree our fellow citizens 
doubt that, we need to guarantee they

[[Page S9584]]

will come back to those airports to ride the aircraft that we empower 
to fly.
  Nothing is more important to revitalize the car rental industry, the 
restaurants, the hotels, the entertainment industry, the travel 
industry--all those ancillary spinoff industries that depend on people 
flying the aircraft of our various entities in this country.
  I believe this legislation, while we will not vote on it today, is 
imperative to move on as rapidly as the legislation that we are moving 
on today with the hopes that we will be able to guarantee to every one 
of our citizens the full assurance of every level of safety that they 
expect. I hope we will do that as rapidly as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Illinois is to be recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I would like to 
ask if the Senator from Illinois would allow me to speak for 5 minutes 
on the aviation security bill on which I am a cosponsor with Senators 
Hollings, Kerry, and McCain, if the Senator from Minnesota will agree.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to follow the 
Senator from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota.
  I rise to speak on behalf of the aviation security bill that has been 
introduced by the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Mr. 
Hollings; Senator McCain, the distinguished ranking Member of the 
Commerce Committee, the Senator from Massachusetts, and myself. This is 
very much a part of the overall program that we are putting forward.
  The bill we will probably vote on today is the finance part of the 
package. I think most Americans agree we cannot allow our aviation 
industry to fall. So we are going to pass, I hope very shortly, a 
measure that will help our airlines get over the hump until the people 
have the security to come back and fly.
  The aviation security bill that we are introducing today, that I hope 
we will be able to pass early next week or the following week, is very 
much a part of airlines getting back to normal. I think the flying 
public wants to come back. Aviation is an important part of our economy 
and our way of life and our commerce.
  The way we are going to draw them back is to have the security in 
place so they know they will be safe when they get to the airport and 
board an airplane. But in the interim, until we are able to put all of 
these things in place, we need the financial aid package that is before 
us today.
  I am very pleased that under the chairmanship of Senator Hollings we 
had a hearing yesterday to talk about the security need. We talked to 
the Secretary of Transportation. We talked to the FAA Administrator. We 
talked to pilots and people who know what needs to be done to close the 
vulnerabilities that we saw on September 11. In fact, the bill that 
is being introduced today, of which I am a cosponsor, has many of the 
items I have proposed in the past and certainly think we must pass 
today. We must have sky marshals in the air. In fact, I applaud the 
Attorney General for putting sky marshals on many of our flights around 
the country. They are in plain clothes. Most people would not know they 
are on a flight. But we do indeed have armed sky marshals on many of 
the flights that are in the air as we speak. But we want to make them 
permanent. We want to make sure we have sky marshals on virtually every 
flight, and possibly every flight later down the road.

  We need to assure the passengers that there is a certified peace 
officer onboard who is trained to do what is necessary to deal with the 
crime that is committed in the air.
  The second major provision in this bill that I think we must do is 
upgrade the screening. We will upgrade the equipment, and we will 
upgrade personnel education and training. We all know the screeners 
have been hired by contractors. They have high turnover rates. They do 
not have the experience that we would expect in screening. We have seen 
pictures of things that have gone through the screens and gotten onto 
an airplane that are just not appropriate. We want to stop that from 
happening.
  That is why upgrading the screeners is important. I think they should 
be a part of a Federal system of security.
  We are going to put some kind of barrier between the pilots and the 
rest of the airplane so that someone would not be able to penetrate a 
cockpit, as so sadly happened on September 11. We will have a Deputy 
FAA Administrator in charge of aviation security so that we will have 
one person in charge of all of aviation security.
  It is my hope that we would start with entry-level screeners, and 
that it would be a career path for the aviation security department 
which would include graduating to become a sky marshal, staying in the 
system with a career in the system so we could have more trained and 
experienced people.
  Those are some of the important points that are in this bill. I know 
some people disagree with certain parts of this bill. But it is a great 
start. It is an important start for rehabilitating our airline 
industry.
  If we have the security, people will fly. People love to fly. We had 
600 million people fly last year. We can build back to that number if 
we have the security for passengers. The convenience will be there. It 
is going to take a little longer going through the airport, but I think 
people are willing to wait a little longer and go earlier in order to 
feel safe. The flying public will come back.
  I support this bill. I will continue to work on it with the chairman. 
But mainly I want the people of America to know we are addressing 
security in the air and we will do something very shortly, as we are 
also trying to shore up our airlines. We will not let our 
transportation system fail. If we do, the terrorists will have won. The 
terrorists are not going to beat the United States of America.
  Thank you, Mr. President.

                          ____________________