[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 131 (Wednesday, October 3, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10128-S10140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                AVIATION SECURITY ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to the consideration of 
S. 1447 and send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 166, S. 1447, a bill to improve 
     aviation security:
         Blanche Lincoln, Harry Reid, Ron Wyden, Ernest Hollings, 
           Herb Kohl, Jeff Bingaman, Jack Reed, Hillary Clinton, 
           Patrick Leahy, Joseph Lieberman, Jean Carnahan, Debbie 
           Stabenow, Byron Dorgan, John Kerry, Thomas Carper, Russ 
           Feingold.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me go right to the heart of airport 
security. I had the most unique experience earlier today with El Al 
officials who came to the Committee on Commerce and reviewed in detail 
their security provisions for Israel's airline. They have not had a 
hijacking in the last 20 to 25 years.
  I do not want to necessarily single them out other than to say that 
the officials present included, the regional director for the North 
America and Central America Israeli Security Agency and the head of the 
Israeli Security Agency of the Aviation Department. We also had the 
chief of security for El Al Airlines, and the top captain of El Al 
Airlines visit with us.
  The four gentlemen went through in detail the Israeli airport 
security program. It was an eye opener for me. I have been working on 
this issue since the eighties when Pan Am Flight 103 went down over 
Lockerbie, Scotland. I was insisting then that we have federalization 
of security at our airports and on our airplanes. I was in the 
minority.
  With respect to TWA Flight 800, in 1996 it was the same, and we had 
bill upon bill and measure upon measure and study upon study, more 
training, more this, more that, a particular officer in charge, the 
Vice President Gore study. None of this made a difference. Of course, 
the hijackers still flew the planes into buildings in America and 
killed 6,000 people.
  I borrowed this diagram from the Israeli delegation. This particular 
diagram is entitled ``Onion Rings Security Structure.'' The security in 
Israel and El Al Airlines brings into sharp focus that security is not 
a partial operation. Security is not part private contract and part 
governmental. As has been said for years, the primary function of the 
State government--and a former

[[Page S10129]]

distinguished Governor is occupying the Chair--is public education, and 
the primary function of the National Government is national defense. We 
have gone now from, in a sense, international defense to national 
defense, homeland security. That is our primary function.

  There is no difference in safety and security. We would not think for 
a second of privatizing the air traffic controllers. I agreed with 
President Reagan. He said: You are not striking; you are staying on the 
job. We are going to have, in a sense, security and safe flights.
  This diagram starts with the outer rim of intelligence. The second 
rim is in the airport. The third rim is the check-in area. The fourth 
rim is the departure gate. The fifth ring is cargo, and the next two 
rings are the airport area and the aircraft itself.
  They Israeli officials were asked: How about somebody who vacuum 
cleans the aircraft aisles and in between the seats? They have 100-
percent security checks. Point: There is no such thing as a low-skilled 
job in security. As a matter of fact, they periodically rotate security 
officers to different postings. They found out, like we found out with 
the Capitol Police that rotations make a difference in the 
effectiveness of our security personnel. We do not have the Capitol 
Police sit in the same spot from early morning until their 8 hours are 
up just looking at the screen as the tourists come into the Nation's 
Capitol. The officer does that for about 4 hours, and then they swap 
him off to another post.
  The Israeli security officials keep their airport personnel alert, 
they keep them well paid, they keep them well trained, and they keep 
them well tested.
  The El Al folks were telling me that they make 150 annual security 
checks at Israel's airports. They try to sneak vicious items through 
security like a knife or a metallic object resembling a bomb. Of 
course, it is not a real bomb. The airports are not given a check in 
January and then they wait until the next January to check again. They 
have intermittent checks throughout the entire year.
  By way of emphasis, in that check-in area they confer with 
intelligence. Intelligence confers with them. Intelligence will tell 
them, for example, if you have ever been down to Tijuana, they have 
certain entities down in Mexico that can really plagiarize, copy, an 
immigration pass. They know when they come from certain areas what 
passes to look at. In fact, they have them on a board there because I 
have been down there and checked with the Immigration Service, in a 
similar fashion.
  Intelligence can say: Wait a minute, if they come from this area, we 
found out now they have counterfeit measures over there and they are 
almost perfect and here is what we have to look for, and everything 
else of that kind. So that is why they take them into a side room, give 
them a separate check, fingerprint and everything else they have, take 
a picture.
  You have absolute security and therefore absolute trust in the 
flights on El Al.
  You cannot have anything other than that for the U.S. travelers. 
Specifically, we cannot have the Capitol policemen, who give us 
security, be private contractors, nor can the Secret Service that gives 
the President security be private contractors. To put it another way, I 
am not going to agree to any kind of contract or partial contract or 
partial supervision over airline security and airport security until 
they privatize the Secret Service or the Capitol Police, or excuse me, 
the 33,000 that we have in Immigration and Border Patrol. They are all 
civil servants. Nobody says privatize the civilian workers, 666,000 
civilian civil service workers in the Department of Defense.
  I am told that the OMB called over there earlier this year and said 
we want to start contracting. There is a fetish about contracting out 
and privatizing and downsizing. That helps us get elected. I am going 
to get elected. I am going to Washington. I am going to downsize the 
Government. Just like private industry has proven its profitability in 
downsizing, so I am for downsizing. Those political ideologies have to 
be dispensed with. As the President has to get a coalition of foreign 
countries, he has to get a coalition of political interests in-country, 
get us on the right road for the war against terrorism.
  They wanted to privatize over at the Defense Department and they 
said: You are not privatizing anything over here. We are engaged in 
security.
  They cannot be made contract employees. They come in, they are 
incidental to all the information and goings on, and everything else 
like that. We have to have total security checks, audit them from time 
to time and everything else. That is the same thing with the airports.
  We have made a provision for the smaller airports. They are going to 
have to have the same kind of security, but they can be hired. There is 
flexibility given in this particular bill. With that flexibility, we 
know we can work this out right across the hall when we meet 
momentarily with the Department of Transportation.
  Incidentally, the Deputy Secretary of Transportation in charge of 
security will not only have this particular security for airlines and 
airports but for rail transportation, the tunnels, the stations, and 
for the seaports. That is the way it is in Israel. The Israeli Security 
Agency intermittently changes around and does different tasks, and 
everything else like that. So they keep them alert. They keep them well 
paid, and there is none of this 400-percent turnover like we have down 
at Hartsfield Airport in Atlanta, the busiest airport in the world. 
There is a 400-percent turnover in security personnel down there. It is 
between $5.50 and $7.25, the minimum wage. So that has to stop.

  We have to have, as has been provided in this particular bill, the 
marshals. We expand the marshals group, I can say that. I have talked 
about the airport and the interims, and everything else of that kind.
  There was one question I asked when I first met with El Al security. 
I said: Do any of you all contract? They were just amazed.
  They asked: What does he mean by contract?
  I said: Private employment or whatever it is.
  You would not let controllers quit on you. You cannot let the 
security people strike on you. They are like the FBI. Do you think we 
can have the FBI strike or the Senators go on strike?
  I have 4 more years. Should I sit down and strike? You cannot have a 
strike of your public employees. That has been cleared in Israel, and 
everything else of that kind.
  The second question I asked, I said it seemed to me once you secured 
the cockpit, separated it from the cabin and the passengers, once you 
secured that cockpit and they are never permitted to open that door in 
flight, then what you really have is the end of hijacking because you 
get a better opportunity of killing a greater number of people or 
taking them off or something or beating on them and everything else of 
that kind, you cannot take the plane.
  The rule of the game was otherwise. Heretofore, until September 11, 
the rule of the game was for the pilots to say: You want to go to 
Havana, Cuba? I wanted to go there, too. Let us all fly to Havana. And 
you ask the other hijacker: You want to go to Rio? As soon as we land 
in Cuba and get some fuel, we will go to Rio. They will go anywhere 
they want to accommodate the hijacker and get the plane on the ground 
at whatever place he wants to go and let law enforcement take over.
  It is totally changed. We have the marshals. That door is never 
opened. The El Al executive told me--actually, it was the pilot I was 
talking to--he said, if my wife was being assaulted in that cabin in 
the passenger's section, I do not open the door. I land it and let the 
security take over, the FBI or the local security or wherever it is.
  So that is the end of the opportunity to take over and take a plane 
wherever you want it to go. We have not just relied on that, of course. 
We have the marshals.
  I said about these hijackers, suppose they grab the stewardess and 
say: Identify who the marshal is. They said the marshal is trained as 
soon as he sees that happening, he takes the hijacker out. He does not 
wait around. He is watching. He is trained. He is skilled and they do 
not dilly around, and everything else of that kind.
  Instead, even in a disaster of that kind, they still cannot get into 
the

[[Page S10130]]

cabin and hijack the plane. Of course, they know immediately. They have 
communications and signals. They know immediately in the cockpit that 
is what is going on and they land the plane.
  I could go on and on. I think what everyone should know is this 
overwhelming bipartisan majority is ready to pass this bill no later 
than tomorrow night sometime. We are not having votes on Friday so we 
cannot get votes on cloture Friday. We are not having votes on Monday, 
so you cannot get cloture. You have to wait until Tuesday morning. It 
will be a public embarrassment that we worked patiently with the 
leadership, and I have commended them both. They have worked around the 
clock to try to get us together on what we could get together on rather 
than bringing in all of these amendments. We do not want to send over a 
bill with all kinds of amendments and then go into a long conference if 
we can clear, generally speaking, a barebones bill for security so that 
we can get the flying public back on the planes.
  If we can do that by late tomorrow night, working with the White 
House and the House leadership who is also in this particular meeting, 
then more power to us. Otherwise, shame on us if we cannot do that. We 
are behind schedule.
  I tried my best to get this particular security measure up before the 
money bill came up. Everybody was saying we could not put any 
amendments, we could not even consider security along with the money. 
We had to wait, although we had a unanimous consent. We did not have 
that particular consideration.
  I thank the distinguished Chair. I thank the leadership for their 
diligence in trying to work this out so we can proceed to it. There is 
no question that we can get cloture.
  If we could forgo the cloture motion and agree that nongermane 
amendments are not allowed, just germane amendments on the bill, we 
could consider them, vote them, we would be here late this evening and 
late tomorrow might and get it done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I compliment the chairman and ranking 
member of the Commerce Committee for work on airline safety. I know my 
friend from South Carolina feels strongly about port safety and rail 
safety as well.
  However, I say to my colleague, who happens to be presiding today and 
was a former board member of Amtrak, I am, as the saying goes, tired of 
getting stiffed around here. I have been a Senator for 28\1/2\ years. I 
have tried over that 28\1/2\ years to put Amtrak in a position where it 
can run safely, securely, and efficiently. I have gotten promise after 
promise after promise of support and cooperation, and always 
procedurally I end up being in a position where Amtrak gets left out.
  Let's talk about security for a moment. The Senator from Delaware and 
I don't have a major airport; we have a large airport but no major 
commercial airport in our State. We fly commercially in and out of 
Philadelphia or Baltimore, sometimes. We know how important air safety 
is. We know how important to our economy it is. I note, by the way, 
with all the difficulty, understandably, of the airlines--there is 
apprehension on behalf of the American people to get on an airplane, 
with the necessary cancellations of flights because they don't have 
enough people flying--there has been standing room only on Amtrak 
trains, we are putting more and more trains in the northeast corridor, 
and there is standing room only on most of them.
  I ask my friends, parenthetically, what would have happened to our 
economic system if, in fact, we had had no rail passenger service since 
September 11? You think you have a problem now? You ``ain't'' seen 
nothing yet.
  I, along with my colleague from Delaware, and others, went to Amtrak 
and asked: Have you reviewed your safety needs? They said: Yes, we 
have. I said: Put together a package for us that lays out in some 
detail the concerns you have relative to safety, security, and 
terrorism.
  I note parenthetically, I served on the Intelligence Committee for 10 
years. I have been chairman of the Judiciary Committee for the better 
part of a decade. I have been on a terrorism committee or subcommittee 
since I arrived in the Senate in the 1970s. I will say something 
presumptuous: No one here knows more about terrorism than I do. I don't 
know it all, but I have worked my entire career trying to understand 
the dilemma. I now chair the Foreign Relations Committee. I made a 
speech literally the day before this happened at the National Press 
Club, saying our greatest priority was dealing with terrorism, and laid 
out in detail what might happen. I am not the only one.
  I will make an outrageous statement: My bona fides in knowing as much 
about what terrorists are doing, are likely to do, and being informed 
are equal to anyone's on this floor, or who has ever served in the 
Senate, or who is now serving. I may not know more, but I don't know 
anybody who knows more than I do. I am saying what will happen next is 
not going to be another airliner into a building. It will be an Amtrak 
train. It will be in the Baltimore Tunnel which was built before the 
Civil War.
  Do you realize--my colleague knows this--if you have a Metroliner and 
an ``Am fleet'' in that tunnel at one time, you have more people in 
there than in five packed 747s? Guess what. There is no ventilation in 
there. None. There is no lighting. There are no fire hoses. I can go on 
and on and on. In New York City, the Amtrak Penn Station, do you know 
how many people go through those tunnels, which also have no 
ventilation, that are underground, and have little or no security? 
Three hundred and fifty thousand people a day--three hundred and fifty 
thousand people a day.
  As one of my colleagues said in an earlier meeting I had downstairs 
with those concerned about Amtrak, not the least of whom is my 
colleague presiding--he said what we are doing on airport security and 
airline security is acting after the horse is out of the barn. We are. 
And we have to. And we should. And I will. But God forbid the horse 
gets out of another barn.
  We have a chance now--now, not after there is some catastrophe on our 
passenger rail system--to do something. I remind my colleagues, the 
First Street tunnel in D.C. runs under the Supreme Court of the United 
States and runs under the Rayburn Building. It was built in 1910. There 
is only one way out: Walk out. No ventilation. Not sufficient lighting, 
signals, security.
  I said in that Press Club speech the day before the airline crashed 
into the trade towers and brought them down, it is much more likely 
someone will walk into a subway with a vial of sarin gas than someone 
sending an ICBM our way. I will repeat that: It is much more likely. Do 
you think these guys are stupid? Obviously, they are not stupid. They 
figured out if they added enough jet fuel to two of the most 
magnificent buildings man ever created, they could create enough heat 
to melt the beams and crush the building. Do you think these same folks 
have not sat down and figured out our vulnerabilities?
  Everybody is worried about our water system, a legitimate thing to 
worry about. We can monitor the water system before it gets to your 
tap. What do you monitor in tunnels, 6 of them, that have 350,000 
people a day going through them, in little cars, with no way to get 
out, underground?
  My heart bleeds for my friends who tell me to be concerned about 
their airports. I am concerned about them. When are people going to be 
concerned? We have 500 people, as my colleagues knows, on an Am-fleet 
train. I think that is about two 757s. I don't know that for a fact. 
That is one train.
  A lot of our colleagues rode up to New York City on Amtrak, because 
they couldn't fly, to observe the devastation. I hope they observed, 
while sitting in the tunnel, that in one case, over 141 years old, 
there was more than one train in that tunnel. Two of these tunnels run 
under the Baltimore harbor.
  So last night our staffs got together. By the way, all those 
concerned about Amtrak safety are equally concerned about airline 
safety, and, I might add, port safety. Do you know how many cargo 
containers come into the port of Philadelphia or even the little port 
of Wilmington? Probably the only man who knows that is my colleague 
presiding, the former Governor.

[[Page S10131]]

  My Lord. So we sat down last night. We thought we had a reasonable 
discussion, all those parties interested. We got a commitment. OK, we 
will bring up port safety and Amtrak safety measures and we will 
guarantee, to use the Senate jargon, a vehicle. In other words, we will 
vote for it on something we know is not going to get killed, like they 
kill everything else that has to do with Amtrak.

  So I said OK, I will not introduce this amendment on the airline 
bill. I will not do it.
  By the way, I want to make it clear I got full support from the 
chairman of the committee. He supports our effort.
  So I came in this morning, about to go out, take my committee down to 
meet with the Secretary of State for a 2-hour lunch to go over these 
terrorist issues--not about Amtrak but about Afghanistan and the 
surrounding area--and as I am leaving I find out through my staff 
member who handles this issue: Guess what. We really have no deal.
  So I call the leadership. The leadership says: Joe, we can't 
guarantee you can get this up.
  Now I gather up the Members of the Senate who have a great concern 
about the safety issues relating to Amtrak and some say: Joe, will you 
dare hold up the airline bill? Would you dare do that?
  My response is: Would they dare not to take on our amendment? Would 
they dare not take on our amendment, after being told--which I will be 
telling my colleagues about for the next several hours, although I am 
not going to speak that long now, I say to my friend from Missouri, so 
he can speak--would they dare take the chance of not helping us? Will 
they dare? Will my colleagues dare to take the chance that they are 
going to let another horse out of the barn this time? Will they dare?
  This is serious business. This is business as serious as I have ever 
been engaged in as a U.S. Senator. If I act as if I am angry, it is 
because I am. Not only angry, I am really disappointed. I would have 
thought in this moment when we are embracing each other in the sense 
that we are helping each of our regions deal with their serious 
problems--I was so, so, so overjoyed; having been here for the bailout 
of New York City in the 1970s, I was so gratified to see my friends 
from the South and the Midwest and the Northwest come to New York's aid 
instantaneously. I said, my God, this is really a change. It is really 
a change in attitude because America has been struck.
  We come to the floor with an amendment that does two things: One, 
provides for more police, more lighting, more fencing, more cameras, et 
cetera, and provides for us to take equipment out of storage and 
refurbish it so we can handle all those passengers who are not flying, 
and what is the response? Either ``No'' or ``Another day, Senator.'' I 
have had it up to here with another day.
  As I said, and I will have a lot more to say about this in the next 
couple of days, there are six tunnels in New York, 350,000 people per 
day locked inside a steel case called a car, going through those 
tunnels. Those tunnels have insufficient lighting. They were built 
decades ago. They do not have the proper signaling for emergencies. 
They do not have the proper ventilation. They do not have the proper 
safety in terms of guards.
  You are talking about air marshals on an airplane with as few as 50 
people on it. I am for that. And you are telling me you are not going 
to give me the equivalent of an air marshal at either end of a tunnel 
that has 350,000 people a day go through it? Where is your shame?
  The Baltimore tunnel was built in 1870, just after--I said ``before'' 
and I misspoke--just after the Civil War. By the way, you would not be 
able to build these tunnels today. I want to make sure that is clear to 
everybody. Under EPA construction standards, you could not build these 
tunnels. They would not allow it to be done just for normal safety 
reasons.

  I have been crying about this for the last 15 years, about just 
normal safety problems--not terrorists, just a fire in the tunnel as 
you had in Baltimore.
  All of you who live, love, and work in Washington, there is a tunnel 
that Amtrak trains, MARC trains and other trains come through in DC. It 
is called the First Street tunnel in DC. It was built in 1910. All you 
need is one Amfleet train in there and one Metroliner in there--and 
there are more than two at a time--and you have over 800 people locked 
in a steel canister in a tunnel that was built in 1910, that sits 
directly underneath the Supreme Court of the United States of America 
and the Rayburn Building.
  I am not suggesting I know his position, but I suspect his reaction 
if I told my friend from Missouri, St. Louis: Guess what. I am not 
going to spend Delaware money making sure there are guards or added 
security at the St. Louis Airport. I am not going to do it. You are on 
your own, Sucker. I am not going to do that. I am not going to beef up 
security.
  We can get on an Amtrak train with a bomb. No one checks. There are 
no detectors to go through to get on a train. There are no security 
measures. We do not even have enough Amtrak police for the cars.
  If I said to my friends in St. Louis and Philadelphia and Seattle and 
Atlanta and Miami--we use the same standard for the airlines. Under 
ordinary circumstances, you might be able to say to me: Joe, it is too 
expensive. You just have to take your chances.
  We have the Attorney General saying to people that there is more to 
come. How many of my colleagues out here have said: ``It is not only if 
but when the next biological or chemical attack takes place''?
  If you are going to have a biological or chemical attack, in case you 
haven't figured it out, the more confined the space, the more 
devastating the damage.
  Like I said, I will come back to speak to this. What we are asking 
for is lighting, fencing, access controls for tunnels, bridges and 
other facilities, satellite communications on trains, remote engine 
turnoff, and hiring of police and security officers. That adds up to 
$515 million, and it doesn't even do it all. Tunnel safety, 
rehabilitating existing tunnels in Baltimore and Washington and 
completing the entire life safety system of New York tunnels, that is 
$998 million.
  The total security all by itself is $1.513 billion. That does not 
deal with the capacity on bridges and tracks to account for the 20 
percent increase in ridership because the airlines aren't moving, or 
the equipment capacity to be able to carry these people safely--just 
the safety of the cars themselves.
  I tell you what. We all stood up here and we bailed out the airlines 
and their executives the other day to the tune of--I forget the 
number--$15 billion, and we did it in a heartbeat or, as they say, in a 
New York minute. And we cannot even now come along and deal in this 
bill with the workers of the airlines. But that is another fight.
  Here we are with this simple, straightforward request. This isn't a 
1-year undertaking. This is a permanent investment.
  Unless all of you are so sure that there is no more terrorist 
activity underway, unless all of you are so sure that in case it is--by 
the way, we carry in the Northeast more passengers than every single 
plane that lands on the east coast in a day. Have you got that? This is 
not fair. This is not smart. It is not right to block our ability to 
have a guarantee that the Nation and the Congress speak on this issue.
  As I said, it is a little like preaching to the choir. I know my 
colleague from Delaware, as the old saying goes, has forgotten more 
about the details of Amtrak, having been a board member, than even I 
know, having used it for 28 years. But I sincerely hope there is a 
change of heart. I don't want to slow up the passing of the airplane 
safety bill. I just want the people of my State to know that the people 
of my region are going to be treated as fairly as everybody else. Give 
them a basic shot at security--just a basic shot at security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I thank you very much. I appreciate the 
kindness of my colleague from Delaware for yielding the floor.
  This subject is at the top of everyone's mind--the impact of 
terrorism and the threat of future terrorism. We are going to be 
talking about security and security in all forms of transportation.
  I want to mention the economic recovery that is absolutely essential 
because we know that terrorists cannot

[[Page S10132]]

win. Even though they committed a dastardly act and killed over 6,000 
people and destroyed major economic and military landmarks, they cannot 
win if they do not destroy our economy and cripple us psychologically.
  Today I introduced a measure to help in the economic recovery for the 
small businesses in the United States, a bill called the Small Business 
Leads to Economic Recovery Act of 2001. It is a comprehensive economic 
stimulus package for the Nation's small businesses and self-employed 
entrepreneurs.
  The Small Business Administration tells us that some 14,000 small 
businesses are in the disaster area in New York alone. They have been 
directly affected by this tragedy. But the economic impact doesn't stop 
with those businesses. For months, small enterprises and self-employed 
individuals have been struggling with the slowing economy. The 
dastardly terrorist attacks make their situation even more dire.
  As ranking member on the Small Business Committee, on a daily basis I 
hear pleas for help from small businesses in my State of Missouri and 
across the Nation. Small restaurants have lost much of their business 
because of a fall-off in business travel. Local flight schools have 
been grounded as a result of the response to the terrorist attacks. 
Main street retailers are struggling to survive.
  I think we should act and act soon. That is why I introduced this 
bill to increase access to capital, to provide tax relief and 
investment incentives, and to assure that when the Federal Government 
goes shopping for badly needed services, they will shop with small 
business in America.

  The SBA existing Disaster Loan Program was not designed to meet the 
extraordinary obstacles facing small businesses following the September 
11 attacks. It could be a year or more before they can reopen. Small 
businesses throughout the United States have shut down as a result of 
security concerns. General aviation aircraft remain grounded, closing 
flight schools and other small businesses depending on aircraft.
  My bill would allow these small businesses to defer for 2 years the 
repayment of principal and interest on these SBA disaster relief loans, 
and accrued interest will be forgiven. Many small businesses are 
experiencing serious economic problems because their businesses have 
been in a sharp decline since September 11. We need to help these 
businesses with cashflow or working capital so their businesses can 
return to normal.
  We would establish a special loan program for allowing small 
businesses to cope by lowering the interest to prime plus 1, with no 
upfront guarantee fee. The SBA will guarantee 95 percent of the loan.
  Banks would be able to defer principal payments up to 1 year.
  For general economic recovery, small businesses would benefit from an 
enhancement of the existing 7(a) Guaranteed Business Loan Program to 
make those loans more affordable.
  No guaranteed fees would be paid by small business. The SBA 
guarantees would be increased from 80 percent to 90 percent for loans 
up to $150,000 and from 75 percent to 85 percent for loans greater than 
$150,000.
  I will be cosponsoring with Senator Kerry, the chairman of the 
committee, a measure that will help deal with these key ingredients for 
assuring access to capital for small business.
  In addition, under the Debenture Small Business Investment Company 
Program, pension funds cannot invest in small business investment 
companies without incurring unrelated business taxable income.
  Most pension funds can't invest--eliminating 60 percent of private 
capital potential. My bill corrects this problem by excluding 
Government-guaranteed capital borrowed by debenture SBICs from debt for 
the Unrelated Business Tax Income rules.
  On small business tax relief, we would increase the amount of new 
equipment that small business could expense to $100,000 per year, 
allowing small businesses that do not qualify for expensing to 
depreciate computer equipment and software over 2 years.
  These will be significant enhancements to cashflow.
  We increase the depreciation limitation on business vehicles to ease 
cashflow problems for small businesses and help stimulate automotive 
industry recovery.
  We raise the deduction for business meals back up to 100 percent to 
get people to take lunches at restaurants which are struggling. The 
restaurant industry lost 60,000 jobs in September. We need to get 
restaurants back on their feet.
  We would repeal the alternative minimum tax on individuals and expand 
the AMT exemption for small corporations to leave more earnings in the 
pockets of small businesses to reinvest for long-term growth and job 
creation.
  These items will give a significant boost to small business, which 
has been and is the driving force in our economy.
  Finally, when the Federal Government goes out shopping, we want to 
make sure it shops with the small businesses in America. Currently the 
Brooks Act prohibits small business set-asides for architectural and 
engineering contracts above $85,000, a figure set in 1982. My bill 
would raise that ceiling to $300,000.
  The policy of the Federal Government that contracts valued at less 
than $100,000 be reserved for small businesses would be adopted for the 
General Services Administration. For contracts not on the Federal 
Supply Schedule, they would be reserved for and limited to small 
businesses registered with the SBA.
  My bill would remove the ceiling on sole-sourcing contracting under 
the HUBZone and 8(a) Programs to permit larger contracts to be awarded 
quickly to small businesses capable of providing postdisaster goods and 
services.
  These changes I think would help get small businesses' engines--the 
engine that drives our economy that will help lead us out of the 
economic stagnation we face as a result of these dastardly terrorist 
attacks.
  I invite my colleagues to join with me to contact my small business 
staff and let me know if they have questions. I urge them to join with 
me in sponsoring this badly needed stimulus package for small business.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is a bit disappointing that this 
afternoon we had to file a cloture motion in order for the Senate to 
consider a piece of legislation dealing with airport and airline 
security in this country.
  All Americans understand that on September 11, when hijackers 
hijacked four commercial airlines and used fully loaded 767s to run 
into buildings and kill thousands of Americans using those commercial 
airliners as guided missiles--bombs, with substantial amounts of fuel 
to kill thousands of innocent Americans--everyone understands that from 
that moment forward, when the airlines were shut down--all of them were 
grounded, and then, following that grounding, the airlines began to 
ramp back up and provide some additional passenger service once again--
that the American people are concerned, and have been concerned about 
safety.
  So the Congress began working on this question of, How do we prevent 
this from ever happening again? How do we promote and develop the 
safety and security that the American public wants with respect to air 
travel? How do we give the American people the confidence that getting 
on an airplane and using that commercial airliner for travel around the 
country is safe and secure for them?
  We do that in the following ways: The Congress writes a piece of 
legislation, as we have done in the Senate in

[[Page S10133]]

the Commerce Committee--and that piece of legislation deals with the 
range of security issues that the American people are concerned about--
and then you bring it to the floor of the Senate, you debate it, and 
have a vote on it. Regrettably, today we are not able to do that 
because we have people objecting to its consideration.
  But let me go through the elements of this legislation and explain 
how important it is. First of all, from the broader standpoint, it is 
critically important that a country such as ours, with an economy such 
as ours, have a system of commercial air travel that is vibrant and 
available to the American people, to move people and commerce around 
this country. A strong economy cannot exist in this country without a 
network of commercial air services that are available around the 
country. So we have to take steps very quickly to repair this and deal 
with the damage caused by the September 11 tragedies.
  Going into September 11, we had a very soft economy in this country. 
The leading economic indicators in America--our airlines, for example: 
When things begin to go soft, the first thing people cut back--both 
families and businesses--would be air travel. You do not take the trip 
you were going to take because the economy is softer. You do not know 
what the future is going to hold. Airlines are the first to be hurt in 
a soft economy. So going into September 11, we had all of our major 
carriers in this country hemorrhaging in red ink, showing very 
substantial losses.
  September 11 was a tragedy unlike any this country has ever seen. 
That tragedy occurred with the hijacking of commercial airliners. And, 
of course, all airlines were grounded in America immediately on that 
day. Each day thereafter, when those airlines were grounded, of course, 
the airlines continued to lose a massive quantity of money. No one, at 
all, criticized the grounding. That had to be done. But that industry 
suffered massive losses at a time when post-September 11 no airplanes 
were flying anywhere.
  When the airlines began flying again, with the permission of the FAA 
and the Department of Transportation, it appeared very quickly that 
people were not quickly coming back, or easily coming back, to use 
commercial air services. They were concerned. They were nervous. They 
wondered whether it was safe and secure.
  This Congress then believed it had a responsibility--and it does--to 
do the things necessary to say to the American people, we are taking 
steps to prevent this from happening again. What are those steps?
  My colleague, Senator Hollings, the chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, along with Senator McCain and Senator Kerry, Senator Boxer, 
myself, and many others, have proposed a piece of legislation that but 
for the objections would be on the floor of the Senate at this moment 
for debate, a piece of legislation that takes the steps necessary to 
give the American people confidence that this system of air travel is 
safe and secure.
  Here is what we do: We change the screening at airports, the baggage 
screening process at airports, change it in a very significant way. 
Federal standards: In the largest airports, Federal workers; in the 
smaller airports, law enforcement, repaid by the Federal Government; 
but Federal standards with respect to all baggage screening; law 
enforcement capabilities with Federal standards with respect to 
guarding the perimeter of airports; sky marshals that will be used 
extensively on airplane flights all across this country; the hardening 
of cockpits so potential skyjackers cannot get through the cockpit 
doors.

  All of these issues--screening, sky marshals, perimeter security, 
baggage screening security--all of these, and more, including an 
Assistant Secretary of Transportation, whose sole responsibility will 
be to make sure that we take the measures necessary to assure safety on 
America's commercial airline services, all of these are designed to say 
to the American people: You can have confidence in America's air 
service. What happened on September 11 is not going to happen again. 
These security measures are designed to prevent hijackings because they 
are designed to prevent hijackers from ever boarding an airplane again 
in this country.
  Those things are necessary to give the American people confidence 
about the safety and security of air travel. And it is necessary to do 
them not later, not 2 weeks from now, or a month from now, or next 
year--it is necessary to take this action now.
  This Senate ought to take action now on this issue of airport 
security. We ought not have to file cloture on a bill like this, not a 
bill that is so important to this country. A piece of legislation this 
important ought not have to have a cloture motion filed on it. This 
ought to be where the good will of both sides comes together to say: 
Let's do this. We know it needs to be done. We know it is important for 
America. Let's do it.
  It doesn't mean there aren't better ideas that can come to bear on 
this legislation. But we ought to have it on the floor and debate it, 
have people offer amendments, if they choose--if they can improve it 
with amendments, good for them--but it is very disappointing to me that 
cloture had to be filed on something this important and this timely.
  Let me say, on a couple of the issues people are concerned about--I 
understand some, perhaps, would object because they object to linking 
some sort of extended unemployment compensation to this legislation or 
they object to doing unemployment compensation or extended benefits for 
unemployed people, especially those who have been laid off by the 
airlines, and other related industries--they object to doing that at 
some time certain.
  Well, look, I supported the piece of legislation about 2 weeks ago 
that addressed the critical financial needs of the airlines themselves. 
But we cannot ignore those who have been laid off. It is only 
reasonable, in my judgment, that if we are going to help the companies, 
that we also ought to be responsible enough to help the people. The 
people make up those companies.
  When 120,000 of those people find their jobs are lost, we ought to be 
willing to say: We are willing to help you as well. Unemployment 
compensation and extended benefits is not radical, it is the right 
thing for this Congress to do.
  With respect to the other issue--that is Amtrak--I would say to those 
who support Amtrak, you do not support it more than I do. I really 
believe Amtrak is important to this country. Passenger rail service is 
something this country needs, and it has been ignored far too long.
  I do not agree with those in the Senate who say: It is awful that we 
have subsidized passenger rail service. Of course we have subsidized 
it, but we have subsidized every other form of commercial 
transportation service in this country as well. In fact, we have 
subsidized them more than we have subsidized Amtrak.

  I happen to think this country ought to be proud of commercial rail 
passenger service. We ought to invest in it. We ought to provide a 
security bill for it because there are real security issues, as 
evidenced by the comments just addressed to the Senate by my colleague 
from Delaware--real security issues. But even more than that, more than 
the security issues--or at least as important as the security issues--
we need to make the investment in Amtrak so that all across this 
country, and especially in the Eastern corridor, we have first-class 
rail service up and down that corridor that will allow us to take a 
substantial quantity--up to 30 or 40 percent--of those commuter flights 
off the Eastern corridor out of the air, and move those people by rail. 
It makes much more sense to do that. Yet we have people in this Chamber 
who somehow do not want to continue rail passenger service in our 
country.
  Rail passenger service is important. I do not believe, however, those 
who support it, which includes myself--I do not believe we ought to 
hold up the airport security bill because of our concern about Amtrak. 
I say, do this bill--do it now--and next week let's come back and do 
that Amtrak security bill. I believe we can do that.
  I believe there will be 60 votes in support of the motion to proceed. 
If we have to break a filibuster, I believe we will have 60 votes to do 
that with respect to Amtrak. And, as I said, I do not take a back seat 
to anyone in my support of rail passenger service in this country. I 
think it is important, critically important, and we ought to manifest 
that importance in what we do in the Senate. We ought not be afraid of 
a

[[Page S10134]]

vote. Let's fight that issue, but let's not do it by holding up an 
airport security bill. That is not the right thing to do and it is not 
the fair thing for the American people.

  There is one other thing we have to do. We ought to do airport 
security now. Yes, let's provide extended unemployment compensation for 
those people who have lost their jobs as a result of direct Federal 
intervention in their industry. That list is an extended list. But 
there is nothing wrong with this country saying: During tough times, we 
are here to help.
  Incidentally, when we have an economy that has been as soft as ours 
has been and has taken the kind of hit our economy took, we better be 
prepared to take some bold action to help companies and people, to help 
them up and say: We want to give you some lift.
  With respect to that last point, we also not only need to do the 
issue of airport security, extended unemployment, and Amtrak, we also 
need to do an economic stimulus package. I want to talk about that for 
a moment.
  If we are going to make a mistake in this country with respect to 
this economy, I want us to make a mistake of doing something rather 
than doing nothing. I don't want us to sit around with our hands in our 
suspenders and talk about what would have or should have been. I want 
us to take aggressive action to say: We understand this economy is in 
peril. We have watched the Asian economies. We have seen the Japanese 
economy stall for 10 years.
  This country had a vibrant, growing economy. And going into September 
11, it had fallen off a shelf of some type early, about a year ago, 
maybe 9 months ago. We were in very serious difficulty.
  The Federal Reserve Board was cutting interest rates furiously to try 
to recover and provide lift to this economy. That has not provided the 
lift--at least not the lift they certainly would have wanted. The 
September 11 event cuts a huge hole in this economy. What to do next?
  First of all, let's all admit we don't understand this economy. It is 
a new, different, and global economy. It is a fact that we have 
economic stabilizers that we have not previously had. In the last 20 
and 30 years we have put in economic stabilizers that provide more 
stability with respect to movements up and down.
  It is also true that the stabilizers have not and could not repeal 
the business cycle, the cycle of inevitable contraction and expansion 
in the economy. We were on the contraction side of that cycle going 
into September 11. And then we saw a huge hole torn into this country's 
economy by the tragic events committed by terrorists.
  What to do now? First, let's try to understand what the consequences 
of this might be. Almost all of us understand the consequences are dire 
for our economy. We must restore confidence in the American people 
about their economic future.
  How do we do that? The only remedy that we understand and know is a 
remedy in which we try to stimulate the economy with fiscal policy to 
complement what the Fed is doing in monetary policy.
  Senator Daschle and I, in my role as chairman of Democratic Policy 
Committee, wrote to 11 of the leading economic thinkers in America--
some in the private sector, some in the public sector--Nobel laureates, 
among others. We asked them the following questions last Wednesday: Do 
you believe there should be an economic stimulus package? If not, why 
not? And if you do, what should that stimulus package be?
  These leading economists were good enough to turn around a paper, in 
most cases two pages of their analysis, within a matter of 4 or 5 days. 
I have compiled and given to every Member of the Senate a special 
report from the Democratic Policy Committee regarding eleven leading 
economic thinkers on whether Congress should pass a stimulus package. I 
hope all of my colleagues will read this.

  Every single one, with one exception, of the leading economists in 
this country have written an analysis for us telling us they believe we 
must pass some kind of economic stimulus package. Most of them say it 
ought to be temporary. Most of them say we should be somewhat cautious 
that we not do the wrong thing here. But they have recommendations on 
how they believe we should enact a stimulus package that tries to 
provide lift and opportunity to the American economy.
  The easiest thing in the world for the Congress to do at this point 
would be just to sit around and ruminate, which we do really well, and 
muse and debate and talk and end up not doing anything. Why? Because we 
have all kinds of fiscal issues. We have an economy that has slowed 
down. We don't have the revenue coming in. We have huge bills piling 
up.
  What is the solution to that? Just swallow your tobacco and sit 
around and do nothing? It was Will Rogers who once said this about 
tobacco: When there is no place left to spit, you either have to 
swallow your tobacco juice or change with the times. Well, we don't 
have anyplace left at this moment. We have to decide that we are going 
to take action and we are going to have to change with the times.
  The times changed for this country on September 11. This country took 
a huge hit to its economy. In addition to that, of course, the tragedy 
is immeasurable in terms of the cost of human life. But as we now try 
to pick up the pieces, one of the wonderful things about the American 
spirit is, we are doers. We are a country of action.
  If you look at a couple hundred years of economic history in 
America--I have studied some, and I have taught some economics--you see 
a country that is intent on creating an economy that is in its own 
image, in its own desire, by taking action rather than waiting for 
things to happen. It is not a market system that needs no nurturing. It 
is a market system that from time to time needs some help to move 
along.
  If ever this economy needs some help from this Congress and from the 
Federal Reserve Board, it is now. Let us not make the mistake of 
omission. Let us not make the mistake of doing nothing. If we do the 
wrong thing, if we make a mistake, let's make that mistake by having 
taken action. I would much sooner do that than to decide to sit around 
at this time and in this place and not be bold.
  I am hoping my colleagues will take a look at this special report 
that has some of the best analysis in it that we can find. It is very 
unusual to be able to write Nobel laureates and top economists in this 
country, from Goldman Sachs and Brookings and Princeton, Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology and Yale, people who we know and have studied 
for years, the great thinkers in this country about our economy. It is 
an opportunity that is extraordinary to be able to come here and to 
offer this analysis to the Senators who are interested in fiscal 
policy.
  That is where we are. We find ourselves at the moment unable to move 
on airport security. That is a profound disappointment. Apparently, we 
have filed a cloture petition. I hope we will rethink that today.
  We must, in addition to getting airport security as quick as we can, 
then also do something with respect to extended unemployment benefits. 
I believe next week we also ought to go to the Amtrak issue. I am fully 
supportive of that. We ought to decide very quickly to join with the 
President and Members of Congress and enact a stimulus package that 
will provide lift and some assistance to the American economy.

  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I second the remarks of the distinguished 
Senator from North Dakota. I thank him for his insight into the economy 
and for his desire to get this legislative body moving.
  I will quote from a distinguished author, Charles Dickens, who said:

       It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It was 
     the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness. It was the 
     epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity. It was the 
     season of light, it was the season of darkness. It was the 
     spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.

  That introduction to ``A Tale of Two Cities'' written by Dickens is 
apropos of the time we have at hand. Dickens' words speak to us today 
as we try to

[[Page S10135]]

make sense of the events of September 11 because, though the darkness 
and despair were all too readily apparent, I believe we can actually 
see wisdom and light and hope as this great Nation moves forward in 
unity and resolve.
  It is a sad but nonetheless true fact that our country is no more 
vulnerable to terrorist assault now than it was on September 10. It 
just feels that way. With the heightened attention to this threat, I 
would contend that the vulnerability is less now than it was actually 
before, but that is certainly no guarantee against future attacks.
  While the September 11 acts of terror demonstrate all too vividly the 
depth of inhumanity that some human beings are capable of, the response 
in the United States and around the world has conclusively proved that 
for most people, it is, in Lincoln's words, ``the better angels of our 
nature'' which ultimately prevail.
  When in our lifetimes have we seen the selfless men and women who 
serve as police and firefighters extolled above athletes and rock 
stars? When have we seen cynicism and apathy largely vanish from our 
public airwaves? When have we seen such sustained bipartisanship at 
home and unity of purpose in the international community? Not in my 
lifetime, Mr. President.
  The current challenge facing our country and the entire civilized 
world is indeed a crisis, but I contend that it is a crisis in the way 
the Chinese understand the word--one word, one phrase, one character, 
meaning danger; but the other character meaning opportunity. The 
Chinese write the word ``crisis'' in two characters, Mr. President, not 
one: danger and opportunity. We have before us both.
  For some time, I have been planning to come to the Senate floor to 
mark the first anniversary of the completion of an effort I undertook 
last year with my distinguished friend and colleague, the distinguished 
Senator from Kansas, Pat Roberts. Over the course of last year--
completed on October 3--Senator Roberts and I conducted a series of 
bipartisan dialogs on the global role of the United States in the post-
cold-war era. That sounds somewhat esoteric in light of the attacks on 
our country on September 11, but our purpose then was to draw attention 
to this important topic and to help begin the process of building a 
bipartisan consensus on national security, which both of us felt was 
needed and indispensable to protecting our national interests.
  Over the course of our discussions last year, we came to mutual 
agreement on a set of general principles which we felt should undergird 
America's security policy in the 21st century. These included that we, 
as a nation, need to engage in a national dialog to define our national 
interests, differentiate the level of interest involved, and spell out 
what we should be prepared to do in defense of those interests and 
build a bipartisan consensus in support of the resulting interests and 
policies.
  The President and the Congress need to, among other things, find more 
and better ways to increase communications with the American people on 
the realities of our international interests and the costs of securing 
them. We need to find more and better ways to increase the exchange of 
experiences and ideas between the Government and the military to avoid 
the broadening lack of military experience among the political elite 
and find more and better ways of ensuring that both the executive and 
legislative branches fulfill their constitutional responsibilities in 
national security policy, especially concerning military operations 
other than declared wars.
  We are in such a situation now. We have a war on terrorism. It is 
actually undeclared legally, but it has been declared publicly. The 
President and the Congress need to urgently address the mismatch 
between our foreign policy ends and means, and between commitments and 
our forces, by determining the most appropriate instrument--diplomatic, 
military, et cetera--for securing policy objectives; reviewing 
carefully current American commitments--especially those involving 
troop deployment to ensure clarity of objectives, and the presence of 
an exit strategy. That is something we ought to keep in mind in this 
war, too. Increasing the relatively small amount of resources devoted 
to the key instruments for securing national interests, including our 
Armed Forces, which need to be reformed to meet the requirements of the 
21st century, diplomatic forces, foreign assistance, United Nations 
peacekeeping operations, which also need to be reformed to become much 
more effective, and key regional organizations.

  We are the only global superpower, and in order to avoid stimulating 
the creation of a hostile coalition of other nations against us, the 
United States should and can afford to forego unilateralist actions, 
except where our vital interests are involved. One of the things I am 
encouraged about now, is our unilateralist tendencies have been swept 
up in an agreement among civilized nations to support us in our war on 
terrorism. That is a very comforting thought.
  One of the things that helps us along these lines is that the United 
States should pay its international debts, and we agreed to do so. We 
also must continue to respect and honor our international commitments 
and not abdicate our global leadership role. Finally, the United States 
must avoid unilateral economic and trade sanctions. I think in the wake 
of the attack on our country, we have lifted some of these sanctions, 
especially against India and Pakistan.
  With respect to multilateral organizations, the United States should 
more carefully consider NATO's new Strategic Concept and the future 
direction of this, our most important international commitment. We need 
to press for reform of the peacekeeping operations and decisionmaking 
processes of the U.N. and Security Council. We need to fully strengthen 
the capabilities of regional organizations, such as the European Union, 
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OAS, the 
Organization for African Unity, and the Organization of Southeast Asian 
Nations, and so on, to deal with threats to regional security. We need 
to promote a thorough debate at the U.N. and elsewhere on proposed 
standards for interventions within sovereign states.
  In the post-cold-war world, the United States should adopt a policy 
of realistic restraint with respect to the use of U.S. military forces 
in situations other than those involving the defense of vital national 
interests.
  We crossed that threshold on September 11. Responding to the 
terrorist attack is in our vital national interests, and we ought to 
use military force to do that. As a matter of fact, this Congress 
authorized the President to use all necessary force to go after those 
who came after us on September 11.
  In all other situations, we must insist on well-defined political 
objectives. As a matter of fact, it is not a bad idea in this 
particular war either. We must determine whether nonmilitary means will 
be effective and, if so, try them prior to any recourse to military 
force. I think we are doing that in so many ways in tightening the 
noose around the terrorists' necks. We should ascertain whether 
military means can achieve the political objectives. Sometimes military 
means cannot attain a political objective. We ought to be aware of 
that. We need to determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs--in 
other words, whether the cost of military engagement is worth the cost. 
We need to determine the ``last step'' we are prepared to take before 
we get involved militarily. That was the advice of Clausewitz, the 
great German theoretician, on war two centuries ago. We must insist 
that we have a clear, concise exit strategy when we involve ourselves 
in military affairs around the world, and we must insist on 
congressional approval of all deployments other than those involving 
responses to emergency situations.
  The United States can and must continue to exercise international 
leadership, while following a policy of realistic restraint in the use 
of military force. We must pursue policies that promote a strong and 
growing economy, which is actually, as we now see, the essential 
underpinning of any nation's strength.
  We must maintain superior, ready, and mobile Armed Forces capable of 
rapidly responding to threats to our national interest. My goodness, do 
we ever see the need for that since September 11. We must strengthen 
the nonmilitary tools as well. We must

[[Page S10136]]

make a long-term commitment to promoting democracy abroad via a 
comprehensive, sustained program which makes a realistic assessment of 
the capabilities of such a program.
  Obviously, much has changed since Senator Roberts and I submitted our 
list last year, but I think the fundamentals remain the same. If 
anything, the events of September 11 have underscored several of the 
points we were trying to make.
  First, foreign policy matters. American leadership and engagement in 
the world make a real difference to our security here at home.
  I remember having lunch with Tom Friedman, the great author of ``The 
Lexus and The Olive Tree,'' a best selling book. He said, ``Without 
America on duty, there would be no America on line.''
  We forget that our first line of defense in so many ways is America 
on duty. So foreign policy matters.
  Secretary of State Powell has done an awesome job, along with the 
President, and Secretary Rumsfeld, in arraying the international 
community against terrorism, including the key countries bordering 
Afghanistan, in the effort to bring the terrorists and collaborators to 
justice. It is very clear now, if it was doubted before, that these 
efforts could not succeed without this multinational cooperation.
  One of the things that has also been reinforced is that when we move 
to protect our national interests, we need to make use of the whole 
range of instruments available to us. The instruments we have available 
are not only and not necessarily primarily our military forces, but our 
diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and law enforcement assets as well, 
all of which are engaged today, even as I speak, in the fight against 
the forces of terrorism.
  Third, Senator Roberts and I were anxious to have our country take a 
good hard look at its multitudinous overseas military engagements and 
commitments, with an eye toward focusing on the vital and essential 
deployments while deemphasizing other engagements which can divert both 
resources and attention from our most crucial national interests, of 
which homeland defense must be at the top of the list.
  In so many ways, as someone who has traveled to the Balkans, Kosovo, 
and South Korea, it is a strange feeling to know that our country in 
our defensive effort guards Kosovo and protects South Korea almost 
better than it does New York City and Washington.
  In short, I believe we can and must be prepared to commit all 
available American resources, including military forces, in defense of 
truly vital national interests, the most important of which is our 
homeland defense. In other cases, I believe we must impose a much 
higher bar before we put American service men and women in harm's way.

  Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Henry Shelton put it 
very well in an address to the Kennedy School at Harvard University. He 
said:

       The military is the hammer in America's foreign policy 
     toolbox . . . and it is a very powerful hammer. But not every 
     problem we face is a nail. We may find that sorting out the 
     good guys from the bad guys is not as easy as it seems. We 
     also may find that getting in is much easier than getting 
     out.

  It reminds me of a good line by Napoleon that wars are easy to get 
into but hard to get out of.

  General Shelton went on to conclude:

       These are the issues we need to confront when we make the 
     decision to commit our military forces--

  Even as we commit them today.

       And that is as it should be because, when we use our 
     military forces, we lay our prestige, our word, our 
     leadership, and--most importantly--the lives of our young 
     Americans on the line.

  Let me be very clear that the events of September 11 did, indeed, 
touch upon our vital interests, and we can and will use our military 
``hammer'' to capture or kill those responsible. This body voted 
unanimously to confer that authority on President Bush and to stand 
firmly behind our service men and women who, as the President said so 
well, are ready to ``make us proud'' once again. Certainly this Senator 
does. I stand behind our forces, our troops, and our President in this 
resolve to accomplish this goal.
  Finally, as I said before, Senator Roberts and I began our process 
over a year ago, convinced of the need to bring greater attention to 
national security and foreign policy, as well as to forge a durable 
bipartisan consensus on the major elements of such a policy. Frankly, 
we saw little evidence that either greater attention or more 
bipartisanship was likely anytime soon. This is where the opportunity I 
spoke of earlier comes in. At least for now, we have an attentive 
Congress and public and a bipartisan foreign policy. We have come a 
long way. The challenge is to sustain that in the months and years 
ahead.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, we are trying to move to the bill that 
will upgrade aviation security in our country. I hope we can work out 
an agreement that will allow us to start debating the aviation security 
bill.
  What we are all trying to do is get a bill that is just on aviation 
security. There are a lot of other issues people want to bring up that 
are quite legitimate issues, but I do not think we should put them on a 
bill dealing with aviation security because this issue is the one we 
need to address right now. It is a separate issue, and it should be 
kept separate.
  If we can assure the flying public that everything that can be done 
is being done to upgrade aviation security, that will mitigate the 
damage we are seeing to our economy as a result of a smaller number of 
flights and smaller number of people traveling. We want to bring back 
the aviation industry. We want people to go on vacations, to travel for 
business, just as they did before September 11. We want people to stay 
in the hotels and rent the cars so the economy does not experience a 
domino effect from airlines not flying and people being afraid to get 
on with their daily lives.
  We understand why people are concerned. I have been flying every 
weekend since September 11. I know their concerns. We need to address 
the security issue so people will know they can fly and this, in 
effect, will begin to rebuild our economy.
  What we are trying to put forward in a bipartisan bill is sky 
marshals so that we can begin the recruitment and training to beef up 
the Sky Marshal Program.
  We want to make our cockpits more secure. We want to make sure our 
pilots are protected and they are able to give their full attention to 
flying the airplane.
  We are trying to upgrade the screening of carry-on baggage.
  We have only had 3 weeks to determine the changes that need to be 
made. I know the administration and Members of Congress are looking at 
all options for closing the loopholes in aviation security, but we can 
take some major steps forward, even as we are studying other ways in 
which we can do better, by upgrading the training and the education 
requirements for the screeners, to make sure they have enough training 
to recognize an illegal item.
  We want to make sure there is armed supervision of those screeners, 
Federal marshals. Right now we have Guardsmen from the States and we 
have detailees from other agencies that are overseeing screeners in 
many airports. We want to make that more permanent so that people will 
know it is not business as usual at the airports and that is why it is 
safer to fly.
  I hope we will be able to move to this bill today. It is important 
that we finish the bill this week. We will have differences on some of 
the details of the bill. We can have amendments and up-or-down votes. 
If you win, you win; if you lose, you lose.
  The basic agreement we have on the key components of the bill is 
solid and bipartisan, and the components are also, I believe, agreed to 
by the administration. There are a couple of sticking points. We need 
to work those out, but we do not need to hold the bill up to work out 
the differences. We need to go to the bill.
  If we can get an aviation security bill passed in the Senate, send it 
to the

[[Page S10137]]

House, and send it to the President, the American people will begin to 
see that there is a heightened awareness of the need for security, and 
they will see the beginning of the implementation of the plans to do 
more at our airports.
  I want to thank all of those who are working on it, Senator McCain 
and I on our side, Senator Hollings and Senator Rockefeller on the 
Democratic side. We are working very well together. We had a meeting 
with the Secretary of Transportation, talking about the areas where we 
agree, which is 90 percent of the bill we would have before us.
  I think we need to go to the bill. Let Congress work its will. Other 
Members have some very good ideas. We need to start talking about them. 
I do not think we should waste this valuable time.
  The President has said, and Congress has agreed, there are certain 
things we must do quickly. We certainly took quick action for trying to 
shore up and stabilize the airlines. We have done that. We now need to 
give our law enforcement agencies the ability to gather intelligence.
  Our FBI is doing an incredible job of finding all of the tentacles of 
these terrorist cells, but we need to give them the tools they need to 
continue that investigation and to find out where these people are in 
our country or in other countries that would affect our own security.
  We need to act quickly on that antiterrorism bill. We need to act 
quickly on the aviation security bill. These are the priorities the 
President has set, and we need to go forward and address those. We are 
wasting time by not going to this bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
work out the differences. Do not require us to have extraneous 
amendments. Let us get on the bill. Let us have amendments that are 
germane to the bill and go forward in the way we have always done, 
having our votes, getting the final passage. Let us do the important 
business that will increase our capability to keep our country going, 
to keep our economy strong, to keep our people safe. That is our 
responsibility, and that is what we should be doing right now.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to talk about something that is 
very familiar to the Presiding Officer: the meetings that the Senator 
and I have had with airline employees back home. The most recent 
meeting was a rally at the Capital. We have made the commitment to 
these workers that we want to help the industry. We want the industry 
to get back on its feet. That is critically important and what 
everybody wants.
  We also believe the help has to be there for the employees. By the 
way, Mr. Richard Anderson, the CEO of Northwest Airlines, dropped by 
the other day and left me a letter of support. He has come out as CEO 
of Northwest firmly, squarely, behind getting assistance to the 
employees.
  Maybe this has been said on the floor. I have been at briefings 
today, one of which was superb, with Secretary of State Powell, about 
whom I cannot say enough good things in terms of his wisdom and his 
hopes for how we proceed now in the aftermath of September 11. I cannot 
believe some of my colleagues are opposing moving to the floor with 
this airline safety bill in part because they are not committed to this 
package of benefits for employees. They don't want to see it happen. I 
will get people angry at me, and later we will have debate. I will be 
pleased to debate people later. To me, it is heartless. When people are 
flat on their backs, you help them. That is part of what government is 
for.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, Senator Dayton, I felt on Sunday, 
beyond speaking at a rally, you sometimes get the sense that people are 
reaching out to you. It is not so much to shake your hand, it is not to 
beg you, but to reach out for help. The handshake was more, in our 
State, a reaching out for help. It is frightening to be out of work and 
to not know how you will support your family.
  We have this package to extend the unemployment benefits up to a 
year, and actually improve the U.I. with more benefits, and calling on 
States to increase what they will pay out, with the Federal Government 
providing the money. And in this nightmare situation, which we don't 
have to deal with, Senators, but if we did, if we were out of work, we 
would sure want the help.
  When you lose your job and then in a couple of months you lose your 
health care benefits, you cannot afford what is called the COBRA 
program. The idea was to help families provide for health care, to be 
able to afford the coverage and not be without any coverage.
  For God's sake, how much longer do Senators think we should wait?
  I am not going to go after the industry, I don't think they were 
crying uncle. Frankly, as someone who has been a severe critic of 
Northwest Airlines--I never been able to get along with them--I give 
Mr. Anderson credit. I have had some of the employees say: He might 
care about us. I give him a lot of credit. Several flight attendants on 
a flight said that to me.
  The truth of the matter is, they were ready, they had their array of 
lobbyists, et al, up here. We put the package through, and we were 
told: If you don't indemnify us--several carriers said--we will shut 
down Monday, a week ago. We didn't want that to happen.
  But now we have employees out of work, what is it, 4,500 in our 
State, or thereabouts. We have Senators who do not want this bill 
coming to the floor. First, we have to take the steps on airline 
safety--no question about it--now. But it is absolutely appropriate to 
also, in the same legislation, talk about Amtrak. It is part of the 
transportation system. It is related.

  But the other part of it is the employees. I say to the Presiding 
Officer, I don't know if I will feel empty, depressed, or just furious 
and angry, to go back home this weekend and see some of those same 
employees who are going to be saying: Why? Why? Why the delay? Why 
can't you help us?
  That is what I say to some of my colleagues. What is going on here? 
In all due respect, this should be a no-brainer. We should have the 
airline safety bill out. We have amendments; people can vote for or 
against the amendments. But it is not business as usual. This is not a 
business-as-usual time. This is not a typical time in our country.
  I say to Senators, I know if you are thinking: In all due respect, 
Paul, don't be gratuitous; it is not like anyone needs to tell us that, 
given what happened to our country on September 11 and the murder of so 
many people.
  I get the impression that maybe on the economic hard times and what 
has happened to people in their own lives here on the economic security 
part, there are a number of Senators who I don't think get it. They 
don't get it.
  I have not had a chance to talk to the majority leader. I assume we 
will file cloture, have a vote, and force this issue. If people don't 
want to vote for assistance for the aviation employees, let them vote 
no. I think it would be pretty hard to sleep if you were to cast such a 
vote.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, I remember 4 or 5 days after 
September 11, I was coming back here and talking to some of the 
employees and saying, hello, how are you, to a woman while checking in; 
the woman said: All right; I'm hanging in there.
  I realized what she was talking about was not September 11. She was 
talking about herself because she knew they would be out of work. My 
first reaction was: Why wouldn't you be focused on September 11 and the 
slaughter of people in the country? Then I said to Sheila: Wait a 
minute; she was not wrong to react that way. She had to be concerned 
about what would happen to her and her family. She knew she would be 
out of work.
  These workers are asking us for help. I would like to smoke out 
Senators, have Senators over the next 2 days come out here and debate 
and tell us why they don't want to support an amendment, if that is the 
case.
  I have to make this distinction. I can some see Senators saying: 
Well, of all people, Paul, over the years, it is not like you haven't 
come out here and slowed things up and used your leverage.
  I understand that. Frankly, I don't know what the cause is here. 
Maybe I

[[Page S10138]]

am just being self-righteous. I don't, frankly, know what the cause is. 
If the cause is, as I suspect, there are some Senators who don't want 
to see this package go through, then I say, just come on out here and 
``have at it,'' make your arguments, and let's vote.
  We have a lot going on in terms of unity and Members of both parties 
feeling so strongly about what happened. All of us, I think, have a lot 
of concerns. It is hard not to every day worry about, What next not to 
worry about? What kind of action are we going to take? What kind of 
military action? What will be the reaction? Will we be successful? Will 
we be able to hold the people who committed this act of murder 
accountable? Can we minimize the loss of life of helpless civilians? I 
pray so. What will happen in Pakistan? What about other Middle East 
countries? What about our own country? Will there be other attacks? 
Will our people be protected? What is happening to the economy?
  The truth is, we should, by tonight, be near getting this bill done, 
and then we have to put together another economic stimulus package. I 
do not know, but I think maybe our party, I say to the Presiding 
Officer, is a little bit too timid. I think we have to put together a 
significant stimulus package. I think part of it can be tax rebates, 
especially for the people who pay the Social Security tax who did not 
get any help. Let's put some money in the hands of people who are going 
to go out and spend it--do it. We should be extending the unemployment 
insurance, the health care benefits as well, and definitely help small 
business. There is no doubt in my mind that a lot of small businesses 
are really taking it on the chin.
  There are child care expenses. There is affordable housing. There are 
some things we can do that are like a marriage. Let's put some money in 
affordable housing. I have my own ideas. I will not go through 
specifics today. I think I will tomorrow. Rebuilding crumbling 
schools--all of it has immense potential. And, frankly, we have to get 
onto that as well.
  There is a whole lot we need to do, and the sooner the better. I 
guess I think the unity can apply to a lot of the challenges ahead. But 
I just find this refusing to proceed--maybe I am just coming on one of 
these weeks where Monday we were supposed to deal with the mental 
health bill, not an unimportant piece of legislation. I am not going to 
try to mix agendas. I will just say again the mental health equitable 
treatment legislation is bipartisan. I have been fortunate enough to be 
joined on this effort with Senator Domenici. There are 65 supporting 
Senators. We could have done it in several hours with debate on 
amendments. It was blocked.
  By the way, there are going to be huge mental health issues, lots of 
struggles for families. Nobody should doubt that.
  I have done a lot of work with Vietnam vets with PTSD. I have seen 
it. There is going to be so much of that. And the fact is, once you say 
you have to provide the same coverage for people dealing with this 
illness as with that, then you have the care following the money. Then 
you get some good care out of this. That was blocked.
  I have been trying to get to some legislation that passed the House 
unanimously. It seems small. But there is not anything I care more 
about. It is for families dealing with a disease called Duchenne's 
disease. Senator Cochran has been helping on it. It is muscular 
dystrophy for children, little boys, a problem with a recessive gene. 
It is Lou Gehrig's disease, and for these little children there is no 
hope; there is no future. It is a very cruel disease, if you know Lou 
Gehrig's disease. It takes everything away from these children and then 
they die.
  These families, they are so young when you meet them and the children 
are so young and they are just trying to get some focus in the Centers 
for Disease Control, NIH, some centers for excellence. We have 
bipartisan support. My understanding is, again, some Senators do not 
want to let that go through on unanimous consent.
  There are things we can do that are good things for people that 
should not be that controversial, that we should be able to do. Maybe 
part of what I am doing today is just expressing my overall 
frustration. But I will say again, there is no more important piece of 
legislation than this aviation safety bill.
  I think the Presiding Officer, his suggestions about having the Guard 
involved and giving some people reassurance--the President is taking 
that up. I am proud of the Senator from Minnesota. Thank you for 
getting that idea out there. I think it will be adopted. It is part of 
what we will do in this transition period.
  And then there are a lot of other proposals that make a whole lot of 
sense: federalizing the workforce, having highly trained people. I was 
talking with Senator Hollings and he said a lot of people who now do 
the security work, they should really have first priority to get the 
job training. It is not as if we just bash people and say: You are 
gone. Some are very qualified--with the training. Others may not be 
able to do the work.
  There are other features as well. But the other part of it is I never 
dreamed we would have such a hard time getting help to the workers, to 
the employees. Maybe there is something wrong with the way my mind 
works. I am sure there are other colleagues who think so. But to me it 
is like 2 plus 2 equals 4. Yes, you help out the industry. Yes, we had 
to do it under emergency conditions. Yes, the next step is to make sure 
the employees, all the people who have been part of this industry, get 
help. They are out of work. And there is opposition to this. It is 
obvious.
  I guess we are basically at a point where we are going to file for 
cloture, have a vote on it, and I suppose this will go over to next 
week. If so, fine. But as far as I am concerned--I have heard the 
Presiding Officer say this--I am getting to the point now where I think 
we are going to have to be here quite a long time this fall. We have a 
lot of work to do. If it is going to be delayed, things are going to 
have to extend on.
  There is an education bill--the same kind of interesting issue where 
for some reason there is a lot of opposition to providing the resources 
to which I think we made a commitment to schools. I would say to 
Senator Dayton, the Presiding Officer, my guess is--and I think we 
should do this--this Monday we are going to have the hearing together 
and focus on the terrorist attack, the recession, and their effect on 
the Minnesota population.
  I think there will come a time where we probably should just focus on 
education. Just imagine what is going to happen with the State budgets 
that are going to contract, whether there will be the resources for the 
schools. Imagine the number of kids who will be eligible soon for the 
free- and reduced-cost lunch program. Imagine the struggles families 
are going to have.
  By the way, we could help these families if we could get some of 
these benefits out there to them.
  I think that ties in to another issue the Presiding Officer has 
worked on and been very outspoken on, directly correlated to whether or 
not we are going to keep the IDEA program mandatory funding and fund it 
or get the money for title 1. There are things we can do now, 
colleagues, that will help people.
  I will finish this way: The two things that have most inspired me, if 
that word can be used, given what we have been through as a nation, is, 
A, the wisdom of people in Minnesota and around the country who were 
not--I said this to Secretary of State Powell, and I think everybody 
would agree--the people are not impatient. They are not bellicose. They 
are not sayings ``Bombs away.'' People are very well aware of how 
difficult this will be. They want to have it done in the right way. 
They want it to be consistent with our values. They do not want to see 
the kind of military action that will lead to massive loss of innocent 
civilians.
  They want to deal with the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. They 
don't want people to be starving to death, people who have nothing to 
do with the Taliban and nothing to do with terrorism. And the other 
thing is I think a lot of what I would call ``people values'' have come 
out. I don't know if I can remember another time in my adult life where 
I have seen people so involved in helping other people. Part of it, of 
course, is to help all the people who have lost loved ones in New York 
and those lost on the plane that

[[Page S10139]]

went down in Pennsylvania and the Pentagon and D.C. and Virginia and 
surrounding areas.
  But I think it goes beyond that. If there is one good thing you can 
point to, it is that I think people really are thinking more about ways 
in which they can help other people. Call it a sense of community or 
whatever you want to call it. I can't for the life of me figure out why 
that hasn't yet reached the Senate.
  Where are the people values? How can we continue to delay helping 
these employees who are out of work in the aviation industry? How can 
we delay putting together a package? We call it economic stimulus, but 
the truth of the matter is, the best thing you can do in an economic 
stimulus package is also get help to people flat on their back who can 
use the money to consume because they have tried to make ends meet.
  I have amendments. We have all worked together on the Carnahan 
package. I thank the Senator from Missouri for her fine work. We want 
to see that passed. I think some of us have other amendments. We want 
to get to an economic stimulus package.
  There is a lot of work to do here: Education, and appropriations 
bills. I hope the whole question of prescription drug costs for elderly 
people doesn't just get completely put off. Frankly, those problems are 
no less compelling. I don't think I am exaggerating the point if I say 
that it is not going to be easy on a lot of working families if they 
have to end up with hard times and continue to have to help their 
parents and grandparents with prescription drug costs. It all gets tied 
in together.
  It is all about communities. It is all about families. It is all 
about our being a family. It is all about how to help people. There 
were a lot of people who campaigned on this issue. Senator Dayton of 
Minnesota probably campaigned as effectively on this issue as anybody 
in the country.
  It is not as if these issues go away. It is all a part of what we 
need to do in the country. If I wanted to be kind of ``Mr. Economist,'' 
I would say: My God, elderly people are paying half their monthly 
budget on prescription drug costs. Help them out so it is affordable, 
so they can have some money to consume with.
  There are lots of things we can do that sort of represent a good 
marriage of helping people, which also will enable people to consume, 
and which will also help our economy. We need to do it now. We should 
do it for humanitarian reasons. We should do it out of a sense that we 
are our brothers' and sisters' keepers. We should do it with a sense of 
``there, but for the grace of God, go I.'' We should do it for economic 
reasons and national security reasons.
  Here I am at 5 minutes to 5 on the floor of the Senate, and no one is 
here because moving to the airline safety bill has been blocked. 
Outrageous.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to make some brief remarks about 
our progress, or lack of progress, on airport security, which is a very 
important and vital issue.
  We had a good meeting with the Secretary of Transportation, Norman 
Mineta, and I think we are defining some of our differences, as well as 
areas of agreement. I am hopeful that we can negotiate out those 
differences. We need to move forward with this legislation. It is now 
5:25 in the afternoon and we have not had a single amendment debated or 
proposed. We have not moved to the bill. We need to move to this 
legislation.
  Last week, with a degree of bipartisanship that was very gratifying, 
this body passed legislation to take care of the financial difficulties 
that airlines are experiencing and have experienced as a result of the 
terrorist attacks. Now we need to restore the confidence of the 
American people in their ability to fly from one place to another with 
a sense of safety and security, which they do not have today.
  It is inappropriate for us not to act before we go out of session 
tomorrow. Already, there are only a few amendments that would need to 
be considered. As I mentioned earlier, Senator Hollings, the chairman, 
and I have committed to opposing nonrelevant amendments no matter what 
their virtues may be. So I intend, tomorrow, if we are unable, for 
whatever reason, to come down and ask unanimous consent that this 
legislation be the pending business. I think it is very important.
  I see the Senator from Nevada on the floor. I thank him for his 
efforts in trying to see this bill brought up and addressed before we 
go out of session for the week.
  I don't think we should allow any peripheral issues to prevent us 
from moving forward. I have had good will statements made from strong 
supporters of Amtrak that they would not have those provisions on this 
bill. For those who are worried about the unemployed and others who 
have suffered because of the airline shutdown, those people have also 
said we can move forward. There is no reason we should not. I hope we 
will, and I hope we will not have to employ any parliamentary 
procedures in order to do what we all know is necessary, which is to 
protect the flying safety of our air transportation system.
  By the way, the Air Transport Association is strongly in support of 
this legislation. I have been visited by airline executives who have 
urged that we act as quickly as possible to restore the confidence of 
the American people. I hope we will listen to them as well and not get 
hung up on some rather unimportant--when you look at the importance of 
this bill--side issues.
  So I hope we will act tomorrow, and, if not, I will try to come down 
to the floor and force action in whatever parliamentary fashion I can.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am offering an amendment to the 
Aviation Security Act that would ensure that results-oriented 
management is a key component of whatever changes are ultimately made 
to our airport security system. We can not afford more business as 
usual. We have to insist that the traveling public is safe from those 
who would perpetrate evil deeds like those of September 11.
  First, my amendment requires the Federal Government to set and 
enforce goals for aviation security. It requires the head of aviation 
security, within 60 days of enactment, to establish acceptable levels 
of performance and provide Congress with an action plan to achieve that 
performance. Over the long-term, the head of aviation security must 
establish a process for performance planning and reporting that informs 
Congress and the American people about how the government is meeting 
its goals. By creating this process, we will be constantly assessing 
the threats we face and ensuring that we have the means to measure our 
progress in preparing for those threats. This is a new, detailed method 
for ensuring that performance management is in place specifically in 
the government's aviation security programs.
  I firmly believe that good people, well managed, can substantially 
improve our aviation security. So this amendment gives those 
responsible for aviation security enhanced tools to regain the 
confidence of America's flying public. We employ a good mix of carrots 
and sticks to drive performance. For instance: Managers and employees 
would be eligible for bonuses for good performance. The head of 
aviation security may have a term of 3 to 5 years, which can be 
extended if he or she meets performance standards set forth in an 
annual performance agreement. This amendment establishes an annual 
staff performance management system that includes setting individual, 
group, and organizational performance goals consistent with an annual 
performance plan. The amendment allows FAA management to hold 
employees--whether public, private, or a mix thereof, strictly 
accountable for meeting performance standards. Those who fail to meet 
the performance measures that have agreed to could be terminated, be 
they managers, supervisors, or screeners.
  These provisions are not new. Agencies like IRS, the Patent and 
Trademark Office, and the Office of Student and Financial Assistance, 
already have many of these flexibilities. This

[[Page S10140]]

amendment targets these flexibilities specifically to the area of 
aviation security so that we can immediately begin the process of 
ensuring the public's safety.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Before the Senator leaves the floor, we would like to 
report to him that I finished speaking with Senator Hollings. Senator 
Hollings and Senator McCain have worked together in the Commerce 
Committee for many years now. I think the cooperation the two of them 
have shown during this difficult time of the past 3 weeks is exemplary. 
I personally appreciate the work the two of them have done, setting 
aside partisan differences and moving through difficult issues. I, too, 
hope we can figure out a way to move on to complete the work we have 
before us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Nevada in 
complimenting my friend from Arizona. It is also very much my hope and 
desire that we can bring up the airport security bill and complete it 
tomorrow. I heard my colleague from Arizona say that both he and 
Senator Hollings are willing to object to amendments that are not 
relevant to the underlying package. That is a concern of a lot of 
people. That will help streamline and finish the bill.
  I hope and believe we will have the bipartisan leadership in 
agreement with that so that we can keep nongermane amendments off this 
package and we can pass the airport security bill. Then we can work on 
other issues together as well. I hope that is the case. We have had 
good progress in working in a bipartisan way on a lot of issues. I 
would like to see that the case on this package as well. Then we can 
take up the antiterrorism package next week and finish it as well.
  I thank my friend.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________