[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 132 (Thursday, October 4, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10270-S10274]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous 
consent that the morning hour be extended for 1 hour, until 12:30, with 
Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. The fault of these attacks clearly lies with those 
who perpetrated them, but the failures are all our shared 
responsibilities. There is no way to get away from that.
  On the other hand, they are also a shared opportunity. I have long 
argued and made many speeches that we have a habit in the Congress, and 
to some extent in our country, of taking aviation for granted, knowing 
very little about its details, complaining when we are delayed but not 
making the effort to understand what aviation entails, what happens 
when passenger traffic doubles--as everybody knew would happen before 
September 11, and which I believe will come to be true again. This is 
an opportunity, this horrible tragedy, to set a number of accounts 
straight in terms of the way we secure our airports.
  We have to develop, we have to fund, we have to implement a better 
and changed way of providing security--particularly true after 
September 11. Had it never happened, we still should have been doing 
it. Instead, we were concentrating on air traffic control, runways, 
matters of this sort that are tremendously important, but we were not 
focused on security. That has to change. The Aviation Security Act 
gives us the chance to do exactly that.
  First and foremost, the bill restores the basic responsibility for 
security to its rightful place. That is with Federal law enforcement 
rather than with the airlines and the airports, which can neither 
afford it nor do it properly. This is not a question of private 
security companies. There is absolutely no other segment of American 
life in which we need national security contracted out to the private 
sector. Until last month, the airports' private security companies had 
in fact managed to ensure that ours was the safest system in the world. 
Let that be said. It always has been, always will be. But there is 
public concern that if there is an accident, it will be of a very large 
nature; if there is terrorism in our future, it will be of a very large 
nature. We have to begin to think about all things more seriously. We 
want the safest system in the world. We have the safest system in the 
world, but it has to be a lot better.

  Law enforcement has to be fulfilled by the Federal Government. 
Everybody agrees on that, both sides of the aisle. The Bush 
administration is working on that, leaning towards that. We owe it to 
the American people to take profitability out of aviation safety 
altogether.
  This bill, still subject to some details that have to be worked out--
but that is good, that is not bad; we are moving--creates a new Deputy 
Secretary for Transportation Security, with ultimate responsibility for 
interagency aviation security, and expands the air marshal program to 
provide armed, expert marshals on both domestic and international 
flights, and increases Federal law enforcement for airport perimeter 
and for air traffic control facilities--not just getting in and out of 
airports but the complete perimeter of the airport. Screening will also 
be monitored as it has never been monitored before by armed Federal law 
enforcement. It will be conducted in virtually all cases by a Federal 
screening workforce.
  When you walk into a small airport, you will see uniforms, pistols, 
screeners who, like everybody else in this country, are going to have 
to be trained more or less from ground zero because the training is 
insufficient, the turnover is horrendous. It is a national 
embarrassment. The whole level of training will have to be raised very 
dramatically in urban and in rural airports. In rural airports there is 
a possibility, where there are five or six flights a day, you don't 
need full-time

[[Page S10271]]

security. There we would have deputized local police officers who are 
federally trained at the highest levels and who are federally funded. 
So there is no net difference, no first and second class airport. It is 
a question of making sure the rural airports have the security they 
need. We will be sure of that.
  On board the aircraft, the bill requires strengthening cockpit doors. 
We had a fascinating discussion at length with El Al. They have a 
double set of doors with space in between so if even a hijacker were 
able to get through one, he or she probably could not possibly get 
through the second. That, obviously, would take reconfiguration, would 
take some time, and it would take some costs. We have to do what is 
necessary. Does a pilot come out of a cockpit, for example, to use the 
lavatory? I am not for that. I think lavatories ought to be inside the 
cockpit. A cockpit should be absolutely inviolate--nobody gets in. If 
nobody gets in, there will be no more hijackings. El Al has not had 
any, and I don't expect them to. Even flight attendants will not have 
keys to be able to get into the cockpit. No one will be able to access 
the plane's controls other than the pilot.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for 10 minutes.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 4 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. It will take some time. People should understand 
that. We cannot take a workforce without sufficient training and 
upgrade it in a day, in a month. You don't quickly reconfigure 
airplanes in the way we will have to with sky marshals, through cockpit 
arrangements. It will take time. People need to understand that. If 
they want airport security totally now, we can give them a lot of that, 
but we cannot give it all to them immediately; it will take time. The 
federalization will give people confidence this will be done at the 
highest level.
  We have anti-hijack training for pilots and flight attendants. We 
propose to pay for this with passenger security fees, authorizing DOT 
to reimburse airports for the costs incurred by them since September 
11. Most have no idea that is coming, but it is. We will help them pay 
their costs. We will give airports temporary flexibility to pay for 
their security responsibilities under the AIP program. They can't do 
that now. We will give them that flexibility. They can pay for security 
equipment and infrastructure, but they cannot pay for any direct 
expenditures such as salaries and the rest.
  It will be a very good bill.
  We are looking at security with biometric and hand-retina recognition 
devices. As the bill comes before us and as we debate it, there can be 
no higher order of magnitude for our Senate concentration than this 
bill as it emerges.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
  I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, just over 2 weeks ago I came to this floor 
and talked about the 20-year history of aviation security. I did so for 
a simple reason. There has been a very clear pattern on this issue over 
the last 20 years. Again and again there has been a tragedy in the sky. 
Again and again there has been widespread public outrage. Again and 
again there has been widespread agreement on what needs to be done to 
improve aviation security. Again and again the real reforms weren't 
implemented because of political infighting.
  I come to the floor of the Senate today to say that this time it 
really has to be different. This time the Senate needs to come together 
on a bipartisan basis and make sure these changes are actually 
implemented. I wanted to make this appeal for bipartisanship because 
that is what Chairman Hollings--I see my friend Senator McCain on the 
floor as well--and Senator McCain are trying to do in the Senate 
Commerce Committee with the legislation that we would like to have 
taken up.
  I happen to believe that, as a result of the determination and the 
persistence of Chairman Hollings and Senator McCain, we are now talking 
about legislation that will bring new accountability on this aviation 
security issue. The bill is not about political ideology. The Hollings-
McCain legislation is about accountability--about ensuring that the 
Federal Government on a national security issue is accountable. Nobody 
in the Senate would ever think about subcontracting out our national 
security. But that is regrettably what has happened in the aviation 
sector for so many years.
  I went back through some of the history almost 2 weeks ago on the 
floor of the Senate. It started really after the Pan Am Flight 103 
bombing over Lockerbie in 1988. We saw it again after the TWA Flight 
800 crashed near Long Island. In each case Presidential commissions 
were established, and there was unanimity about what needed to be done, 
with the General Accounting Office and the Department of Transportation 
inspector general outlining the vulnerabilities and then political 
infighting started.
  I am very hopeful the Senate will support the bipartisan effort being 
led by Chairman Hollings and Senator McCain. I have felt for way too 
long that there isn't enough bipartisanship on important issues of 
today. Senator Smith and I are trying to do it in our home State of 
Oregon. I think Chairman Hollings and Senator McCain are trying to do 
it in this Chamber with this legislation.
  If we don't get this done, I fear we will be back on the floor of 
this body in 6 months or a year with Senator after Senator taking their 
turn once again in a procession of floor speeches about how sorry and 
upset the Senate is that another tragedy has occurred--that another 
tragedy occurred because the Senate failed to act promptly to put in 
place the safeguards that I have documented on the floor of this Senate 
and that have been called for now repeatedly in the last 20 years.
  I am hopeful that in the hours ahead--I appreciate what Chairman 
Hollings and Senator McCain are trying to do--we can deal with the 
additional issues that are outstanding and get this legislation 
reported.
  Let me touch on two other matters. The second issue I would like to 
mention is this: The rule and the procedures that are going to be set 
out will define what the aviation industry is all about for years and 
years to come. I am talking now about the rule that is going to be set 
in place with respect to loans and loan guarantees that are going to go 
a long way in determining whether there is real competition in the 
airline sector, affordable prices, and whether places in rural Nebraska 
and rural Oregon are serviced. I have outlined what I think are six or 
seven key principles that ought to govern how those loans and loan 
guarantees are made.

  What concerns me is that those decisions are being made behind closed 
doors. They are being made outside the public debate. There is 
considerable discussion about whether the large airlines may, in fact, 
have an agenda that will crush the small airlines. I am very hopeful 
that Members of this body will weigh in between now and Saturday with 
the Office of Management and Budget as they make the rules that are 
going to govern these loans and loan guarantees.
  One last point: Something that I and Senator Smith are together on is 
the pride in our State and our citizens. A number of Oregonians, 
strong-willed people in our State, are mounting an operation that they 
call Flight for Freedom, answering the national call for all of us to 
get on with our lives and come to the aid of those hurt in the attacks 
of September 11. In a show of solidarity with their fellow Americans, 
more than 700 Oregonians are making the statement this weekend by 
heading to the hotels and Broadway shows and restaurants in New York 
City that are fighting for economic survival in the aftermath of the 
attack. With Oregonians' Flight for Freedom, the people of my State are 
standing shoulder to shoulder with the citizens of New York in an 
effort to make clear that no terrorist can break the American spirit.
  I congratulate Sho Dozono and the other organizers and participants 
in Oregon's Flight for Freedom for their generous efforts. I urge all 
Americans to follow their example. Oregonians are showing this weekend 
that we are going to stand against terrorism by

[[Page S10272]]

reaching out to fellow citizens and enjoying what American life has to 
offer in our centers of commerce across this great Nation. Because of 
these kinds of efforts, we can send a message that terrorists can't 
extinguish the American spirit.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Oregon for his 
kind words about the work we have done together on the Commerce 
Committee on other issues. It has been a distinct honor for me to have 
the benefit of the relationship we developed over the years. I am very 
grateful for his involvement in issues such as Internet tax, aviation, 
and many others. I believe he is correct in that we have been able to 
display from time to time the degree of cooperation working together on 
common goals about which I think the American people are very pleased.
  If you believe the latest polls, Americans have never been more 
pleased at the way we have been performing in a bipartisan fashion. I 
thank the Senator from Oregon for his kind words.
  I wish to take a couple of minutes to talk about where we are and 
where we need to go on airport security and airline security. I am sure 
all of us by now know that a Russian airliner was shot down a few hours 
ago. They are not exactly sure why. But I think that may, at least in 
the minds of some of us, emphasize the need for us to proceed with 
whatever measures we can take to ensure safety but also as importantly 
to restore confidence in the American people in their ability to 
utilize air transportation in America in as safe a manner as possible.
  There is no doubt that there are millions of Americans who are still 
either concerned about or afraid of flying on commercial airlines. We 
need to move forward with this legislation.
  What is hanging it up? One is there is a disagreement between 
sponsors of the bill, Senator Hollings, myself, Senator Hutchison, 
Senator Rockefeller, and the administration on the issue of 
federalization of employees. There are different approaches. But I 
think we can at least have serious negotiations and come to some 
agreement. I believe that is not only possible but probable.
  The second point is the concern about the addition of nongermane 
amendments to the legislation--whether it be Amtrak, whether it be on 
the so-called Carnahan amendment which extends unemployment benefits 
and other benefits to people whose lives were affected by the shutdown 
of the airlines.
  I think all of us are in sympathy with those individuals, all of 
them, particularly those at National Airport, who had a more extended 
period of unemployment as a direct result of an order of the Federal 
Government. I am not sure how a conservative or liberal could argue the 
point that since it was a Government action it would be hard for us to 
not justify some assistance to those people whose lives were directly 
affected.
  As we all know, hundreds of thousands or so of airline employees' 
lives are affected by layoffs that the major airlines have already 
announced. So there is a significant problem out there. But I would 
make a strong case that this is an airline/airport security bill. This 
is to improve aviation security. It is not a bill for unemployment 
compensation or any other. This legislation is directly tailored to 
aviation security and airline safety.
  Last week, we passed a bill to give financial relief to the airlines. 
That was what it was about. That is for what it was tailored. We did 
not add extraneous amendments.
  So I have to say to my colleagues that I think it is not the time to 
add that to an aviation security bill, especially in light of the fact 
that we all know within a week or two we are going to take up a 
stimulus package. Clearly, that issue would be addressed in some shape 
or form when the stimulus package is considered.
  So I intend to oppose any nongermane amendment to this legislation. I 
believe there are at least 41 of us, if not 51 of us, who would object, 
so therefore we would not have the bill become bogged down in extended 
debate.
  Those who insist on putting a nongermane amendment on an aviation 
security bill would then be responsible for preventing passage of a 
bill that has to do with aviation security.
  So I hope those Members who are concerned and committed to assisting 
those whose lives have been severely disrupted by the shutdown of the 
airlines--we are in complete sympathy with them and we intend to act. 
And we intend to negotiate a reasonable package that would provide some 
benefits and compensation, depending on how directly their lives were 
affected, et cetera--something that, by the way, we would have to have 
a lot of facts and figures about, too. But to put it on this bill would 
be obfuscation, delay, and prevention of us acting to ensure the safety 
and security of airlines and airline passengers throughout America.
  So I want to make that perfectly clear, that we should not have any 
amendment, no matter how virtuous it may be, on an airport and airline 
security bill.
  I hope we can move forward with this bill. There are a lot of Members 
who want to talk about it. There are not too many amendments. We could 
get this thing done today if we could move forward on it and have some 
agreement.
  I also remind my colleagues that we are in negotiation and will 
continue to try to work with the administration. We also have to work 
with the Members of the House on this legislation as well. But for us 
to delay because we have our own pet agendas, our own specific 
priorities, and not act as speedily as possible to restore confidence 
on the part of the American people in their ability to get on an 
airline is somewhat of an abrogation of our responsibilities.
  I am pleased that Senator Hollings, the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, has also pledged to oppose any nongermane amendments as 
well.
  So, Mr. President, I really want to emphasize that we need to move 
forward. I think it would be wrong of us to go into the weekend without 
doing so, at least making some progress. We are prepared to do so, and 
I hope we can.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I want to discuss for a little bit the 
airline issue. I thank my friend from Arizona for the work he has done 
on this issue. Certainly, security in flying is an issue on which all 
of us want to move forward. So this is not a failure to act.
  Some people have said we are holding it up, it is slow, and so on. I 
do not think that is the case at all. I think what is the case is that 
this is a very important issue. This is an issue that could be done in 
several ways. I think there is a legitimate effort to try to ensure 
that we think it through enough to come up with a process that would 
most likely achieve the goals that we have; that is, of course, safety 
and security on airlines.
  There are a number of different issues that need to be talked about, 
but I do not think there is a soul in this body who does not want to 
move forward on airline security. It is the security issue of the 
moment.
  There needs to be some major changes in the process. We have had 
security for some time. We have a higher security level now, I believe, 
than we did before September 11. I happen to have been in Wyoming three 
times since then and have found that there is security. There are armed 
people in Dulles, for example--more security. Is it enough? Probably 
not. We probably need to do it better and more professionally. And that 
is what this is all about.
  But I do want to make the point that I think you will see airline 
passenger numbers going up. There is more security than there has been 
in the past, but we need to change the process. And we need to do it as 
quickly as we possibly can.
  We need to have more experienced people there, particularly in 
baggage examination. We need to do it so that we do not develop a long-
term Federal bureaucracy. That is an opinion that some do not share. 
But, nevertheless, in order to achieve the goals we want, we have to 
make some changes. And even though I would like to see it done in the 
next 15 minutes, and move out of here, I must say, I am glad that we 
are taking the time to examine these issues and to come up with what we 
think is the best solution, even if it takes a little longer.
  As I say, we now have substantially more security than we did have. 
In

[[Page S10273]]

some of the smaller States, the National Guard has been made available 
to help, and so on. One of the puzzles, of course, is to find the 
proper agency. I don't know that it is a puzzle, but it is a challenge 
to find the proper agency to supervise and be responsible for airline 
security. Many believe--and I am one of those who think it--that it 
ought to be a law enforcement agency and not really belong in the FAA. 
Those people have responsibilities, but law enforcement is not one of 
those responsibilities. So that is one of the issues.
  I see my friend from Texas is in the Chamber. She has been very 
involved in this issue. I yield my time to her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the Senator 
from Wyoming, who has also been working on this issue, coming forward.
  I see the Senator from Montana in the Chamber; he is a very important 
part of the negotiations on this issue.
  The bottom line is, we want to go to the bill. The American people 
expect us to pass a bill to securitize the airplanes and the airports 
in this country. What is holding us up is people who want to offer 
extraneous amendments. Some of them I agree with; some of them I do 
not.
  But the point is, we cannot put every amendment, on any different 
subject, on the security bill and pass it. We have legitimate 
disagreements on how to best securitize our aviation system.
  Let us go to the bill and start talking about those differences 
because I think we can work them out. I believe we are 90 percent 
there. There are a few things on which we are going to continue to 
negotiate, but we need to be on the bill. We cannot go to the bill if 
we are worried about having extraneous amendments, whether it is on 
employee problems and benefits or whether it is on Amtrak security--all 
of which I think are very legitimate issues. I want to add security to 
Amtrak, as long as we add security for the entire system and not just 
one part of the system.
  But the bottom line is, we have an aviation security package that is 
a very good first step forward, where we would put sky marshals in the 
air, where we would secure the cockpit, where we would have better 
trained and equipped screeners, where we would have better equipment. 
All of these things must be done. And we can do it this week if we can 
get to the bill.
  I urge my colleagues not to have process drag us down. The Senate has 
a bill before it that is good, solid legislation. We are working with 
Democrats and Republicans and with the administration to make sure we 
do what we do well, correctly, and give the flying public the 
confidence that when they get on an airplane, they are going to be 
safe.
  If we can do that, it will be the beginning of rebuilding our 
economy. If we can secure the airlines so people will come back and 
fly, then more of those people who have been laid off by the airline 
industry will be called back to work.
  The travel industry will be uplifted. We will have people staying in 
hotels. We will have people renting cars, employed in the airports, and 
in the shops. These are the things that will stimulate our economy.
  We are talking about a stimulus package, which I hope we will look at 
next week. That is very important. We can stimulate the economy with an 
aviation security package. We can put people back to work in the 
aviation industry and stop the domino effect to our economy caused by 
layoffs in the airline industry because people are not coming back to 
fly.
  I appreciate the cooperation we are getting. Senator Hollings, 
Senator Rockefeller, Senator McCain, and I have worked well together to 
try to get a consensus. We are very close. If we can go to the bill and 
if people will agree not to offer amendments that delay the ability for 
us to consider relevant amendments, we can work it out this week and 
send something to the House and hopefully go to the President and do 
the very important part of the stimulus package, and that is to beef up 
the aviation industry.
  I thank my colleague from Wyoming, and I certainly thank my colleague 
from Montana, who has been a very important part of the aviation 
subcommittee, working to put something together that all of us will be 
able to support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bayh). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas who has 
worked very hard on aviation matters. We are moving forward. No one is 
seeking to hold up this bill. All of us agree aviation security is 
something that needs to be done and needs to be done very soon.
  The Senator from Montana has been a part of this committee and has 
worked very hard. I yield to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Wyoming.
  When we examine this issue, we find several approaches we have to 
take a look at. We do want to move forward on it because there is a 
sense of urgency, if not in this body, in America.
  Last weekend when I was in Montana, that is what they discussed: How 
do we travel; how do we know we are safe; and the anger they feel 
because of the events on September 11. Whatever was important to us on 
September 10, by September 12 it was not important anymore.
  Now we have before us the very important issue of airport security 
and this legislation. Let's talk about the areas of concern: 
intelligence and passenger lists, who is in charge of those, who can 
better manage those; security at airports on the perimeter, the total 
facility, the check-in area, the departure gate, the cargo, which 
includes baggage and how they handle baggage, and the tremendous 
tonnage of air freight that moves through each airport and each 
facility every year; how do we secure the area where the aircraft are 
parked; and finally, and most importantly, the security of the 
aircraft.
  We had an opportunity to visit with the security people who are in 
charge of passenger safety and security for El Al. It is a Government-
owned airline by the country of Israel. If there is one thing of which 
the Israeli people are apprised and aware, it is terrorism. How do they 
handle this? Granted, their domestic air transportation isn't as great 
as the system we find here in the United States. However, in principle, 
it has to be the same heightened awareness of security before we see 
load factors going from what they are running, around 40, 45 percent 
now, to 70, 75 percent, and profitability of the airlines. Air 
transportation is one of those linchpins of the American economy, our 
ability to move.
  El Al has 31 airplanes. Living in a very volatile region of the 
world, the areas of responsibility to which I referred are very 
important to them. They have 7,000 employees, 1,500 of whom are 
employed in the security part of their operation. They do nothing but 
security. They secure the areas I previously enumerated: intelligence 
and passenger lists, the airport facility, the check-in area, departure 
gate, cargo, aircraft area, and aircraft.
  They have been pretty successful in the last 20 years. They have not 
had a hijacking or anything such as that, operating in an area of the 
world that is very volatile.
  They have one man who is in charge of security in all of these areas. 
He doesn't operate the airport, the runways, the luggage, the people 
who handle luggage, the people who handle cargo. He handles security. 
They have accountability and responsibility.
  That is what the American public wants us to do. In this legislation, 
there has to be a strong, bright line of accountability and 
responsibility to one agency or one area of government.
  I have proposed an amendment. It has very strong bipartisan support. 
The amendment would give that responsibility to the Department of 
Justice. Not that the Department of Transportation is not efficient and 
would not be dedicated to passenger safety and security, not that the 
FAA could not do it, but we do not need a convoluted and nondistinct 
line of responsibility or accountability.
  The American public are telling us Justice does it best, with the 
confidence in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the Federal 
marshal system. We have a model right in front of us, as those folks 
are responsible for the security of our Federal buildings,

[[Page S10274]]

the movement of Federal prisoners. They understand secure areas and 
danger points. However the Attorney General wants to do it matters not 
to me. It is that we have a bright line of authority and accountability 
and responsibility.

  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. BURNS. Certainly.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Montana, I was speaking earlier 
today to the chairman of the committee, Senator Hollings. He, too, 
thought that perhaps there should be some other entity other than the 
Department of Transportation that would supervise and control this. He 
suggested, for example,--I know there is a dispute as to whether or not 
they should be federalized, but he suggested maybe the Department of 
Defense. I say to my friend, in the form of a question, I think the 
Senator's suggestion is worth consideration. I think it is not a bad 
idea.
  Maybe the Department of Justice, which has wide law enforcement 
responsibilities already, could do this. But the question I ask my 
friend--my friend from Texas, the junior Senator from Texas, who was 
here in the Chamber saying we should get to the bill and get some of 
this stuff decided, I agree with her; we should get on the bill. But I 
say to my friend from Montana, the minority is holding up the bill. I 
think the issue the Senator is talking about as to who should 
supervise, whether it should be federalized or not--we should get to 
the floor and offer amendments.
  I think the Senator's idea is good. I will not do this now because it 
is inappropriate, but if I offered a unanimous consent agreement now 
that we would go to the bill immediately, would the Senator allow me to 
do that?
  Mr. BURNS. How loaded was that? I think there are still disagreements 
among leadership. I could not do that personally. If it were in my 
power--which it is not--I am a soldier around here and everybody in the 
world is smarter than I am--I am ready to go to the bill. I would offer 
my amendment and we would vote on it, and we would win or lose and we 
would go on down the trail.
  Mr. REID. I am not going to offer a unanimous consent at this time 
because, as the Senator has indicated, leadership on his side perhaps 
doesn't agree. I hope the Senator, with the persuasive nature that he 
has in his down-home, homespun, very persistent and persuasive way, 
would be able to talk to his side and let us get to this bill. There 
are some things that I would like to offer as an amendment on the bill. 
The Senator from Montana agrees, and I agree, that airport security is 
something we should fasten onto quickly. We should get to the bill. If 
there is something somebody doesn't like in the way of an amendment--
and people are not complaining about the underlying bill, but if there 
is an amendment someone doesn't like, vote it up or down.
  I hope today we can get to the bill. I appreciate the courtesy of my 
friend from Montana for yielding.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The only thing I will say, the Senator mentioned he is one 
of the soldiers. If I were going to war, I would not mind having the 
Senator from Montana with me.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the Senator for that. I feel the same way about 
him. I want to reiterate that I think we can complete this bill today. 
I don't know whether or not we are in session tomorrow, but I think we 
can get it done. I am not sure if we have an agreement with the folks 
on the House side. That is another important piece of this puzzle that 
we have to solve in the next 2 or 3 days in order to move this 
legislation to the President's desk.

  I am sure the President wants a piece of legislation that he can 
sign, which gives him the direction and also allows him the flexibility 
to provide the safety and security for the American people. He is 
basically the ultimate director of how this will work. What I am saying 
is that I think the American people are watching this very closely.
  Yesterday, we had a hearing on border security. Nobody is more in 
tune than I am as far as border security. The Senator from Nevada 
understands the Western States and how big they are. We have just a 
little under 4,000 miles of border with our friends in Canada, with 
cultures that are similar, and no language barrier; and 25 percent of 
that border is my State of Montana. We have farmers who farm both in 
Montana and in Canada. So for the movement of livestock, and for farm 
machinery, and farm chemicals, and everything it takes to make a farm 
or ranch go, it is important that we have not only secure borders but 
also borders that are flexible enough to allow movement of commerce and 
to get the job done for those people who live on the border. There are 
ranches that lay on both sides, part in Canada and part in the United 
States. No, we don't have a lot of ports and the gates are rusted open. 
Nine times out of 10 they set out a red cone and it says: The gate is 
closed. You can go 100 yards on either side of the gate of entry and go 
in unnoticed, undetected. So we understand that, too.
  To conclude my statement, Mr. President, even though there is a sense 
of urgency for the passage of airport security, I think there is also a 
feeling in the United States--even though we are working in this highly 
charged environment because of the events of September 11--that we do 
it right. I think we can do it right. We also can be accountable to the 
American people for whom we are doing this legislation. It is for their 
benefit, their movement, and for the safety of this country. I 
appreciate the attention of the Chair.
  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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________