[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.
____________________