[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 9, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10356-S10361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                AVIATION SECURITY ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion to proceed to the consideration of 
S. 1447.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me correct a statement I made 
sometime last week when we were checking

[[Page S10357]]

into the practice of other countries with respect to airport security. 
We were told that of the countries in Europe, all were Government 
employed. That should be corrected. That is not the case. In fact, 
France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and England, those four countries, 
have contracts, but they have the health benefits and the guaranteed 
vacation and other benefits guaranteed by the Government. It is a sort 
of hybrid situation.
  Of 102 countries around the world with significant air travel 
systems, only 23 use contract screeners. I think that is not the point 
I want to make this afternoon.
  No one would suggest that we take the security for the President of 
the United States; namely, the Secret Service, and privatize it, 
contract it out. Nor would anyone recommend privatizing the security 
that the distinguished Chair, myself, and other Senators receive, the 
Capitol Police, who incidentally have been working around the clock, 
doing an outstanding job. You can go on down the list, whether it is 
Customs, whether it is the Border Patrol, and the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service that has some 33,000 personnel, no one in the 
House or Senate has suggested that we contract that out.
  No one has suggested we contract out the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation with the thousands of professionals conducting the 
investigation right now. No one suggests that they take some 669,000 
civilian workers in national defense and contract them out. In fact, 
there was a suggestion by the OMB earlier this year to do just that. 
The OMB folks called over to the Pentagon and said: We are looking at 
downsizing and we want to get some contracting out of 5 to 10 percent 
of your civilian workers. And the Department of Defense said: That will 
never happen. We are in the security business.
  Yet the big hangup is federalization, the Government taking over the 
responsibility of security for air travel in America.
  Now, we have tried after Pan Am 103 back in 1988, with more training, 
more hours, more supervision, extra this and extra that, to no avail; 
we had TWA 800 in 1996 and again the Gore commission with more 
training, more supervision, and what have you. And now we have 6,000 
killed and 13,000 casualties. To me, it will take unmitigated gall, 
with the recent experiences in mind, to come forth with a contracting 
out proposal.
  Only a while ago did I learn why we are having to put up with this 
nonsense. All you have to do is read Roll Call, ``Airport Firms Form 
Alliance.'' The airport firms formed an alliance with a Swedish company 
and call themselves the Aviation Security Association. And who do they 
have as members? The contractors that want to keep continuing their 
misdeeds. For instance, one of the association members, Argenbright had 
the contract for the Dulles and Newark airports.
  Now, let's read about Argenbright. I find in an article on September 
13 in the Miami Herald:

       The security company that provides the checkpoint workers 
     at the airports breached by Tuesday's hijackers has been 
     cited at least twice for security lapses.
       In its worst infraction, Atlanta-based Argenbright Security 
     pleaded guilty last year to allowing untrained employees, 
     some with criminal backgrounds, to operate checkpoints at 
     Philadelphia National Airport.
       In settling the charges, Argenbright agreed to pay $1.2 
     million in fines and investigative costs.
       . . . Argenbright was also found to have committed dozens 
     of violations of Federal labor laws against its employees at 
     Los Angeles International Airport, an administrative law 
     judge ruled in February 2000.

  Here we are trying to do the work of the people of America, and we 
don't have any Senators listening. They are listening to the lobbyists, 
the K Street crowd, who are down here working the different Senators, 
and I can't explain to them the problem of security at the airports. 
Mind you me, those who are falsifying records, if you please, are now 
saying what we have to do is have contracting out; we can't federalize.
  Of course, that appeals to the crowd that comes into public service 
by promising to get rid of the Government. ``The Government is not the 
solution, the Government is the problem.'' That is all they all talk 
about. They are thinking of what? Of next year's reelection. They are 
not thinking of security. They are thinking: Wait a minute now, I was 
going to downsize and get rid of the Government, and now I supported 
18,000 screeners and some 10,000 other airport personnel--some 28,000 I 
am going to put on the Government payroll, and my opponent is going to 
say: He promised to get rid of the Government, and he went and voted to 
add 28,000 more Government jobs.
  That is the problem--along with the blooming lobbyists. They are 
trying to carry out their political commitments. They are not looking 
out for the safety of the traveling public in America. The worst thing 
we have ever done is give the money to the airlines. They didn't take 
care of the employees. I had Herb Kelleher, of Southwest Airlines, tell 
me he did not furlough a single employee and maintained 100 percent 
service. But they were all going broke. Why? Because the lobbyists took 
over--the same crowd that came running around hollering they were all 
going to go broke. Here I am fighting to do the people's work, and 
Senators are gathered together in their offices with all of these 
airline lobbyists. This is the fifth week since September 11, and we 
can't pass airline security.
  All of America wants this responsibility fixed within the Government. 
No one for a second, as I say, would suggest that the FBI and the 
Secret Service, the Border Patrol, and Customs, or any of the other 
security agencies--no one would suggest that the 669,000 civilians in 
defense be contracted out. According to the lobbyists the Government is 
too big, the Government can't do anything. They ought to be ashamed of 
themselves. Look at what is happening. Turn on your TV if you want to 
see what Government can do. Look at these attacks on Osama bin Laden 
and the Taliban. I don't know--there are some 31 different military 
targets, with 2 countries involved, B-2s coming all the way from 
Missouri, ships stationed in the Indian Ocean, planes coming off Diego 
Garcia--all Government, Government recruited, Government fed, 
Government housed, Government trained, Government deployed, with 
precision work that we all praise--but we can't get a Government 
airport security screener. Oh, no, no, that would be against my 
ideology. No, we want contracting out, privatization.
  We now know what we are putting up with in this lobbyist crowd and 
the silly ideology that the Government can't do anything. Well, I am 
proud of our Government; I am proud of our deployment. We are going to 
correct this situation, and we are not going to have an Executive 
order. I have heard word that the administration might implement an 
Executive order to take care of it and say Congress is dragging its 
feet.
  We are trying to go along and be bipartisan and everything else 
because this is a bipartisan bill, reported unanimously out of the 
Commerce Committee. We have been ready to vote and take amendments, 
consider them and vote upon them. But they are going to say now that we 
are going to have to get an Executive order because we are dragging our 
feet and can't get security out of the Congress, mind you me.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am delighted to yield to the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. I was listening with interest to the Senator about this 
issue of national objectives and Federal employees doing airport 
screening. I know there are some who think there is nothing in 
Government that can be done correctly. But I say them, that they should 
go to ground zero in New York City, the site of these terrorist acts, 
and talk to the firefighters and law enforcement people. They will then 
understand that those Government employees, those firefighters who lost 
their lives, were climbing the stairs of those twin Trade Towers even 
as they were coming down. As that fire broke out in both buildings and 
people began to evacuate those buildings, those firefighters were going 
up with full backpacks. People told me--and I read reports--of seeing 
firefighters on the 20th floor and the 30th floor, nearly out of 
breath, climbing the stairs of those buildings. Those are public 
servants providing a public service that is unmeasurable in its value 
to this country.
  So when I hear people talk about Government workers in a disparaging

[[Page S10358]]

way, I say this: There are a lot of people who commit themselves to 
public service in this country who, every day and every way, every 
hour, protect this country and stand up for the interests of this 
country. Yes, I'm describing the firefighters of New York, and the law 
enforcement folks in New York and New Jersey and the surrounding 
region, but this public service also occurs in every community across 
this country, every single day.
  The Senator from South Carolina has proposed, and I support, the 
notion that at the 100 largest airports in this country we federalize 
the screeners who are screening baggage so that they are following 
national standards and national training guidelines. It makes great 
sense to me. And with respect to the other airports, I believe the 
Senator proposed that local airports could contract with law 
enforcement officials and others to do the same thing.
  But it seems to me that--I guess I will ask the Senator this 
question, finally, that we are hung up on this issue at this moment: 
The issue of aviation security is of paramount importance to this 
country. Why? Because some people don't like the notion that we would 
replace the big companies that have now contracted to provide this 
service--service where inspector after inspector has shown us you can 
drive a truck through the holes in the service. They decide: We don't 
want to do it. Therefore, we will hold up the legislation and not allow 
it to continue.
  How long, I ask the Senator, have we been held up on the floor of the 
Senate by this ideology that says we won't allow there to be Federal 
screeners at the Nation's largest airports? How long?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. We are into the fifth week. We are into the fifth week 
since the attacks. We immediately held these hearings, and I called the 
distinguished Secretary of Transportation the week of this occurrence. 
It was on the following Thursday immediately after September 11th. I 
said: I am going to set this hearing up. I said: You can enhance 
cockpit security by installing reinforced cockpit doors. We found in 
Israel that once you secure that cockpit--and Boeing said they could 
retrofit doors immediately in the next 2 to 3 weeks, and then they will 
have a more secure door. They have a retrofit package for the planes 
right now, and if you and I were head of an airline, we would 
immediately require this for the security of our pilots.

  We want pilots to fly, not fight. Once they secure that door, then 
you do not have disturbed individuals storming that door as we had on 
that Los Angeles to Chicago flight. That ends hijacking for all intents 
and purposes, because never again can they use an air flight as a 
weapon of mass destruction.
  I do not want to pass up the eloquence of the observation of the 
Senator with respect to these firefighters. They are the best in the 
world. They are not paid enough. They are working extra hours, and they 
were willing, as the Senator says, to give their life to try to save 
those lives while the building was coming down. They thought there 
could be a chance they would save a life or two, and they were going up 
those steps. That is fixed in my mind.
  We should be ashamed of ourselves for delaying this bill. We get all 
boiled up about procedure. We have to move now. Once we moved 97 to 0 
to cloture, we need to go ahead to the bill itself. Why are we not 
debating the bill this afternoon and passing it tonight?
  There are two or three amendments. Let us vote on those amendments. 
They could be just ideas. We are not hard and fast, except on one 
thing, and that is to get airport security. Yes, there is flexibility 
in the bill. We live in the real world.
  Take small, rural airports such as at Bamberg and Orangeburg, SC. 
They are not used to having the federalization of the system, but we 
have to have the Federal standards for inspections to make certain they 
have airport security. We do not want a plane coming from, say, Bamberg 
to fly into Charlotte and then the passengers get off, never having 
been checked properly, to come into Washington, never having had the 
proper security check.
  So that is a lesson I learned from El Al, the Israeli security 
agents, and the chief pilot at El Al. He told me, for example, once 
that cockpit door was closed, they could be assaulting his wife in the 
cabin, but he does not open the door. That is why, when they heard this 
Russian plane that had come out of Israel exploded and went down into 
the Black Sea last weekend, they knew immediately it was not from a 
bomb, because for 30 years they have known they are not going to get 
anywhere. They are still investigating the possibility that a Ukrainian 
missile gone astray may have caused the crash. They might start a fight 
and hurt, say, 5 people, but not 5,000. But the pilot immediately lands 
and already has law enforcement waiting to take over.
  The rule used to be--and I guess still is unless that FAA is getting 
going--if I am the pilot and you come forward and say, this is a 
hijacking and I want to go to Havana, Cuba, you say, oh, yes, I always 
wanted to go to Cuba; let's all go to Havana, wonderful, yes--just go 
wherever the hijacker wants and get it down and then let law 
enforcement come.
  No, the rule has changed and ought to have been changed 3 weeks ago, 
and they are still dillying around wondering about contractors and the 
employees.
  I actually had a meeting with the transportation officials, and they 
were talking about 9 months to a year to get this thing done. 
Absolutely ludicrous. We are in an emergency situation. We have men 
committed in battle, putting their lives on the line, and we are 
talking about maybe securing our airlines in a year's time even though 
we have already sent $15 billion to the airlines.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield further for a question?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I do not mean to interrupt the Senator, but I was 
inspired listening to his discussion and I want to make a couple of 
additional comments, concluding with a question.
  It is not unusual for politicians to compliment themselves, but the 
Senator from South Carolina is not someone who would ever do that. So 
let me pay a compliment to Senator Hollings and also to Senator McCain. 
The Senator has brought a bill to this Chamber that makes good sense. 
He worked on this legislation in a manner of developing a consensus, 
worked in a bipartisan way, brought a bill in a very timely manner, and 
then, as the Senator from South Carolina has said, it has been hung up 
now for some weeks.
  It is inexplicable that in a time of national emergency--and it is 
that, not just with respect to national security issues but also with 
respect to this economy--it is inexplicable that there is, among some, 
business as usual in the Senate. This is not business as usual. In my 
judgment, it ought to be a circumstance where, if someone disagrees 
with what Senator Hollings and Senator McCain have brought to the 
floor, then by all means offer an amendment, make their best case and 
try to strip it out.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
  Mr. DORGAN. Have a record vote and strip it out.
  As I understand the circumstances, those with whom the Senator 
disagrees at this point, they are content just preventing the Senator 
from considering this bill because they do not want to have a vote. 
They will lose the vote, and lose the vote by a fairly large margin.
  Will the Senator from South Carolina agree with that assessment?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I agree with that assessment, and part of that 
assessment should go right to the lobbyists. This is actually a 
headline: Airport firms form alliance. Well, they did not form an 
alliance for safety or security. They formed an alliance to feather 
their own nests. They are not interested in security, and that is what 
the hold-up is over with that political stand-off of ``get rid of the 
Government.'' They are thinking about their reelection campaigns next 
year. They are not thinking about the security of airline travel in 
America, I can say that.

  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield one final time for a question? I 
deeply appreciate his indulgence.
  The reason this is important, aside from basic safety, which I think 
is paramount, is the airline industry and commercial aviation are 
critically important to this country's economy. Prior to September 11 
our economy was very soft, and the airline industry as a leading 
economic indicator was hemorrhaging in red ink going into September 11. 
Then the Government shut down the entire commercial aviation

[[Page S10359]]

sector, just shut it down completely. Now that it has begun to start up 
once again, people are leery, are worrying about whether or not they 
want to get back on an airplane. People are cancelling trips. They are 
cancelling conferences.
  The thing is, Government has the obligation to say to those people 
who have images in their head of an airplane crashing into a trade 
tower over and over again, we have a responsibility to say to people we 
are taking effective, decisive, and immediate action to deal with 
security on commercial airliners in this country, and that is why there 
is this urgency.
  Yes, it is about this industry, but even more so it is about this 
economy. It is important that we do this, that we do it right, and that 
we do it immediately.
  Let me again say I think the leadership of the Senator and the 
leadership of Senator McCain is something all of us should cherish, and 
I hope we can get to this bill and get it moving, have the votes, and 
pass this legislation. I support what the Senator is doing.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Senator. It is proper to 
mention the leadership of Senator McCain, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison 
of Texas, Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, Senator Olympia Snowe of 
Maine, and it has been bipartisan; this was not a partisan approach.
  We have tried over the past 15 years to set professional standards 
for airline security, more hours of training, more supervision. But 
even with all of the contract standards, with all the training, with 
all the supervision, they are falsifying the records and putting people 
with criminal records in as the screeners, and they say: Let us keep 
doing it. Give us some more standards. Give us some more training. Come 
on.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes, sir.
  Mr. REID. I recognize the Senator is not talking about contracting 
out, but the Senator mentioned contracting out, and I am an opponent of 
contracting out. I have seen what it has done to Federal installations 
in the State of Nevada where these outside contractors come in and say, 
we will give you a real good deal, and they give a contract this year, 
and the next year it goes up and up and up, where we would have been 
better off sticking with Government in the first place.
  So I thank the Senator from South Carolina very much for bringing to 
the attention of the American public the fact we have to federalize the 
safety of these airplanes and to also alert the American public that 
contracting out is not a panacea for good government.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right. We want those in charge of security to 
have their minds set on just that, not the bottom line, not the profit. 
We are going to do the oversight. We will look and see whether there is 
any fat, or anything else of that kind. The truth of the matter is, we 
have to have accountability. The only way to do it now is to fix it. 
Don't have some security measures over here, some over there, and then 
not check in there.

  If you go to the onion ring security structure of the Israel Security 
Agency and El Al, the Israeli airline, you can see exactly you can't 
have any gaps. They start with the outer perimeter of intelligence. 
Incidentally, Senator, when I mention intelligence, harken the New York 
Times article by Bobby Inman, Admiral Inman, former head of the CIA, 
which recounts how our intelligence went down, down, down, was 
inadequate, and brought about--indirectly, obviously--these September 
11 attacks. It never could have occurred if we had the intelligence 
agents like before.
  I became involved in intelligence matters under the Hoover Commission 
in 1954. We had McCarthy running around about security. So President 
Eisenhower appointed the commission on the reorganization of the 
executive branch under former President Herbert Hoover. I served as one 
of the six members of that task force going into the CIA, Army, Navy, 
air intelligence, security, Secret Service, special clearance, atomic 
energy. At that time we had the entire sphere of security and 
intelligence. Under Alan Dulles we had a real outfit, but it has gone 
down, down, down with respect to high, high costs of technology. And 
the technology is so amazing to you and me that we can see this and 
recognize that. We collect as much intelligence information as they 
have in the Library of Congress, perhaps, every day. But nobody looks 
at it, they just say: Oh, look at all the information we are getting.
  In addition to that, when they are talking about analysts, we want 
something to look at, but we don't want too much analysis. They have 
General Scwharzkopf on TV. All weekend he was on the TV. I will never 
forget the briefing he gave us when he returned from Desert Storm. He 
told a Defense Appropriations Subcommittee that CIA analysts rounded 
the edges, they cut the corners, they protected their backsides. When I 
got it--I am going to use the word he used--it was ``mush.'' He said it 
was of no value, it was mush. I had to go to my pilots in order to get 
the intelligence and find out how I could move forward.
  Now that is what we have been limping along with. It is our fault. 
There is no question about it. But read what Bobby Inman said. The 
intelligence is starting at the outer perimeter of a security system. 
The intelligence is keyed on not just the screener, but when they get 
to the departure gate, to the pilots, to the marshals on that plane and 
everything else. And it is not a one-way feed. It is back and forth, 
all the time. You know somebody is not going to come through with a 
knife or a gun. The entire airport is a screening place now.
  All we do, the Senator and I, we get our ticket to go down to Miami. 
The agent says here is your ticket; you have seat 9A. So I call my 
friend who has been out there for 2 years working on the tarmac. He 
knows when I call, that is the signal. I will take the 12 o'clock 
flight, 9A, to Miami. He is out there and he goes to seat 9A and tapes 
a pistol or tapes a box cutter or whatever else they are using. Or you 
don't have to wait, just go to the counter and you get your seat 
assignment. Then you just drift around in the crowd. You have already 
alerted your friend on the tarmac and you are by the window and give 
the signal, 9A, and he puts a weapon under the seat.
  You have to check and have absolute security, not just for screeners 
but with the person who vacuums the plane. You have the marshals. They 
come in and they check those things. They don't take their seat and 
wait for a hijacking, just sitting there eating and drinking. They are 
alert and know exactly what they are looking for. They look for 
suspicious actions and reactions on the plane by any of the passengers. 
They know what to look for. We have to get serious about security 
because it comes right down to the aircraft.

  As I pointed out, once you secure that door, that for all intents and 
purposes ends the hijacking of commercial flights. But since they have 
been flying planes, I don't know how we control private flight.
  There are many more opportunities for terrorism beyond airlines. But 
once we secure airlines, we can try to get some of the other things 
done on the railroads, on the seaports, that the Senator from Florida 
and his senior colleague, Senator Graham, have been pointing out for 
years. In fact, we have the bill on the calendar, seaport security. 
They can take one of those containers which is hardly looked at, bring 
it into New Jersey, and drive it down to Times Square and have the 
container full of anthrax, 40,000 pounds.
  There can be all kinds of acts of terrorism. This thing is not the 
100-yard dash. It is the endurance contest. We have to endure, sober up 
and get serious. We need to cut out all of our reelection concerns 
about what we promised to do in getting rid of the Government and that 
kind of thing. We are elected by the people to make the Government 
work, and work efficiently and economically.
  By the way, this is paid for, Senator. That is the genius of this. 
All you have to do is put $2.50 or $3 and we are arguing that backwards 
and forwards, but we will get the amount, and that will take care of 
all the screeners, make sure every bag has gone through the screener. 
If I go through now and take a bag--they just put out the rule I cannot 
take but one--but a bag goes through the screener. Why let baggage that 
goes into the cargo be different? All of the cargo should be screened, 
air marshals on all of these flights, particularly cross-country and 
down to

[[Page S10360]]

Florida, up and down the seaboard, up and down California, and across 
the country. We have to have those marshals on the plane. Once they 
know that, America comes back again.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. The Senator has been a great inspiration to me 
and all the members of the Commerce Committee which he chairs. What a 
great inspiration it is to see on matters of grave national importance 
that the Senator, as chairman, and the ranking member, Senator McCain, 
work so closely together. I want the Senator to know that observation 
comes from many Members.
  What troubles me is that certain Members of this Chamber, for either 
ideological reasons or for partisan reasons or for parochial reasons, 
would not recognize what the chairman of the Commerce Committee and the 
leadership is saying, how important to the national defense of this 
country it is to produce legislation on airline security so that the 
American people believe we are following through on a promise we made 
to them so they will be encouraged to get back on the airlines and 
start flying. This will help all of the collateral industries such as 
car rental companies, such as hotels, such as restaurants, tourism 
destinations, and so forth.
  As we say in the South, it is just beyond me----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. It is beyond this Senator.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. That we would have people hold up this 
legislation, cause us to have 30 hours of debate not on the bill but 
just on a motion to proceed to get to the bill. The big hangup is over 
federalizing the airline passenger screeners.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Everybody in America wants the most 
proficient, the most trained, the most expert, and well-paid people 
doing the adequate and professional and thorough job of screening 
people when they go through those checkpoints. If that means 
federalizing, then we ought to be getting about the business of the 
American public and passing this legislation and moving it.
  I want to add a comment and also another compliment to the Senator, 
our chairman. Over the weekend I visited two ports in Florida. I 
visited, on Friday, the Port of Pensacola. In the warehouse there, I 
found a huge load of sacked flour that was going to Tadzhikistan. 
Fortunately, those 100-pound sacks of flour were red, white, and blue 
so people would know where it was coming from--the USA.
  That is what we need to do if we are going to try to win the hearts 
and minds of people as we have had such tremendous success doing in 
North Korea, a Communist dictatorship. The food we have sent in there 
is in these red, white, and blue sacks so people know where it is 
coming from--the USA. So I was very gratified to see that.
  But when I went to the Port of Pensacola on Friday and the Port of 
Jacksonville yesterday, Monday, it was to talk about security and to 
talk about the bill the Senator had passed out of committee on 
September 14 and the amendment that he intends to add, increasing the 
amount available, both in grants and in loan guarantees, for the 300 
ports that we have in this country in order for them to upgrade 
security because, if we are looking at vulnerability, where a terrorist 
might attack, clearly a port--whether it be a cruise ship or whether it 
be a commercial ship with a precious cargo or whether it be a port 
colocated with a military facility or, in the case of the Port of 
Pensacola, where they would be responsible for loading and unloading 
military equipment--not for the Pensacola Naval Air Station but for 
Hurlburt Air Force Base, which is the head of the Air Force Special 
Operations Command--be it any of those particular roles that a port 
plays, we have to upgrade security there.
  I thank our chairman for his leadership. Wouldn't it be nice to get 
to the port security bill, if we could get through the airline security 
bill?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly. Exactly. We are bogged down in here and they 
all seem to be enjoying it. I do not understand.
  I understand you have to be considerate. We are not ramming anything. 
We do not want to, for example, ram this bill through the House. They 
are going to have their say, and they do have their say. But heavens 
above, let's move it over to them so they can have their say.
  We want to be considerate--and you have been too generous to me. The 
point is with respect to seaports, 9 out of 10 containers coming in are 
not even looked at. If Senator Nelson and Senator Hollings wanted to 
get into the drug business down in Colombia, we would fill up 10 
containers full of cocaine and send it in. I can tell you right now, 
you have 9 of them that would go through and we would have made a 
fortune. We don't mind one getting caught; that is the name of the 
game.
  What they have been trying to do is brag how fast they could move 
cargo through. Up there in New Jersey they not only go to the port, 
then they go to a staging area 25 miles farther. In between the time 
they go from the port, actual dock to the 25-mile site, some of them, 
they never see those trucks again. They don't know where they went or 
whatever happened to them. They just do not show up for the 
inspections.
  The DEA says, no, it is the Customs' fault. Customs say, no, it is 
the port's fault. The port says, no, it is the Coast Guard's fault. The 
Coast Guard says you are running the port and you are in charge. But no 
one is in charge. That is where we have had it with these contractors.
  We are not going to give this the runaround. We are going to fix this 
responsibility once and for all. With the seaports, under the law, the 
captain of the port is the responsible officer. You cannot just put in 
one bill and wave a wand and all of a sudden you have security. You 
have to give them time and money and let them change the culture and 
get in step. Labor is absolutely concerned about background checks of 
those working the docks, just as they were in El Al. They had trouble, 
the El Al security people and the El Al chief pilot said, yes, we had 
problems too with labor, and we finally got past that and everybody is 
subject to these background checks and periodic spot checks for 
security.

  When you mention FAA--and that is one of the reasons we put it under 
a Deputy Secretary of Transportation and not under the FAA--last week I 
had the distinction of meeting, if you please, with the former 
chairman, on the House side, of the Transportation Appropriations 
Committee of FAA. He told me some of the horror stories. For spot 
checks he had the individual given the pictures and told: We are going 
to make spot checks down in Florida next week, so you go to these 
particular airlines and show them the pictures because these are the 
fellows coming through making the spot checks.
  That is how incestuous the FAA has become. That is why the airlines 
continue to say they want to be able to provide the money.
  No, no, they are going to be Federal employees with Federal pay. It 
is going to be subject to appropriations. Why? Because we know already, 
under the Airport and Airways Improvement Act, we owe them $15 billion 
because you and I and the Government have been using that $15 billion 
to balance the budget, to cut the deficits down and try to get 
surpluses. We have not given them airport security. We have not given 
them airport improvements.
  So when we look at this, our distinguished colleague and friend, the 
Senator from the State of Washington, Mrs. Murray--she has that 
committee. She is going to have the oversight. With Senator Byrd, the 
full committee chairman, along with Senator Stevens, the ranking 
member, we are going to have it subject to appropriations.
  The gamesmanship is stopped. We have gotten dead serious about this 
situation. We are going to fix the responsibility and have 
accountability, accountability, accountability.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be 
recognized to speak as in morning business, and the time I consume be 
counted against the 30 hours of postcloture debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S10361]]

  (The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida are printed in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business'')
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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.

                          ____________________