[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 10, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10407-S10412]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           AVIATION SECURITY

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are now engaged in so-called 
postcloture debate of 30 hours. I have not paid total attention to what 
is going on on the floor of the Senate, but clearly there has been no 
debate on postcloture on the Aviation Security Act. This is rapidly 
turning into a farce. We need to act. We need to act on aviation 
security. If there are differences of opinion, such as those held by 
the Senator from Idaho about federalization, let's have debates and 
votes.
  If there is consideration of nongermane amendments, then let's have 
those debated and voted on as well. The chairman of the committee, 
Senator Hollings, and I have agreed to oppose all nongermane 
amendments. But for us to sit here for 30 hours in so-called 
postcloture debate--yesterday there was a near tragedy because of a 
deranged individual who broke into a cockpit of an airplane nearly 
causing another catastrophe. Part of this legislation, S. 1477, 
requires the Department of Transportation to take steps to strengthen 
cockpit doors.
  There is another case in my own home State where some individual 
obviously smuggled in a weapon which caused the shutdown of the Phoenix 
airport for some 10 hours. The list goes on.
  I don't agree with the statement that was made by the administration 
that there was a 100 percent chance of retaliation because of our 
military actions in Afghanistan. I don't agree with that statement, 
although I will admit that I don't have the knowledge of the members of 
the administration who made that statement. But here we are now going 
into our second week without addressing the issue of aviation security.
  No, I don't agree with the Senator from Idaho that an energy bill is 
of the same emergency as the Aviation Security Act right now. No 
rational observer that I know of would agree with that statement. The 
fact is we need to act. We don't have to wait until 4:57 this 
afternoon. We should be debating, amending, and passing this 
legislation before we go out of session this weekend. I am embarrassed 
that both sides of the aisle for reasons less than national security 
are not agreeing to take up and pass this legislation.
  I don't think the American people, who have been very pleased with 
our performance up until now, are very pleased. In fact, they are very 
displeased with our failure to take up this legislation in a normal 
parliamentary fashion--debate, vote, and give the American people what 
they don't have today; that is, the sense that a lot of Americans don't 
have today, that they can get on an airliner with comparative safety 
and security.
  I urge my colleagues to stop what we have been doing for the last 2 
weeks, get on with moving this legislation, and perform our duties for 
the American people, for the men and women right now who are in harm's 
way performing their duties for the American people. It seems to me it 
wouldn't be a great deal to ask us to move on this legislation.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield to the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, every time I hear the Senator from Arizona 
speaking, I think of pilots taking off from aircraft carriers and 
taking off from military bases around the country and, as we know, 
special forces--I believe I know--certainly nothing confidential has 
been told to me; I figured it out on my own. We have special operations 
people there doing all kinds of things. It is extremely dangerous. 
There is no one in the Senate who has more personal information about 
war than the Senator from Arizona. I personally appreciate, speaking 
for the people of the State of Nevada, his passion for this 
legislation.
  There is no perfect legislation. The legislation before us is 
imperfect. The Senator from Arizona and Senator Hollings worked and 
came up with what they thought could pass this Senate.
  Will the Senator agree that this legislation--no matter how anyone 
feels about it--should at least be able to get consideration?
  There was a motion to invoke cloture which was filed 1 week ago. As I 
said earlier today, we may disagree with this legislation, but let's 
get it here and get it completed. The people of Nevada and the people 
of the rest of this country want this passed.
  I say this to my friend from Arizona. There are important things we 
should do, but shouldn't airport security be one of them?
  Mr. McCAIN. I think so. It is obvious. I understand the day before 
yesterday on Wall Street there was a meeting between the Speaker of the 
House, the Democrat leader in the House, 20 business and economic and 
labor leaders, and Alan Greenspan. Their message was, pass the aviation 
security bill so confidence will be restored on the part of the 
American people so we can have an economic recovery. On other side of 
the Capitol, they refuse to take up the issue. On this side of the 
Capitol, for nearly 2 weeks we have failed to have one moment of debate 
on this issue, and no amendment has been proposed. I just find that, 
frankly, incomprehensible.
  I am not really renowned for my patience, but I believe I have shown 
a lot of patience. I believe that Senator Hollings, the distinguished 
chairman of the committee, has also gone through these machinations 
trying to work out agreements. I must have had 100 meetings on this 
issue. We had the idea of taking up the antiterrorism bill first and 
then moving to this legislation. We

[[Page S10408]]

thought everybody had an agreement. Then there was one Member on the 
other side who insisted on amendments. We thought we could get it up 
with perhaps an agreement that all Members would vote against 
nongermane amendments. That doesn't seem to have worked.
  I have literally exhausted almost every option. Our meetings with the 
White House have been fruitless. I have not been around here--in fact, 
the Senator from Nevada and I have been around here the same number of 
years. I have never had the White House cancel two meetings in 1 day 
with the chairman and ranking member of the committees--two in 1 day.
  Here we are telling the American people that we are working together 
and we are dedicated to the proposition that we will take whatever 
measures are necessary in a bipartisan fashion to assure their security 
and safety, both home and overseas. There is no expert who doesn't 
believe we need to act on the issue of airport and airline security. 
Here we are nearing the end of our second week mired in such a 
situation on which we have made no progress.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, may I ask one more question of my friend?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. REID. To indicate the patience and integrity of the Senator from 
Arizona, he could have moved forward on this legislation. But because 
of his patience--and most of us wouldn't want to do anything that 
somebody might object to--he acknowledged when he came to this floor 
that he could have moved forward on this legislation. I know the 
Senator from Arizona stands for what is good about this country, having 
devoted a large part of his life in a prison camp for American 
citizens. If we can't hear him speaking, then we can't hear anybody.
  We have to move forward on this legislation. As I have said privately 
to the Senator from Arizona--and I say now publicly--what he is saying 
is absolutely full of veracity. One only needs to look at who is saying 
it to understand that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would be glad to yield to the Senator 
from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona knows that he and 
I are not too far apart on the issue on which he is speaking. I had 
hoped we would come to the floor this week and deal with two critical 
national issues: Airport security and antiterrorism. I think we were 
very close to being ready to do that. I had hoped we could deal with 
them cleanly and up front--airport security and terrorism issues.

  Generally, I have supported the Senator from Arizona on this issue, 
and continue to do so, and will work with him. I did not come to this 
Chamber today to suggest a national energy policy go in front of this. 
I suggest we do airport security, and we ought to be doing it right now 
in this Chamber. The Senator ought to be down there at the lead desk on 
this issue carrying the debate on this side, but he is not being 
allowed to do so. And it is not his fault; that is very clear.
  But what I am suggesting is that in the next month that this Congress 
will be in session, instead of sitting here marking a clock, with the 
lights on, the staff engaged, and nothing happening, we ought to also 
be debating and voting up or down on a national energy policy. I 
believe it is of high priority. Is it as high as airport security in 
the current blend of things? No, it isn't.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona. We have to get the confidence 
built back in the American people on airport activity and security on 
airplanes, and get them flying now for the long-term economy, but also 
into the holiday season. It is critical for our airlines and their 
economic stability, no question about it. We need to give our Attorney 
General, and others in law enforcement, greater tools to track the 
terrorists, to track the criminals. And that is ready to go now.
  I do not understand why we were not able to switch over and double 
track. The Senator from Arizona agreed to that. But that is not the 
call of the minority; that is the call of the majority. They have not 
let us do that or we could be dealing with both of those critical 
bills--get at least one of them done this week. The clock is now 
running out. Having been able to do both of them--as we should have 
done--there would be ample time to do a national energy policy bill, to 
engage for 2 or 3 days on the floor, if need be, in the debate of that 
issue, because I have to think when you scratch the surface of all of 
these, you get to the bottom line: Airplanes do not fly without fuel; 
people do not get to the airports without it; our ships that are at sea 
at the moment, and our pilots who are flying those aircraft off those 
decks, work with a huge chunk of energy underneath them. We all know 
that. That is my point.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona. It is not a matter of shoving 
in to the front; it is a matter of this Senate being capable of dealing 
with all three of these issues in a timely fashion. That was the point 
I wanted to make to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Idaho.
  I appreciate his passion on this very important issue to our national 
security. But since it appears that everybody is in agreement that we 
need to move forward on this legislation--and there has been no debate 
that I know of on the specific issue of airport security in the 
postcloture mode, and I see no reason we should waste the entire 
afternoon in a postcloture parliamentary situation and yet not debating 
the issue--I tell our leadership on both sides of the aisle, I intend 
to come, after lunch, in the early afternoon, and move to proceed to S. 
1447. That way, we will not have wasted another entire day. I hope 
there will be no objection at that time.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, just so everyone understands, my friend from 
Idaho talks about the need to move forward on airport security. Let us 
move forward. There is no one preventing us from moving forward on this 
side of the aisle. We want to move forward. We have been trying, for a 
week, to get to this bill, but we are having to jump over all kinds of 
hurdles.
  We invoked cloture with a vote of 97-0 yesterday. And they--the 
minority--have said, OK, we are going to use the whole 30 hours 
postcloture. We have been stymied. We have tried to move to other 
things. They will not let us.
  Last week, we tried to move to a matter dealing with appropriations. 
We have Agriculture appropriations we tried to get to. No thanks. We 
tried to get to foreign operations. No thanks. Why? Because of some 
unrelated issue. That unrelated issue is that we are not moving enough 
judges for them.
  The people at home in Nebraska or in Nevada, I bet they are not 
coming to you, I say to the Presiding Officer, asking: How many judges 
is the Senate moving this week? They are concerned about the ability to 
fly out of Omaha to Las Vegas and back. That is what they are concerned 
about.
  We want to move forward on airport security. We are not stopping 
anyone from moving forward to airport security. We should have been on 
that last Wednesday. Here it is a week later, and we are still not on 
it. We are postcloture on the motion to proceed to airport security.
  What are the problems with airport security? There are some people 
who believe we should get rid of minimum-wage people checking bags, and 
doing other things, to make these airplanes safe; that there should be 
some standards; that it should not go to the lowest bidder, as now 
happens; that we should add, in addition to the hundreds of thousands 
of other Federal employees we have, about 28,000 employees who would 
have the stamp of approval of the Department of Energy or the Justice 
Department--it really does not matter who it is--one Federal agency 
that oversees them. That is one problem on which they will not let us 
move forward.
  Maybe they can say that is wrong. Have a debate in this Chamber for 
an hour or so, vote up or down on it, and determine whether they should 
be federalized or not. That is how things work around here. But they 
will not let us move to it. They will not let us have a debate on 
whether they should be federalized or not.
  Another issue they are concerned about is whether we should have a 
vote on Amtrak safety and security--not putting rubber tires on Amtrak 
trains or putting monitors in all the trains so

[[Page S10409]]

that you can listen to nice music, no; just so that when you travel on 
an Amtrak train, you can be safe. Let's have a debate on that: Yes, you 
want it; no, you don't. They will not even let us talk about it.
  The other issue is whether the employees who were displaced as a 
result of the terrorist acts are entitled to extended unemployment 
benefits. That does not sound too outrageous to me. And if it is, let's 
debate it and vote it up or down.
  So that is the big hangup on airport security, those three issues.
  Everyone would feel better if we passed this legislation. It would 
determine how airports would be handled. There would be a Federal rule 
that everyone could see, not a hit-or-miss proposition.

  My friend from Idaho is the second person to come to this Chamber and 
talk about the need to do energy legislation. And the words were: And 
shame on Tom Daschle if it doesn't pass. That is a good reversal role. 
Senator Daschle is here every day trying to move legislation. Although 
they do not like to acknowledge it, he is the majority leader of the 
Senate, and he feels an obligation to do some of the things our country 
requires, such as pass the 13 annual appropriations bills. He has this 
wild idea--Senator Daschle--that you should pass the 13 appropriations 
bills. They will not let us move to those bills. We have five that have 
not passed.
  They are not going to let us move. Why? Because you are not moving 
enough circuit judges. We have listed all the people we have in the 
pipeline who will move, hearings will be held, the votes will be taken 
here. But that is not good enough. Senator Leahy has worked weekends on 
terrorism, helped with airport security, and many other things prior to 
this legislation. He set times for hearings for judges. But that is not 
good enough.
  So we do not need lectures in this Chamber about what Tom Daschle 
isn't doing. He is doing everything humanly possible to move the agenda 
of the Senate forward, and we are being prevented from doing so.
  We believe that energy policy is important, critically important. I 
believe we should become less dependent on fossil fuel. That should be 
part of an energy bill. We need to develop exploration in this country. 
We need to become less dependent on foreign oil. There is no question 
about that. We need to move quickly into more solar, more wind, and 
more geothermal, alternative energy sources.
  I believe we need to have an energy policy in this country. Senator 
Daschle believes that. And if we are able to get these emergency 
matters out of the away, we are going to move to another vitally 
important thing. That is energy policy.
  We always hear these speeches about the need for ANWR. There was a 
hearing last week during which one of the experts was asked a question 
that the person who asked it probably wishes he hadn't. The question 
was: How long would it take to start bringing oil out of ANWR? The 
answer: About 10 years.
  We know the quantity of oil is very limited. Somehow in their minds, 
this drilling in the pristine wilderness of Alaska is going to solve 
all the world's problems, when we know if we pumped all the oil that is 
there now, it would be a 6-month supply for the United States.
  There are a number of other problems we have with ANWR. Just last 
week, a person with a rifle decided to use the pipeline as a target. He 
shot some holes in the pipeline. By the time they figured out what was 
happening, 250,000 gallons of oil had dumped out on the Alaskan tundra. 
That is a very long pipeline. It goes hundreds of miles. I am not sure 
we need more pipeline in this pristine wilderness.
  My friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho, stated that 
this situation in Alaska would solve lots of the problems of the world. 
It wouldn't solve many problems at all. We know there are lots of 
energy problems in the world today. They will not be solved by this 
situation in Alaska.
  There are so many things we need to do, and we need to get to that 
legislation. We need help from the minority to get to that legislation. 
They are not letting us move forward on legislation that has to be 
done.
  The first conference they have allowed us to do on an appropriations 
bill is going to take place this afternoon. I am fortunate enough to be 
on that conference. At 2:30 p.m. today, there will be a Senate-House 
conference on appropriations for Interior. I hope we do that. That will 
be the first of 13 appropriations bills we have been able to finish. 
But they won't let us move on the five that haven't even passed the 
Senate.
  Using words such as ``shame on Tom Daschle'' isn't senatorial. It is 
an unfortunate choice of words. Senator Daschle understands the 
importance. I have been in meetings with him just this week, and with 
Senator Bingaman, talking about how important it is to move this 
legislation. We need to move the legislation. We just need a little 
help to do it. We have not received the help.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I listened with some interest to my 
colleague from Nevada and previously my colleagues from Arizona and 
Idaho in their presentations. I compliment my friend from Nevada. Let 
me also say how much I admire the Senator from Arizona who came to the 
floor about 20 minutes ago and asked the question: Why are we not 
moving? Why is the Senate not doing its work on the issue of aviation 
security? He, of course, knew the answer and answered it himself. We 
are held up by people who believe somehow that this is not an 
emergency, this is not a priority, and that there are other issues more 
important. So they hold the Senate up.
  It has been that way now for nearly 2 weeks. We don't vote, we have 
no debate on the floor, and now we have a colleague today who comes to 
the Chamber and decides the problem is the majority leader, Senator 
Daschle. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  The problem is we have a handful of people in the Senate who are 
intent on serving as human brake pads to stop this place dead in its 
tracks. They have succeeded. While the country is worried about the 
emergency situation that exists as a result of the September 11 
terrorist attacks, as a result of an economy that clearly has serious 
problems, the Senate stands at parade rest. Why? Because a handful of 
people in the Senate have decided we should not move forward on the 
issue of aviation security.
  It is the easiest thing in the world to take the negative side of 
anything. All of us understand that. This bill, authored by Senator 
Hollings and Senator McCain--and I am proud to be a cosponsor of it 
from the Commerce Committee--deals with aviation security, a whole 
range of issues: The creation of a large cadre of armed sky marshals to 
put in American commercial airliners; the development of perimeter 
security at America's airports; the hardening of cockpits on commercial 
airliners; and the change in the method of screening luggage and people 
at airports. All of these things are important. There is much more in 
this legislation as well. That is the positive side of what we are 
trying to do on an emergency basis.
  There are some who have held it up, and continue to hold it up even 
now. I am reminded of Mark Twain, who I have mentioned before. When 
asked one day to get involved in a debate, he said: Of course, as long 
as I can take the negative side.
  They said: Well, we have not told you what the subject is.
  He said: It doesn't matter. It doesn't take any preparation to take 
the negative side.
  That is the case in the Congress as well. It takes no preparation to 
come here and be opposed to almost everything. It takes no skill to be 
opposed to everything. We have a few folks in my hometown like that. I 
grew up in a county of 3,400 people. We have several of them who have 
opposed everything, all along the way, all the time. This Senate is a 
lot like my hometown, regrettably. The problem is in the Senate a 
couple of determined people can stop things.
  In this country we face real emergencies at this point. Our economy 
is in serious trouble. Commercial airline service is integral to an 
economy and its recovery. Going into September 11 and the tragic acts 
of terror committed against this country, we had a very

[[Page S10410]]

soft economy. The economy was in trouble even then. One of the leading 
economic indicators of the economy is airline travel because it is one 
of the first places people and businesses cut back.

  All of our major airline carriers were hemorrhaging in red ink on 
September 10 going into the September 11 terrorist attacks. On 
September 11, the Federal Government ordered all commercial aircraft--
in fact, all aircraft in this country--to land immediately, and they 
were grounded. That industry was forced to stay on the ground. There 
were no airplanes in the sky anywhere.
  So this is an industry already hemorrhaging in red ink that was 
forced to suspend all operations. Then the FAA, under certain 
circumstances, allowed the restoration of commercial airline flights. 
What the airlines are discovering is that there are people in this 
country who have canceled events, conferences, trips, and vacations 
because there is concern about getting back on an airplane.
  I understand that concern. I flew last weekend to North Dakota, and I 
had also flown the weekend before to North Dakota. But I understand 
that people are concerned about getting back on an airplane. They and 
every American saw over and over and over and over again those images 
of the 767 commercial airliners being flown into the World Trade Center 
Towers. That is an image most people will not soon forget. So people 
were concerned and leery about going back to commercial air travel.
  This Congress, therefore, must act if it is going to try to restore 
some health to this economy and give a jump start back to commercial 
air travel. To do so, this Congress has to put together legislation 
dealing with aviation security and airline security. That is what we 
have tried to do. Senator Hollings and Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, 
myself, and others, have worked on a piece of legislation that makes 
good sense. We brought it to the floor understanding that this is an 
emergency, that this is urgent legislation that needs to get done. And 
guess what. This Senate is brought to parade rest. Nobody is doing 
anything and nothing happening because we have a couple of people who 
say: We won't let anything else continue.
  You know, we have some people who are crabby about some amendments. 
My theory is, in a situation like this, if you have some amendments you 
don't like, stand up and oppose them. If you have some you want to 
offer, stand up and propose them. Let the Senate vote. Let the Senate 
make a decision. Do you have good ideas or not? If you don't, tough 
luck. But don't hold up the Senate and hold up this issue of an urgent 
need to pass an aviation security bill just because you are a little 
cranky and have stayed cranky for a couple of weeks. You put the 
country at risk by doing that.
  Now, my friend from Idaho is in the Chamber. He and I have worked 
closely together. I admire his work. I fundamentally disagree with what 
he did this morning. He is upset with something Senator Daschle has 
done with respect to an energy bill. Frankly, that energy bill, as 
Senator McCain said, is separate and distinct from the aviation 
security bill. We are going to do an energy bill, and we ought to, but 
the energy bill is going to come together from several sources in the 
Senate. It is going to come to the floor and we are going to have an 
opportunity to offer amendments and discuss it. I don't disagree with 
the notion that central to this country's security is an energy policy. 
We haven't had an energy policy, under Democratic or Republican 
administrations, for 30 or 40 years that has meant very much to this 
country. We need to produce more and find more oil and natural gas. We 
need to conserve more and, yes, we need to find renewables and a 
limitless supply of energy, to expand our supply. We need to do all of 
that, and we need to do it soon.
  Let me just say this with respect to security: Security, it seems to 
me, starts at this moment on the floor of the Senate with passing an 
aviation security bill. That is where it starts. We will work on a 
piece of legislation dealing with energy policy. We should do that and 
that also is urgent. But that ought not hold up an aviation security 
bill. It should not hold this up. We have a responsibility at this 
point not to go back to business as usual. Business as usual in the 
Senate is to have two or three or four or five people hold up the work 
of the entire Senate. That didn't mean very much under most 
circumstances because we didn't have a situation that was urgent --not 
with most pieces of legislation. But if you don't think post-September 
11 and the challenges we have to the American economy and the 
challenges we have in air travel and with respect to providing security 
for this country at home and abroad--if you don't believe that is an 
urgent situation, somehow you have slept through the last month.
  This country faces an urgent need to do a series of things --
important things--that will strengthen its future. Central to those at 
this moment is a piece of legislation dealing with aviation security. 
It is past the time--long past the time--when this Senate should have 
been debating that and voting on it. It simply makes no sense to have a 
couple of people holding up the Senate because they got out of bed on 
the wrong side and have a permanent case of ill temper on things about 
which they are concerned. As a result, they hold up the rest of the 
Senate.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DORGAN. Of course, I will yield to the Senator.
  Mr. CRAIG. If Senator Dorgan isn't cranky, and I am not cranky, 
wherein lies the problem? He and I agree on the importance of airport 
security. We ought to be debating it right now, right here in this 
Chamber. Are there some disagreements? Yes, there are some 
disagreements. Are they big? To some, they are. I don't happen to 
disagree with all of them. The Senate is working its will, and the 
leader from the other side who is speaking on the floor right now is 
doing what he ought to be doing. But he also knows how the Senate 
works.

  At this very moment, we are very close to coming to the floor now 
with an agreement that cleans up and allows us to focus on airport 
security. I hope it is sooner rather than later.
  The American people deserve an airport security bill. But what I was 
saying on the floor a few moments ago--quoting from the chairman of the 
Energy Committee on which the Senator serves--he no longer can craft a 
bill. He has been disallowed by your leadership from doing so. He is 
going to, therefore, submit a bill to the majority leader and the 
majority leader is going to bring it to the floor for our 
consideration.
  What I said on the floor--and I will repeat it--is this: Please do 
that. Bring that bill to the floor, and sooner rather than later. I 
will say that it is no longer the responsibility of the chairman of the 
committee. I serve on that committee along with the Senator from North 
Dakota. We know that.
  The majority leader has spoken. The burden is on the majority leader 
to get an energy bill to the floor. I believe it is third in the line 
of actions that should be taken up on the floor. Airport security ought 
to be done right now. I hope we can do it this week and also do the 
antiterrorist bill this week. The Senator and I are in total agreement 
on that. I hope we sort this out sooner rather than later. But once 
those two bills are done, my guess is that I will be on the floor every 
day saying: Majority Leader Daschle, where is your energy bill? Where 
is your energy bill? You have taken the authority away from the 
committee. If you are going to produce a bill, do it, and we will 
debate it. Agree to get it to the floor with a couple of amendments on 
either side, or with no amendments, and then get it to conference, get 
the conferees appointed so we can get a bill on the President's desk. I 
believe and the public believes if we get into a shooting war in the 
Middle East and we sever our ties to our dependency on Middle East oil, 
we send this economy into another tailspin that should be avoidable, 
but it is not. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. DORGAN. I understand the point the Senator made. I say this: The 
burden that might exist on anybody in this Senate--and especially a 
majority leader of the Senate--is a burden to get the work of the 
Senate done. We can't do the aviation security bill because we have a 
couple of people holding it up in the Senate. Why? Because they don't 
agree with some things. They have decided aviation security isn't 
urgent for this country. They could not be more wrong. The burden of 
the Senate is to

[[Page S10411]]

pass appropriations bills. We have appropriations bills--in fact, we 
have more than a half dozen--I believe nine of them--some of which have 
yet to come to the floor of the Senate to be passed. In fact, very few 
appropriations bills have been completed at all.
  The appropriation subcommittee that I chair had the conferees 
appointed this week from the House on a bill they passed in June. Think 
of that. Months and months of stalling, not even appointing conferees 
to an appropriations bill.
  The point is that the majority leader can't bring an appropriations 
bill to the floor of the Senate. You want to know why? These are bills 
that were supposed to have been done by October 1--through the House 
and the Senate. They are not done and he can't bring them to the floor 
because we have the same few people who object, object, object, and 
then say to me that the majority leader has a burden.

  I will tell you what the burden is. The burden is these objectors who 
sit on our shoulders all day long and won't let this Senate do its 
business. We ought to be doing the things that are important at this 
point and saying to the American people that the Senate understands 
this situation is urgent in America, that security is an urgent 
situation, that the threat of terrorism is something we should respond 
to with great urgency.
  Our economy is in an urgent situation. We need to work together to do 
something about that. But to have this Senate essentially stop in its 
tracks for 2 weeks is almost unforgivable. I don't handle well people 
telling me what the burden of the majority leader is. The burden of the 
majority leader is to get this Senate to get its business done. We have 
four, five people thumbing their suspenders and saying: No, I object to 
everything. Well, take your suspenders outside the Chamber, in my 
judgment, and let's do the work the American people want us to do.
  Aviation security is job No. 1. Senator McCain talked about the need 
to get to this bill. He will be here at 2 o'clock. When he comes to the 
floor, I am going to be here as well. When he asks unanimous consent to 
go to the bill, I want to support him. It is unforgivable that hour 
after hour and day after day this Senate is not doing the business it 
is intended to do. People talk about the burden of the majority leader. 
The majority leader has too large a burden, in my judgment, with 
respect to a few folks who want to hold the Senate up. We know what we 
ought to do. Let's do it. For those who don't agree--and there are 
three or four who have deep disagreement with the issue of screening at 
airports, the screening of luggage--the screening of luggage. If you 
disagree with that, then offer an amendment. If you win, good for you. 
You will not, in my judgment, but if you do, fine. Why hold up the 
Senate and prevent us from passing a bill that is so urgent? It does 
not make any sense to me.

  This really is business as usual, regrettably, at a time when the 
last thing America needs is business as usual from the Senate. They 
need a Senate that is engaged and that has its priorities straight and 
in which everybody steps back a bit, takes a deep breath, and says: We 
are part of the same team. There is now just us and them. There are the 
terrorists and the rest of us. The rest of us are trying to do what we 
can to respond to these heinous acts of mass murder. That is our 
responsibility.
  I remember a story about a person who opened a small retail business 
on a small Main Street. He had a large glass fish tank installed in the 
front window for his grand opening. He put out a huge sign that said: 
This fish tank contains 63 invisible Peruvian man-eating fish. Crowds 
gathered on Main Street to look at this fish tank. Of course, there was 
nothing in it, just a sign about invisible fish.
  We could perhaps have a sign in the Senate, not about fish, but about 
invisibility. We are doing nothing. In a time of great national 
concern, in a time of national emergency, in a time when there are 
urgent requirements and needs for us to do the right thing, this Senate 
is doing nothing.
  It is not the majority leader's fault. The majority leader has a 
plan. He has an aviation security bill. He has a national security 
bill. It is not his fault. It is the fault of two, three, four, or five 
Members of the Senate who decided for their own reasons they want to 
shut this place down for a while. What an awful signal to send to the 
rest of the world.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DORGAN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. Our friend from Idaho stated the airport security bill is 
No. 1, terrorism is No. 2, and energy is No. 3. I say to my friend from 
North Dakota in the form of a question, doesn't the Senator believe we 
have an obligation to do what is required, and that is pass 
appropriations bills?
  Mr. DORGAN. In response, I say, absolutely. In fact, our colleague 
from Idaho is on the Appropriations Committee. The first thing you have 
to do is appropriate the money for the agencies--the FBI, the CIA, the 
National Security Agency, all the law enforcement functions--and then 
all of the other functions of the Federal Government. We have to pass 
the appropriations bills.
  We are now operating under a continuing appropriations bill because 
we in Congress did not get our work done by October 1. It is not as if 
we are not trying. Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, the chairman and 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, are pushing very hard, 
and we cannot get the appropriations bills to the floor of the Senate.
  Do my colleagues know why? Because there is an objection to a motion 
to proceed to an appropriations bill.
  Mr. REID. Does the Senator know the reason for the objections 
supposedly?
  Mr. DORGAN. The objections have nothing to do with appropriations. 
The objections, as I understand it--there are several different 
objections to different bills around here; it is one of those pick-
your-flavor objections to people who professionally object. As I 
understand, they do not want appropriations bills to move forward 
because they are concerned about nominations.
  Mr. REID. About judges.
  Mr. DORGAN. Yes, nominations of judges. My understanding--the Senator 
from Nevada might correct me--my understanding is it has taken a 
substantial amount of time for the administration to move judges to the 
Congress for consideration. I believe something like 25 or 29 of them 
came just the first part of August. They are now going through the 
hearing process.
  With respect to judges, as far as I am concerned--and I hope every 
one of my colleagues feels the same way--let's get judges moving; let's 
get all the appointments and confirmations moving. As far as I am 
concerned, the same burden rests on myself. If I object to someone, 
bring them out and I will vote against them.
  By and large, I think most of these nominations are pretty good 
nominations, but I do not think anybody is trying to hold these up. 
What has happened is it has taken a great deal of time to get names 
here, and now the Judiciary Committee is sifting through them to get 
the hearings in place. The fact we are not even allowed to go to 
appropriations bills has nothing to do with appropriations; it has to 
do with some other issue.
  Mr. REID. May I ask another question?
  Mr. DORGAN. Sure.
  Mr. REID. On the Senator's trips back home--and I know he was home 
this past weekend--has anybody come up and asked the Senator about how 
the judges were coming in Washington?
  Mr. DORGAN. No, I say in response to Senator Reid, most people are 
concerned at this moment about the Senate moving very quickly with some 
urgency to deal with situations such as aviation security, to deal with 
the issues of national security and international security responding 
to terrorism, the antiterrorism bill. Most people are concerned about 
that.

  Obviously, the lingering effects of the September 11 terrorist acts 
will probably last forever, and it means people are very concerned 
about this country's response to those specific threats.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend, our friend from Idaho listed 1, 2, 3, 
his priorities. In listing the priorities of the people from the State 
of North Dakota, where does the Senator think our moving judges through 
this system would list in ranking? Does the Senator think they would be 
in the top 100?
  Mr. DORGAN. Probably the top 100. Moving judges is just something we

[[Page S10412]]

should do. It is not a case that we are not moving judges. That is, in 
my judgment, a false charge.
  If we are talking about what are the priorities, what is the urgency 
today on Wednesday, first, as Senator McCain said, the urgency is an 
aviation security bill; second is an antiterrorism bill that has been 
worked on and largely agreed to; and third, we ought to finish the 
appropriations bills. We have a responsibility to do that.
  The Senator from Idaho is not wrong about energy being a significant 
issue. It is an issue. I agree with that. I talked today about the 
commercial airlines and their component part of this economy and their 
important part of this economy. So, too, is energy. We will not have 
any economy without energy.
  I do not disagree with the notion that energy is a significant issue. 
I would not necessarily say Senator Daschle has the burden of making it 
third. We have to do the appropriations bills before we do the energy 
bill. If we can get rid of a few of the objections, we can move these 
things quickly. There is no reason we should not pass an aviation 
security bill and send it to the President by tomorrow night. We can 
pass it today and resolve our differences with the House and move it to 
the President. There is no reason we cannot do that for this country. 
We should do that.
  The antiterrorism bill I think is about completed. There is no reason 
we cannot do that as well. What a great signal to the American people.
  The interesting thing is--and the Senator from Nevada asked me about 
what I heard back home--what I heard all weekend in North Dakota was 
how pleased people were that finally the pettiness seems to be gone 
from the politics in this country, and good riddance. Finally, people 
are working together. Finally, it is not so much that you are a 
Democrat or a Republican. It is not that there is a my side and a your 
side, it is just that there is an our side. There is only one side in 
this country, and that is the side that all of us choose to stand on in 
the fight against terrorism. There is only one side, and it is our 
side.
  That is why I hope that at 2 o'clock this afternoon when Senator 
McCain comes to the floor with this bipartisan bill on aviation 
security, that this is something we can clear, move to the floor, offer 
amendments, and get it done for our side.
  Again, it is not Republicans and Democrats. Senator McCain is a 
Republican. Senator Hollings is a Democrat. They have worked together, 
I have worked with them and others to put this bill together. This bill 
represents a response by our side, the American response to an 
emergency, to an urgent situation. I hope we can avoid the kind of 
difficulty we have been seeing in recent days.
  I ask those who put us in this position of being, as I said, at 
parade rest day after day when there are so many urgent things to do to 
rethink that. I can think of several things that make me a bit upset 
about this body and probably object to one thing or another. I do not 
intend to do that.
  I had an amendment on a bill in the subcommittee I chair. When I 
brought my subcommittee bill to the floor, I had an amendment that was 
very important to me and very controversial. I was fully intending to 
push that amendment and have a big debate and a vote on it. Then 
September 11 happened, and I brought the bill to the floor after 
September 11 and said: I do not think it is in the country's interest 
for me to push this very controversial amendment.
  Although it means a lot to me and it is very important to me, I am 
not going to do it because I do not think that is the way we ought to 
send signals to the American people about who we are and what we are 
doing at this point.
  I ask others, especially those who have held up the work of the 
Senate for now about 2 weeks on this issue, think along the same lines 
and see if we cannot come to some understanding of the urgency of 
passing an aviation security bill.
  We on the Commerce Committee spent a lot of time working on these 
issues. The leadership of both Senator Hollings and Senator McCain has 
produced excellent legislation, legislation that will provide real 
security to commercial airlines and to those who fly in this country, 
and I hope we are able to do that soon.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________