[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 136 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10487-S10500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         AVIATION SECURITY ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of S. 1477, which the clerk will 
report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1447) to improve aviation security, and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       Daschle (for Carnahan) amendment No. 1855, to provide 
     assistance for employees who are separated from employment as 
     a result

[[Page S10488]]

     of reductions in service by air carriers, and closures of 
     airports, caused by terrorist actions or security measures.
       Gramm amendment No. 1859 (to amendment No. 1855), to 
     provide for the exploration, development, and production of 
     oil and gas resources of the Arctic Coastal Plains.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we all realize this morning that a month 
has passed since the disaster of September 11, and we still are 
confronted with the need for airline security, as the headlines in Roll 
Call state, ``Airport Firms Form Alliance''; as well as, ``Baggage 
Screening Companies Take Case to the Hill.''
  So one month after this fanatical killing of 5,000 to 6,000 
Americans, thousands more casualties, and as many as 10,000 children 
left without a parent, some without 2 parents, we are being delayed by 
the contractors and the lobbyists. One of them particularly, cited in 
this case, has banded together in a lobbying drive that so far has 
succeeded--Argenbright.
  There is also an article in the Miami Herald published Thursday, 
September 13 about their efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the 
article in full be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Miami Herald, Sept. 13, 2001]

             Company Pleaded Guilty to Previous Violations

                           (By Tyler Bridges)

       Atlanta.--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 
     International Airport. In settling the charges, Argenbright 
     agreed to pay $1.2 million in fines and investigative costs. 
     Argenbright also came under criticism in 1999 for security 
     breaches that caused delays of Northwest Airline flights. 
     Argenbright was also found to have committed dozens of 
     violations of federal labor laws against its employees at Los 
     Angeles International Airport, an adminsitrative law judge 
     ruled in February 2000. The violations included 40 
     suspensions and final warnings stemming from a strike by the 
     employees in April 1999. The violations also include the 
     disciplining of another union activist and threats, both 
     written and verbal, against the Argenbright employees. Among 
     other disciplinary action, Argenbright was required to remove 
     warnings from files related to the strike and give suspended 
     workers back pay.
       Argenbright, a subsidiary of AHL Services, provides 
     security workers at 17 of the nation's 20 largest airport 
     hubs, including Newark, Logan and Dulles, where the hijacked 
     flights originated. The company is hired by the airlines. 
     There was a report Wednesday that two of the hijackers who 
     flew out of Logan might have arrived there from Portland 
     International Airport in Maine. A spokesman there said the 
     airlines at the airport use another security firm, not 
     Argenbright.
       Argenbright officials declined to speak with a reporter 
     Wednesday. The company released a statement that expressed 
     sorrow for the ``tragic events'' and said officials are 
     ``working closely with and providing full support to its 
     airline customers as they deal with the aftermath of 
     yesterday's major terrorist attack.'' Argenbright also 
     provides checkpoint security at Miami International Airport. 
     Gary Dellapa, the airport's former director, said the company 
     got average marks for its work.
       In the Philadelphia case, Argenbright hired more than 1,300 
     untrained checkpoint screeners form 1995 through 1998 without 
     checking their backgrounds. Among these employees were 
     ``dozens of criminals,'' according to the government's 
     sentencing memorandum. Argenbright falsely certified that the 
     company had done the background checks and fraudulently 
     charged airlines for this work, the government said. U.S. 
     Attorney Michael R. Stiles in Philadelphia said the 
     violations of Federal Aviation Administration Regulations did 
     not harm any passengers or the airlines. But his office said 
     that ``if corporations such as Argenbright Security Inc. fail 
     to meet their obligations and responsibilities, then the 
     millions of people who fly on commercial aircraft every day 
     are put at risk.'' Edwin R. Mellett, vice chairman and co-
     chief executive officer of AHL Services, said at the time 
     that the company fired the employees directly involved in the 
     fraud and cooperated with the investigation.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Argenbright is a contractor at Logan Airport, at Newark 
Airport, and at Dulles, all three airports from which the planes on 
that disastrous day were taken over.
  The article relayed how the firm was fined for misgivings and 
misdeeds at Philadelphia. It says Argenbright, a subsidiary of AHL 
Services, provides security workers at 17 of the Nation's 20 largest 
airport hubs, including Newark, Logan, and Dulles, where the hijacked 
flights originated.
  The company is hired by the airlines. Incidentally, the major 
amendment we have is for airline worker benefits. I thought we passed a 
$15 billion package so we could stabilize the airlines so they could 
continue the health care and pay for their workers. But, no, we have to 
have an additional amendment to take care of the unemployed airline 
workers. I do not know what the $15 billion did, whether or not it took 
care of the airline bonuses that we all know about.
  Let me read. In the Philadelphia case, Argenbright hired more than 
1,300 untrained checkpoint screeners from 1995 through 1998 without 
checking their backgrounds. Among these employees were dozens of 
criminals. That is in quote marks--``dozens of criminals.'' According 
to the Government's sentencing memorandum, Argenbright falsely 
certified the company had done the background checks and fraudulently 
charged the airlines for this work. In other words, they lied about the 
background checks and charged the airlines for the background checks 
they lied about. Yet they hold us up for an entire month because we 
want to prevent further negligence. As has been stated, we had a pretty 
sobering lesson with Pan Am 103 and we knew how security was lax at 
that particular time, so we were working to strengthen it. We were 
going to have higher standards. We were going to have more training. We 
were going to have supervision and more pay.
  And then in 1996, TWA 800. Guess what. We had all kinds of studies, 
commissions, hearings. All this debate about contracts has been ongoing 
now for 15 years. What did we come up with? More higher standards, more 
training hours, more supervision, and more pay. But you have to 
contract out.
  No one would ever think contracting would help the Border Patrol. No 
one would think of contracting out the FBI. No one would ever think 
about contracting out the security and protection of the President, the 
Secret Service. No one would think about contracting out our security, 
the Capitol Police.
  Walking into the Capitol today, I was asked, should we get the 
National Guard around the Capitol? We have the Capitol Police. They are 
not only adequate, they are more than adequate. They have been doing an 
outstanding job. We don't need any more National Guard troops running 
around and everything else of that kind. Terrorists would do better 
than getting a Senator or two or a bunch of them. They would be 
replaced by the Governor by sundown, so you couldn't get rid of them.
  In any event, here we come. No one would think about contracting out 
the Customs agents or any of these other security workers or the 
669,000 civilian workers in defense. They are Civil Service, they get 
health care. They get retirement benefits. They are stable. They are 
reliable. They are professional. They are accountable. That is what we 
are trying to do in a bipartisan fashion.
  Who is holding the Senate up? The lying, thieving lobbyists who said 
contract, contract, contract out.
  We have federalization in the bill. I want to see who comes to take 
it out of the bill. The unmitigated gall of that crowd running around 
here after learning what we've learned for 15 years, and particularly 
after the September 11 hijackings and terrorist killings, they have the 
unmitigated gall to say that is what we ought to do again.

  They don't have any idea of security. They have an idea of their 
political issue and their reelection because they pledged to downsize, 
get rid of the Government--the Government is not the solution, the 
Government is the problem. So they can't viscerally, ideologically, or 
philosophically, even think in terms of security. They are like a 
chicken with the line in the sand: In my reelection, I pledged to get 
rid of the Government, and I'm not about to vote for 28,000 
professionals.
  If we get the bill to the House, we can negotiate what is necessary. 
The traveling public are ready, willing, and anxious to pay for it. 
Heavens above, we ought to at least take away the threat of being shot 
down. The day before yesterday, and yesterday again,

[[Page S10489]]

somebody hands a note to the pilot, and good gosh, you have F-16s, A-
10s, F-15s flying above ready to shoot you down. Who wants to get on a 
plane and get shot down?
  This bill, S. 1447, will take care of that. We lock the cockpit door; 
it is never open. Let me emphasize, the chief pilot of El Al said: My 
wife can be assaulted in the cabin, but I don't open that door. The 
intended hijacker knows he will not be able to hijack the plane. He can 
start a fight. He can maybe kill some people. He is going to get killed 
himself.
  You can see how the traveling public is ready to take them out. They 
did on the flight yesterday. They did on the flight the day before. 
More power to these patriotic Americans. The people understand. When is 
the Senate going to understand and cut out this dillying around and get 
together to pass security, safety? It is unheard of that they would 
resist, having learned from all of these other experiences, having 
learned from September 11 to not even give it a second thought, just 
bite their teeth and say: We are not going to have the Federal 
Government do anything. We don't trust government.
  I think we were elected to get the Government to work. And we have 
tried the so-called contracting already. We can easily lock that door. 
That does away with the expense of everybody being on alert, flying 
planes around. No one put that cost down in defense, but we will get 
the Defense appropriations measure, and they will find out, as a result 
of our dillying around, we have a charge now for guard units that are 
alerted--to do what? To shoot down domestic flights. Why? Because of 
the Senate.
  We should have gotten off our backsides and seen reality and been 
ready, by gosh, to get moving here on an airline security measure. Yes, 
we federalize. We are proud of it. It is taken care of. It is paid for. 
The pilots are for it. The executives are for it. The flight attendants 
are for it. The municipal association is for it. Everybody is for it 
except the lobbyists, who want to continue to cheat and continue to 
defraud. Isn't it grand? We have put up with it long enough.
  There is no reason we can't get through this bill today. We have two 
or three amendments. I think we can temporarily set aside Carnahan. We 
have the final vote at 1:35, so that time has been changed because the 
distinguished cardinal is coming to town and we have a prayer service. 
So we will go along and put it off for another hour, but they can 
debate that amendment. Everyone knows its merit. Otherwise, we ought to 
have two or three amendments here this morning and move ahead this 
afternoon.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, at 1:35 we will vote on the Carnahan 
amendment. I am proud to be a sponsor with Senator Carnahan. I thank 
Senator Carnahan for the thoughtful amendment she has proposed. I join 
in urging our colleagues to support that amendment.
  As the opening prayer indicated, we all have a sense as we rise on 
the Senate floor about the momentous time this is, the 1-month 
anniversary of the terrorist attack. We are being summoned as a nation 
to give thoughtful prayer and consideration to those who lost their 
lives. Our colleagues are doing so at the Pentagon and other services 
throughout the day. We are all mindful of that, and supportive of it.

  But we also want to carry on our Nation's business, and we are 
mindful of the actions that have been taken and will be taken in the 
very near future. We know that just after the attacks on the World 
Trade Center and the Pentagon that all the airlines effectively were 
grounded for a period of time, as a direct result of that. We found 
that the airline industry was compromised and was facing a very bleak 
and ominous future. Whether the industry itself was going to be able to 
survive was in question.
  Those issues were talked about here, discussed, debated on the floor 
of the Senate. It is unusual that the Federal Government effectively 
closes down a particular industry, an industry that has very broad 
implications in terms of our economy. But, the federal government took 
that action and, therefore, we felt we had an additional responsibility 
to help, assist, and offset the losses of those airlines, particularly 
those losses that had been incurred as a result of the Federal action.
  Of course it is a complicated issue because some of these airlines 
were facing difficult financial situations at best and those adverse 
situations were accelerated because of the actions of the Federal 
Government. But no one questions or doubts that the actions taken by 
the FAA and Department of Transportation were in the national interest. 
No one questions that. So we have a responsibility to address that.
  In a matter of really 2 or 3 days here in the Senate we took action, 
some $15 billion to make sure the airline industry was going to be 
preserved and that there were a range of different financial supports 
for the airline industry. As a result, we took care of an industry and 
we took care of management personnel, but we failed, in a very serious 
way, to take care of the workers in that industry who were just as 
adversely impacted as those who fly the planes and the management 
personnel who supervise the industry, without which the airline 
industry would not be able to function. These workers were left out and 
left behind. That was a critical mistake.
  The Carnahan amendment is an attempt to remedy that mistake. 120,000 
workers were directly affected by the decision regarding the airline 
industry, which is trying to get back on its feet. As a direct result 
of the terrorist attack, those 120,000 workers have lost their jobs--
the flight attendants, reservation clerks, baggage handlers, caterers, 
mechanics, those who make the spare parts and those who service and 
clean the aircraft--they would be working today. They would have a 
future of some hope and some opportunity. Now 120,000 of them have lost 
their jobs. The Carnahan amendment will not restore their jobs, but it 
will ease the pain that these workers are experiencing by extending 
unemployment compensation, to which they have indirectly contributed, 
maintaining their health insurance, and maintaining the opportunity for 
some training for these workers.
  They lost their jobs, not because they didn't show up for work, not 
because they have not worked and had superior job performance over a 
period of years--one worker who I met on Sunday night before returning 
to Washington, had worked for the airline for 10 years. Yet they were 
cutting down, people who had worked there for 10 years--she lost her 
job. She had been an outstanding employee.
  All this amendment is saying is, as we took care of the airline 
industry, as we took care of the management personnel, let us at least 
show some consideration for the 120,000 workers.

  We know we have an important responsibility to pass this legislation. 
I am eager to vote for it and support the position of the Senator from 
South Carolina, in terms of the federalization of these workers at the 
airports. We can get through that today. No one is interested in undue 
delay.
  We know we are also going to have the antiterrorism bill which we 
have every expectation will pass this week. Then we know we will have 
an opportunity to talk about the stimulus package, to try to meet our 
responsibility to the millions of workers who have been laid off, have 
lost their jobs and are suffering in all parts of our Nation. We have a 
responsibility to address those needs.
  The Carnahan amendment basically addresses an issue of fairness. It 
is fairness to the workers. We are saying we took care of the industry 
in those emergency times in a few short days, but we left out the 
workers. That is unfair. Americans understand fairness. All we are 
saying, for those particular workers to whom we were unfair at that 
time when we passed the Airline Security Act, we are going to be fair 
to them to some extent. We are not going to restore their jobs, which 
would be something they would want and they would be eager to accept, 
but we are showing we are not forgetting them. That is why this 
Carnahan amendment is so important.
  We have to speak for those workers. I supported the airline emergency 
legislation. It was important. But we recognize that at that time, as 
we were looking at the industry and also focused on the victims, those 
families who had gone through such extraordinary trauma and loss, the 
workers

[[Page S10490]]

were left out and left behind. That was wrong. This amendment tries to 
redress that kind of injustice.
  It is fair. It is sensible. It is responsible. It is a very moderate 
amendment in what it tries to do, in terms of the health insurance, 
training, and unemployment compensation. It would be wrong for this 
body to reject that proposal. I am hopeful that we will accept it and 
will vote on cloture and vote to accept this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent at this time to 
temporarily set aside the Carnahan amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1861

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 1861, 
which is at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Breaux] proposed an 
     amendment numbered 1861.

  Mr. BREAUX. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . LESS-THAN-LETHAL WEAPONRY FOR FLIGHT DECK CREWS.

       (a) National Institute of Justice Study.--The National 
     Institute of Justice shall assess the range of less-than-
     lethal weaponry available for use by a flight deck crewmember 
     temporarily to incapacitate an individual who presents a 
     clear and present danger to the safety of the aircraft, its 
     passengers, or individuals on the ground and report its 
     findings and recommendations to the Secretary of 
     Transportation within 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.
       Section 44903 of title 49, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Authority to Arm Flight Deck Crew with Less-than-
     lethal Weapons.
       ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary, after receiving the 
     recommendations of the National Institute of Justice, 
     determines, with the approval of the Attorney General and the 
     Secretary of State, that it is appropriate and necessary and 
     would effectively serve the public interest in avoiding air 
     piracy, the Secretary may authorize members of the flight 
     deck crew on any aircraft providing air transportation or 
     intrastate air transportation to carry a less-than-lethal 
     weapon while the aircraft is engaged in providing such 
     transportation.
       ``(2) Usage.--If the Secretary grants authority under 
     paragraph (1) for flight deck crew members to carry a less-
     than-lethal weapon while engaged in providing air 
     transportation or intrastate air transportation, the 
     Secretary shall--
       ``(A) prescribe rules requiring that any such crew member 
     to trained in the proper use of the weapon; and
       ``(B) prescribe guidelines setting forth the circumstances 
     under which such weapons may be used.''.

  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, it is absolutely, critically important 
that the bill before the Senate pass and be signed into law, and that 
it be passed and signed into law as quickly as possible.
  One of the biggest concerns the American public have, ever since the 
tragic day of September 11, is the fear of getting back into airplanes 
in safety. That, certainly, by any measure, is an understandable fear.
  If you look at some of the incidents that have occurred, even since 
September 11, you see a greater degree of concern than we have ever had 
since the Wright Brothers started flying airplanes about airplane 
safety.
  Yesterday a plane had to make an emergency landing in Shreveport, LA, 
because of a disturbed, deranged passenger. We saw just a couple of 
days ago a passenger breaking into the cockpit of a commercial 
airliner--again a deranged passenger, not necessarily connected with 
any terrorist incident.
  But all of this points to the fact that we can no longer do business 
as usual when it comes to airline security and safety. Our surface 
transportation subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, which I am 
privileged to chair, is also looking at the safety and security of not 
only airplanes, but also whether it is safe to ride on Amtrak passenger 
trains, whether it is safe to take a trip on a passenger cruise line 
with literally thousands of working people and crew on those ships as 
well as, literally, thousands of passengers. So all modes of 
transportation are being looked at as we have never before done in the 
history of this country. And that is good.
  This Congress, in a bipartisan way so far, has been able to respond 
to those threats, has been able to produce legislation in a timely 
fashion, like the bill of the chairman, Senator Hollings, that is 
before the Senate today. In a bipartisan fashion it says we are no 
longer going to be lackadaisical about airline security.
  We are no longer going to give the job of making sure airlines are 
secure to the low bidder. We are not going to be worried about who can 
do it the cheapest but rather who can do it the best.
  That is what this bill before the Senate, which I strongly support, 
is all about. It is must-do legislation, and it should be done as 
quickly as possible.
  Along with that debate, a lot of people have made various suggestions 
about how we can further secure the flying public on airlines.
  Some have suggested that every airline should have air marshals 
aboard. I think that is a good suggestion--people who are trained in 
order to prevent hijacking or disturbing the operations of the plane.
  Some have suggested we ought to arm the pilot, the copilot, and the 
navigator, if there is one on a particular plane, so they can protect 
the cockpit.
  Actually, I think the best way to protect the cockpit is to seal it 
off. If you can't get into the cockpit from the back of the plane, the 
plane cannot be hijacked to a different location. I think it is just 
that simple.
  The security of the cockpit door so that it is completely 
inaccessible from the back of the cabin, unless the pilot and the 
copilot want it to be, is absolutely essential. This bill would allow 
that to occur. That is a degree of safety that is very important.
  Others have argued that the pilot and the copilot should be armed. I 
do not know if they want to arm them with AK-47s or .38 or .45 pistols 
or rifles or shotguns. But they have suggested various methods to arm 
the crew of a plane with lethal weapons that could be used in the event 
of a disturbance by passengers who are intent on bringing down the 
aircraft or doing bodily harm to the people on the plane. I think that 
goes a little further than I think most Members of Congress are willing 
to go.

  Obviously, if you have lethal weapons in a plane, a number of things 
can happen. Just like when you throw a ball at a football game, only 
two things can happen: You can complete the pass, or have an 
interception; or, possibly three: You can have an incompleted pass. 
Only one of those is good for your team.
  When you arm the cockpit, a number of things can happen. Many of them 
are not good: You can have those weapons get into the hands of the 
hijackers themselves. You can have those weapons do bodily damage to 
passengers or kill them on the plane, by mistake or by accident. Or you 
can have a lethal weapon with a high-powered bullet actually penetrate 
the skin of the airplane, causing decompression of the airplane and 
causing it to be in a very precarious position and in danger of 
crashing and killing everyone on the plane.
  A lot of bad, unintended things can happen if you arm the pilot and 
the crew with lethal weapons on the plane.
  Therefore, my amendment simply says that we want to take a look at 
other types of weapons which would be nonlethal and which also could be 
effective in disarming people who are intent on bringing down or 
hijacking the plane, thereby providing greater security to the captain 
and the copilot of the plane.
  My amendment is relatively very simple. It requires the Institute of 
Justice to assess the range of nonlethal weapons for use by flight deck 
crew members that could temporarily incapacitate an individual who 
presents a clear and present danger to that aircraft and present those 
findings to the Secretary of Transportation within 90 days.
  If the Secretary--after they get that recommendation and after it has 
been carefully considered--determines that nonlethal weapons are 
appropriate and necessary and would effectively serve the public 
interest, then the Secretary

[[Page S10491]]

may authorize the flight deck crew in an airliner to carry that less-
than-lethal weapon while the airline is engaged in providing 
transportation.
  If the Secretary makes the determination that they want to go 
forward, the Secretary must prescribe the rules the crew members have 
to follow. And they also have to establish the rules that require the 
crew members be in fact trained in the proper use of the weapon and 
precise guidelines as to when those weapons can be used.
  It is very interesting. I am sure the Presiding Officer, with his 
military background, has seen a lot of different weapons that are 
lethal and nonlethal, of course.
  On the nonlethal weapons, I had a demonstration in my office. It is 
another story about how they got the nonlethal weapons into my office. 
They said they did not have much of a problem at all. They walked in 
with a suitcase full of very curious weapons and said they were 
bringing them to show me. And they got right in. I guess they were 
properly checked and that security was followed. I hope so.
  The members of the Justice Department brought in a whole array of 
what they call nonlethal weapons that are available under current 
technology. They range from electronic shock weapons to stun guns. The 
brand name is Tasers. They are really interesting. They can 
incapacitate a person by merely touching them with the weapon. The new 
stun guns can actually deliver an electric shock to a disturbed or a 
terrorist individual from a distance of up to about 20 feet and 
incapacitate them with the stun gun in order for people to take control 
of those individuals while they are knocked semiconscious, not killing 
them but certainly incapacitating them so you can again control of the 
airplane. These are effective.

  The technology is proven technology. And we are saying that the 
Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice, which does 
that type of work within the Justice Department, should evaluate the 
potential for using these types of stun guns on airplanes. I think they 
can be very effective weapons in incapacitating someone who is trying 
to take over the airplane without doing deadly harm to other passengers 
and without danger of penetrating the walls of the airplane, 
decompressing the airplane, and causing severe problems.
  These weapons can work. But I don't think I know enough about them--
and I dare say most Members don't know enough about them--as to whether 
they can really be used on the airplane. That is why I am calling for 
this study and to report back to the Congress to let us know what they 
are doing. When the Secretary gets that report, he can authorize it if 
he thinks it is appropriate.
  Other items that are nonlethal in addition to the stun guns are what 
they call chemical incapacitants, which is a fancy name for basically 
the pepper-spray-type system, which looks like a handgun or a pistol 
and shoots these little pellets that contain various pepper 
ingredients. They are very small.
  When these pepper spray dispersants shoot these little pellets, they 
will hit the person in the chest. They don't break or explode 
violently, but they will burst open and spray the person who has been 
hit with it with a pepper-type ingredient which will incapacitate them 
temporarily and sufficiently to allow people to take control of that 
individual.
  The anesthetizing darts are nonlethal projectiles which can 
anesthetize someone and incapacitate them at the same time. It is a 
little dart that cannot penetrate the cabin, but a dart would penetrate 
the individual to anesthetize and incapacitate them.
  There are little things called impact projectiles, which are airfoil 
projectiles. They are hard plastic projectiles. If you get hit with 
them, you are going to get knocked down and not be able to continue 
doing what you were doing before you were hit by them; I guarantee it.
  There are disabling devices called dazzling-laser-light devices, 
which are sort of interesting. They showed me these weapons in my 
office. You can hit a person in the face with this laser light, and the 
closer they come to the weapon, or the laser light, the less they can 
see because it really hits them with a laser light that absolutely 
temporarily blinds and they cannot see. This is a Flash Gordon-type of 
weapon that can incapacitate someone. It has a lot of possibilities.
  Finally, physical entanglement devices: This is a small projectile 
that actually sends out a net. I have seen it used in wildlife reserves 
when wildlife officials try to capture a wild animal. This net covers 
the animal and allows the people to catch the animal for whatever 
purpose they are trying to catch it. It does not harm the animal, but 
it certainly incapacitates it. These same types of systems can be used 
in a plane and be very effective.

  I do not know that any of these are the answer, but I do suspect one, 
or a combination of some of them, would be effective for the pilot, for 
the copilot, or for members of the flight crew, to give them extra 
protection.
  I do not want to make a decision today in this Chamber that one of 
these is the best. That is why this amendment simply says we would 
require the Institute of Justice, within the Department of Justice, to 
assess the range of these weapons, and within 90 days--it is not going 
to take that long--to give a report to the Secretary of Transportation 
on their findings of whether one is good, one is better, one is not so 
good, or whether none of them is good, and make that recommendation to 
the Secretary.
  Under my amendment, if the Secretary, after getting those 
recommendations, determines, with the approval of the Attorney 
General--and I have the approval of the Secretary of State--that it is 
appropriate and necessary and would effectively serve the public 
interest, then the Secretary can authorize the members of the flight 
deck to carry less-than-lethal weapons on board. I think it is in 
keeping with the chairman's desire to protect the passengers and crew.
  This is a good bill. It should not be delayed. We should do it this 
week. It will be the added security that the American flying public 
will have, to give them the guarantee that, in fact, it is absolutely 
totally safe to get back in our planes to fly to whatever destination 
safely, and secure in the knowledge that everything has been done to 
protect them and the crew. I hope my colleagues will be in a position 
to realize this is the correct approach.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank our colleague from Louisiana, 
Senator Breaux, for his thoughtful presentation.
  The chief pilot of all the pilots of El Al, in his testimony, asked 
for stun guns at that particular time. I know there has been a 
suggestion about a Colt .45. I carried one of those for 3 years-plus, 
and other weaponry, in combat. But you do not want anybody with a Colt 
.45 on a plane. The distinguished Presiding Officer, as a great West 
Point graduate, knows you are liable to hit what you want to hit, but 
then the bullet could go through and ricochet around and hit two or 
three other people. That is just too much firepower.
  This particular approach is deliberate and thoughtful. I would be 
ready to accept it on behalf of our side. We are checking with Senator 
McCain and the other side right now to see what they desire. There 
could be further debate. I heard a moment ago that another Senator 
wishes to address the subject.
  Let me commend Senator Breaux for his leadership in this particular 
regard because this can be analyzed. Obviously, the Senators cannot 
analyze everything that is necessary to give the proper security. There 
is no doubt that some kind of added protection would be in order.
  For my part, of course, when we close that secure cockpit door, we 
have pilots to fly, not to fight. So it is that even then, with a stun 
gun, fine, all right, so they cannot really kill someone, but even that 
would not be necessary in this Senator's view. But whatever the 
decision of the body is on this particular score, it seems to me that 
the Senator from Louisiana is on the right track.
  It can be studied, analyzed, and provided for with this particular 
approach--not just for us, for wanting to have done something, to say, 
well, we

[[Page S10492]]

are going to authorize a .45 caliber pistol or a Thompson submachine 
gun or an M-1, or anything else of that particular kind. We have to be 
far, far more careful in some of the security initiatives that we have 
undertaken.
  I thank the distinguished Senator. We will check with our colleague 
who wants to be heard on this matter. Pending that, I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, in urging the adoption of the Breaux 
amendment, there is one colleague at the memorial exercise who would 
want to be heard and perhaps have an amendment. The adoption of the 
Breaux amendment will not forgo any consideration he may have, if he 
thinks it is an improvement. I wanted to say that publicly because we 
are not trying, on the one hand, to disregard the desire of all of us 
to be at that memorial service and at the same time overriding the duty 
we have here on the floor to move this legislation.
  In that light, I then urge the adoption of the Breaux amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate? If not, 
the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1861) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set 
aside the Daschle-Carnahan amendment so that we can consider both the 
Inouye and the Rockefeller amendments.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1865

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, 
Mr. Inouye, has an amendment that I send to the desk and ask the clerk 
to report.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr. 
     Inouye, proposes an amendment numbered 1865.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To authorize the Secretary of Transportation to grant waivers 
 for restrictions on air transportation of freight, mail, and medical 
  supplies, personnel, and patients to, from, and within States with 
  extraordinary air transportation needs or concerns during national 
                              emergencies)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . MAIL AND FREIGHT WAIVERS.

       During a national emergency affecting air transportation or 
     intrastate air transportation, the Secretary of 
     Transportation, after consultation with the Aviation Security 
     Coordination Council, may grant a complete or partial waiver 
     of any restrictions on the carriage by aircraft of freight, 
     mail, emergency medical supplies, personnel, or patients on 
     aircraft, imposed by the Department of Transportation (or 
     other Federal agency or department) that would permit such 
     carriage of freight, mail, emergency medical supplies, 
     personnel, or patients on flights, to, from, or within States 
     with extraordinary air transportation needs or concerns if 
     the Secretary determines that the waiver is in the public 
     interest, taking into consideration the isolation of and 
     dependence on air transportation of such States. The 
     Secretary may impose reasonable limitations on any such 
     waivers.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, this particular amendment has to do with 
waiver authority. At the time of the terrorism of 9/11, there were body 
parts in flight and prepared for flight in Hawaii to be used, of 
course, in life-saving organ operations. It was pointed out that those 
particular operations had to be stalled and set aside. This measure 
will provide emergency power to the Secretary to make a waiver for this 
reason in case planes have to be grounded, as was properly done on 9/
11.
  I urge for the adoption of that amendment. It has been cleared on 
both sides.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate? If not, 
the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1865) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


             Amendments Nos. 1866, 1867, and 1868, en bloc

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, with respect to the three Rockefeller 
amendments, one has to do with safety and security of onboard supplies 
that the flight personnel and pilots are concerned with.
  The other Rockefeller amendment has to do with property and 
passengers. We have prescribed, everyone can see it on page 18 of the 
managers' amendment, whereby every bit of passenger luggage, cargo, and 
property will be screened. This provision would guarantee that all 
objects are checked, as I read it, by adding language on page 18, 
insert ``cargo, carry-on, and checked baggage, other articles.'' The 
other articles would be anything else. So there would be no dispute on 
that particular amendment.
  With the third amendment, the reference is to the Secretary ensuring 
that the training curriculum is developed in consultation with Federal 
law enforcement. The Federal law enforcement has the expertise 
necessary. We want to make sure of this. The distinguished Senator and 
chairman of our Aviation Subcommittee, the Senator from West Virginia, 
Mr. Rockefeller, wants to make sure of it.
  I send these three amendments to the desk and ask the clerk to report 
each.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr. 
     Rockefeller, proposes amendments en bloc numbered 1866, 1867, 
     and 1868.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1866

(Purpose: To establish minimum requirements for the antihijack training 
                              curriculum)

       On page 17, line 16, after the period insert ``The 
     Secretary shall ensure that the training curriculum is 
     developed in consultation with Federal law enforcement 
     agencies with expertise in terrorism, self-defense, hijacker 
     psychology, and current threat conditions.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1867

  (Purpose: To require screening of carry-on and checked baggage and 
               other articles carried aboard an aircraft)

       On page 17, line 23, insert ``AND PROPERTY'' after 
     ``PASSENGER''.
       On page 18, line 5, after ``mail,'' insert ``cargo, carry-
     on and checked baggage, and other articles,''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1868

 (Purpose: To ensure that supplies carried aboard an aircraft are safe 
                              and secure)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SAFETY AND SECURITY OF ON-BOARD SUPPLIES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish procedures to ensure the safety and integrity of 
     all supplies, including catering and passenger amenities, 
     placed aboard aircraft providing passenger air transportation 
     or intrastate air transportation.b)
       (b) Measures.--In carrying out subsection (a), the 
     Secretary may require--
       (1) security procedures for supplies and their facilities;
       (2) the sealing of supplies to ensure easy visual detection 
     of tampering; and
       (3) the screening of personnel, vehicles, and supplies 
     entering secured areas of the airport or used in servicing 
     aircraft.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I yield to the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of each of the 
three amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the amendments are agreed to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1866, 1867, and 1868) were agreed to.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I thank the Chair. They have been cleared on both 
sides.

[[Page S10493]]

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, 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. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1855

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to speak to the 
Carnahan amendment. As everyone knows, the vote will be cast in a 
couple of hours. Today, it is 1 month since the terrorist attacks on 
America. In the days following September 11, we saw unbearable loss and 
unmatched heroism.
  Now, as we take on those who perpetrated these attacks abroad, we 
have the opportunity--we have the duty--to prevent the economic 
aftereffects from rippling farther outward here at home.
  For America's aviation workers and their families, the economic 
impact of the crisis is real, it is immediate, and it is devastating. 
Every day we see more reports of more layoffs. It is now estimated that 
150,000 workers have lost their jobs in the airline industry alone. 
Many of these workers and their families have no income and no health 
insurance. What they face is not a recession; for them, it is a 
depression.
  I think we all agree it was right for Congress to act quickly to 
stabilize the airline industry. It is long past the time for us, 
however, to help those aviation workers who got no help from that bill 
we passed a couple of weeks ago. That is what the Carnahan amendment 
would do. It is a fair, balanced, and temporary package of assistance 
to aviation workers.
  There are those who say helping workers isn't relevant to this bill. 
Some are suggesting that we should again put off helping those working 
families. Let me ask you, how could you possibly say to 150,000 
workers, who had good jobs one day and no jobs the next, that they are 
not relevant? How could you possibly tell 150,000 people, whose 
families have lost their source of income and, in many cases, their 
health care, that they should wait a little longer?

  This is not a vote about relevance or timing. Let's be very clear 
about what this vote is. A vote against cloture is a vote against 
150,000 aviation workers who lost their jobs as a direct result of the 
September 11 attacks. It is a vote against giving workers unemployment 
insurance. It is a vote against helping those workers and their 
families maintain health insurance. It is a vote against giving workers 
who lost their jobs training so they can find new jobs that will allow 
them to support themselves and their families.
  A month ago today, America suffered the worst terrorist attack in all 
of history. All over the country, people are remembering the more than 
6,000 innocent men and women who lost their lives on that terrible day. 
We need to remember that the people who died on September 11 were the 
terrorists' first victims. They were not their last. There are hundreds 
of thousands of other Americans who didn't lose their lives, but they 
did lose their livelihoods. They are the economic victims of the 
September 11 attack.
  Right now, they are looking to us for help. They don't expect this 
Congress to solve all their problems. All they want is a little help to 
make it through one of the worst times in their lives.
  Just days after September 11, when we passed that $15 billion airline 
bailout package, many of us wanted, even then, to include this help for 
displaced workers; but we were told: ``This is not the time. There will 
be another chance soon. We are going to consider an airline security 
bill. We can help the workers then.''
  We reluctantly agreed to wait because we were told if we didn't get 
that airline bill done that Friday, the airlines would be grounded on 
Monday and we would see hundreds of thousands of additional workers out 
of work. So we passed that bill to keep our airlines flying, and keep 
those workers working.
  After a week of delay, we are finally debating that airline security 
bill. Now what are we hearing? ``This is not the time. There is another 
bill coming, an economic stimulus package. We can help workers then.'' 
It is always ``then.'' It is never ``now.''
  Senator Carnahan and others have put together a good, fair, 
affordable, and extremely limited assistance package for these workers. 
They have been remarkably flexible. They have made concession after 
concession. They have compromised and they have compromised.
  They have cut the costs of the package by more than $1 billion. They 
have done everything anyone can do to build bipartisan support for this 
package.
  It is time for Congress to show its commitment not only to the 
airline industry, but also to its workers. The time has come to move 
this package. We must not put these workers on hold yet again.
  This issue is about values. We all espouse the importance of values. 
I have heard those speeches countless times here in the Senate Chamber 
how we hold our values so dear. Of all those values, I do not know of a 
value of greater import than the value of family, than the value of 
ensuring that we, as Americans, help one another. We built a country on 
those values--values of family, values of neighbor helping neighbor. 
This, too, is about values.
  This is about preserving the integrity and the economic viability of 
those families who are the economic victims of September 11. This is 
about the values of people helping people in this country in a time of 
need.
  The response since September 11th has been remarkable. Our country 
has responded in ways that make me proud to be an American. To watch 
those rescuers climb that rubble in the days following the attacks, as 
I did, to watch those Red Cross workers come to the site and work 20, 
22-hour days as I did, to see people all over the country respond by 
putting up their flags, as they have, and, yes, to see Congress work 
together as closely as we have now for these last 4 weeks, makes me 
proud.
  How sad it would be if we say, yes, we will help New York; yes, we 
will help the airlines; yes, we will try to do as many things as 
possible to put this country right again, but we will say no to those 
aviation workers.
  Does that reflect our values? Is that in keeping with what we have 
done for these last 4 weeks? I do not think so.
  I mentioned the word ``hope.'' The one thing we need to do, above and 
beyond anything else in our capacity as leaders in this country, is to 
give people hope. They need a reason for hope. That is what we are 
talking about this morning. That is why it is important we allow this 
legislation to pass. That is why we have to vote for cloture.
  I hope every Member of this Senate, when they vote on cloture this 
afternoon, will imagine themselves sitting in the living room of one of 
those unemployed families. You are sitting in the armchair, and they 
are sitting on the sofa across the room, and they are asking you to 
vote. I would like you to look in their eyes and say no. No one could 
do that.
  We have to look in their eyes in that living room. We have to say: We 
understand all of your anxiety and all of your pain and all of the 
economic concern you have for your family. And then we must say, in the 
context of values, and in the belief that neighbor helps neighbor in 
this country, we are going to help you, just as we helped the airlines, 
just as we, indeed, needed to help the people of New York. We are going 
to give you hope. We are going to say yes to you, too.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of 
S. 1447, the Aviation Security Act. I, first of all, extend my 
appreciation to the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator 
Hollings, for the brilliant work he has done on this matter, and to the 
ranking member, Senator McCain, for his persistence and ability

[[Page S10494]]

to work as a team with Senator Hollings.
  I see in the Chamber today somebody who has worked hard on this 
measure, and that is the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison. She also 
has done an outstanding job in working on a bipartisan basis to make 
sure airports are safe. I appreciate her help.
  This bill is crucial to enhance aviation safety. It is critical, in 
fact, to enhance aviation safety and security for America, for the 
State of Nevada, for the State of Nebraska, for all States. This 
Aviation Security Act represents a well-crafted bill that provides a 
modern and effective aviation security program for our country.
  This bill establishes, among other things, a Deputy Secretary for 
Aviation Security within the Department of Transportation; it mandates 
cockpit doors and locks to protect our flight crews. This is not 
something that is a choice; it is mandatory. And it federalizes airport 
screening of passengers and cargo.
  This is so important. We have a system that is unique to this country 
where we have airlines putting out to the lowest bidder the job of 
protecting and ensuring our safety. It does not work. We all have been 
through airport security around the country. We know they are well-
meaning people, but their average term of employment is 90 days, and 
then they are off doing something else. They are not trained well, they 
are not paid well, and they do not do a good job, as hard as they might 
try.
  Democrats and Republicans alike have drawn the same conclusions: We 
must pass this very important legislation to protect the traveling 
American public. Why? Because we need to get America flying and flying 
a lot again.
  The airline industry is a key component in our Nation's economy. My 
State is very dependent on our Nation's air transportation system. 
McCarran Airport in Las Vegas provided service for 34 million 
passengers last year. That is a lot of people. We expected more to come 
this year. We hope that still will be the case.
  We are building another airport terminal. We are building a new 
airport in Las Vegas, one of the few places in the country where a new 
airport is being built. We received permission from Congress to use 
Federal land to build another airport about 35 miles outside of Las 
Vegas. That is now being done. So the airline industry is a key 
component of our Nation's economy. It is a key component of Nevada's 
economy.
  The legislation we are considering today will bring our airport 
security system into the new century by reducing the risks that a 
commercial airliner will again be turned into a weapon of mass 
destruction. This is a goal on which we can all agree. This can never 
happen again.
  I stress to my colleagues the need for this aviation security 
legislation is widely supported by the American people, and we must 
move forward now. The bill we are considering will allow the United 
States to move forward and provide our Nation the aviation security 
that is necessary to address this new century. It is a good bill for 
America.
  This bill, we understand, is controversial in some people's minds. 
One of the reasons it is controversial is the amendment upon which we 
are going to vote at 1:35 p.m. today, and that is the Carnahan 
amendment. I applaud Senator Carnahan for her work on this legislation.
  No one better among us can ever understand the loss in New York than 
Senator Carnahan, whose husband and son were killed in an airplane 
crash a short time ago. I am sure Senator Carnahan, being the sensitive 
person she is, was compelled to offer this legislation because she 
better understands how people feel after a loss such as this.
  What does her amendment do? Her amendment would provide financial 
assistance, training, and health care coverage to employees of the 
aviation industry who lost or will lose their jobs as a result of the 
attack on September 11. The benefits would be distributed within the 
framework created by the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. Based on 
preliminary estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, the cost is 
expected to be $2.8 billion, but this amendment is pared down. As the 
majority leader said, in an effort to work this through the process, we 
have pared this down, and rightfully so. It is not the full amount 
needed, but it certainly will be a tremendous shot in the arm for these 
people.
  Who is eligible? Employees of airlines, commercial aircraft 
manufacturers, suppliers of airlines, and airports. Only those 
employees who lose their jobs as a direct result of the attacks on 
September 11, or security measures taken in response to the attacks as 
determined by the Secretary of Labor, will be eligible.
  What are the benefits we are begging the Senate to approve? Provide 
an additional 52 weeks of unemployment insurance to people who no 
longer are working as a result of this incident. Fifty-two weeks of 
unemployment insurance benefits and training for those workers who lose 
their jobs. This training would allow workers who have permanently lost 
their jobs to receive income assistance and training to assist them in 
moving into a new industry or job.
  There is also a provision to supplement unemployment insurance gaps; 
that is, provide 26 weeks of unemployment insurance-like benefits for 
those workers who would not otherwise qualify for unemployment 
insurance. They were working but maybe they had not worked long enough 
to qualify. This would include workers who have been recently hired, 
who had been working less than 6 months, part-time workers, low-wage 
workers, and workers with intermittent employment; for example, single 
parents who have had to take time off to care for their children.
  This legislation would provide Federal reimbursement of COBRA health 
insurance premiums for eligible workers for up to 18 months and provide 
States the option to provide medicaid coverage for those workers who do 
not qualify for COBRA benefits. This would include new hires, low-wage, 
part-time, or intermittent workers as well as those workers whose 
employers did not provide health insurance or are independent 
contractors; for example, workers who load luggage or other cargo on 
the planes.
  This legislation is important for the country, and this specific 
amendment is important for people who have been directly hurt, harmed, 
and damaged by this terrible act of September 11. People who step down 
into the well of this Chamber to vote should understand today this is 
more than political philosophy. It is a philosophy directed to say that 
this country cares, this country is concerned and wants to help those 
people who have been directly impacted, workers who have been directly 
impacted as a result of this incident of September 11.
  I hope everyone will vote to invoke cloture.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, A also rise as a cosponsor of the 
Carnahan amendment to help those who are most hurt by the economic 
impact of the terrorist attacks of September: the unemployed airline 
and airplane manufacture workers.
  Thousands of American workers have lost their jobs during this 
economic downturn. These workers need our help. That's why we need to 
act quickly on a robust stimulus package targeted at workers.
  No workers have been hit as hard as those in the airline and aviation 
industry; 140,000 thousand of these workers have been laid off since 
the terrorist attacks of September 11. Unemployment is steadily rising. 
Last week the largest number of people in 9 years filed for 
unemployment, over 528,000 people. That's nearly the population of 
Baltimore City; 650,000 people live in Baltimore.
  These are the pilots, the flight attendants, the baggage handlers, 
the concessionaires, and the aircraft builders. These workers have: 
lost their paychecks, lost their health care and could lose their 
homes. They need help immediately, just as we've helped their former 
employers with a $15 billion stabilization package of grants and loan 
guarantees.

[[Page S10495]]

  I am confident that the airline industry and the U.S. economy will 
recover; But help is needed today. How would the Carnahan amendment 
help the airline workers?
  Senator Carnahan's amendment would provide financial assistance, 
training, and health care coverage to employees of the airline industry 
who lose their jobs as a result of the attacks on September 11, 2001.
  The Carnahan amendment would provide income support by extending the 
number of weeks eligible individuals can receive unemployment insurance 
from 26 weeks to 79 weeks. That's a year and a half. These cash 
payments would not create a strain on state budgets because they would 
be funded entirely by the Federal Government.
  For many workers do not meet their States' requirements for 
unemployment insurance would not be left out. They would receive 26 
weeks of federally financed unemployment insurance.
  Some workers may not return to their jobs within the airline 
industry. These people would be eligible for retraining benefits. 
Others may find alternative jobs within the airline industry. These 
workers would be eligible for training to upgrade their skills.
  The amendment would enable laid off workers to keep their health care 
by expanding the COBRA program which helps people who've lost their 
jobs to keep their health insurance. The amendment enables the Federal 
Government to fully reimburse for COBRA premiums. Yet about half of 
those who lose their jobs are not eligible for COBRA, so the amendment 
would make these families eligible for Medicaid for up to 18 months, 
with the Federal Government covering 100 percent of the premiums.
  I strongly support the Carnahan amendment. It's a thoughtful and 
comprehensive airline workers relief package. It's a good starting 
point to address the needs of working families. It also provides a good 
model for a broader economic stimulus package that Congress should 
consider soon.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to support the Carnahan 
amendment.
  All of America was shaken by the horrendous events of September 11. 
America's heart still aches for the thousands of people who lost their 
lives and whose lives have been altered permanently in one way or 
another.
  And now, as we watch America valiantly begin to recover, we are just 
starting to realize the economic impact of this terrible tragedy. As we 
are all too well aware, people are losing their jobs and futures are at 
risk.
  I cannot imagine living through the tremendous stress of the past 
several weeks only to be told that I have now lost my job or I am being 
laid off because my company cannot afford to keep running at full 
speed. Unfortunately, the numbers of layoffs are increasing and the 
unemployment rate is trending upward.
  One of the industries hardest hit by the economic downturn is the 
airline industry. In the short span of just a few weeks, hundreds of 
thousands of workers at airlines, airports, aircraft manufacturers and 
at the companies that supply the airlines, have lost their jobs. 
Workers from commonly known companies like Boeing, Pratt and Whitney, 
American and United Airlines, to name but a few, are losing their jobs 
and being laid off, their futures are less than certain.
  The effects have been devastating. Hundreds of thousands of men and 
women who support the airline industry are losing their family's 
primary source of income and health insurance.
  But we can help. We can lend a helping hand to the thousands of 
displaced workers at these companies. We can restore their hope. We can 
make a difference.
  That is why I support and I ask my colleagues to support Senator 
Carnahan's displaced worker relief amendment. This amendment would 
provide income support, job training and health care benefits for those 
airline industry workers affected by the aftermath of the events of 
September 11. It would extend State unemployment benefits to provide 
income, establish job re-training or job upgrade benefits to those who 
permanently lose their jobs in the airline industry, and provide 
critical health care coverage for the workers and their families. These 
initiatives will go a long way to restore the economic security of 
airline industry workers and their families.
  No one expected the events of September 11, and no one envisioned 
these terrible events would have such devastating repercussions in our 
country's most critical transportation industry. I urge my colleagues 
to support this amendment and help airline industry workers get back on 
their feet and back to work.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, today I rise in strong support of the 
Carnahan amendment to provide much needed assistance to airline 
industry employees.
  Almost a month later, we are still sorting through the aftermath of 
September 11th. Thousands of people from New York and New Jersey were 
among those lost or injured on that terrible day. And now thousands 
more across the country are beginning to feel the economic impact of 
the tragedy.
  A few weeks ago, this Congress did the right thing when we passed 
legislation to help the airline industry. As a result of the attacks, 
the airlines lost billions of dollars in the days that planes were 
grounded.
  And so many people have decided not to fly, the airlines have cut the 
number of flights by 20 percent since September 11th.
  In my State, that has meant 300 fewer daily flights out of Newark 
International Airport.
  This Nation's economy depends on healthy airlines to keep people and 
goods moving, and Congress was right to help.
  And now this Congress must continue to do right by passing this 
amendment to help the people who work for the airlines and related 
industries who have lost their jobs and health insurance as a result of 
this slowdown.
  So far, more than 140,000 airline industry workers across the nation 
have lost their jobs and their healthcare. Virtually all of the 
airlines have laid off workers:
  American Airlines--20,000 people; United Airlines--20,000 people; 
Delta Airlines--13,000 people; US Airways--11,000 people; Continental 
Airlines--11,000 people; Northwest Airlines--10,000 people; America 
West--2,000 people; Midway--1,700 people; and American Trans Air--1,500 
people.
  Airlines are a crucial employer in my state, more than 19,000 people 
in New Jersey are employed by the major airlines. Continental Airlines 
has one of its hubs at Newark International Airport.
  But just a few weeks ago, 2,000 of those Continental workers at 
Newark were laid off.
  And it is not just airline workers who are feeling the cuts. The 
people who provide the meal services and run the airport concessions 
have also suffered thousands of lay-offs.
  We cannot continue to delay. We must pass this amendment to help 
these workers who have bills to pay and children to care for but who 
don't know where they will be getting their next paycheck.
  This amendment provides critical assistance in three ways.
  Income support: Under current law, laid-off workers are eligible for 
26 weeks of State unemployment insurance. Under this amendment, they 
would be eligible for an additional 20 weeks of federal benefits.
  Training: No one knows when these airline jobs will come back or in 
what other industries these laid-off workers will find work. Under this 
amendment, individuals who did not return to the airline industry would 
be eligible for retraining benefits; those who find alternative jobs 
within the airline industry would be eligible for upgrade training.
  Health Care: For up to a year, the Federal Government would fully 
reimburse eligible individuals for their COBRA premiums. Individuals 
who do not qualify for COBRA and are otherwise uninsured would be 
eligible for Medicaid, with the Federal Government covering 100 percent 
of the premiums.
  We have waited long enough. It is time to make good on our obligation 
to provide for the airline industry workers who have lost their jobs 
and health care. I urge passage of the Carnahan amendment.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this Nation is still reeling from the 
horrific events of September 11. During the past month, our country has 
come together to mourn those we have lost, to

[[Page S10496]]

help those who have been injured, and to comfort the many families 
involved. We continue to honor those who rushed selflessly to the aid 
of the victims and those who still work tirelessly in the rubble. We 
support our men and women in uniform who are making a bold strike 
against terrorism half the world away.
  The ripple effects of the terrorist attacks of one month ago are 
being felt across the country. One of those effects is the tightening 
of security measures around the country, perhaps most visibly at our 
Nation's airports. I commend the thousands of National Guard personnel 
who are patrolling our airports, including seven airports in Wisconsin.
  The impact that these vicious attacks have had on the airline 
industry is undeniable. There is certainly a legitimate need to provide 
some kind of assistance to our Nation's airlines in this time of 
crisis, and for that reason I supported the airline relief package that 
the Senate adopted last month.
  But this assistance should not stop at the board room door. We should 
not forget about airline employees and their families, including many 
Wisconsinites. In the past month, more than 100,000 layoffs have been 
announced by the airlines, and thousands more workers in related 
industries have been or will be laid off in the coming months. These 
massive layoffs are a double blow to an already shocked country.
  Midwest Express Airlines, which is based in Oak Creek WI, has 
announced that it will lay off 450 workers, or 12 percent of its work 
force. Another Wisconsin-based airline, Air Wisconsin of Appleton, 
which is affiliated with United Airlines, has announced 300 layoffs, or 
10 percent of its workforce.
  These airline workers are not just statistics. They are our 
neighbors, our friends, and our constituents. It is past time that we 
act to ensure that those who work for our Nation's airlines and their 
families receive adequate relief, including continued access to health 
care and unemployment and job training assistance. The amendment 
offered by the Senator from Missouri, Mrs. Carnahan, will provide these 
workers with this crucial assistance.
  I disagree with the argument that this amendment is not relevant to 
the underlying airport security legislation. The financial well-being 
of all Americans is a vital part of our national security.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on the Carnahan amendment 
and to support its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I say to our colleagues who have 
suggestions or amendments on this bill, that we want to encourage them 
to come down because we have the cloture vote on the Carnahan amendment 
scheduled, and once that is disposed of we hope we can move to the 
relevant amendments that people have to offer and finish this bill 
today.
  I think it is the intention of the majority leader, and the minority 
leader as well, to have an aviation security bill passed today. I think 
we can do it because we only have a few amendments, and there are 
qualified legitimate differences of opinion and we can take those up 
and go forward. So I hope everybody will come down.
  What we have is 95-percent agreement on the basics of this bill. The 
Carnahan amendment has a lot of positives, and I think we will pass 
something for our airline workers who have been laid off and workers in 
other industries who have been laid off because of the economic 
downturn. I do not think it should go on this bill because, frankly, I 
do not think we are ready yet. I do not think we have all of the 
relevant information we need to know about what is not covered in 
unemployment compensation and COBRA to determine how much the Federal 
Government needs to step in. So I hope we would not go to the Carnahan 
amendment. I hope we would be able to go to the rest of the bill and 
the legitimate differences on the aviation security issues so we can 
move down the road.
  We will deal with the employees who have been laid off, and it is my 
hope that many of the people who have been laid off in one industry 
will be able to go into the areas where we know we are going to 
increase employment. We are going to increase employment in the defense 
area. We are going to increase employment in airline security and 
airport security. That is the bill we are trying to pass right now, 
which we think will create many new jobs.
  The way we are trying to pass this bill is as a quality aviation 
security package that assures we have a qualified workforce to do this 
law enforcement responsibility, and we are trying to make sure there is 
a clear standard in every airport. We need a uniform standard. That is 
why our bill tries to make sure we have screeners who have the 
qualifications and standards that would be required to have this 
uniformity.
  I think we are making great progress. I am very pleased that we are. 
I hope everybody will cooperate. I hope we can keep extraneous 
amendments off, even if they have a lot of merit, because we have not 
finished passing emergency legislation yet from what happened on 
September 11.
  Sad to say, we are now memorializing the 1-month anniversary of this 
terrible tragedy to our country, but I would also say we are making 
great progress since September 11. We have already passed $40 billion 
in authorization for emergency expenditures to help clean up New York 
and the Pentagon and to help the victims in their earliest needs. We 
have already allocated money for emergency needs for our Department of 
Defense, and I can not think of anything more relevant and more urgent 
than the needs of our military today as we know we are in a 
mobilization that is required to win this war on terrorism.
  We have already allocated the billions of dollars that will be 
required for that. At the same time we are also trying to take care of 
the Afghan people, who are fleeing their homes, by trying to make sure 
we have humanitarian aid for them.
  We need to add aviation security as an accomplishment. We need to add 
the aid to the terrorism bill that gives our intelligence agencies the 
capabilities they need to continue their extraordinary investigation of 
the terrorist cells that have tentacles throughout our country and 
throughout other countries around the world. So I hope the 
antiterrorism bill and the aviation security bill will be passed by the 
Senate this week. We could be very pleased with that accomplishment on 
the 1-month anniversary of this tragedy. That, coupled with progress on 
aviation security and antiterrorism would be the right approach to 
continue moving down the road and meeting our responsibility to deal 
with this emergency.

  What has come out every day since September 11 is the spirit of the 
American people. From the horrible tragedy of September 11, we are 
seeing extraordinary heroism displayed every day by the American 
people--a spirit seen especially when you go home. I have gone home 
every single weekend since September 11. The flags are flying in 
people's homes, the flags are flying in people's businesses, the flags 
are flying on people's cars and people are doing added things for their 
neighbors and friends. All of these things have certainly bonded 
Americans.
  In 1 month, we have come of age in our generation. We are dealing 
with a crisis that has not presented itself to our generation in our 
live time's, and now we have it. I think we are responding very well. I 
am proud of the progress we are making.
  I look forward to continuing work on aviation security and 
antiterrorism this week. I hope we will then go on to the economic 
stimulus package, dealing with the displaced employees, for next week's 
accomplishments. We are making progress, and I am proud of America 
today. I think we are going to be filled with pride as we move down the 
road to see how America is coming together to meet the crisis of our 
generation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support and 
commend the President's back-to-work relief package.
  From the workers in New York whose offices now lie in rubble to the 
workers on the opposite coast who have lost their jobs in a massive 
layoff, the terrorist attacks of September 11 have had a devastating 
impact on our Nation's workforce. Just as we must rebuild the 
structures damaged or destroyed, we must help to rebuild the

[[Page S10497]]

lives of workers who have been displaced because of the attacks.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and 
Training, I am particularly concerned with providing effective and 
immediate assistance to workers affected by the terrorist attacks. To 
do so, the President's package must:
  1, be targeted to individuals directly impacted by the September 11 
attacks;
  2, build upon existing programs, not create new ones. That is a major 
point. We are doing a lot of things well already. We don't need a new 
Federal bureaucracy to do it;
  3, provide State and local flexibility to address needs;
  4, enable individuals to return to the workforce as quickly as 
possible through job training and job search assistance.
  The President's back-to-work relief package is, indeed, based on 
these principles. He deserves our unyielding support for a proposal 
that is based on what works best for workers.
  To enhance existing assistance programs available to displaced 
workers, the President's proposal will extend unemployment benefits by 
13 weeks for Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of the 
terrorist attacks. It will provide $3 billion in special national 
emergency grants to States to help displaced workers maintain health 
coverage, to supplement their income, and to receive job training. It 
makes $11 billion available to States to help low-income displaced 
workers receive health insurance. And, finally, it encourages displaced 
workers to take advantage of the more than $6 billion in existing 
Federal programs that provide job search, training, and placement 
services.

  While the President's package is targeted to workers directly 
impacted by the terrorist attack, it is not restricted to employees of 
the airlines and related industries. That is an important point. There 
are many workers in other industries who have also lost their jobs as a 
consequence of the attacks. It is inequitable to deny them relief 
provided only to employees in certain industries.
  I am especially pleased to see that the President's proposal will 
utilize national emergency grants under the Workforce Investment Act to 
provide additional assistance to those communities and populations 
hardest hit by the terrorist attacks. I have been a strong supporter of 
the Workforce Investment Act and the fundamental principles upon which 
this landmark legislation was based.
  Under the Workforce Investment act, States and localities have 
increased flexibility to meet the needs of the local and regional labor 
markets. Today, in the wake of the tragic events of September 11, it is 
even more critical that States have the flexibility to effectively 
respond to the needs of their dislocated workers.
  States affected by the terrorist attacks will be able to receive 
national emergency grants. The States may in turn use these funds to 
help ensure that dislocated workers maintain health insurance coverage, 
that they receive income support during the recovery period, and they 
return to the workforce through training and job search assistance.
  Both the Workforce Investment Act and the President's package 
recognize that decisions regarding worker assistance should be made by 
those closest to the problem and, therefore, closest to the solution. 
State and local governments--not the Federal Government--are best 
positioned to respond to workforce needs. That is the way our system is 
set up.
  Under the President's package, national emergency grants may be used 
to provide training and job search assistance. In addition, displaced 
workers are encouraged to take advantage of the $6 billion in existing 
Federal programs that provide training and placement services. Rather 
than waste precious time and resources on creating new Federal 
programs, displaced workers can immediately access one-stop centers and 
receive job assistance services. In fact, New York, Massachusetts, and 
Minnesota have already applied for national emergency grants in the 
wake of the attacks.
  Finally, the President's proposal is termed a relief package. It is 
designed to provide supplementary, temporary work to displaced workers 
during the recovery period after the terrorist attacks. Now is not the 
time to create widespread new Federal programs and entitlements. Now is 
the time to address the immediate needs of workers who have lost their 
jobs as a result of the tragic events of September 11 while utilizing 
existing programs to help these people return to the workforce as 
quickly as possible. Ultimately, this approach, which the President has 
taken, will best serve these workers and the American economy.
  The question we must all answer is, How do we define success? The 
answer is, Getting everybody back to work. How do we achieve that? We 
activate proven, existing, and therefore immediate programs 
administered by those closest to the people. I trust Mayor Giuliani and 
I trust Governor Pataki to be responsive, just as I trust the mayor of 
Boston and the Governor of Minnesota. A lot of that is because these 
people have already been dealing with these existing programs. We don't 
need to be creating something new just to throw money at them.
  In closing, I say to my colleagues, the President's back-to-work 
relief package is aptly named. It is designed to return to the 
workforce those who lost their jobs as a result of the events of 
September 11. The best way to help stimulate our economy is to get 
these people working again as soon as possible.
  To recap, I am in opposition to the cloture motion filed. We will 
vote on it at 1:35. I commend the President for taking a broader look 
and particularly commend the President for his willingness and desire 
to use those existing programs and existing people who are already in 
place, use the talents that have already been built and trained to do 
it, to provide the necessary recovery we need, without winding up with 
an additional bureaucracy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of my 
distinguished colleague from Wyoming, and I agree with him 100 percent 
that there is no need for an additional program in which to dispense 
these funds that we wanted to get to our airline workers so quickly. 
That is why my amendment is set up to service needs under the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Act, already in place, that has worked so well at 
the Department of Labor. I appreciate his concern for that, but I would 
like to reassure him that we have taken that into consideration.
  Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking my colleagues who 
have risen in support of this amendment. I am heartened by their 
efforts on behalf of the airline industry. I am also very pleased to 
ask unanimous consent that Senator Specter be added as a cosponsor of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. The amendment provides assistance to airline industry 
employees who are laid off from their jobs as a result of terrorist 
attacks that occurred on September 11. It brings assistance to those 
who had been employed by airlines, airports, aircraft manufacturers, 
and suppliers to airlines. For those workers, this legislation would 
provide three basic benefits.
  First, it extends unemployment compensation for an additional 20 
weeks after employees have exhausted their State benefits. This 
provides a safety net to help them make their mortgage payments, to 
feed their families for a few extra months while they are trying to get 
new jobs.
  Second, this legislation provides training assistance to workers who 
will not be able to return to their former jobs, training that is so 
essential today in a changing economy.
  Third, this legislation helps workers maintain health insurance for 
themselves and for their families. As my colleagues know, many workers 
who were laid off are eligible to purchase health insurance from their 
former employer. The average cost of these premiums is $500 per month. 
People who have been abruptly laid off will not have an extra $500 a 
month to spend on health insurance. Without help, they will be without 
health coverage.
  This legislation reimburses the cost of those health insurance 
premiums for 12 months. For those workers who are not eligible to 
purchase health benefits, this legislation enables States to

[[Page S10498]]

provide Medicaid benefits. This is an important step for Congress to 
take to prevent even more children from joining the ranks of the 
uninsured in America.
  Some have suggested the benefits I propose are out of line with what 
has been provided to other workers who have lost their jobs. Let me 
respond by pointing out that I modeled my legislation after an existing 
program, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act. The Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Act provides help to those workers who have lost their jobs 
as a result of trade agreements. That program provides extended 
unemployment compensation for 52 weeks--much longer than the 20 weeks 
that I propose. That program also provides training for 18 months, 
while I have proposed providing training for less than 12 months.
  The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been a lifeline for many 
workers. Between 1994 and 2000, over 1 million workers received these 
payments. I am glad they did. But let's be clear; these workers get 
more generous benefits than all other workers who lost their jobs 
during that time period.
  The State with the most workers receiving unemployment and training 
benefits under TAA is Texas. Texas has 8 percent of all the workers in 
this program, about 86,000 people. Workers from Texas companies such as 
Big Dog Drilling, Tubby's Auto Service, and Rio Grande Cutters 
participate in this program. These workers qualify for enhanced 
benefits because they lost their jobs due to trade. Why shouldn't 
airline workers who lost their benefits when they lost their jobs due 
to terrorism qualify?
  My legislation provides one thing that the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Act does not, and that is health coverage. I have added this 
because I believe it is important that these workers and their families 
be able to maintain their health coverage. I am pleased that President 
Bush has recognized this need as well.
  Last week, the President laid out some options for how the Government 
can help provide health coverage to unemployed workers. Today is our 
chance to rise to that occasion.
  My amendment will also be an economic stimulus. It will put money 
into the pockets of Americans who need it most. We know these families 
will spend the money. They need it to pay their bills. That is what we 
need to get the economy going. We need consumer spending.
  Finally, some have argued that this amendment has no place on an 
airline security bill. I respectfully disagree. Right now we are 
passing legislation in response to the terrorist attacks. These airline 
industry workers were laid off as a result of these attacks. The 
linkage is direct.
  We must act today. There is no reason to delay assistance any longer. 
We acted quickly to provide $40 billion in response to the terrorist 
attacks and the cleanup of Manhattan. That was the right thing to do. 
And we acted quickly to shore up the airlines with $15 billion, and 
that was the right thing to do. Now is the time to do something for 
workers. A vote at 1:35 this afternoon is the first opportunity since 
the terrorist attack that we will have to invest in our workers, the 
heart and the soul of America. I have collaborated with my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle drafting this amendment. We have come up 
with a reasonable proposal. Now I am asking simply that my colleagues 
allow the Senate to vote on this proposal. This amendment deserves an 
up-or-down vote. I hope the Senate does the right thing this afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to respond to the Senator from 
Missouri by saying, first of all, I don't think this is a question of 
whether we are going to respond to people who have been affected by the 
events of September 11. The question is how best to respond to that. As 
she noted, the President has a proposal that is going to broadly deal 
with the problems of unemployment associated with the attacks on 
September 11. But the question here is whether we are going to focus on 
extending unemployment benefits, as the proposed amendment does, or are 
we going to get people back to work? It seems to me these people would 
much prefer to get their jobs back, to get back to the routines they 
enjoyed prior to September 11, rather than focusing for a long time on 
extending unemployment benefits, having to buy health insurance under 
COBRA, and having to be retrained for a different job.
  My guess is these people would be very happy just to get the old job 
back doing the same work they were doing before. That is why I think we 
have the focus wrong.
  I have proposed, and I am going to be urging my colleagues to very 
seriously consider, as part of the economic stimulus package a tax 
credit to get people traveling again. The problem is people are not 
traveling. If we had as much travel today, 1 month after this event, as 
we did on the day of September 11, all of the people we are concerned 
about under this amendment would have their jobs. We would not be 
worried about unemployment benefits. We would not be worried about 
training them to do a different kind of job. They would have the same 
job they had exactly a month ago. So shouldn't we be trying to get the 
American public back to the habits it had prior to September 11? And 
that specifically relates to travel. There is no question that of all 
of the economy, the travel industry is the most hard hit by the attack. 
That should be obvious to everyone. It seems to me it should also be 
obvious, if we are going to talk about benefiting that segment of the 
economy, either to help the people who were unemployed as a result of 
it or to stimulate the economy, what we need to do is focus on the air, 
where the patient is hurting the most.
  The patient was hurting on September 11. Our economy was not in good 
shape. You could say we had a case of pneumonia. We were going to be 
getting better over time, of course. We were going to be treating it 
with antibiotics, but that was the condition then. Since then what has 
happened, if you want to have a gruesome analogy, is we had an accident 
in which the arm was practically cut off. We are bleeding to death, and 
we have to stop the bleeding in that the part of the body that is 
hurting the most and that is the travel industry.
  So why aren't we focusing our efforts on getting that industry back 
going again? That will save the jobs of the people who want nothing 
more than to go back to work. My proposal gives a tax credit for the 
people to travel. It says if you make a financial commitment to travel 
before the end of this year, you get a tax credit of $500 on your 2001 
taxes; if it is a joint filing, $1,000. That is enough to stimulate 
people to get back into the habits they had prior to September 11. All 
you have to do is make that financial commitment. It can be air travel, 
automobile, or bus. It can be a reservation at the hotel. We have 
people who are hurting far more than just people who worked at 
airports--from the maid who makes up the bed in the hotel to someone 
who, frankly, was working at Boeing aircraft making airplanes; they are 
not making them because nobody is buying them and because people aren't 
traveling--all the way from A to Z. We have people throughout our 
economy--about one in seven jobs in the civilian sector--who are 
adversely affected by the events of a month ago. Throughout the 
economy, the ripple effect of these attacks is incredible.

  I talked to the CEO of Phelps-Dodge Corporation, a copper company in 
Arizona. They had a big contract with Boeing to supply a special alloy 
metal used in making airplanes. We need to think about the impact of 
what occurred throughout the economy. It is not just people who work at 
airports on whom we ought to be focusing; we ought to be focusing on 
the economy broadly and on everybody affected by the travel industry.
  How do you directly deal with that problem in the quickest way that 
gets the people their jobs back? You do that by providing some kind of 
incentive for people to resume the habits they had exactly a month ago.
  I haven't heard a better idea than the one I proposed with this tax 
credit. When you file your taxes for 2001 and calculate your tax 
liability to the Government, and you subtract $1,000, that is a pretty 
good incentive. You wouldn't have to travel before the end of the year 
as long as you made your financial commitment to do so. You could be 
traveling next Easter. It could

[[Page S10499]]

be tourism; it could be business; it could be just going to visit 
somebody; it could be visiting a sick relative--whatever it is.
  People are now disinclined to travel primarily because they are 
unsure of the safety of the airline industry. They are unsure generally 
of what is in our future. Frankly, they need to get back into the habit 
of doing what they did before September 11 or terrorists will have won. 
The purpose of terrorism is to demoralize. It is to change for all of 
America the way we conduct our society and our culture. That is their 
effort. They are going to succeed in that if we simply throw up our 
hands and say, well, for all of the people who are out of work, we 
might as well find something else for them to do because we will never 
get back to the way we were before September 11.
  I reject that. We can get back to the way it was before September 11. 
A lot of things are going to change. We have to convince the American 
public that it is safe to travel. If we can't do that, we are not doing 
our jobs.
  I have been on six separate commercial air trips since the events on 
September 11--flying back home and then back to Washington. I believe 
it is safe to travel. I think it is safer to travel than prior to a 
month ago.
  We have to pass legislation that convinces the American public that 
they can travel safely. Then I think we have to provide them some 
financial incentive because of our general economic conditions. That 
incentive would be to get them to go back to traveling, and to do so 
quickly. If we wait for all of this work throughout the system for a 
couple of years, then everybody is going to be the loser. We will have 
all of these people unemployed. We will have to pay additional benefits 
in health care and retrain them to do something else. It would be far 
easier, less disruptive, better for the economy, and, frankly, better 
for the psyche of the Nation to get back to the place we were a month 
ago where people who lost jobs could go back to doing what they were 
doing before.

  It seems to me that instead of hastily acting on the proposal that 
only applies to a narrow segment of our society--frankly, a minority of 
the people who have been harmed by the attacks on September 11, a 
minority of the people who have been harmed as a direct result of the 
American public traveling less--let's do two other things: Let's take a 
look at what the President proposed in the way of benefits for people 
who have lost their jobs but is broader based in approach; second, 
let's get the American public traveling again.
  I urge my colleagues, as we are putting together this so-called 
stimulus package, to differentiate between all of those wonderful ideas 
that have been trotted out and proposing all kinds of things to spend 
money for or cutting taxes that we think will have some long-term 
effect on the economy--distinguishing between those proposals, on the 
one hand, and others which can immediately and directly stimulate the 
economy in the precise areas where it is needed the most.
  What area needs it the most? The travel industry. What area was hit 
the hardest by the attack last month? The travel industry. What area, 
therefore, should we be focusing on? The travel industry. If we do 
that, we are not going to have to worry about extending unemployment 
benefits because we will get these people back to work.
  Isn't that far better than focusing and, in effect, saying there is 
nothing we can do about it and we might as well decide right now to 
extend all of these unemployment benefits and retrain people to do some 
different job? I think they would rather go back to the job they were 
doing a month ago. That is what I propose we do.
  Two things: No. 1, defeat this amendment. I think we ought to focus 
on the President's proposal instead; and, No. 2, we ought to agree that 
we have to have in the stimulus package something that will stimulate 
trade quickly.
  If somebody can come up with better idea than a tax credit proposal, 
I welcome it. In the meantime, that is what is on the table.
  I urge my colleagues to support this as a way of stimulating travel, 
of getting people back to work again, and of denying the terrorists the 
victory they sought of demoralizing the American people.
  We will not be demoralized. We will not be defeatists and say we are 
going to have to change our way of doing things by putting people on 
the unemployment rolls and retraining them to do something else. I 
reject that. We have to deny the terrorists the victories they sought. 
I think the way I propose to do it is the best way.
  With all due respect of my friend from Missouri, I think her 
proposal--I understand why it is being put together--is not the best 
medicine for what we are facing today.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to support the 
amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator 
Carnahan.
  I have been listening to some of the discussion this morning. 
Frankly, I believe there is much value on both points of view to 
commend. I think we err if we consider some of these proposals to be 
either/or propositions.
  This last Monday, the senior Senator from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone, 
arranged a hearing in Minnesota on the effects of the September 11 
disasters on people of our State. It was an excellent hearing. It 
lasted for about 3 hours. We had representatives from the business 
community testify about their needs, including the head of the Carlson 
corporation, one of the largest travel firms in America, headquartered 
in Minnesota. Marilyn Carlson Nelson spoke very eloquently about the 
need for the kind of assistance that my good friend and colleague, 
Senator Kyl from Arizona, just described. We also heard from a number 
of the workers who were affected in Minnesota by the events and the 
aftermath of the events of September 11.
  As you may know, in my home State of Minnesota, Northwest Airlines is 
one of the largest employers within the State. It employs over 21,000 
Minnesotans. It has operations worldwide. It has an enormous impact on 
our State's economy. In the immediate aftermath of the September 11 
bombings, they announced the layoff of over 4,500 Minnesotans. These 
are men and women from all backgrounds and walks of life--corporate 
executives to mechanics, to airline attendants, to stewardesses. It 
also affected people in the ancillary businesses that relate to the 
airline industry: Carpet cleaners, food processors, delivery men and 
women,
  The hearing underscored the urgency and the precariousness of many of 
these people's situations. People want to be working; there is no 
question about that. They don't want to be out of a job. They don't 
want to be drawing unemployment benefits or receiving other kinds of 
assistance. But the hard reality is they are out of work today. Their 
prospects of being called back to work tomorrow are somewhere in 
between slim and none.
  I agree with the Senator from Arizona that the object here is to get 
these people back into their previous employment. I think we have taken 
some important steps in that direction.
  We provided emergency aid to the airline industry in the form of 
immediate cash assistance and in the form of loan guarantees which the 
Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from South Carolina and 
other colleagues have been marshaling through this body. But that is 
not going to get these people back to work tomorrow. It is not going to 
meet their need for emergency assistance until they do.

  We heard from, particularly women, including one I remember 
distinctly. I remember on Monday, an Ethiopian woman--the mother of 
eight children--who works, along with her husband. She works in the 
sector providing food services to airplanes. She lost her job. Because 
she worked there an insufficient length of time, she is not eligible to 
receive unemployment benefits from the State of Minnesota. She lost her 
health coverage for herself and her family of eight children when she 
was laid off of work. She is not receiving any unemployment assistance 
today. She receives no health care assistance for herself and her 
family.
  So my question to those who oppose this amendment is, what happens to 
them? What happens to people who at this point are not even receiving 
any unemployment assistance or any health care assistance? It is bad

[[Page S10500]]

enough that we are going to deprive those who do qualify today for an 
abbreviated period of 26 weeks, at which point they are going to lose a 
continuation of their unemployment benefits, of their health care 
coverage, but what about the people--and I was amazed at this hearing 
last Monday to realize that there are a great number of people in 
Minnesota, and I assume then across the country, since we are one of 
the best States in the Nation of covering people and making people 
eligible for these assistances--what is going to happen to this woman 
with eight children, and to others like her--thousands of others across 
this country--who are not even today receiving any unemployment 
benefits, who today do not have any health care coverage? What is going 
to happen to them if we do not take this action today?
  I must say, I am also, frankly--``disappointed'' would be a mild 
word--I am really shocked that this body is suddenly so stingy when it 
comes to providing the help and assistance that real people, working 
people, people who are among the hardest working strivers in our 
society--suddenly when it is their turn to receive some necessary help, 
the cupboard is bare or the budget does not provide for assistance, or 
we just do not have enough money to provide help for them.
  Two weeks go, my colleagues and I in the Senate joined--I believe it 
was almost unanimous--together to provide help to bail out the airline 
industry. Prior to that vote, we were told there was not enough time to 
come to an agreement on the Carnahan amendment to add assistance for 
the workers to the assistance we were providing to the corporations who 
run these airlines.
  As I said, I am very sympathetic to their plight because Northwest 
Airlines is one of the largest and most important employers in the 
State of Minnesota. But it was my understanding --and in hindsight, I 
guess I was maybe mistaken to have relied upon the assurances that were 
given to us prior to that vote--I relied on those assurances that there 
would be a subsequent package that would have bipartisan support 
sufficient to pass it that would be in support of the Carnahan 
amendment.
  On that basis, I, and most of the Senate, if not all of the Senate, 
voted in favor of that legislation. And I am glad I did. But now, 
frankly, I am shocked to find out that agreement does not suffice, and 
that even after we have taken this Carnahan amendment--and I commend 
the distinguished Senator from Missouri for her hard work on this, 
along with others, and for the dialogue that they have had across the 
aisle--but the fact is, this has gone from over a $3 billion price 
tag--I think close to $5 billion initially; after costed out, to $3 
billion--and now I am told it is $1.9 billion. We continue to pare it 
back. Yet we, possibly, do not have sufficient support today to adopt 
it.

  That means I go back to that Ethiopian mother of eight children and 
say: Sorry, you just have to make it somehow without any benefits. You 
have to make it somehow without any health coverage for your family. We 
don't have enough money to do that, but we have enough money to provide 
loan guarantees and financial assistance to the corporations.
  We also, according to what I am reading today, have the debate 
upcoming on economic stimulus. We are going to have an administration 
proposal supported by many of the very people who oppose this 
assistance for workers. According to the Washington Post today, that is 
going to cost revenue between $90 billion and $120 billion in the year 
2002. This includes a provision allowing business to write off 30 
percent of the value of their new assets. It would reduce revenue by 
$48 billion in this year.
  They want to speed up the phasing in of the tax reductions, passed 
last spring, for the very wealthiest people in this society, bring 
those rates down, accelerate the elimination of the estate tax, as 
though encouraging people to--what?--die sooner, and that is going to 
stimulate our Nation's economy?
  We hear, on the one hand, we have all this extra money available for 
these kinds of very questionable tax breaks that are certainly going to 
benefit the wealthy. They are going to benefit already profitable 
corporations, who are maybe going through a difficult period of time 
but, frankly, are still going to do just fine; but there isn't enough 
money here to provide for that mother back in Minnesota with eight 
children because it is not that we do not have the money, but that we 
do not have the heart to do it.
  So again, I say to Senator Carnahan, congratulations on a job very 
well done. I hope the amendment will receive the kind of consideration 
from our colleagues today that enables it to be adopted because I, 
frankly, think if we do not do so, if we do not even follow suit with 
what the President, to his credit, is supporting, that we are going to 
go back to a very serious divide in this body and in this country 
between those who somehow qualify for these additional considerations 
at this point in time and the real people, people who are really down 
and out, through no choice or fault of their own.
  Are we going to say, sorry, we are not going to help you, not because 
we do not have the money to do so but because we do not have the will 
to do so? I think that would be cruel and unusual punishment for them.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe it would be appropriate to 
ask unanimous consent that I may introduce an amendment, two amendments 
on the Aviation Security Act. It may be necessary to set aside the 
Carnahan amendment for an opportunity to introduce two amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if the Senator will withhold, I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator withhold?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
introduce one amendment that I don't believe is controversial. It 
covers the issue of allowing pilots to continue to fly until the age of 
63.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire is 
asking that we object to every unanimous consent request regarding 
offering of amendments. Will the Senator withhold to let me see if I 
can get a procedure by which the Senator from Alaska can offer the 
amendment.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, 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. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1863, which is 
at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to setting aside the 
pending amendment?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Reserving the right to object, this amendment, as I 
understand it, is the first amendment that will be unrelated to the 
bill. I don't want to comment further on that. We are going to have our 
cloture vote at 1:35. I object, at least for this period of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wonder if I may ask unanimous consent 
that I be allowed to speak as in morning business for about 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________