[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 136 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10503-S10532]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page S10503]]
AVIATION SECURITY ACT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, the assistant
majority leader, is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the next 55 minutes we are under
controlled time, controlled by the majority and minority leaders. So if
anyone desires to speak on this very important matter which will occur,
as I said, in 55 minutes--each side has an equal amount of time--I will
yield to whomever wants to speak.
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.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. We have plenty of time. I ask the Senator from New York,
how much time does the Senator wish to use?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 25 minutes 48 seconds remaining on
the Democratic side.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I expect to consume 5 minutes or less.
Mr. REID. On behalf of the majority leader, Senator Rockefeller will
yield the time until the vote occurs, or if Senator Hollings comes in,
he will yield the time.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I do not want to impinge upon the time
of my good friend, Senator Rockefeller.
Mr. REID. No. Please go ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise again in support of the amendment
offered by Senator Carnahan to provide immediate assistance to the over
100,000 airline workers and those in aviation-related industries who
have been laid off and lost their jobs as a direct result of the
terrorist attacks of September 11.
I just came from a very moving ceremony of commemoration at the
Pentagon, where the lives of those military and civilian employees at
the Pentagon, as well as the lives of the crew and passengers of the
airplane that was mercilessly driven into the Pentagon, were honored.
I know we are working on other kinds of relief, and I am grateful to
the President, the administration, and my colleagues for the work that
is being done on the economic stimulus package and for the work that is
being done with respect to unemployment insurance and dislocated
workers' assistance, but I believe we have an obligation to move
quickly with respect to the workers who have been laid off through no
fault of their own or of their industry, and we cannot wait for the
larger packages to be put together and negotiated.
Just as we must provide security to all Americans who are flying in
our skies, we also should provide economic security to those who have
supported us in the hundreds of thousands and millions of flights that
were a matter of course before September 11. They were doing an
important job in maintaining our free travel and supporting an
important economic activity, and now they are confronting the cruelest
kind of questions: How will they make their next car payment? How will
they be able to afford the clothes their children might need? How will
they know whether to go out and look for another job or hope and wait
that business picks up on our airlines? I do not think we should be
leaving our workers who have already been laid off. They need our help
right now. I do agree we have to address the need to help all workers.
In New York, for example, the State labor department is estimating
that 285,000 workers throughout New York will lose their jobs as a
result of the attack we suffered. I do not think we should leave any of
these workers behind. If we are trying to build confidence--confidence
in consumers, confidence in citizens--then we should address the needs
of those people who have been economically harmed by these attacks. I
respect the work that others are undertaking. I will support that.
I ask this Chamber to send a message by voting in favor of Senator
Carnahan's amendment that we are not going to just bail out airlines;
we are not just going to protect the traveling public. We are going to
help protect economically those who we hope will be back in the skies,
back behind the counters, handling the baggage.
I met yesterday with a group of executives from the travel and
tourism industry. Stories from them about the low occupancy rates, the
fact that people are not traveling for business or pleasure, were very
disturbing to me. Everyone knows we have real economic challenges. The
last thing in the world we need is people who are scared to go about
their daily business, who are scared to take that long-planned trip to
Disney World, who are scared to fly across the country to show off
their new baby to their mother or grandmother.
Until we can get that confidence up--and I applaud our wonderful
leadership of Chairman Hollings and Ranking Member McCain on the
aviation security bill--until we can get that confidence once again
moving forward so people will fly, we can't turn our backs on those men
and women who were the backbone of this airline industry.
I hope every Senator will support the Carnahan amendment and do
everything possible to demonstrate our concern and commitment to those
who were on the front lines and lost their jobs and livelihood because
of the terrorist attacks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New York for
her statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from
West Virginia controls the time.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator
from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding time
and commend my colleague from New York for her statement. What she has
heard in traveling about her State and the Nation I have heard in
Illinois. During the last 2 weeks I had roundtables across my State,
from the city of Chicago to major cities downstate, bringing in
business and economic leaders and saying, what can we do at this moment
to breathe life back into this economy? They have said, restore
consumer confidence. We have to get people back into the stores and
making decisions for purchases.
The Carnahan amendment which we are going to consider today takes an
unfortunate group of people related to the aviation industry, who have
been disadvantaged by being laid off or terminated, and says we are
going to try to give them a hand to get back on their feet as quickly
as possible.
A few weeks ago when President Bush suggested we help the aviation
industry, I was happy to do it. We have 50,000 people in the
Chicagoland area who work in aviation in some way, shape, or form. We
are proud to be the home of United Airlines, a major hub for American
Airlines, and now the business headquarters for Boeing aircraft. With
that sensitivity, I voted for that bill, understanding that unless we
got the airlines back on their feet, it was unlikely the economy would
respond. So we gave some $5 billion in grants and $10 billion in loans
to the industry.
The sad part was the bill was passed in a hurry and didn't include
everything that should have been included. It did not include the
Carnahan amendment. Senator Jean Carnahan of Missouri has rightfully
stated that if we are going to help the companies, if we are going to
help the airlines, don't forget the employees. She notes, in preparing
for this bill, that some 140,000 people related to airlines and the
aviation industry may find themselves laid off as a result of the
September 11 terrorism attack against the United States.
I met with several flight attendants today who worked for Trans World
Airlines, now part of American Airlines. They were concerned about the
fact that 20 percent of their flight attendants have been laid off
already. We have seen 20,000 employees at United and American laid off,
and perhaps even more.
The heartening thing is people are flying again. I notice it in the
airports. I am glad to see it. We want to encourage more and more
people to take that trip, whether it is for business or for pleasure.
But in the meantime, over 100,000 of our fellow Americans in jobs
related to the aviation industry are struggling to survive.
[[Page S10504]]
Senator Carnahan's amendment addresses three particular areas that
need to be changed in the law to help these people. First and foremost,
eligibility for unemployment compensation. The 26-week eligibility
certainly may be enough, but Senator Carnahan suggests we give them
eligibility for an additional 52 weeks, if necessary. Most of them will
either be back at work or find another job before that, but giving them
the peace of mind that they will have unemployment compensation is
appropriate.
Second, she talks about training. Some of the people in the industry
may decide to go into another field--for one thing, into security. We
have talked about aviation security. We will need some of the best and
brightest working in our airports and all across this country to
protect the people and the traveling public. She includes in her
amendment a training provision. I think that makes sense as well.
The last point is one that not only makes sense for 140,000 aviation
industry employees, but it makes sense for every American. Senator
Carnahan wants to make certain that we help these laid-off employees
pay for their health insurance. When I was in Chicago, I talked to some
administrators of hospitals. They said if we reach a point where more
and more people are out of work and lose their health insurance, these
folks will turn up at the hospital sick, and they will be treated, but
the cost of their treatment will have to be absorbed by the hospital
and generally by everyone else paying health insurance premiums. It
makes sense, under the Carnahan amendment, to be sensitive to this, to
help the laid-off aviation and airline industry employees pay for their
health insurance.
A lot of Members have talked about how to get the economy moving
again. Believe me, by taking this group of employees and saying to
them, we are going to give you a helping hand, it has to help them,
their families, and our economy in general. Having said that, I will
vote for the Carnahan amendment. I hope my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle will join me.
I suggest further that there are many people in many other industries
who are also losing their jobs. A friend of mine who has a number of
hotels told me about the necessary cutbacks in employment at those
hotels. Many know that the people working in hotels, whether in food
service or working in room service, or trying to do the housekeeping,
have startup jobs. They are low paying jobs. And these folks are being
laid off. Many of them are facing very difficult times. I am glad the
President has suggested extending unemployment insurance. But we as a
Congress should be sensitive to this as well.
If you want to know how to stimulate America's economy, it is not by
leaving our friends, neighbors, and relatives by the side of the road
as we press forward. Bring them along on this journey. Bring them along
to see the economy's rebirth, which I believe will take place. It means
that Congress has to do something about it.
Frankly, let me tell you, a few of my colleagues, and only a few,
think the way to get the economy moving again is not to pay attention
to the unemployed and the laid off but rather those who are doing well
and are prosperous. They are suggesting we should, again, give tax cuts
to the wealthiest people in America. That is just incredible to my
mind, to suggest at this moment in our history we would show less
sensitivity to those who are out of work and more generosity to those
who are already doing extremely well.
I think if we are going to have tax cuts, they should be focused on
those in the lower and middle-income categories, the millions who have
been left behind by the original tax cut package which Congress passed
a few months ago, and others who need a helping hand. It is by
invigorating our economy in this way that I think we will see the
restoration of consumer confidence.
I hope this Congress not only passes the Carnahan amendment to help
the specific employees but goes on to pass an economic stimulus package
which can be helpful as well. How can we do it? One suggestion is a
moratorium on the FICA tax, a holiday on the FICA tax. It means a 7 or
8 percent increase in pay for every employee in America. That means
more money to take home when it is payday, more money to spend, I hope,
to get this economy moving. That is something that can be done quickly
and across the board.
The one thing Congress usually fails to do is come up with a solution
in a timely fashion. Sadly, we don't have time on our side. We have
started the holiday buying season and purchasing season across America.
We need to do something this month, in October, or early November that
will tell people they are going to have more resources to deal with
meeting the needs of their family and planning for the holidays. That
means doing something immediately. Putting a moratorium on the FICA tax
is one of those things. It will be seen in the next paycheck. People
will know it instantly.
There are also suggestions of State sales tax holidays. That is
something we ought to explore. Of course, the Federal Government would
compensate the State and local governments for the loss of revenue from
sales tax, but it would mean a reduction in price of many products
which people might turn around and buy.
These are reasonable suggestions. I also think we ought to consider
in the economic stimulus package tax benefits to businesses which are
now making necessary investments in security. These investments are
important. They are absolutely critical in light of the September 11
attack, and we ought to help these businesses--whether it is in
surveillance cameras or additional security personnel. Unfortunately,
those acquisitions do not add to productivity; they just take from the
bottom line. If we can help businesses get through this, then they may
not be forced to lay off people because of the pressures they face as a
result of the recession we are currently experiencing.
So I say to my colleagues, as you consider all the possibilities of
what we might do this week, don't forget the people on the front line.
Don't forget the aviation and airline employees. We were good to their
companies when we should have been. I was happy to cast my vote that
way. But I believe we should not forget the men and women who make up
the employee workforce of the aviation and airline industry. I am going
to support the Carnahan amendment and recommend all my colleagues do
the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from
Minnesota.
Mrs. BOXER. May I ask my friend, would he be willing to yield me 3
minutes following completion of the remarks of my colleague? Would he
yield me 3 minutes once the Senator finishes?
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Senator from California, there are at
least one, perhaps two Senators on this side of the aisle who wish to
speak.
Mrs. BOXER. Would they be willing to yield me the 3 minutes?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will agree to that if following the 8 minutes I
will have the opportunity to give Senator Allard 10 minutes, and then I
will take the rest of my time according to--let me just ask how much
time is remaining on my side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JOHNSON). There remains 23 minutes 48
seconds.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. If I could have some time following the Senator from
California, I agree to that.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Texas.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. I can do this in less than 5 minutes because it feels
as if every day, day after day after day, week after week after week, I
have been on the floor to speak to the question of simple justice,
which is to make sure we provide help to aviation employees.
I am starting to regret that I just didn't hold up the $15 billion
package for the industry. I want to support the industry. I think it
was the right thing to do. But I knew then--I have been here long
enough--that this was some leverage that we had to make sure the
employees were included.
I don't think the aviation industry was exaggerating their
difficulty. We were very worried about what was going to happen, but I
knew we would
[[Page S10505]]
have some leverage for employees. But on the basis of commitments that
had been made from other Senators that surely we were going to help the
employees, I thought: Let's go forward and help the aviation industry.
Surely there will not be any opposition to helping the employees.
We have 4,500 Northwest employees out of work. There is also Sun
Country; there is Mesaba Airlines. There are other aviation employees
out of work as well. I find it hard to believe that we do not have
enough heart here to provide the help for them.
We have an aviation airline safety bill on the floor with Senator
Hollings providing great leadership. It is an important piece of
legislation and must be passed. It makes all the sense in the world to
support the Carnahan amendment. For people who are in a lot of economic
pain, the Carnahan amendment says do three things: No. 1, extend the
unemployment benefits up to a year; No. 2, since the economy is fluid
and some people may want to get skills for other jobs that are
available, make sure you have the workforce development; No. 3, and I
argue most important of all, since it is terrifying not only to be out
of work but to know in a couple of months you are not going to have any
health care coverage for yourself and your loved ones, provide up to 12
months of helping these families afford health care coverage for
themselves and their children.
Is this too much to support now? Instead, we have a second-degree
amendment. I will not get into ANWR. Some of my colleagues are so much
in a rush to help the oil industry, so much in a rush to do something
that is environmentally reckless--it doesn't have a heck of a lot to do
with what we need to do by way of having an independent energy policy--
anything that can be done to block help for hard-pressed employees who
are out of work. This doesn't make sense.
I was convinced 2 weeks ago when we passed this package for the
companies that there would not be any resistance at all. I said
yesterday--I will say it again--99.9 percent of the people in Minnesota
believe that we should not only help the industry, but we should be
helping the employees. Mr. President, 99 percent of the people in
Minnesota believe it is a matter of elementary justice and fairness.
Apparently too many Senators do not get it, and they are blocking this
assistance.
If this is the dividing line between Democrats and Republicans, I am
proud to be a Democrat. Better yet would be if we had the support of
every single Senator, which would be the right thing to do, but
apparently we have an all-out effort to block this package.
I wish my colleagues had such passion and had such a heart not to
oppose helping people who are flat on their backs but to help them
instead. And the Senator from Illinois is right. Actually the sooner we
do this the better because the fact is, we are in a recession in our
country. It is a deep recession. It has cut across a broad section of
the population--certainly in Minnesota, way beyond the aviation
industry. There are lots of small businesses and lots of other
employees--tourism, you name it--and the fact is, we need to pass an
economic stimulus package. We need to pass an economic stimulus package
that puts the purchasing power back into the hands of working
families--whether it be tax rebates vis-a-vis payroll tax that helps
them or whether it be a massive school construction program where we
repair buildings that have been crumbling and create jobs; whether it
be affordable housing and we create jobs; whether it be extending
unemployment benefits; getting the health care benefits; whether or not
we do a lot of other things that will help employees support their
families and buy in this economy.
The sooner the better. We ought to be supporting the Carnahan
amendment as an important first step.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for
3 minutes.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this country gives trade adjustment
assistance to workers when they lose their jobs due to trade. I support
that. We all seem to support that. But it is shocking to me that a
number of people in this Senate today do not support such assistance
because of terrorism, an attack on our country, on our people, on our
workers. It is stunning to me.
You will hear every excuse in the book about why it doesn't belong on
this bill. People cannot pay their mortgages; they have been laid off.
They cannot pay their health insurance; they have been laid off.
Let me read to you simply a letter that went out from one of my
airlines, American Eagle:
Unfortunately, due to the circumstances of this national
emergency which are beyond our control, it may be necessary
to close or reduce the size of some of our business
locations. This will cause some or all American Eagle
personnel at those locations to be laid off. Because American
Eagle's future rests on how well we can rebound from our
current situation, we cannot say at this time how long these
layoffs may last.
We gave the airlines a huge package. I supported it. I still support
it. But I assumed we would follow it up to help those people who make
those airlines run. I am shocked, stunned, and in disbelief that we are
not here as patriotic Americans, both sides of the aisle, standing up
for the patriotic workers who lost their jobs because of an attack on
the United States of America.
I will look at this vote very carefully. It will hurt my heart if we
don't win this.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of my remaining
time to the Senator from Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.
(The remarks of Mr. Allen pertaining to the introduction of S. 1532
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Carnahan amendment which
addresses the issues faced by employees who have been dislocated as a
result of the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
While we have not yet determined the full impact of the events of
September 11 on our economy, the preliminary information from the
Department of Labor estimates that over 200,000 U.S. jobs were
eliminated in September. This includes a first-time unemployment claim
increase of over 7,700 jobs in my own State of Michigan. Expectations
are that the October unemployment claim numbers will be even higher.
Many of these workers were individuals employed in the airline and
travel related industries. The Carnahan amendment will help these
workers by providing extended income support, training benefits and
health care benefits.
The issue of assisting dislocated workers should have been addressed
last month when we passed legislation to assist the airline industry at
a price tag of $15 billion. But over the objections of many of us,
provisions to assist workers in the airline and travel industry were
taken out of the airline industry assistance bill. We cannot continue
to sit by idly while thousands of American workers lose their jobs
because of the actions of terrorists. We now have an opportunity to
assist workers who have been devastated economically by the tragic
events of September 11. Senators who oppose assisting those workers
should at least allow the Senate to debate the issue openly and vote
quickly on the bill on its merits.
The Carnahan amendment specifically addresses the current economic
situation of employees of airlines, commercial aircraft manufacturers,
suppliers to airlines and airports. This bill currently has bipartisan
support and over 35 cosponsors. I would like to commend Senator
Carnahan for her tireless efforts to assist dislocated workers.
The Carnahan amendment would provide individuals who exhaust their
26-week eligibility for State unemployment insurance an additional 20
weeks of cash payments funded entirely by the Federal Government. The
bill would also allow individuals who do not meet their States'
requirements for unemployment insurance to receive 26 weeks of
federally financed unemployment insurance.
The bill would also allow individuals who would not be expected to
return to their jobs within the airline industry to become eligible for
retraining benefits. Individuals who would not be expected to return to
their jobs, but who
[[Page S10506]]
may find some alternative job within the airline industry, would be
eligible for upgrade training.
Finally under the provisions of the Carnahan amendment, the Federal
Government would fully reimburse eligible individuals for their COBRA
premiums so they can continue to be fully insured. 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. These health care benefits would last for a maximum of 12
months.
I can't stress enough the importance of assisting these dislocated
workers. The tragedy of September 11 has brought American families
closer together and given us all an opportunity to help those who have
been directly affected by the terrorist attacks. I hope that in the
Senate's newly found spirit of bipartisanship, we can agree to help
those American workers who urgently need our assistance.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be
allowed to speak for 3 additional minutes, for a total of 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, this Senate has acted swiftly and with
unity in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. We provided
$40 billion to begin the relief effort. We authorized the President to
use force in pursuing the terrorists and the nations that harbor them.
And we created a $15 billion relief package to help stabilize our
Nation's airlines.
I have been very proud of the manner in which this body has acted
over the last month, but we have not yet acted on behalf of the tens of
thousands of Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of these
attacks. Now is the time to do something for the workers.
Before we passed the airline stabilization bill, I came to this
Chamber on several occasions to argue on behalf of including assistance
to displaced workers as part of that package, but in an effort to pass
the bill expeditiously, I was asked to withhold my amendment. So I did.
That was the right thing to do.
We cannot delay any longer. Some of my colleagues have spoken in
opposition to my amendment, by arguing that we have already helped
airline workers by providing assistance to airlines. That is only half
right. By helping the airlines avoid bankruptcy, we saved many jobs.
However, we have not done anything for the families of the 140,000
airline industry employees who are losing their jobs despite the
airline stabilization package.
The $15 billion we gave to the airlines is not helping those families
pay their mortgage. That money is not helping them put food on the
dinner table. And that money certainly is not helping them pay for
health insurance for their families. The modest assistance provided in
this amendment will help these families deal with a tough situation.
There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are losing their
jobs. Some of my colleagues have asked why we should provide special
assistance to airline workers.
First, let me say, I am eager to work with President Bush and my
colleagues to provide assistance to all displaced workers as a part of
the economic stimulus package. This vote is not a choice between my
plan and the President's plan. We can do both. I believe we must
address airline workers separately, and now.
Furthermore, current law already treats some displaced workers
differently than others. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program
provides special benefits to workers who have lost their jobs as a
result of increased imports. Over 1 million workers have benefitted
from this program. I am glad they did. But let's be clear; they
received a better benefit package than other laid off workers. If we
can provide these benefits to aid workers who lost jobs due to trade,
can't we do so for workers who lost their jobs due to terrorism?
The amendment we are about to vote on would provide similar benefits
to airline industry workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the
September 11 attacks.
The more than 140,000 airline industry employees who are being laid
off have been dealt a terrible blow. I don't know how many Members of
this body know what it is like to be a child in a family with a laid
off worker. I do. My grandparents, with whom I lived for many years,
when my parents worked, lived in this very city. I can recall a time
when my grandfather, a carpenter, came home and sat in the kitchen and
said to my grandmother: I have been laid off. I remember her tears, and
I remember their fears, as they did not know what the future held for
them.
It is time we gave to these workers of America's airlines a sense of
confidence that their future is assured. This is our chance to send a
message to the workers of America that we know they are facing hard
times, we want to help, and this Senate stands ready to take action.
It is not enough to say, wait for the next piece of legislation, and
the next after that. It is not enough to say that we have to move on to
other pressing business. This measure deserves an up-or-down vote on
its merits, not a filibuster.
I urge my colleagues to let the Senate vote on this amendment, and I
urge a vote in favor of cloture.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Carnahan for her
amendment. I congratulate her and express my appreciation for her
efforts on behalf of employees of the airlines who have suffered
directly as a result of Federal action.
I am sympathetic to the needs of the displaced workers who she and so
many of our colleagues want to address. I say this to the Senator: I
believe this issue has to be addressed. There are people who, as a
result of Federal action, were put out of work. That is a fact.
I cannot support this amendment. For one reason, Senator Hollings and
I made a commitment; and we made that commitment because, if we allow
one amendment that is not germane to this bill, then there is no reason
why we should not allow numerous others, which is the same reason why I
will oppose any other amendment, including the Murkowski-Smith
amendment.
But I hope we can work together. I think Senator Carnahan's amendment
needs to be narrowed dramatically. I think it can be addressed to
specific individuals who have been affected by Federal action. I
believe in the Senator's amendment there are some employees who are not
directly impacted who would receive help that may not be necessary.
I also submit that both the airlines and the employees needed to be
helped. We did give financial assistance to the airlines, and we do
need to move forward. I know the chairman shares my views that we need
to move forward on that issue.
I agree that we still need to provide assistance to workers who have
been laid off as a result of these attacks. The appropriate amount,
nature, and recipients of Federal assistance for the unemployed is a
difficult and inevitably contentious issue.
Last night Senator Gramm criticized the Carnahan amendment for being
unfairly narrow because it only helps certain industry sectors where
workers have been laid off as a result of the September 11 attacks and
does not address hotel workers, restaurant workers, transportation
service workers, travel agents, and many others whose layoffs can be
attributed to terrorist actions. I do not agree with that comment.
I understand that the benefits provided under the expanded trade
adjustment assistance model are over and above traditional unemployment
assistance available to other displaced employees.
In addition to concerns about the scope of the amendment--which may
be overinclusive in some respects and underinclusive in others--I think
there are very significant practical problems that render the amendment
fundamentally unworkable.
The Carnahan amendment charges the Department of Labor with paying
100 percent of eligible workers' COBRA premiums and suggests these
premiums be made directly to insurance providers. I understand,
however, that
[[Page S10507]]
Labor simply has no mechanism in place for doing this. Determining
COBRA eligibility; verifying the amounts that are owed to insurers on
behalf of tens of thousands of workers; to whom it is owed; and how it
is to be paid is not something that can be turned around overnight. If
the intention is to provide laid off workers with benefits in the near
term, the Carnahan COBRA compensation mechanism does not seem very
workable to me.
But having addressed some of the concerns I have with it, let me
reiterate again, however, that I agree with what Senator Carnahan and
others are doing in trying to provide assistance to workers who have
been laid off as a result of the terrorist attacks.
I look forward to working with her and others.
I say to Senator Carnahan, no matter how this amendment is taken care
of--and I believe that the required 60 votes will not be obtained by
the sponsor of the amendment--the issue is not going away. I know that
Senator Hollings and I are committed to working with the Senator. We
have taken care of the shareholders and the airline executives and the
airlines themselves. Now we need to take care of the unfortunate
victims of this terrorist attack.
I hope Senator Carnahan recognizes that it is not out of a lack of
sympathy, but we simply have to move forward because the safety and
security of Americans on airliners is the most important and paramount
factor, and the reason why this legislation is on the floor, as we
speak--safety and security. That is why this amendment has to be
rejected at this time, in my opinion.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is there time remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes remaining.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague, Senator
McCain. I support much of what is in the Carnahan amendment, but this
is not the right vehicle for it. It has not yet been determined how
much we need to do and how we should do it. We need to work that out.
I will be working with Senator Allen, Senator Carnahan, and others to
assure we have the help we need for displaced workers. Right now, if we
are going to keep jobs in the aviation industry, we need to pass the
Aviation Security Act. If something is going to keep the bill from
having the strong support of the Senate, then we will get bogged down
in that amendment.
Let's get these people back to work. The way we get them back to work
is for people in America to be secure in flying again. That is what our
bill will do. It is going to provide a security system that gives
people confidence that they will be safe when they fly. If we can bring
the people back to flying again, we will bring the jobs back on the
market. That is what these people want. They want to work for the same
airline, the aircraft manufacturing company or the hotel that they
left. The way to keep those jobs is to bring the public back to flying
again.
We want business as usual in our country. We want the economy to
stabilize. We want to get those people back on the job. They would
rather work than collect unemployment benefits. We can put them to work
if we can pass this aviation security bill. We are very close. If we
can keep from starting a process of having extraneous amendments on
this bill, we will be able to pass it because we will be able to take
amendments, vote on them, and pass the bill. I hope we will be able to
do that tonight.
I thank everybody who has cooperated so much on the bill. I look
forward to working on passage of the bill after we have taken the stand
that we will not allow extraneous amendments.
I ask the distinguished Senator from Arizona if it would be proper to
yield back the time and start the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). All time is yielded back. Under
the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
The bill clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Daschle
amendment No. 1855 to S. 1447, the Aviation Security bill:
Harry Reid, Bob Graham, Bob Torricelli, Jean Carnahan,
Jeff Bingaman, Maria Cantwell, Richard J. Durbin, John
Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Mark Dayton, Ben Nelson, Evan
Bayh, Tim Johnson, Russell Feingold, Kent Conrad, Tom
Daschle, Bill Nelson, Edward M. Kennedy, Barbara A.
Mikulski, and Paul Wellstone.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on
amendment No. 1855 to S. 1447, a bill to improve aviation security, and
for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 293 Leg.]
YEAS--56
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--44
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burns
Cochran
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). On this vote, the yeas are 56,
the nays are 44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. 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. McCAIN. Madam President, it is clear a majority of the Senate
wants to act in favor of taking some action for those directly affected
by the shutdown of America's airlines after September 11. So if a
majority of the Senate has expressed their will, I strongly suggest we
sit down and negotiate a reasonable package. We did take care of the
airlines in a very generous package. Now we need to move forward with
an agreement that would get at least 60 votes so we can address the
needs and plight of 100,000 employees, at least, who have been rendered
unemployed by the September 11 events.
I voted to not invoke cloture on this amendment. I intend to work
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle so we can come up with a
reasonable package to compensate individuals who were directly affected
by an act of the Federal Government. That is what we are talking about.
That is what we are talking about. I always thought one of the
obligations of government was to care of those who were affected by
events and decisions beyond their control. It was a decision of the
Federal Government, and a right one, to shut down the airlines of
America, including 3 weeks at Reagan National Airport.
I want to work with my colleagues and get this legislation in a
package that can be agreed to by, hopefully, all, including the
administration. I believe very strongly we need to act on it. I don't
want to be repetitive except to say we should have a sense of urgency
about 100,000 employees who were rendered unemployed just as we did
over the plight of the airlines and their shareholders and executives,
as well as the American flying public.
Very shortly we will hopefully move to an amendment from Senator
Smith
[[Page S10508]]
and Senator Murkowski. In the meantime, 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. Madam 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. Madam President, with the consent of the two managers of
the bill, we have three people who wish to speak on the vote that just
took place. I ask unanimous consent Senators Dodd, Cantwell, and Reid
be allowed to speak for a total of up to 15 minutes, and prior to that,
Senator Murkowski will introduce his amendment. As soon as we finish
with the three speeches, we will move to the Smith-Murkowski amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I failed to acknowledge we still have
pending the Carnahan amendment. So what I would ask in the consent is
we temporarily set aside the Carnahan amendment; that we go to the
Murkowski amendment, but at such time as the majority leader, who
offered the amendment on behalf of Senator Carnahan, comes to the
floor, that he be recognized to take whatever appropriate action on the
underlying amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 1863
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, it is my intention to propose
amendment No. 1863, about which I have already spoken at some length.
This particular amendment allows, under the circumstances, the
extension to commercial airline pilots the right to fly beyond the age
of 60 to the age of 63. It is my intention to ask for a recorded vote
on the amendment.
I ask that the clerk report the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an
amendment numbered 1863.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment
be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish age limitations for airmen)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. AGE AND OTHER LIMITATIONS.
(A) General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
beginning on the date that is 6 months after the date of
enactment of this Act--
(1) section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations shall not apply;
(2) no certificate holder may use the services of any
person as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under
part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, if that
person is 63 years of age or older; and
(3) no person may serve as a pilot on an airplane engaged
in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, if that person is 63 years of age or older.
(b) Certificate Holder.--For purposes of this section, the
term ``certificate holder'' means a holder of a certificate
to operate as an air carrier or commercial operator issued by
the Federal Aviation Administration.
(c) Reservation of Safety Authority.--Nothing in this
section is intended to change the authority of the Federal
Aviation Administration to take steps to ensure the safety of
air transportation operations involving a pilot who has
reached the age of 60, including its authority--
(1) to require such a pilot to undergo additional or more
stringent medical, cognitive, or proficiency testing in order
to retain certification; or
(2) to establish crew pairing standards for crews with such
a pilot.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, it is my understanding at a time
agreed upon by the floor leaders, Senator Smith will be recognized to
offer a first-degree amendment for himself as well as Senator Murkowski
regarding cockpit security, and no second-degree amendments will be in
order.
I further ask consent that there be 20 minutes for debate equally
divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of the
time, the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, is this the amendment we
anticipated coming up?
I have no objection.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Amendment No. 1855
Mr. DODD. Madam President, if I may, I want to take a couple of
minutes to express my disappointment at the Senate's failure to invoke
cloture and to allow for the consideration of the Carnahan amendment. I
am saddened, in the midst of this otherwise harmonious relationship we
have been developing, that we would deny the opportunity to have a
vote, an up-or-down vote, where 51 votes would win, 50 or fewer would
cause the amendment to fail. We are not even going to have a chance for
a straight vote on the amendment being offered by the Senator from
Missouri.
Let me tell you why I am disappointed. First, I think the country
has, with almost unanimity, watched the Congress of the United States
and the President of the United States work in a fashion unprecedented
for those of us who are today serving here. There are some whose
service goes back many years. But I suggest even for those with the
longest service in the Senate, they could not recall a time during
their service when we have been as united as a people and as united as
public servants as we are today.
With that as a backdrop, it was terribly disappointing to me to see
us walk away from those individuals who every day go to work and try to
make our airlines work as well as they can. We all stood together
here--with the exception of 1 vote--when the airline industry came up
and said, we need some help. We did not get involved in filibusters or
demanding 30 hours of debate. Democrats and Republicans, with the
exception of one of our colleagues, raised their hands and cast their
votes ``aye'' to help out this industry.
The suggestion was made during that debate that we could not do
anything to help out the workers right away but we would do it as soon
as we could. So we said: Fine, with that kind of a general assurance,
we will vote to bail out the shareholders--in effect. That is what we
did. I voted for that bill, and I am glad I did. I think it was
necessary because not just the airlines but other industries that
depend upon a healthy airline service would be adversely affected as
well.
But to turn around and say to the thousands of people who have lost
their jobs, whose home mortgages, car payments and health care benefits
are in jeopardy--you must go find a meaningful level of employment in
an economy that was already in trouble before September 11. Mr.
President, I do not understand this Chamber that could find in its
pockets enough money to bail out a shareholder and yet couldn't find
the small change to bail out innocent people.
This has been tough enough on our country over the last month. We
have seen today at the Pentagon, and elsewhere, memorial services to
recognize the contribution of those who lost their lives. That is
appropriate and proper.
I listened to the eloquent words of the Secretary of Defense, and the
eloquent speech of the President to the employees at the Pentagon, and
to the world, for that matter.
But it is our obligation as well, not only to recognize those who
have given their lives but to also recognize the living and what they
are going through. The idea that you cannot have a simple vote on
whether or not you are going to extend unemployment insurance for an
additional number of weeks; that you are not going to provide for COBRA
continuation coverage for individuals--I do not understand that.
What happened to us in the last couple of weeks? When it comes to
those at the very top of the income spectrum, with all due respect,
they are not the ones suffering from the airline industry problems. But
the idea that the majority of people who lose their jobs have little or
no value is something I do not understand.
My hope is that we have a vote on this issue and those who did not
vote
[[Page S10509]]
for cloture would cast a vote in favor of the thousands who have lost
their jobs and find themselves and their families in a very precarious
situation.
Individuals who do not qualify for extended health insurance under
COBRA and who are otherwise uninsured would be eligible for Medicaid,
with the Federal Government covering 100 percent of the premiums. For a
few weeks, to get people back on their feet, could we not find it in
our hearts to extend to them the kind of help they need?
Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?
Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
Mrs. BOXER. I took to the floor earlier, in a brief moment that I
had, and I made the connection between trade adjustment assistance and
this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). The time of the Senator from
Connecticut has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. I made the connection between trade adjustment assistance
and this bill, which Senator Carnahan based on the Trade Adjustment
Assistance Act. I ask my friend, doesn't he think if we can help people
when they lose their job because of trade, we should help people when
they lose their job because of a terrorist attack on this country? I
ask him, doesn't it seem ironic that somehow, when you lose your job
because of trade, you get the help, but not if it is a result of a
terrorist attack?
Mr. DODD. I think the Senator from California raises a very good
question, and one that she provides the answer for in her question.
Obviously, over the years, we have said to people, if you lose your
job because of trade policies--which we think have a long-term
beneficial effect on the country and we see something good come out of
that--if you lose your job because we are trying to achieve a greater
good, we will step into that breach and provide some assistance to you
and your family.
How ironic that when something terrible happens and you lose your
job, we can't provide benefits to help you and your family during
difficult times.
I am stunned by this. I thought this was going to be a non-issue. I
could see where people might want to modify this a bit. Instead of 52
weeks, make it 45 weeks; instead of 100 percent of Medicaid, we will
make it 90 percent.
I can understand people making a case that we need to modify the
Carnahan amendment. But not to provide for any kind of alternative is
something that just gets away.
We have to finish the bill. I know the distinguished chairman of the
committee has an awful burden to get this done. He has argued very
persuasively that we have a responsibility to meet the security needs.
Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DODD. I understand the sense of urgency to get this done. I am
sure my friend from South Carolina would not argue with that coming up
rather quickly as we did with the airline bailout. That didn't take
long. We managed to find the time around here to come up with the time
to debate it, discuss it, and work it out. Again, I voted for that
bill. I would again today. I don't argue with that at all.
But I am stunned that we can't find the time somehow to say to those
thousands of workers--baggage handlers, flight attendants, and
mechanics--who have lost their jobs and are wondering how they are
going to make ends meet--we have time for everybody but you. Everybody
else got in line. But you don't. We are sending the message that we
don't have enough time to take care of you.
I am terribly disappointed that our colleagues have decided to reject
this cloture motion. But I tell you that people out there have lost
their jobs. Millions of other Americans are watching this vote to see
what we did to average people out there on this day, 1 month later. We
memorialize those who lost their lives but this Chamber couldn't find
in its heart to come up with a few extra dollars to help some people
who have lost their work.
That is a sad day. That is not the way to commemorate those who gave
so much 1 month ago. I am deeply disappointed in my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Washington is recognized.
Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I also rise with a great deal of
frustration over the last vote where the majority of my colleagues in
the Senate want to act to help workers who have been impacted by the
acts of September 11 and the emergency that has prevailed; that we do
something to help those who have been most impacted by job layoffs by
cutbacks in major industries related to transportation; and that we act
immediately.
I am very frustrated, even though a majority of my colleagues want to
see such legislation passed to help workers who are going to be laid
off, who are going to have to struggle with how to pay for health
insurance, who will not have the assistance for job training that might
put them back in the economy sooner, that they are going to be without
assistance. They are going to be without that assistance, even though a
majority of my colleagues wanted to see that legislation passed,
because we could not get this cloture vote in the Senate today.
I ask, if not now, when?
We were told after the events of September 11, when everybody wanted
to work in a bipartisan fashion to expedite the decisionmaking in the
Senate, that we needed to band together. We did. We acted quickly on
legislation to help and assist the airline industry. I think the vote
was 98 to 0.
At that same time, we were told we need to act now to help the
industry. We will come back to help workers. So with earnest, Senator
Carnahan, Senator Kennedy, myself, and Senator Murray from Washington
have been working diligently on this proposal.
Today we are sending the wrong message to the American people. We are
sending the message that this body thinks it is more important to help
the corporate executives and the shareholders of the airline industry
than it is to help the American workers. That is absolutely the wrong
message.
When you think about it, consumer confidence counts for about two-
thirds of our economy. In the past month of September, consumer
confidence has been at its all-time low since 1996.
This is an economic issue. Just as the assistance package for the
airlines was an economic issue, this assistance to the workers is an
economic issue. Instead of working together in a bipartisan fashion, we
showed our partisan colors today by not allowing this vote to take
place. The majority of Senators wish this legislation would have
passed.
In Washington State, where 20,000 to 30,000 workers could be laid off
by the end of next year, the impact will be real. Some estimates are
that a $1.29 billion loss will be felt by our local economy. That is
quite significant in the State of Washington where we have already been
feeling the impact of the downturn in the economy.
When you think about the individual workers, yes, they will receive
some unemployment benefits. What about health care? When you think
about it, a typical worker in the aerospace industry might make $40,000
to $50,000. Yet the impact of losing that income and having
unemployment insurance is not being able to pay for health care
benefits. An average worker with a family might pay as much as $850 a
month for the loss of health care benefits, on top of other bills they
have to pay--for their mortgage, for their food, and for their
children's education.
We are sending a terrible message that it is more important to help
corporate executives and shareholders than to care about the
educational needs of the airline workers in our country. That is the
wrong message.
We need to move ahead in a bipartisan fashion to think about the
ripple effect on our economy. It is not just the airline manufacturing
industry, as I said, with 20,000 to 30,000 layoffs, but the hundred-
plus thousand layoffs in the airline industry overall. That impact on
our economy at a time when our economy is already seeing a downturn is
not the kind of message we need to be sending.
It is very important that we move ahead. If not now, when will we act
to support workers in this country in their time of need?
I yield the floor.
[[Page S10510]]
Mr. REID. Madam President, the majority leader is now in the Chamber.
I am not going to use the 5 minutes allocated to me under the previous
order. I ask unanimous consent that the time be given to the majority
leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I come to the floor to express my grave
disappointment at what the Senate has just done.
This is the first time we have said no to any of the victims of
disaster of 1 month ago. It is the first time we have said no to
working families struggling to put their lives back together.
I am troubled, disappointed, and disillusioned.
I will say this: We will not give up. We will not quit. We will not
allow those workers to in any way believe that this country is going to
turn its back on them when they need it the most. We will help them. We
will find a way to do this. We will keep the fight. We are committed,
as people determined to help all of those who are hurting so badly,
including those who have no job, including those who have no health
insurance, including those who need training today--including all of
those victims. We cannot say no to these people. We will be back. We
will not give up.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, under the previous order, it is now my
understanding we are going to go to the Smith-Murkowski amendment on a
20-minute time agreement; is that right?
Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Amendment No. 1874
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I have amendment No.
1874 at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration as
described under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself,
Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Thurmond, proposes an
amendment numbered 1874.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To further provide for the safety of American aviation and
the suppression of terrorism)
At the appropriate place, add the following:
SEC. . FLIGHT DECK SECURITY.
(a) Title.--This Section may be cited as the `Flight Deck
Security Act of 2001'.
(b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four
civilian aircraft, crashing two of the aircraft into the
towers of the World Trade Center in New York, New York, and a
third into the Pentagon outside Washington, District of
Columbia.
(2) Thousands of innocent Americans and citizens of other
countries were killed or injured as a result of these
attacks, including the passengers and crew of the four
aircraft, workers in the World Trade Center and in the
Pentagon, rescue workers, and bystanders.
(3) These attacks destroyed both towers of the World Trade
Center, as well as adjacent buildings, and seriously damaged
the Pentagon.
(4) These attacks were by far the deadliest terrorist
attacks ever launched against the United States and, by
targeting symbols of America, clearly were intended to
intimidate our Nation and weaken its resolve.
(5) Armed pilots, co-pilots, and flight engineers with
proper training will be the last line of defense against
terrorists by providing cockpit security and aircraft
security.
(6) Secured doors separating the flight deck from the
passenger cabin have been effective in deterring hijackings
in other nations and will serve as a deterrent to future
contemplated acts of terrorism in the United States.
(c) Aviation Safety and the Suppression of Terrorism by
Commercial Aircraft.--
(1) Possession of firearms on commercial flights.--The FAA
is authorized to permit a pilot, co-pilot, or flight engineer
of a commercial aircraft who has successfully completed the
requirements of section (c)(2) of this Act, who is not
otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, from
possessing or carrying a firearm approved by the FAA for the
protection of the aircraft under procedures or regulations as
necessary, to ensure the safety and integrity of flight.
(2) Federal pilot officers.--
(A) In addition to the protections provided by the section
(c)(1) of this Act, the FAA shall also establish a voluntary
program to train and supervise commercial airline pilots.
(B) Under the program, the FAA shall make available
appropriate training and supervision for all such pilots,
which may include training by private entities.
(C) The power granted to such persons shall be limited to
enforcing Federal law in the cockpit of commercial aircraft
and, under reasonable circumstances the passenger compartment
to protect the integrity of the commercial aircraft and the
lives of the passengers.
(D) The FAA shall make available appropriate training to
any qualified pilot who requests such training pursuant to
this Act.
(E) The FAA may prescribe regulations for purposes of this
section.
(d) Reports to Congress.--Not later than six months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, and every six months
thereafter, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to
Congress a report on the effectiveness of the requirements in
this section in facilitating commercial aviation safety and
the suppression of terrorism by commercial aircraft.''.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I say to my colleagues,
I will be very brief. If there are others who wish to speak, they may
want to come to the Chamber. We have only, as I understand it, 20
minutes equally divided.
This amendment, I say to my colleagues, is the one that has been
known as the gun-in-the-cockpits amendment. I am pleased to report
that, to the best of my knowledge, the Senate has agreed to accept this
amendment, which I think is good news for the airline industry and good
news for all of us who fly across America, and all over the world, as a
matter of fact.
First of all, I thank my colleagues, Senator Murkowski and Senator
Burns, for their leadership, and also Senator Thurmond for working with
me to put this amendment together. Also, Senator McCain and Senator
Hollings were very helpful as we worked out the compromise so we could
offer this amendment without a lot of rancor.
The motto of my legislation is that armed pilots are the first line
of deterrence and the last line of defense--the first line of
deterrence because terrorists will know that armed pilots will be able
to defend the cockpit and defend the aircraft from a hijacking; the
last line of defense because when all else fails, including the air
marshals and perhaps even a reinforced cockpit door, an armed pilot
will be in the cockpit to defend that cockpit from terrorist hijackers.
I think it is important for us to think and reflect back on what has
happened in the past month. We all know what happened on September 11.
Those terrorists got in that cockpit, and the pilots had no defense
once that door was kicked in, except their bare hands. We have had
another----
Mrs. BOXER. The Senate is not in order, and I am extremely interested
in hearing about the content of this amendment. I hope the Senate can
be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Senators will take
their conversations to the back of the Chamber.
The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Senator from California for
her courtesy.
In the last week, we have had another incident--not a terrorist
incident but one where a person got into the cockpit and caused the
plane to be destabilized momentarily.
I think it is important to understand, after all of the events of
September 11, and all of the efforts we have made to encourage and
bring people back to flying again, we still had another incident where
a person actually got into the cockpit.
Now we know--and we are working on all of this--we are going to
reinforce the cockpit doors; there will be armed marshals; we are going
to increase security on the aircraft. All of these things are being
done. But I would ask my colleagues to reflect for a moment as to what
would happen if, in spite of all of that--in spite of all three of
those things: The marshals, the reinforced cockpit doors, and increased
security around the aircraft--somebody got into that cockpit again.
They could bring that plane down.
[[Page S10511]]
If, in fact, a pilot had a gun, that pilot would have the opportunity
to stop that hijacker or person coming into that cockpit to cause
damage. If the pilot could not do it, if the pilot did not have a
weapon, and that person got into the cockpit, the worst of all things
could be that the hijacker would commandeer the plane and do some
terrible destruction using the aircraft as a weapon of mass
destruction. But what might happen, and what could have happened last
time, were it not for the brave passengers on Flight 93, we could have
to shoot down our own commercial aircraft with our own American
citizens in that aircraft.
It is far preferable to have the pilot shoot the hijacker and
maintain control of the cockpit than it is to have the hijacker get
control of the cockpit and have the President of the United States have
to make that god-awful, gut-wrenching decision to shoot down a
commercial aircraft to save the lives of thousands, killing perhaps a
couple hundred American citizens. So this is the right thing to do.
The Senator from California mentioned that she wants to know the
content of the amendment. The content of the amendment, I say to the
Senator, is very reasonable. It says that the FAA is authorized to
permit, if the airlines and the pilots would agree to do it--if they
did agree; no one is forced to carry a weapon into the cockpit. That is
the pilots' and the airlines' decision.
So I think it is reasonable. I have met with dozens of pilots on this
issue, many from New Hampshire and Massachusetts, some here, from most
of the airlines. I know there are very few who disagree with this
amendment, but the vast, overwhelming majority of the pilots, probably
95 percent of them, agree with it. It is the right thing to do, and not
only for safety reasons but also, if we are going to bring back the
airline industry and get those people back to work who have lost their
jobs, we have to bring passengers back to the airplanes; we have to
restore their confidence.
I am going to feel a lot more confident knowing that pilot is going
to have the opportunity to stop that hijacker when that hijacker comes
through that cockpit door, if he gets through the cockpit door in spite
of all the other things we are doing.
So remember, this is not an amendment that is just hanging out there
with nothing else. This is an amendment that is working in conjunction
with increased airport and aircraft security, reinforced cockpit doors,
and perhaps a Federal marshal--at least spot-checked on flights. It
goes with all of that. And this is the final stop, so that pilot can
have the assurance, with that TV camera or monitor, so he or she can
see what is going on in the back of that aircraft, in the cabin. At
that point, the pilot can turn and be prepared to face that hijacker
who could cause unbelievable destruction.
So I am pleased and proud to offer the amendment on behalf of myself,
Senator Burns, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Thurmond. I know there
are others who support it as well.
Madam President, I know other people would like to speak, so I yield
the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I support this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the Senator whatever time she
wishes to consume.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.
Madam President, as someone who for a long time has taken the
opposite position on guns, I think this amendment makes sense.
We are working toward having air marshals on our airplanes. We will
also be working--and I want to announce here my support of the Burns
amendment--to really move security into the Department of Justice where
it belongs.
Until we do all this, I think this amendment makes sense. It gives
the FAA a chance to decide if they think it is prudent for a pilot, who
is trained, and who wants to, and who is willing to, to be able to
defend the aircraft.
I just want to remind my colleagues that every single plane that was
hijacked was going to my State of California. I want you to know that
every time I think about this, I think of how many people are
suffering. I think we need to do everything we can to prevent any more
of these hijackings from occurring.
Therefore, I believe this amendment is right. I believe it is
prudent. It also was supported in front of our Commerce Committee--I
see my chairman in the Chamber--by the gentleman who represented the
pilots at the last hearing we had.
So I thank my friend. I am supporting this amendment, as well as the
Burns amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I yield whatever time he
may consume to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes remain to the sponsor.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Before I yield, however, I ask unanimous
consent to have three letters of support printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Gun Owners of America,
Springfield, VA, October 3, 2001.
Dear Senator: Senator Bob Smith will be introducing an
amendment to the Aviation Security Act. I urge you to vote in
favor of his amendment.
The Smith amendment will provide the opportunity for pilots
to use firearms to defend their passengers and planes, as
well as provide for reinforcing the cockpit doors on
commercial aircraft.
I urge you to vote for the Smith amendment, as it can help
save the lives of pilots, crew members, and passengers--not
to mention the lives of thousands of citizens on the ground.
Sincerely,
John Velleco,
Director of Federal Affairs.
____
National Rifle Association of America, Institute for
Legislative Action,
Washington, DC, October 3, 2001.
Dear Senator: In the aftermath of the tragedy that occurred
on September 11th, various proposals have been offered to
deal with airline security. As the United States Senate
begins debate on the Aviation Security Act, S. 1147,
amendments may be offered relating to pilot and passenger
security.
One proposal, sponsored by Senators Bob Smith and Conrad
Burns, addresses pilot safety by allowing--not requiring--
properly trained commercial pilots, co-pilots, and flight
engineers to carry firearms. On behalf of the 4 million
members of the National Rifle Association, I urge you to
support this common sense and well-balanced measure.
Armed pilots with proper training and suitable equipment
will be the last line of defense against hijackers and
terrorists in providing cockpit and aircraft security.
Obviously, proper training is an essential component of this
legislation. Along with the possibility of U.S. Air Marshals
accompanying commercial flights, this measure would send a
strong message to potential attackers that self-defense
exists in the air as well as on our land.
The National Rifle Association stands with the Air Line
Pilots Association and the Allied Pilots Association in
supporting this amendment. This measure will provide both
deterrence to hijackers and terrorists and safety to airline
employees and the traveling public. Please vote ``yes'' on
the Smith/Burns amendment to S. 1147.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Cunningham,
Director, NRA Federal Affairs.
____
Air Line Pilots
Association, International,
Washington, DC, October 3, 2001.
Hon. Robert C. Smith,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the 67,000 members of the
Air Line Pilots Association, International, I want to offer
our most sincere thanks and our support for your amendment to
S. 1447, which would provide for armed federal pilot
officers.
The Administration, Congress, and the industry are all
heavily involved in activities and discussions aimed at
improving security. Many of the proposed security initiatives
and proposals will take months, even years to implement; some
of them are also very expensive.
We have learned, in a most tragic fashion, that the
occupants of the cockpit must be protected in the event of a
cockpit door breach in order to prevent further loss of life
to passengers, crew, and those on the ground. Provision of
armed air marshals and enhanced cockpit doors will help.
However, not all flights will have the protection of air
marshals, and new, more secure cockpit doors will not be
installed overnight.
For those reasons, it is our strong belief that the last
line of defense must be a method of training, deputizing and
arming those pilots who both volunteer and qualify to carry a
means of lethal self-defense. Not all pilots will want to
carry a weapon, and some who do may not qualify under the
FBI's strict screening and training criteria, but there will
be thousands of our members who
[[Page S10512]]
can meet both criteria. Once the cost of training these
pilots is complete, there would be virtually no other expense
for providing an FBI-trained federal officer in the cockpit
who is capable of administering lethal force.
In addition to adding a genuine security enhancement in the
very near term, the creation of a federal pilot officer
program would also generate a tremendous amount of confidence
among pilots to protect themselves and, thereby, their
passengers. We believe that your proposal, if implemented,
should also translate into greater confidence in air travel
security by the traveling public and help the airlines return
to profitability much sooner than they could otherwise.
In summary, we believe that your proposed federal pilot
officer program is a most reasonable, practical, cost-
effective, and efficient means of enhancing airline security.
ALPA supports it and we urge its enactment.
Sincerely,
Duane E. Woerth,
President.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield to the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from New Hampshire.
Madam President, I want to say to all those folks who would be
critical, this does not make it mandatory for a weapon to be on the
flight deck. This says they are able to take one if they are
comfortable with one.
I point to American Airlines Flight 11, which was the first plane to
hit the north tower. The pilot was a Vietnam veteran and the copilot
was a Navy Top Gun pilot. On American Airlines Flight 77, Charlie
Burlingame was a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a Top Gun
pilot. On United Airlines 175, which was the second plane to hit the
south tower, both the pilot and copilot were veterans, one a Navy
pilot, one a Marine Corps veteran.
What we are saying is, if these men and women who operate the flight
deck are comfortable with a weapon, they should be allowed to have a
weapon. That is what this amendment says.
I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his leadership and the
Senator from California for her support.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
that the following letter from the Allied Pilots Association be printed
in the Record in support of amendment No. 1874.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Allied Pilots Association,
Fort Worth, TX, October 7, 2001.
Hon. Robert Smith,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the Allied Pilots
Association, which represents the 11,500 pilots of American
Airlines, I wish to express our strong support for the
``Flight Deck Security Act of 2001.''
We must take immediate action to enhance our nation's
aviation security. We believe the ``Flight Deck Security
Act,'' S. 1463, will help ensure the safety of both airline
flight crews and the flying public.
APA supports allowing qualified pilots to carry firearms.
The majority of our pilots have served in the military, where
they received weapons training, and many are already
qualified to handle small arms. Armed pilots will help deter
terrorists from attempting to hijack an aircraft.
Furthermore, they would provide a last line of defense to
resist the hijacking of commercial aircraft.
The Allied Pilots Association urges the Senate to pass the
``Flight Deck Security Act.'' We believe S. 1463's voluntary
firearm program should be enacted immediately.
Sincerely,
Captain John Darrah,
President,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how many minutes would the Senator want?
Ms. MIKULSKI. I know there is an amendment. I want to make some
general comments about the bill. What would be the appropriate way?
Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside the
amendment and the Senator from Maryland be allowed to speak for 5
minutes on the legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Arizona, the national leader
on this topic.
Madam President, we just came from the Pentagon memorial for all of
those who died at the Pentagon on the fateful day, 9/11, one month ago.
We have been going to several memorials. They have been heartfelt.
Whether it was at Emmitsburg for the National Fallen Firefighters
Memorial, today at the Pentagon, joining with Senators Lott and
Daschle, having the resolution on a national day of remembrance, all of
these are very special to me because on that fateful day, I lost 60
Maryland constituents: 54 at the Pentagon, those who were working at
the Pentagon and who were on that fateful flight. Six others, who we
currently know of, lost their lives at other sites.
I know the Chair knows we feel a great debt of gratitude to the
gallant people on Flight 93 who probably saved our lives. I support the
memorials. I was honored to be there.
I am pleased to join in a resolution for a national day of
remembrance. I think we need a permanent way of remembering those
people who died on that very fateful, grim, horrific day. The way we
honor their memory is to make sure it never, ever can happen again.
This is why I am so passionate about our moving our aviation security
bill, why I am very firm in terms of trying to make our railroads safe
and also ensuring that those people who work in the field of
transportation and in airports and airlines are not doubly victimized,
first by the terrorists and then by an economic compensation system
that leaves them without jobs, without incomes, without future
training, and a bleak future. We should not doubly punish them by
leaving them without an economic security safety net.
I plead to my colleagues today: Let us put aside our ideologies on
how we think Government should be this size or Government should be
that size. We need to think about what is the right thing to do for the
American people. I want to get America moving again. I want them to be
on the rails. I want them to be in planes. I want them to feel free to
travel. This is why I am so passionate about the need to have an
aviation security bill that also federalizes our security operations.
It ensures that we have the best to guard us. We have the best to
guard us at the military; God bless them. We have the best to help
rescue us in our fire and police departments; God bless them. Let's
have the very best and the best trained at our airports.
While we are making our airports safe, let us look at other areas of
vulnerability, and then that goes to our railroads. We need, again,
passenger screening. We need baggage screening. We need to assure the
safety of our tunnels, of which we have many in the Northeast corridor.
I know the Chair is from a railroad corridor State. Last but not at all
least, I am concerned about those 528,000 people who filed for
unemployment last week. That is just a little bit less than the size of
my great city of Baltimore. A half million people are on unemployment,
not because they were laggards, not because they don't want to work,
not because they don't want to show up for duty, but because of
circumstances outside of their control.
We have it within our control to make an economic safety net for
them. I say to my colleagues, we have clotured this; we have bargained
that; we have negotiated that. Let us get back to the spirit we had a
few weeks ago when we were not a Republican Party or a Democratic
Party. We were the red, white, and blue party. Let's do right for
airline security. Let's do right for railroad security. Let's do right
for the people who have lost their jobs because of terrorist attacks.
That will be the best permanent memorial we could make to those who
have fallen because of this horrific deed.
Madam President, four civilian airliners from three of our Nation's
airports were used as weapons of war on September 11. As we're debating
this legislation, our military is taking action against those who were
responsible. One way to support our troops is to improve safety for all
Americans. That's the goal of this legislation. This bill enables us to
take three concrete actions to improve the safety of our skies.
Security is a high skill job. Yet airport screeners in this country
are low paid--$6.00 an hour or less. Fast food restaurant employees are
paid better.
They are poorly trained. The FAA requires 12 hours of classroom
training. Other countries do a better job. France requires 60 hours of
training. Belgium requires at least 40 hours. Often, those who perform
the training have had
[[Page S10513]]
only a few hours of training themselves.
They are inexperienced. Turnover rates are alarming: 126 percent from
May 1998 through April 1999 at our nation's 19 largest airports; as
high as 416 percent in some instances.
They have low morale which leads to poor performance.
FAA inspection reports reveal significant weaknesses in the
performance of our airport screeners. Security inspectors showed that
BWI ranked fifth among major airports in the number of bombs, grenades
or other weapons that went undetected in federal inspections.
This is not a new problem. The GAO reports that in 1987 airport
screeners missed 20 percent of the potentially dangerous objects used
in tests and it's been getting worse over the past few years.
Part of the solution is to federalize our airport security workforce.
We have Federal officials protecting our borders and protecting our
President. We also need Federal officials protecting our flying public.
Why federal workers? They can be fully trained and monitored. Their
primary goal would be safety, not the economic bottom line. The
Hollings bill does this by Federalizing airport security operations, by
requiring extensive training--40 hours of classroom training, 60 hours
of on-the-job instruction--by deploying law enforcement personnel at
each airport, including armed personnel at airport security screening
locations.
The safety of our pilots is critical to ensuring the safety of the
passengers. The tragedies of September 11 showed that we need to
strengthen the cockpit door and locks to prevent entry by non-flight
deck crewmembers.
In a hijacking situation, we've always focused on deterrence, that
pilots and copilots should negotiate with hijackers until the aircraft
is safely on the ground. September 11 shattered that idea.
This bill prohibits access to the flight deck cockpit by any person
other than a flight deck crew member. It requires the strengthening of
the cockpit door and locks to prevent entry by non-flight deck crew
members and requires commuter aircraft that do not have doors to get
doors.
On September 11, some heroic Americans on United Airlines flight 93
lost their lives as they confronted the terrorists. They prevented the
plane from flying into the Capitol or the White House. These brave
citizens lost their lives, yet they saved many others--perhaps even
those of us in this chamber.
Yet we can't ask American citizens to risk or lose their lives. We
need Federal air marshals on our airplanes to protect our citizens.
The Sky Marshal Program dates back to the Kennedy Administration when
the concern of hijackings to Cuba was prevalent. In 1970, the program
was greatly expanded to include 1,500 U.S. Customs officers, 800
military personnel. Two years later, the U.S. Customs Sky Marshal
Program was phased out.
Then, in 1985, a 727 TWA flight from Athens was diverted to Beirut
where terrorists murdered Robert Dean Stetham of Maryland. The
highjackings of 1985 prompted Congress to reinstate the Air Marshal
program, but it is spartan and skimpy.
This legislation would require a marshal on every flight. That's
about 25,000 flights a day, pre-September 11, on all domestic flights
and on all international flights originating in the U.S.
The events of September 11 were an attack against America and against
humanity. We are a nation that is grief stricken, but we are not
paralyzed in our determination to rid the world of terrorism. In the
mean time, we must act to make transportation safer in the United
States. We must have a sense of urgency and pass this legislation
immediately.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, unless the Senator from New Hampshire
would like to speak again, we yield back the remainder of our time and
urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, without
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1874) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1875
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I have an amendment and I send it to the
desk and ask for its consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], for himself, Mr.
McConnell, Mr. DeWine, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment
numbered 1875.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To make the Attorney General responsible for aviation safety
and security)
On page 4, strike lines 10, 11, and 12.
On page 4, line 13, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(A)''.
On page 4, line 18, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
On page 4, line 22, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
On page 4, beginning with line 23, strike through line 5 on
page 5.
On page 5, line 6, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(C)''.
On page 5, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
(b) Attorney General Responsibilities.--The Attorney
General of the United States--
(1) is responsible for day-to-day Federal security
screening operations for passenger air transportation or
intrastate air transportation under sections 44901 and 44935
of title 49, United States Code;
(2) shall work in conjunction with the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration with respect to any actions
or activities that may affect aviation safety or air carrier
operations;
(3) is responsible for hiring and training personnel to
provide security screening at all United States airports
involved in passenger air transportation or intrastate air
transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, Secretary of Defense, and the heads of other
appropriate Federal agencies and departments; and
(4) shall actively cooperate and coordinate with the
Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Defense, and
the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies and
departments with responsibilities for national security and
criminal justice enforcement activities that are related to
aviation security through the Aviation Security Coordination
Council. On page 5, line 14, strike ``(b)'' and insert
``(c)''.
On page 6, line 4, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
On page 10, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
(a) Air Marshals Under Attorney General Guidelines.--The
Attorney General shall prescribe guidelines for the training
and deployment of individuals authorized, with the approval
of the Attorney General, to carry firearms and make arrests
under section 44903(d) of title 49, United States Code. The
Secretary of Transportation shall administer the air marshal
program under that section in accordance with the guidelines
prescribed by the Attorney General.
On page 10, line 7, strike ``(a) In General.--'' and insert
``(b) Deployment.--''.
On page 10, line 23, strike ``(b) Deployment.--'' and
insert ``(c) Training, Supervision, and Flight Assignment.--
''.
On page 11, line 14, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
On page 11, line 20, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
On page 12, line 3, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
On page 12, line 4, before ``Secretary'' insert ``Attorney
General and the''.
On page 12, line 22, before ``Secretary'' insert ``Attorney
General and the''.
On page 12, line 24, strike ``the Secretary'' and insert
``they''.
On page 13, line 3, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
On page 18, beginning in line 2, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General,''
and insert ``Attorney General, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
On page 18, line 11, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 18, beginning in line 17, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 18, line 25, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 19, line 4, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 19, line 7, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 19, beginning in line 12, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation, with the approval of the Attorney General,''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 20, line 9, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 20, beginning in line 12, strike ``Secretary, in
consultation with the Attorney General,'' and insert
``Attorney General,
[[Page S10514]]
in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation,''.
On page 20, beginning in line 14, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 21, beginning in line 3, strike ``Secretary and''.
On page 21, line 12, strike ``Administrator'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 21, line 19, strike ``Administrator'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 21, line 23, strike ``Administrator'' and insert
``Attorney General or the Secretary of Transportation''.
On page 22, line 4, strike ``Administrator'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 22, beginning in line 7, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 22, line 9, strike ``the Attorney General or''.
On page 22, strike lines 13 through 22.
On page 22, line 23, strike ``(c) Transition.--The
Secretary of Transportation'' and insert ``(b) Transition.--
The Attorney General''.
On page 23, line 3, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 23, line 6, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 23, beginning in line 18, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General,''
and insert ``Attorney General, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation,''.
On page 23, line 23, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 24, line 20, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 24, beginning in line 21, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 25, line 3, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 25, line 11, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 25, beginning in line 14, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 26, line 3, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 26, line 15 strike, ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 29, beginning in line 1, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 29, line 20, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 29, beginning in line 23, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 29, beginning in line 25, strike ``the Attorney
General, or''.
On page 30, line 6, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 30, line 14, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 30, beginning in line 21, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 31, beginning in line 5, strike ``Secretary of
Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 31, line 9, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 31, line 22, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 31, line 25, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 32, line 1, strike ``Secretary of Transportation''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 32, beginning in line 4, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 32, line 7, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 32, line 11, strike ``Secretary of Transportation''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 3, strike ``Secretary of Transportation''
and insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 33, beginning in line 5, strike ``Secretary'' and
insert ``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 9, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 13, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 16, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 19, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 33, line 22, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 34, line 15, strike ``Transportation'' and insert
``Justice''.
On page 34, line 17, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 34, line 21, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 34, line 22, strike ``Secretary'' and insert
``Attorney General''.
On page 35, line 4, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before
``Section''.
On page 35, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
(b) Coordination With Attorney General.--Section 44912(b)
of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(3) Beginning on the date of enactment of the Aviation
Security Act, the Administrator shall conduct all research
related to screening technology and procedures in conjunction
with the Attorney General.''.
Mr. BURNS. Madam President, Senator DeWine of Ohio and Senator
McConnell of Kentucky are cosponsors of this amendment. It has been a
subject of conversation for the last week. The events of September 11
changed a lot of things--where we place emphasis and how we do business
in this town. We are changing who is directly responsible and directly
accountable for airport security.
When I first looked at the legislation as it was being drafted, there
was one glaring fault. That was that the enforcement of security and
safety of America's traveling air passengers was still in the
Department of Transportation. I have believed since September 11 that
something had to be changed. In other words, we had to do something
that would give the flying public a sense of security and safety and
the rules would be made outside of the Department of Transportation. I
believe it should be in the Department of Justice.
If you look at what we have to do and the areas in which we have to
do it, the argument that the chairman of the full committee made, which
is when you take those areas of intelligence and passengers lists,
which we are going to have to scrutinize a little bit better and more
in the future than we have in the past, when we take a look at the
outside of the airport or the peripherals and the security of the
airport security itself, when you look at security in the check-in area
and also the area known as the departure gate, then we shift our
emphasis to cargo, that which is shipped on regularly scheduled flights
and also among the people who are in the air freight business, also the
area in which we park our aircraft overnight or aircraft that has been
parked for some length of time, and the aircraft itself--those are
distinct areas where we have responsibilities for security and safety--
no other agency in the Government is better equipped to do the job in
all those areas than the Department of Justice.
So what my amendment says is that we give a bright line of authority
to the Attorney General, who is accountable and responsible for the
security and safety of air traffic. That does not say that the
Department of Transportation, or even the FAA, doesn't have a little
say about what goes on in their business. They should be able to set
some of the rules and make sure aircraft are certified to fly and
pilots are certified to fly, and those things. But on the security end
of it, America is telling me they want law enforcement powers just for
the sense of security when they travel.
I have often used this analogy with folks who like football and those
folks who like baseball and basketball: they are great sports, but you
never see the teams refereeing or umpiring themselves. It has to be
done by an entity that understands the rules or the mission of safety,
and security. So that is where we are.
That is what this amendment is all about. It allows a setting of
standards. It allows the checking of employees, if they work in
sensitive areas, such as bag handling, and they are near the aircraft.
Those employees are going to have to stand the scrutiny of the Justice
Department in order to get a job on the ramp, so to speak.
When I came out of the Marine Corps, I worked for the airlines for
about 3 years. I understand what goes on out there. They are not doing
many things differently today than they did 35 or 40 years ago. They
have better equipment. They don't have to lift as much as we used to in
the old days, but there is more security.
What this amendment does is it says the Department of Justice, the
Attorney General of the United States of America, will be responsible
for setting up the apparatus through the Justice Department to make
sure that our areas are secure and people are safe when they fly.
So I offer this amendment. I ask for your support as we move forward.
I think we have worked out just about all of the kinks. We have people
who want to make statements. I say to my ranking member and my boss on
the Commerce Committee that they want to speak a little bit on this
amendment. Then I will turn it over to him.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Arizona is
recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Montana, who I
have had the privilege of working with for many years on the Commerce
Committee, I think this is a good amendment. One of the reasons I think
it is a good amendment is because we are trying to address a major
issue with this legislation, and that is to restore confidence on the
part of the American people in the belief that they can fly on
[[Page S10515]]
airliners and be in airports with a sense of security.
I think the Senator's amendment, by putting these responsibilities
into the Department of Justice, will increase that confidence factor
rather dramatically. I don't think right now that most Americans know
who is in charge of the airport screening procedures. I have often
asked that question myself. I don't think Americans believe that one
agency that is in charge has done a very good job, whoever is
responsible for it. We see continued breaches of airport security--even
after September 11. So I think the amendment of the Senator from
Montana is a good one. I think it will move the process in the
direction we are seeking for this legislation.
I thank Senator Burns for his active participation and involvement in
this issue. I know Mr. McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, wants to
speak on this amendment as well. If the chairman wants to speak,
perhaps we can wait a few minutes for Senator McConnell after he
finishes.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Arizona
has pointed out the main concern that we have, and that is that airline
travelers have complete confidence in the security, safety, and
normalcy of our airlines--as we are all pleading with the people of the
country to get back to normal travel. The best way to do that is to
have law enforcement immediately connected to personnel in and around
the facility, and out on the tarmac, that they are all aware of
security threats--specifically, to be on the lookout for people on a
watch list.
The overall security effort would be developed, no question, by the
FBI domestic homefront security office. They are the ones that would
have immediate knowledge of anyone on a watch list, communicating
immediately, of course, with their screeners and others working in the
airport and its facility.
I think it is a well-considered measure. The Senator from Montana
recommended this when we approached this subject 3 or 4 weeks ago. We
talked back and forth. We are trying to get things done. In order to
get things done, sometimes your own personal choice is subjugated to
the good of the body generally. The good of the body and the White
House, for that matter, was to put responsibility for airport security
under the Department of Transportation's purview.
But there is no question, as the Senator from Arizona says, this
amendment would facilitate the enactment and passage of this
legislation. I support it.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the bill we are discussing today would help
to ensure the safety of flying for passengers on the planes as well as
innocent civilians on the ground.
However, I am concerned that the bill will broadly expand the law
enforcement authority of the Department of Transportation and the
Federal Aviation Administration. I believe we should let experienced
law enforcers set the standards to protect the safety of commercial air
operations.
The mission of the DOT is to:
serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe,
efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system
that meets our vital national interests and enhances the
quality of life of the American people, today and into the
future.
The mission of the U.S. Marshall Service under the oversight of the
Attorney General is to:
enforce federal laws and provide support to virtually all
elements of the federal justice system by providing for the
security of federal court facilities and the safety of judges
and other court personnel; apprehending criminals; exercising
custody of federal prisoners and providing for their security
and transportation to correctional facilities; executing
federal court orders; seizing assets gained by illegal means
and providing for the custody, management and disposal of
forfeited assets; assuring the safety of endangered
government witnesses and their families; and collecting and
disbursing funds.
The key phrase is to ``enforce Federal laws.'' The Justice Department
is a law enforcement body. That agency is tasked to protect the
American people through the enforcement of laws set by Congress.
Prior to 9/11, the primary responsibility for aviation security was
shared by the FAA, airports and the carriers.
The FAA set the standards and regulations that were followed by the
airports and carriers. The FAA was responsible to provide threat
information obtained from the intelligence community to the security
apparatus protecting our airports and carriers.
The Air Marshall program, although active, was relatively non-
existent as there were fewer than 50 security personnel enlisted to
secure our passenger airplanes.
Airports remain responsible for the physical security of airport
facilities, law enforcement and security personnel. In Montana, our
Governor has temporarily deployed the Montana National Guard to protect
our airports while a threat remains significant. I have discussed
airport security with Montana's airport managers and they have informed
me of their current practices.
Airlines and cargo carriers are responsible for implementing those
security activities that directly affect the flow of passengers,
baggage and cargo aboard aircraft.
Since 9/11 we have entered a new era. The last hijacking of a U.S.
airline using a weapon was in 1989, when a passenger used a starter
pistol and two folding knives to hijack an American Airlines plane.
Prior to that, a Pacific Southwest Airline jet crashed in 1987 after
a former ticket agent for the airline smuggled a gun aboard and broke
into the cockpit, killing the flight crew. All 43 people aboard were
killed.
But is was the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988 over
Lockerbie, Scotland that turned the attention of security officials
from guns to bombs, which can be relatively small and made of plastic.
While we have upgraded our equipment to detect bombs, we have not
addressed concerns about uniform standards used to detect potential
human threats in a plane.
At airport security checkpoints, walk-through metal detectors
currently screen passengers. If the detector alarms, screeners use
metal-detecting hand wands. Nonmetallic objects, including plastic and
ceramic weapons, will generally not be found by either procedure.
At the same checkpoints, carry-on bags are screened by equipment that
displays an x-ray image of bag contents. An operator who sees a
suspicious object in the image, or whose view is blocked by a
concealing object, may hand search a bag as a backup procedure.
Nonmetallic objects may be visible in the checkpoint x-ray image, but
less clearly than metal items, and operator training has, up to now,
been focused on identifying metal items.
The checkpoint screeners who work for these private security
companies have rapid turnover, more than 100 percent per year at many
airports. The pay is low and is largely attributed to this high rate of
turnover.
Until directed otherwise by the Secretary of Transportation on
September 12, 2001, many small knives, such as pocketknives, were
permitted on board aircraft, even if detected by security personnel.
I have concerns about unsecured access to the plane. There were
several reports about finding box cutters and other potential weapons
on planes that had landed on 9/11/01. These findings could lead one to
believe there were other planned attacks during that fateful day.
Prior to 9/11, several people had access to an aircraft and could,
perhaps, leave a weapon in a hidden location for use by someone else.
These people include the flight crew, maintenance personnel, cleaners,
caterers, and baggage handlers.
The DOT Inspector General reported his office was able to gain
unauthorized access to secure areas of airports 68% of the time in
tests during 1998 and 1999 and has found in audits that background
checks of airport personnel are ineffective and are frequently not
conducted as required.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. We need to
establish a national standard that protects American citizens. I
believe the Justice Department is the proper authority to set that
standard.
I thank the chairman, and I yield the floor.
Amendment No. 1855, Withdrawn
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of
Senator Daschle, that the Carnahan amendment be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S10516]]
The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Amendment No. 1875
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Burns amendment.
First, I congratulate my colleague for his work on this amendment. He
has been very diligent in explaining in meeting after meeting off the
floor of the Senate for the last week or 10 days why his amendment
should pass. I congratulate him on his amendment. I congratulate him on
his diligence and his perception of what we should be doing.
This is a simple amendment, one that I believe makes a very big
statement. The statement says we believe our Justice Department is best
suited to manage particular aspects of security at our airports. The
reality is we need accountability. We need to know there is an agency
in charge that knows how to manage security. That agency, I believe, is
the Justice Department of the United States.
I say that because the Justice Department is in the business of law
enforcement, and it is in the business of security in the Marshal
Service. Protecting our airports and protecting the traveling public is
a law enforcement and a security function. It is a function, I believe,
best handled by the Department of Justice.
The fact is, those in charge of law enforcement have a different way
of looking at things. I first understood that when I became an
assistant county prosecuting attorney at the age of 25. I could not
believe how the police officers in Xenia, OH, or the sheriff's office
in Fairborn, OH, saw things differently than I saw them.
They saw things through the eyes of a trained officer. They saw
things from the law enforcement point of view. They saw things from a
security point of view. We would go to crime scenes, and they would
explain what they saw. We would look at situations where we were
worried about security, and they would see things that I would never
see.
It is not just training. It is not just experience. It also is a
culture. I guess we use the word ``culture'' when we do not know
another word to explain it, but it is a fundamental way of approaching
things.
I believe it makes eminent sense to take an agency that is concerned
every single day about the security of Americans--that is what they get
paid to do--and say we are going to put you in charge of the flying
public's security while they are on the ground. We are going to leave
it up to the FAA, the experts, about how to fly, when those planes fly,
when they do not fly, and things that go on in the air. But when we are
talking about ground security, we are going to leave that up to other
experts, and those experts are in the Justice Department.
We have an example of how this is done. Justice really does two
things: They do law enforcement, but they also do security. The Marshal
Service does security every single day. They break it down. They make a
distinction between the sworn officers and the contract employees.
Later on in this debate, before final passage, I am going to have a
little more to say about that.
When you go in, for example, to a Federal courthouse, or when you go
into a Federal building, it is the U.S. Marshal Service that is in
charge of that security. So there is precedent for doing this. There is
an experience level that exists in the Justice Department.
I do not want to take a lot of the time of my colleagues, but I again
congratulate my colleague, Senator Burns, for this idea. I think it is
the right idea. It basically says the whole issue of security on the
ground--not just the checking of the baggage, not just the checking of
the passengers, but the whole view and concept of what should be done
in regard to each individual airport in this country--should be in the
hands of the experts. And I believe those experts are in the Justice
Department.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the
pending amendment in order to address some amendments that have been
agreed to on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1876
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Domenici,
proposes an amendment numbered 1876.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To further enhance research and development regarding
aviation security)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
( ) Additional Matters Regarding Research and
Development.--
(1) Additional program requirements.--Subsection (a) of
section 44912 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
(A) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new
paragraph (4):
``(4)(A) In carrying out the program established under this
subsection, the Administrator shall designate an individual
to be responsible for engineering, research, and development
with respect to security technology under the program.
``(B) The individual designated under subparagraph (A)
shall use appropriate systems engineering and risk management
models in making decisions regarding the allocation of funds
for engineering, research, and development with respect to
security technology under the program.
``(C) The individual designated under subparagraph (A)
shall, on an annual basis, submit to the Research,
Engineering and Development Advisory Committee a report on
activities under this paragraph during the preceding year.
Each report shall include, for the year covered by such
report, information on--
``(i) progress made in engineering, research, and
development with respect to security technology;
``(ii) the allocation of funds for engineering, research,
and development with respect to security technology; and
``(iii) engineering, research, and development with respect
to any technologies drawn from other agencies, including the
rationale for engineering, research, and development with
respect to such technologies.''.
(2) Review of threats.--Subsection (b)(1) of that section
is amended--
(A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (F) as
subparagraphs (B) through (G), respectively; and
(B) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so
redesignated, the following new subparagraph (A):
``(A) a comprehensive systems analysis (employing
vulnerability analysis, threat attribute definition, and
technology roadmaps) of the civil aviation system,
including--
``(i) the destruction, commandeering, or diversion of civil
aircraft or the use of civil aircraft as a weapon; and
``(ii) the disruption of civil aviation service, including
by cyber attack;''.
(3) Scientific advisory panel.--Subsection (c) of that
section is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Scientific Advisory Panel.--(1) The Administrator
shall establish a scientific advisory panel, as a
subcommittee of the Research, Engineering, and Development
Advisory Committee, to review, comment on, advise the
progress of, and recommend modifications in, the program
established under subsection (a) of this section, including
the need for long-range research programs to detect and
prevent catastrophic damage to commercial aircraft,
commercial aviation facilities, commercial aviation personnel
and passengers, and other components of the commercial
aviation system by the next generation of terrorist weapons.
``(2)(A) The advisory panel shall consist of individuals
who have scientific and technical expertise in--
``(i) the development and testing of effective explosive
detection systems;
``(ii) aircraft structure and experimentation to decide on
the type and minimum weights of explosives that an effective
explosive detection technology must be capable of detecting;
``(iii) technologies involved in minimizing airframe damage
to aircraft from explosives; and
``(iv) other scientific and technical areas the
Administrator considers appropriate.
``(B) In appointing individuals to the advisory panel, the
Administrator should consider individuals from academia and
the national laboratories, as appropriate.
``(3) The Administrator shall organize the advisory panel
into teams capable of undertaking the review of policies and
technologies upon request.
``(4) Not later than 90 days after the date of the
enactment of the Aviation Security Act, and every two years
thereafter, the Administrator shall review the composition of
the advisory panel in order to ensure that the expertise of
the individuals on the panel is suited to the current and
anticipated duties of the panel.''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, this
[[Page S10517]]
amendment provides for the appointment of an advisory board which would
make recommendations concerning the best way to ensure the best
technology is available to increase security, especially at airports,
but also at other vital installations around the country. It is a good
amendment. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1876) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. 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.
Amendment No. 1877
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Georgia, Mr.
Cleland, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Cleland,
proposes an amendment numbered 1877.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To expand the registration requirements with respect to
airmen)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. AMENDMENTS TO AIRMEN REGISTRY AUTHORITY.
Section 44703(g) of title 49, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1)--
(A) by striking ``pilots'' and inserting ``airmen''; and
(B) by striking the period and inserting ``and related to
combating acts of terrorism.''; and
(2) by adding at the end, the following new paragraphs:
``(3) For purposes of this section, the term `acts of
terrorism' means an activity that involves a violent act or
an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the
criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that
would be a criminal violation if committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States or of any State, and
appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian
population, to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a
government by assassination or kidnaping.
``(4) The Administrator is authorized and directed to work
with State and local authorities, and other Federal agencies,
to assist in the identification of individuals applying for
or holding airmen certificates.''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment by the Senator from Georgia
has been agreed to on both sides. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1877) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. 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. REID. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a very brief
statement?
Mr. McCAIN. It will be my pleasure.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdrew the Carnahan amendment. One
reason it was withdrawn is because of the statements made by the
Senator from Arizona that on the next vehicle moving through here, we
can look to help the employees we are trying to help, and he said he
would help us. He has been very good on this legislation, and his
statements regarding these displaced workers and people who need help
so badly is very much appreciated.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. We are in the process of
continuing negotiations. I think we are very close to an agreement
between myself and the principals.
Amendment No. 1878
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thompson, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Thompson,
proposes an amendment numbered 1878.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend the Aviation Security Act to ensure that those
responsible for security meet performance standards, and for other
purposes)
Insert at the appropriate place the following:
SEC. . RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT.
(a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 449 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the
following:
Sec. Performance Goals and Objectives
(a) Short Term Transition.--
(1) In general.--Within 60 days of enactment, the Deputy
Secretary for Transportation Security shall, in consultation
with Congress--
(A) establish acceptable levels of performance for aviation
security, including screening operations and access control,
and
(B) provide Congress with an action plan, containing
measurable goals and milestones, that outlines how those
levels of performance will be achieved.
(2) Basics of action plan.--The action plan shall clarify
the responsibilities of the Department of Transportation, the
Federal Aviation Administration and any other agency or
organization that may have a role in ensuring the safety and
security of the civil air transportation system.
(b) Long-Term Results-Based Management.--
(1) Performance plan and report.--
(A) Performance plan.--
(i) Each year, consistent with the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the
Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security shall agree on a performance plan for the succeeding
5 years that establishes measurable goals and objectives for
aviation security. The plan shall identify action steps
necessary to achieve such goals.
(ii) In addition to meeting the requirements of GPRA, the
performance plan shall clarify the responsibilities of the
Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security
and any other agency or organization that may have a role in
ensuring the safety and security of the civil air
transportation system.
(iii) The performance plan shall be available to the
public. The Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security may
prepare a non-public appendix covering performance goals and
indicators that, if revealed to the public, would likely
impede achievement of those goals and indicators.
(B) Performance Report.--
(i) Each year, consistent with the requirements of GPRA,
the Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security shall
prepare and submit to Congress an annual report including an
evaluation of the extent goals and objectives were met. The
report shall include the results achieved during the year
relative to the goals established in the performance plan.
(ii) The performance report shall be available to the
public. The Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security may
prepare a nonpublic appendix covering performance goals and
indicators that, if revealed to the public, would likely
impede achievement of those goals and indicators.
Sec. Performance Management System.
(a) Establishing a Fair and Equitable System for Measuring
Staff Performance.--The Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security shall establish a performance management system
which strengthens the organization's effectiveness by
providing for the establishment of goals and objectives for
managers, employees, and organizational performance
consistent with the performance plan.
(b) Establishing Management Accountability for Meeting
Performance Goals.--
(i) Each year, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary for
Transportation Security shall enter into an annual
performance agreement that shall set forth organizational and
individual performance goals for the Deputy Secretary.
(ii) Each year, the Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security and each senior manager who reports to the Deputy
Secretary for Transportation Security shall enter into an
annual performance agreement that sets forth organization and
individual goals for those managers. All other employees
hired under the authority of the Deputy Secretary for
Transportation Security shall enter into an annual
performance agreement that sets forth organization and
individual goals for those employees.
(c) Compensation for the Deputy Secretary for
Transportation Security.--
(i) In general.--The Deputy Secretary for Transportation
Security is authorized to be paid at an annual rate of pay
payable to level II of the Executive Schedule.
(ii) Bonuses or other incentives.--In addition, the Deputy
Secretary for Transportation Security may receive bonuses or
other incentives, based upon the Secretary's evaluation of
the Deputy Secretary's performance in relation to the goals
set forth in the agreement. Total compensation cannot exceed
the Secretary's salary.
(d) Compensation for Managers and Other Employees.--
(i) In general.--A senior manager reporting directly to the
Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security may be paid at
an annual rate of basic pay of not more than
[[Page S10518]]
the maximum rate of basic pay for the Senior Executive
Service under section 5382 of title 5, United States Code.
(ii) Bonuses or other incentives.--In addition, senior
managers can receive bonuses or other incentives based on the
Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security's evaluation of
their performance in relation to goals in agreements. Total
compensation cannot exceed 125 percent of the maximum rate of
base pay for the Senior Executive Service. Further, the
Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security shall establish,
within the performance management system, a program allowing
for the payment of bonuses or other incentives to other
managers and employees. Such a program shall provide for
bonuses or other incentives based on their performance.
(e) Performance-Based Service Contracting.--To the extent
contracts, if any, are used to implement this act, the Deputy
Secretary for Transportation Security shall, to the extent
practical, maximize the use of performance-based service
contracts. These contracts should be consistent with
guidelines published by the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President. The attacks of September 11 demonstrated
that we had not done all we could to prevent or mitigate them. But even
these events weren't necessary to show us that. We have known for some
time that airport security was less than acceptable, and we all agree
that the system used to screen airline passengers and baggage needs to
be overhauled. However, in the rush to fix the problem by
``federalizing'' the security workforce, I am concerned that not enough
attention is being given to a critical flaw in existing security
operations, that is, the failure to set and insist on performance
standards. It doesn't matter who does this work, if we continue to fail
to hold those responsible for security, from top to bottom,
accountable. In the past, some fines were levied, but no one was held
accountable for improvement.
Passenger and baggage screeners and their employers, whether civil
servants or contractors, must be required to meet performance
standards, and then must be subject to meaningful sanctions if those
standards are not met. This has not occurred in the past. The General
Accounting Office has issued several reports that document the Federal
Aviation Administration's failure to hold airlines accountable for the
declining performance of their baggage screeners over the last decade.
Note that I said detection rates have declined virtually every year
over the last decade.
It's important to note that we have been trying to implement
performance-based management in the Federal Government for some time.
Since 1994, agencies of the Federal Government have been required to
set goals for what they do and report to Congress and the American
people on whether agencies are meeting those goals. Oddly, the
Department of Transportation has been a leader in setting goals. It's
just that in the area of aviation security, they haven't been meeting
them.
In 1997, we asked the Department of Transportation Inspector General
to identify the Department's worst management challenges. Since that
time, the Inspector General has routinely identified aviation security
as the Department's greatest management challenge. And since 1999, I've
been asking the Department of Transportation to set goals to address
and improve aviation security. The Department did set a goal for the
rate at which screeners detect dangerous objects, and it reported as
recently as April of this year that it failed to meet its goal.
Let me read to you from the Department of Transportation's
Performance Report, which it issued this spring:
DOT did not meet this year's performance target [for
aviation security, which specifically measures the detection
rate for explosives and weapons that may be brought aboard
aircraft.] The technology is functioning well and provides
superior security protection, but screener performance has
not improved enough.
The report states further: FAA may face a greater challenge than
expected to meet the FY 2001 performance targets in some areas of
screening.
Like so many things in Washington, we have known this was a problem
for some time. Detection rates at the Nation's airports have been
declining steadily since 1993. But clearly, we weren't holding those
responsible for aviation security accountable for their performance.
So, I have to ask, what assurances do we have that the Department of
Transportation will hold new screeners, under this bill, more
accountable?
Lax enforcement of standards inevitably leads to lax security,
regardless of who hires those screeners. This amendment will ensure
that results-oriented management is a key component of whatever changes
are made to our airport security system. We can not afford more
business as usual. We have to insist that the traveling public is safe
from those who would perpetrate evil deeds like those of September 11.
First, my amendment requires the Federal Government to set and
enforce goals for aviation security. It requires the head of aviation
security, within 60 days of enactment, to establish acceptable levels
of performance and provide Congress with an action plan to achieve that
performance. Over the long-term, the head of aviation security must
establish a process for performance planning and reporting that informs
Congress and the American people about how the Government is meeting
its goals. By creating this process, we will be constantly assessing
the threats we face and ensuring that we have the means to measure our
progress in preparing for those threats. This is a new, detailed method
for ensuring that performance management is in place specifically in
the Government's aviation security programs.
I firmly believe that good people, well managed, can substantially
improve our aviation security. So this amendment gives those
responsible for aviation security enhanced tools to regain the
confidence of America's flying public. We employ a good mix of carrots
and sticks to drive performance. For instance: This amendment
establishes an annual staff performance management system that includes
setting individual, group, and organizational performance goals
consistent with an annual performance plan. Managers and employees
would be eligible for bonuses for good performance. The amendment
allows management to hold employees, whether public, private, or a mix
thereof, accountable for meeting their performance standards.
This approach is not new. Agencies like IRS, the Patent and Trademark
Office, and the Office of Student and Financial Assistance, have
performance-based management systems. But this will be the first time
that performance-based management has been used to better government
performance at every level of a government agency.
I've been trying for many years to get agencies to set goals and
strive to meet them. It seems so commonsensical, but for so many years,
the Federal Government did not do that. And we in the Congress,
admittedly, have not really held agencies' feet to the fire as far as
performance goes.
There has never been, in my opinion, a clearer example of good goals,
but poor performance, as in the area of aviation security. This
amendment will restore confidence in air travel. With my amendment, we
will say, if you are not meeting your goals, whether it be detecting
dangerous objects that people try to get on planes or preventing access
to secure areas of an airport or airplane, you can be held accountable.
And those who meet their goals can be rewarded.
This amendment makes sense. I hope we can assure the American people
that we are doing all we can, remaining vigilant, by strictly enforcing
standards for the safety and security of the Nation's airports and
airplanes. I urge the adoption of this simple, but critical,
performance-based amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. It
deserves a couple minutes of explanation.
One of the difficulties we have had in the past is we passed
legislation and authorized certain activities, and then we forgot about
them as a Congress. We do not pay enough attention to the performance
of the bureaucracies that we either create or designate to carry out
certain programs.
Senator Thompson's amendment is basically results-based management.
It is going to require reporting. It is going to require performance
reports. It is going to require performance plans. It is going to
establish a system for measuring staff performance, management
accountability for meeting performance goals, compensation, the Deputy
Secretary for Transportation Security, et cetera.
It is comprehensive performance-based management and results-based
[[Page S10519]]
management. I believe it is an important amendment in making sure this
legislation is accountable to the American people as well as the
Congress. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1878) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. 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.
Amendment No. 1879
(Purpose: To require expanded utilization of current security
technologies, establish short-term assessment and deployment of
emergency security technologies, and for other purposes)
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, finally, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, I
send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Lieberman,
for himself, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered
1879.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading
of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator
Durbin to offer an amendment to S. 1447, the Aviation Security Act, to
improve airport and aircraft safety through heightened screening of
passengers, carry-on luggage, checked baggage, and those entering
secure areas of airports. The overriding purpose of my amendment is to
put our superior technological knowledge to better, more accurate, more
widespread, and, therefore, more effective use.
In the wake of the horrific attacks of September 11, the Nation's
confidence in the safety of our skies has been deeply shaken. Apart
from the thousands of lives lost, public trust in airport security has
suffered a severe blow, which in turn has had a devastating impact on
the fortunes of the airline sector as well as the general economy.
Three weeks ago, Congress approved a $15 billion bailout plan for the
airline industry, which we all hope will keep the nation's carriers
financially and operationally viable for at least the immediate future.
Ultimately, however, the long-term recovery of air commerce will
require nothing less than developing ironclad confidence in the safety
of our airports and air carriers. My amendment and the bill now under
discussion are first steps toward achieving that goal.
On September 25, the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair,
held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, chaired by Senator Durbin, to explore the adequacy of
airline and airport screening. Witnesses from the airline industry, the
aviation security industry, major airports, the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Department of Transportation Inspector General's
Office, and the General Accounting Office provided sobering testimony
on shortcomings in our current airport security system. The amendment I
am offering today is derived in large part from the expert advice and
recommendations the Committee received at the hearing.
The amendment has three general aims: First, to expand the use of
current security technologies and procedures; second, to improve upon
and upgrade those existing technologies and procedures; and, third, to
fund development of newer, better, and more cost-effective technologies
and procedures.
The very first step that must be taken in order to accomplish these
ends must be to ensure that those working in and around airports are
beyond reproach, because the best technologies and procedures are,
frankly, useless if the people employing them cannot be trusted. My
amendment, therefore, would require completion of intensive background
checks on all airport personnel who have access to secure areas at
commercial airports. This includes FBI criminal checks for all workers,
not just for new hires but for current employees as well.
Next, the amendment would require the Federal Aviation Administration
to expand the use of bulk explosive detection technology already being
deployed at most major airports. We would require the technology to be
used more precisely, more cost effectively, and more often than is
currently the case. To ensure that every link in the chain of security
is strong, the FAA would also be asked to establish goals for the
purchase of additional detection machines for certain mid-sized
airports.
Carriers would be required to increase the number of checked bags
that are positively matched with a boarded passenger, until airports
are scanning 100 percent of checked baggage with explosive detection
technology. The purpose here is to prevent a situation in which a
terrorist loads explosives onto a plane in his baggage, without
actually boarding the plane himself.
The measure would require carriers to build upon the Computer-
Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System, (CAPPS), which now uses a
range of criteria to identify passengers who may present a threat. The
way it works now, baggage checked by selected passengers is subjected
to scanning for possible explosives. Under this amendment I am
offering, passengers identified under this system would be subject to
additional security checks of their persons and their carry-on luggage,
whether or not they had checked baggage.
Additionally, to improve and upgrade existing procedures, the
amendment focuses on the ease with which people may obtain unauthorized
access to restricted areas within airports. This is a widespread and
potentially lethal problem that can be easily remedied. In 1998 and
1999, undercover investigators working for the Department of
Transportation Inspector General's office were able to access secure
areas in airports a whopping 68 percent of the time. Once the
investigators entered the secure areas, they were able to board
aircraft in 117 cases, an astonishing number.
The amendment calls on the Department of Transportation to recommend
ways to prevent unauthorized access to restricted areas--for example,
by employing so-called biometrics systems, systems that employ retinal,
facial, and hand identification technologies or similar scanning
methods, that are currently in use at several U.S. airports; or by
increasing surveillance at access points; upgrading card- or keypad-
based access systems; improving airport emergency exit systems; and
eliminating the practice commonly referred to as ``piggy-backing,''
where an unauthorized person follows an authorized person through a
security access point.
Further, the amendment calls for better coordinating the distribution
of information about passengers on law enforcement ``watch lists.''
And, it requests a review of options for improving the positive
identification of passengers, through biometrics and smart cards.
Finally, the amendment would set aside $50 million for researching
and developing new technologies to improve aviation safety in the
future; and, $20 million for research and development of longer-term
security improvements, including further advances in biometrics,
advanced weapons detection, and improved systems for the sharing of
information among law enforcement entities.
I believe that these provisions together represent a substantial
improvement on the present state of passenger and baggage screening and
other elements of the aviation security system. In conjunction with the
larger changes contemplated in the underlying bill, I am confident that
the measures I call for in this amendment will take us along the path
toward real and measurable safety and security for our airways. Like
all Americans, I look forward to the day when each of us can once again
enter an airport, and board an airplane, knowing that terror has been
banished from our skies.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, this
amendment requires expanded utilization of current security
technologies, establishes short-term assessment and deployment of
emergency security technologies, and for other purposes.
[[Page S10520]]
This has been agreed to by both sides. I think it is a good amendment
and, again, along with the amendment on the part of Senator Thompson, I
think it would give an efficient reporting and accountability aspect to
this amendment which was lacking in its original form.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1879) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Amendment No. 1880
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray, Senator
Shelby, Senator Byrd, myself, and the managers, I send an amendment to
the desk with respect to the language clarification subjecting, of
course, the fees and amounts under this particular measure to the
appropriations process. I think it is clear in the bill but we wanted
to make it absolutely clear, and on behalf of Senator Murray, Senator
Byrd, and Senator Shelby, we are pleased to present the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mrs.
Murray, for herself, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Shelby, proposes an
amendment numbered 1880.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To clarify the user fee funding mechanism)
On page 43, line 19, add the words ``annual appropriations
for'' after the word ``offset'';
On page 43, line 20, strike the sentence beginning with the
word ``The'' and ending with the word ``expended.'' on line
23;
On page 43, at the end of line 25, insert the following new
subsection:
(c) User of Fees.--A fee collected under this section shall
be used solely for the costs associated with providing
aviation security services and may be used only to the extent
provided in advance in an appropriation law.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1880) was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1881
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, I send a technical
amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment
numbered 1881.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To authorize the employment, suspension, and termination of
airport passenger security screeners without regard to the provisions
of title 5, United States Code, otherwise applicable to such employees)
On page 32, beginning with line 9, strike through line 2 on
page 35 and insert the following:
(d) Screener Personnel.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation may employ,
appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the compensation,
terms, and conditions of employment of such a number of
individuals as the Secretary determines to be necessary to
carry out the passenger security screening functions of the
Secretary under section 44901 of title 49, United States
Code.
(e) Strikes Prohibited.--An individual employed as a
security screener under section 44901 of title 49, United
States Code, is prohibited from participating in a strike or
asserting the right to strike pursuant to section 7311(3) or
7116(b)(7) of title 5, United States Code.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the
management of the programs and the terms of employment. It has been
discussed by both sides. I ask for its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1881) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. 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.
Amendment No. 1875
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Kentucky,
Mr. McConnell, is on his way over to speak on the pending amendment. I
ask that we return to the pending amendment.
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. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I announce on behalf of Senator Hollings
and myself we are now down to just a couple or three amendments. If
there are Senators who have amendments, we would like for them to come
to the Chamber and offer them because I think we are about ready to
wrap up. I understand there may be at least two amendments on this side
but we would like to get them considered and disposed of.
It would be very helpful if we could move from this legislation to
the antiterrorism legislation.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield.
Mr. REID. As I announced today on behalf of Senator Daschle, there
are some really important things to do. This bill is extremely
important. The two managers of this bill have been talking about its
importance for 1 week. It seems at least people with amendments could
come and offer them. If they do not, the majority leader and the
minority leader are going to move from this legislation, finish it,
because we have waiting in the wings the very important
antiterrorism legislation which the Attorney General and the President
of the United States and all of us think is vitally important. So
people do not have the luxury of finishing their appointments or
whatever else they are doing. The business of the Senate is proceeding
and we are going to move to third reading.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. If it is agreeable, in
about 20 minutes--it is now 25 after 3--we will move that no further
amendments be considered. That gives Senators 20 minutes to come over
and propose their amendments.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Very good.
Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 1875
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding the amendment of
my good friend from Montana, Senator Burns, has been agreed to on both
sides. It is that amendment to which I want to speak for a few moments
prior to its adoption.
Immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, airline
security suddenly became a national law enforcement priority, shedding
its former status as a routine administrative function of the airlines.
Once this occurred, it became imperative that we enlist the expertise
of our Nation's top law enforcement agencies to prevent further attacks
on America through our aviation system.
Three weeks ago, and before Senators Hollings and McCain introduced
their first comprehensive airline security bill, I also introduced S.
1444, the Federal Air Marshal and Safe Sky Act. My bill had two
important objectives that I felt strongly about. One, to make airport
security a national priority by having Federal standards, Federal
training, and Federal oversight of all airport security functions and,
two, to make airport security a law enforcement responsibility in the
hands of the Attorney General, our Nation's top law enforcement
official.
Since I introduced my bill, which was cosponsored by Senators
Brownback, Gregg, Thurmond, and Helms, we have worked closely with both
the chairman
[[Page S10521]]
and ranking member of the Commerce Committee, as well as Senator Burns
and Senator DeWine, on these important issues. That is why I am proud
to be a cosponsor of Senator Burns' amendment, which would transfer
airport screening and armed personnel to the Department of Justice and
allow the Department of Justice to set standards of training for
Federal air marshals.
For a comprehensive air marshal program to be most effective, we need
to relieve the obligations of airport security from the FAA and the
airlines, where the primary purpose is to facilitate the managed air
travel, and entrust that responsibility to the Department of Justice,
whose primary mission is to enforce Federal law and, most importantly,
to safeguard and protect us from further acts of terrorism.
The Justice Department already has a model in place for Federal
security. That model is our Federal courthouses which are currently
secured by the U.S. marshals who employ court security officers,
commonly referred to as CSOs, to provide security around the perimeter
of the building, at each point of entry, and in the courtrooms
themselves. These court security officers are themselves retired
Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel.
Part of the reason our courthouses enjoy such security today is that
this unified system provides for layers of security far before when one
enters the actual courtroom. Our democracy demands, in the interests of
our national security, that we make sure our airports are every bit as
secure as our courthouses.
Finally, I would add that it is important both substantively and
symbolically for the American people to know that one of our nation's
top law enforcement priorities will now be handled by our nation's top
law enforcement agency.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, for his
leadership and hard work on this amendment. I also thank the chairman
and ranking member for their hard work on this important piece of
legislation and express my enthusiastic support for the Burns amendment
and indicate my pride in being added as a cosponsor. I enjoyed working
with the Senator from Montana on this matter and am glad the amendment
will be accepted. It is an outstanding amendment and will add
substantially to the goal of ensuring we have airports that are as safe
as possible.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. I thank my good friend, the Senator from Kentucky. I also
thank him for his legislation issuing war bonds to pay for this
operation, this antiterrorism effort, and to bring fugitives to justice
and to fulfill this operation.
Since he introduced that legislation--and I was a cosponsor of it--I
have been getting mail from all over the State of Montana wanting to
know where to buy a war bond because they want to participate in the
security of this country. Since September 11, we as a society have
changed a lot of our priorities and agenda.
Mr. McCONNELL. As Senator Burns pointed out, this legislation has now
passed the Senate and was added as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal
appropriations bill. We are optimistic that the conferees will keep
that amendment since it was not in the House version and it could be on
the way, hopefully, for the President's signature downtown. We are
optimistic that the Treasury Department will pick up this device which
gives Americans a great opportunity.
One hears the question, What can I do? As the Senator from Montana
pointed out, this is the answer to that.
Mr. BURNS. It was a great amendment. Americans want to participate.
They want to do their share. Knowing we are in a crisis in this
country, this is a way to help.
The operations we have going on are very expensive. This is a way we
ask Americans to help us get the job done, help this President who has
dedicated himself to getting this job done.
I yield the floor and 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. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. I don't believe there is further debate on the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1875) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. 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. BURNS. I thank the leadership for their courtesy and their staffs
who worked with my staff closely in passing this amendment. It does
enhance the legislation. We hope what we have done gives a bright line
of accountability. I appreciate the leadership of the chairman of the
Commerce Committee, the ranking member, and their staffs.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from Montana for his leadership and
help in enhancing security with respect to airline travel.
Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor.
Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know the manager and the Senator McCain
are working very hard to resolve the final issues on this legislation.
I take the floor again to say thank them for their hard work on this
legislation. It has been a long, tortured trail to get this aviation
security bill to the floor of the Senate; and, second, to begin to
resolve all of the difficulties and hopefully get it passed as quickly
as possible.
I mention one issue that will not hang up the bill for me. I will
strongly support this bill because of the work they have done. The one
issue I talked to both Senator Hollings and Senator McCain about is
something that they have agreed to discuss in conference to see if we
can make some adjustments.
Here is the situation with respect to the enplanement fee of $2.50.
If you are flying in this country from one of the spokes in the system
and fly from the spoke to a hub and to another hub--for example, from
Bismark you go to Minneapolis, get on another plane, fly to Washington,
DC, and then you fly back--you are going to pay four enplanement fees
totaling $10.
The problem with respect to that enplanement fee is one in which if
you start at a spoke in this system and fly to a hub and then to
another hub, which many people do, they are going to always pay $10,
because they will have taken four segments at $2.50 per segment.
Those who live in the big cities that fly to another major city will
pay $5. If you are from a small airport and go to a hub and then
another big city, which most travelers do--I do for every trip to North
Dakota; I fly from here to Minneapolis, and either from there to Minot,
or Grand Forks, or Fargo--for every one of those tickets, my
constituents will always pay four $2.50 enplanement fees. Someone who
lives in Chicago or Minneapolis and flies to Washington, DC will always
pay a $5 fee. They will pay a fee when they leave Chicago, then a fee
when they leave Washington, DC because they do not have to change
planes. They only have two segments, not four. We have a circumstance
where the current fee will double for those who are on the spokes part
of the hub in the spoke system. That is just not fair.
So I visited just in this Chamber today with Senator Hollings and
Senator McCain and described that circumstance. They have agreed to
take a look at that in conference. I understand we cannot modify that
at this moment, but they have said, yes, they understand that
circumstance, and they would be willing to take a look at that in
conference. I appreciate that.
It is just a circumstance where, in one more situation, those at the
end of the line, those in the smaller airports who have to fly to a hub
and then change planes to go someplace are going to end up paying more.
They already pay too much, in my judgment.
[[Page S10522]]
Those who have the satisfaction of flying between pairs of the
largest cities in the country have the wonderful treat of being able to
see multiple carriers competing around price for those seats; and they
get a pretty good deal under deregulation. That has not been the case
for a lot of other consumers.
When we add to the airline tickets some fee to recover the charge for
aviation security, we must do it in a manner that is fair. I submit, as
I have indicated to Senator Hollings and Senator McCain, it is not, in
my judgment, good policy for us to say to all of those who live out on
the end of a spoke in the hub-and-spoke system pay twice as much as
those who live in the hub. That is not something that would make sense,
not something that would be fair to a lot of folks around this country
who fly from the smaller airports.
So let me again say, I wanted to call this to the attention of my
colleagues today. I did today, with a discussion with Senator Hollings
and Senator McCain. They have agreed to take a good look at that in
conference. That is all I can ask at this point.
Let me conclude, as I started, by saying this bill has an urgency to
it. It has been frustrating that it has taken so long to get to the
floor, but it is here. I will take great satisfaction in the work that
my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, has done; my
colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, has done; along with many
others--Senator Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, myself, and so many
others who worked on this bill in the Commerce Committee. Thanks to
their good work, we will pass an aviation security bill now--I hope
today--and get to conference, make the changes necessary, and get this
bill to the President's desk.
This country needs this bill. The airline industry needs it. This
economy needs it. It is much more than just this piece of legislation.
It is about confidence. This economy and this country, and especially
the airline industry at this point, desperately need that cushion of
confidence that a number of steps, including this piece of legislation,
will offer.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Amendment No. 1863
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I now offer the amendment that I spoke
of earlier in the afternoon, which would allow pilots under Part 121--
who are now required to retire at the age of 60--to continue to pilot
commercial airlines until the age of 63.
It is my intention, at the end of my statement, to ask for the yeas
and nays on the amendment. My understanding is that the floor managers
are reviewing the amendment.
If procedure allows, I would like to speak on the amendment at this
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is currently pending.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry; I did not hear the Presiding Officer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is currently pending.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, earlier today I spoke of an amendment that I planned
to offer that would repeal the Federal Aviation Administration's rule
which requires pilots who fly under Part 121 to retire at the age of
60. This is a mandatory retirement.
It is kind of interesting to note that foreign airlines--Lufthansa,
and others--allow pilots to fly beyond age 60; in some cases 65, in
some cases longer.
Under the amendment, pilots in excellent health--and I mean subject
to not just the regular physical exams which they have to undergo now
to fly under age 60--but, as a consequence of extending this to age 63,
would be allowed to continue to pilot commercial airlines. It would
allow the FAA to require those pilots to undergo additional medical and
cognitive testing for certification as well as establish standards for
crew pairings.
I live in Alaska. I fly a great deal. To suggest that suddenly, when
an experienced pilot reaches age 60, he or she is no longer fit to fly,
flies in the face of age discrimination certainly. It flies in the face
of the value that an experienced pilot has.
Some might suggest that this is not germane to aviation safety. Well,
if anything is germane to aviation safety, it is an experienced pilot.
How do you get experience? You get experience in aviation by flying,
you gain experience in what to do during mechanical difficulties, you
gain experience in what to do during weather difficulties. It is
experience, Mr. President. And it is germane to this legislation, which
is airline safety.
I do not want to fly, necessarily, in adverse weather, under IFR
conditions, in an unpressurized aircraft in my State of Alaska without
an experienced pilot.
The former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hale Boggs, and
the Representative for the State of Alaska in the House of
Representatives, Nick Begich, were flying in adverse weather in an
unpressurized aircraft. It was the largest aerial search ever
undertaken. They have never found any remains, any evidence of where
the aircraft crashed.
My point is, experience counts. This particular amendment is germane.
This particular amendment has had a hearing in the Commerce Committee.
The protections that we provide, by requiring commercial airline pilots
to undergo additional medical and cognitive testing for certification
covers the exposure.
As I look around this Chamber, with the exception of a few of our
colleagues who happen to be in the candy drawer right now, virtually
everyone is over 60 years old. Suddenly, at their 60th birthday, are
they no longer fit to represent their constituents? They are certainly
experienced. And this measure is applicable here.
There is an objection from the unions, and I recognize their
objection, but it is a matter of retirement. That is an agreement
between the unions and the airlines. What we are talking about is
airline safety. We are talking about experience. You have a legitimate
complaint about the unions wanting to move these pilots out, to make
room for others.
But what we are doing in this country today is, we are calling our
pilots back to the military because we have a crisis. We need them. For
all practical purposes, we have a pilot shortage in this country.
The European airlines recognize reality. Experience counts.
Experience counts in my State. This measure was subject to a full
Commerce Committee hearing. It was voted out of committee by a majority
in March of this year. We have had numerous studies sponsored by the
FAA. None have ever produced concrete evidence that pilots over 60
years of age are a threat to the flying public. In fact, the studies
have not even included pilots over 60. So where is this coming from?
Experience does count. If you are in good physical condition--you
live longer; you take better care of yourself; you have a better health
provider--what is wrong here? We have age discrimination against pilots
who are 60 years old; you do not let them fly anymore. That is
discrimination of the worst kind. If they can pass a physical, why not?
Advanced psychological and neurobehavioral testing methods do exist
to test pilots of any age. More importantly, we have simulator training
that can estimate the risk of any number of things--such as cardiac
complaints as evidence shows that there is one event in more than 20
million hours of flight time. Sudden flight incapacitation is clearly
less a threat to aviation safety than are mishaps due to inexperienced
pilot error.
Let's go through the list of accidents. We recognize that most
accidents associated with aviation in the area of qualifications under
pilot error are due to inexperienced pilots, not experienced pilots.
That can only come with time and age. That is why it is so important to
recognize that when a pilot becomes 60 years of age, he or she should
not be simply eliminated from commercial aviation.
The European countries recognize this and take experience into
consideration and allow pilots to fly until the age of 65. My amendment
would allow them to fly until age 63.
Medical science has vastly improved since 1959--improvements in
diagnosis, which include early detection, prevention, health awareness,
and diet. All of these factors have increased life expectancy since
1959.
Our airline pilots consistently demonstrate superior task
performances across all age groups when compared to
[[Page S10523]]
age-matched non-pilots. Pilots are subjected to comprehensive medical
examinations every 6 months. In the 42 years since the rule was
promulgated, there has not been any evidence that pilots over age 60
are not fully capable of handling their flight responsibilities.
As an example, pilots who flew in commuter operations were allowed to
fly past the age of 60 until the end of 1999. This practice ended with
the 1995 commuter rule. It mandated that any airline company which
offered scheduled service using aircraft with nine or more seats had to
fly under part 121 operations. However, this rule made special
provisions to allow pilots who were then flying over 60 to continue to
fly for 4 more years as pilots in command and allowed companies to
continue to hire pilots 60 and older for 15 months. There were over 100
pilots over 60 years of age flying at that time. A study of 31
determined that they flew without a single accident or a single
incident.
In 1999, 69 current and former airline captains organized and
underwent extensive medical testing and petitioned the FAA to drop this
antiquated mandatory retirement. They were tested by a panel of
nationally and internationally recognized experts in the field of
aerospace medicine, cardiology, internal medicine, geriatrics, and
neuropsychological medicine. The panel determined that they were all
qualified to perform airline captain and command duties beyond 60. Do
you know what happened? The FAA denied their exemption request.
In supporting documents to their petition, they showed that the FAA
had relaxed its medical requirements to allow pilots to fly with
various medical problems, including hypertension, diabetes, alcoholism,
spinal cord injury, defective vision, liberalized height and weight
restrictions. They allowed that. It was an exemption. They were under
60. But if you were 60 and in good health, you couldn't fly the next
day.
In the area of cardiovascular special issuances, the American Medical
Association applauded the FAA as having demonstrated an understanding
of the advances in diagnostic treatment and rehabilitation. So we have
the American Medical Association applauding the FAA for allowing
exemptions for those under 60, but if you are in perfect health and you
are over 60, you can't fly.
In 1999, the FAA granted medical certificates to 6,072 airline pilots
under the age of 60 who had sufficient medical pathology permitting
them to operate as airline crewmen.
How does the FAA derive its medical consensus that it is safe for
those pilots to continue to fly and not those who have been flying for
41 years without such medical pathology who happen to just arrive at
the age of 60? It is rather interesting. You can go down to the FAA and
see who is flying, who is giving check rides. Most of them are over 60
because they are exempt. Where is the logic in this, if the FAA can
keep its pilots on over 60, have them checked out, then you have a
regulation here that is absolutely inconsistent with reality?
Twenty-five countries belonging to the European Joint Aviation
Authority raised the mandatory retirement age to 65, joining many Asian
countries that increased the age to 63 or 65. I know of no evidence
that those foreign pilots have a worse safety record than pilots under
the age of 60.
The time has come for Congress to repeal the age restriction on
commercial pilots. This is age discrimination. Years of medical and
safety data have failed to support the position that the chronological
age of 60 represents a passenger safety concern. Therefore, as long as
a pilot can pass the rigorous medical exam, he or she should be allowed
to fly.
We must, as a legislative body, eliminate age discrimination against
pilots who can and should be flying our commercial aircraft.
To suggest that somehow this is not germane to this bill flies in the
face of reality. This is an aviation safety bill. What is more basic to
aviation safety than having experience? And how do you get experience?
It comes with age, whether you like it or not.
I think it is time we end this age discrimination once and for all.
We need experience in the cockpit. I know that I appreciate it when I
am flying with a pilot who has seen more than a few thousand hours in
the air as well as simulator time. We value the aspects certainly
associated with life and maturing, but we should not be hypocritical in
how we treat pilots.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and ask for the yeas
and nays on the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, only a month ago, our Nation faced a
terrible tragedy. We learned loud and clear that we need to improve
aviation security and safety, not decrease it, which is what this
amendment would do. At a time that we need to protect the American
public, Congress should not be decreasing safety standards. Even the
FAA opposes this amendment because of safety concerns.
This amendment would eliminate the current rule that commercial pilot
must retire at age 60. It was put into place to help ensure safety in
the air. It should only be changed if research can prove the effects of
aging do not impact a pilot's ability to fly a commercial jet at age
60.
The ``Age 60 Rule'' for retirement of airline pilots was implemented
by the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, based on safety concerns
that medical evidence showed that as a group pilots begin to
demonstrate the affects of aging around age 60.
Here is what the medical evidence of aging shows: there is a
progressive deterioration of physiological and psychological functions
and this increases more rapidly as people age; sudden incapacity from
heart attacks or strokes become more frequent in any group reaching age
60; there is a the loss in ability to perform highly skilled tasks
rapidly; it becomes harder to maintain physical stamina; it is more
difficult to perform effectively in a complex and stressful environment
and to apply experience, judgment and reasoning rapidly in new,
changing and emergency situations; and, there is an increased
difficulty to learn new techniques, skills and procedures.
While it is recognized that such losses generally start well before
age 60, it determined that beyond age 59, the risks associated with
these losses become unacceptable for pilots in airline operations.
Additionally, the Airline Pilots Association, the largest pilot
union, does not support raising the mandatory retirement age. In fact,
they oppose it.
Also, older pilots with seniority fly the largest, highest
performance aircraft that carry the greatest number of passengers with
the longest nonstop flights into the highest density air traffic. These
are concerns as pilots age.
Additionally, a mandatory retirement age is not unique in the airline
field. For example, air traffic controllers have a congressionally
mandated retirement age of 56 years old.
Yes, I am sure that there are a few pilots who can fly past 60. But,
our decision should be made to protect the safety of the American
flying public.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I know the good intentions of the Senator
from Alaska. I have spoken to him on many occasions about this issue.
There likely is a time and place for this amendment. It is not on this
bill.
I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for the
consideration of several amendments that have been agreed to prior to
the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1886
Mr. McCAIN. On behalf of Senators Enzi and Dorgan, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Enzi and Mr.
Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 1886.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
[[Page S10524]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 15, line 2, after the period insert the following:
``The Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with
the appropriate State or local government law enforcement
authorities, shall reexamine the safety requirements for
small community airports to reflect a reasonable level of
threat to those individual small community airports,
including the parking of passenger vehicles within 300 feet
of the airport terminal building with respect to that
airport.''
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1886) was agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 1887 and 1888, En Bloc
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I send two amendments on behalf of
Senator Hutchison of Texas to the desk, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mrs. Hutchison,
proposes amendments numbered 1887 and 1888, en bloc.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
Amendment No. 1887
(Purpose: To apply present law background and fingerprinting
requirements to existing, as well as new, airport employees with access
to security-sensitive areas)
On page 35, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
(e) Background Checks for Existing Employees.--
(1) In general.--Section 44936 of title 49, United States
Code is amended--
(A) by inserting ``is or'' before ``will'' in subsection
(a)(1)(B)(i); and
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
apply with respect to individuals employed on or after the
date of enactment of the Aviation Security Act in a position
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 44936(a)(1)
of title 49, United States Code. The Secretary of
Transportation may provide by order for a phased-in
implementation of the requirements of section 44936 of that
title made applicable to individuals employed in such
positions at airports on the date of enactment of this Act.
____
Amendment No. 1888
(Purpose: To require screening of all airport and airport
concessionaire employees)
On page 18, line 1, strike ``passengers'' and insert
``passengers, individuals with access to secure areas,''.
On page 18, line 10, after the period, insert ``The
Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall
provide for the screening of all persons, including airport,
air carrier, foreign air carrier, and airport concessionaire
employees, before they are allowed into sterile or secure
areas of the airport, as determined by the Secretary.
The screening of airport, air carrier, foreign air carrier,
and airport concessionaire employees, and other nonpassengers
with access to secure areas, shall be conducted in the same
manner as passenger screenings are conducted, except that the
Secretary may authorize alternative screening procedures for
personnel engaged in providing airport or aviation security
at an airport.''.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the first amendment requires background
checks for existing aviation security employees over a time certain.
The other one requires screening of all employees prior to entering the
secure areas.
I want to take a moment to thank Senator Hutchison for her wonderful
work on this bill and on these amendments.
I urge adoption of the amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
Without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
The amendments (Nos. 1887 and 1888) were agreed to, en bloc.
Amendments Nos. 1889 through 1893 and 1873 As Modified, En Bloc
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in
order for me to send to the desk a couple more amendments; that they be
agreed to, en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table,
and that any modifications of the filed amendments be in order with
respect to these amendments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes amendments
en bloc numbered 1889 through 1893 and 1873, as modified.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendments are as follows:
amendment no. 1889
(Purpose: To require the Assistant Administrator for Civil Aviation
Security to establish an employment register)
At the end of the bill, insert the following:
SEC. . USE OF FACILITIES.
(a) Employment Register.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation shall
establish and maintain an employment register.
(b) Training Facility.--The Secretary of Transportation
may, where feasible, use the existing Federal Aviation
Administration's training facilities to design, develop, or
conduct training of security screening personnel.
____
amendment no. 1890
(Purpose: To require a report on any air space restrictions put in
place as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that
remain in place)
Strike the section heading for section 14 and insert the
following:
SEC. 14. REPORT ON NATIONAL AIR SPACE RESTRICTIONS PUT IN
PLACE AFTER TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT REMAIN IN
PLACE.
(a) Report.--Within 30 days of the enactment of this Act,
the President shall submit to the committees of Congress
specified in subsection (b) a report containing--
(1) a description of each restriction, if any, on the use
of national airspace put in place as a result of the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that remains in place
as of the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(2) a justification for such restriction remaining in
place.
(b) Committees of Congress.--The committees of Congress
specified in this subsection are the following:
(1) The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
(2) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives.
(3) The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate.
(4) The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of
the House of Representatives.
SEC. 15. DEFINITIONS.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1891
(Purpose: To facilitate the voluntary provision of emergency services
during commercial air flights)
Strike the section heading for section 14 and insert the
following:
SEC. 14. VOLUNTARY PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DURING
COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS.
(a) Program for Provision of Voluntary Services.--
(1) Program.--The Secretary of Transportation shall carry
out a program to permit qualified law enforcement officers,
firefighters, and emergency medical technicians to provide
emergency services on commercial air flights during
emergencies.
(2) Requirements.--The Secretary shall establish such
requirements for qualifications of providers of voluntary
services under the program under paragraph (1), including
training requirements, as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(3) Confidentiality of registry.--If as part of the program
under paragraph (1) the Secretary requires or permits
registration of law enforcement officers, firefighters, or
emergency medical technicians who are willing to provide
emergency services on commercial flights during emergencies,
the Secretary shall take appropriate actions to ensure that
the registry is available only to appropriate airline
personnel and otherwise remains confidential.
(4) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with
appropriate representatives of the commercial airline
industry, and organizations representing community-based law
enforcement, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians,
in carrying out the program under paragraph (1), including
the actions taken under paragraph (3).
(b) Protection From Liability.--
(1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 449 of title 49,
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the
following new section:
``Sec. 44939. Exemption of volunteers from liability
``(a) In General.--An individual shall not be liable for
damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court
that arises from an act or omission of the individual in
providing or attempting to provide assistance in the case of
an inflight emergency in an aircraft of an air carrier if the
individual meets such qualifications as the Secretary shall
prescribe for purposes of this section.
``(b) Exception.--The exemption under subsection (a) shall
not apply in any case in which an individual provides, or
attempts to provide, assistance described in that paragraph
in a manner that constitutes gross negligence or willful
misconduct.''.
[[Page S10525]]
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the
beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the
following new item:
``44939. Exemption of volunteers from liability.''.
(c) Construction Regarding Possession of Firearms.--Nothing
in this section may be construed to require any modification
of regulations of the Department of Transportation governing
the possession of firearms while in aircraft or air
transportation facilities or to authorize the possession of a
firearm in an aircraft or any such facility not authorized
under those regulations.
SEC. 15. DEFINITIONS.
____
amendment no. 1892
(Purpose: To make minor and technical corrections in the managers'
amendment)
On page 1, in the matter appearing after line 5, strike the
item relating to section 1 and insert the following:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
On page 4, line 23, strike ``hiring and training'' and
insert ``hiring, training, and evaluating''.
On page 8, beginning with line 18, strike through line 20
on page 9 and insert the following:
(a) In General.--As soon as possible after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall--
(1) issue an order (without regard to the provisions of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code)--
(A) prohibiting access to the flight deck of aircraft
engaged in passenger air transportation or intrastate air
transportation except to authorized personnel;
(B) requiring the strengthening of the flight deck door and
locks on any such aircraft operating in air transportation or
intrastate air transportation that has a rigid door in a
bulkhead between the flight deck and the passenger area to
ensure that the door cannot be forced open from the passenger
compartment;
(C) requiring that such flight deck doors remain locked
while any such aircraft is in flight except when necessary to
permit the flight deck crew access and egress; and
(D) prohibiting the possession of a key to any such flight
deck door by any member of the flight crew who is not
assigned to the flight deck; and
(2) take such other action, including modification of
safety and security procedures, as may be necessary to ensure
the safety and security of the aircraft.
On page 10, line 9, insert closing quotation marks after
``(1)'' the second place it appears.
On page 10, line 20, insert opening quotation marks before
``(3)''.
On page 15, line 17, insert a semicolon before the closing
quotation marks.
On page 16, beginning in line 18, strike ``Employment
Investigations and Restrictions.--'' and insert ``Airport
Security Pilot Program.--''.
On page 18, line 9, strike ``an'' and insert ``a''.
On page 18, line 10, strike ``215'' and insert ``2105''.
On page 21, beginning with line 22, strike through line 6
on page 22 and insert the following:
(b) Deputizing of State and Local Law Enforcement
Officers.--Section 512 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century is amended--
(1) by striking ``purpose of'' in subsection (b)(1)(A) and
inserting ``purposes of (i)'';
(2) by striking ``transportation;'' in subsection (b)(1)(A)
and inserting ``transportation, and (ii) regulate the
provisions of security screening services under section
44901(c) of title 49, United States Code;'';
(3) by striking ``not federal responsibility'' in the
heading of subsection (b)(3)(b);
(4) by striking ``shall not be responsible for providing''
in subsection (b)(3)(B) and inserting ``may provide'';
(5) by striking ``flight.'' in subsection (c)(2) and
inserting ``flight and security screening functions under
section 44901(c) of title 49, United States Code.'';
(6) by striking ``General'' in subsection (e) and inserting
``General, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation,''; and
(7) by striking subsection (f).
On page 31, line 20, strike ``(2)Section'' and ``(2)
Section''.
On page 31, after line 25, insert the following:
(3) Section 44936(a)(1)(E) is amended by striking clause
(iv).
On page 32, line 20, insert ``under section 44901 of title
49, United States Code,'' after ``screener''.
On page 32, strike line 23, and insert ``5, United States
Code.''.
On page 33, line 2, insert ``any other'' before
``provision''.
On page 36, line 8, after ``alien'' insert ``or other
individual''.
On page 38, line 25, strike ``Congress'' and insert
``Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure''.
On page 39, line 6, strike ``Congress'' and insert ``Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure''.
On page 41, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
(5) The use of technology that will permit enhanced instant
communications and information between airborne passenger
aircraft and appropriate individuals or facilities on the
ground.
On page 43, line 3, insert ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' before ``the best''.
On page 43, line 9, strike ``to certify'' and insert
``on''.
In amendment No. 1881, on page 1, line 5, insert ``Federal
service for'' after ``of''.
____
AMENDMENT NO. 1893
(Purpose: To require the Assistant Administrator for Civil Aviation
Security to have certain detection technologies in place by September
30, 2002)
At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:
SEC. ____. IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES.
(a) In General.--Not later than September 30, 2002, the
Assistant Administrator for Civil Aviation Security shall
review and make a determination on the feasibility of
implementing technologies described in subsection (b).
(b) Technologies Described.--The technologies described in
this subsection are technologies that are--
(1) designed to protect passengers, aviation employees, air
cargo, airport facilities, and airplanes; and
(2) material specific and able to automatically and non-
intrusively detect, without human interpretation and without
regard to shape or method of concealment, explosives, illegal
narcotics, hazardous chemical agents, and nuclear devices.
____
AMENDMENT No. 1873 as modified
At the appropriate place, insert:
SEC. ____. ENHANCED SECURITY FOR AIRCRAFT.
(a) Security for Larger Aircraft.--
(1) Program required.--Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration shall commence implementation
of a program to provide security screening for all aircraft
operations conducted with respect to any aircraft having a
maximum certified takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds
that is not operating as of the date of the implementation of
the program under security procedures prescribed by the
Administrator.
(2) Waiver.--
(A) Authority to waive.--The Administrator may waive the
applicability of the program under this section with respect
to any aircraft or class of aircraft otherwise described by
this section if the Administrator determines that aircraft
described in this section can be operated safely without the
applicability of the program to such aircraft or class of
aircraft, as the case may be.
(B) Limitations.--A waiver under subparagraph (A) may not
go into effect--
(i) unless approved by the Secretary of Transportation; and
(ii) until 10 days after the date on which notice of the
waiver has been submitted to the appropriate committees of
Congress.
(3) Program elements.--The program under paragraph (1)
shall require the following:
(A) The search of any aircraft covered by the program
before takeoff.
(B) The screening of all crew members, passengers, and
other persons boarding any aircraft covered by the program,
and their property to be brought on board such aircraft,
before boarding.
(4) Procedures for searches and screening.--The
Administrator shall develop procedures for searches and
screenings under the program under paragraph (1). Such
procedures may not be implemented until approved by the
Secretary.
(b) Security for Smaller Aircraft.--
(1) Program required.--Not later than one year after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall
commence implementation of a program to provide security for
all aircraft operations conducted with respect to any
aircraft having a maximum certified takeoff weight of 12,500
pounds or less that is not operating as of the date of the
implementation of the program under security procedures
prescribed by the Administrator. The program shall address
security with respect to crew members, passengers, baggage
handlers, maintenance workers, and other individuals with
access to aircraft covered by the program, and to baggage.
(2) Report on program.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit
to the appropriate committees of Congress a report containing
a proposal for the program to be implemented under paragraph
(1).
(c) Background Checks for Aliens Engaged in Certain
Transactions Regarding Aircraft.--
(1) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law and subject to paragraph (2), no person or entity may
sell, lease, or charter any aircraft to an alien, or any
other individual specified by the Secretary for purposes of
this subsection, within the United States unless the Attorney
General issues a certification of the completion of a
background investigation of the alien, or other individual,
as the case may be, that meets the requirements of section
44939(b) of title 49, United States Code, as added by section
13 of this Act.
(2) Expiration.--The prohibition in paragraph (1) shall
expire as follows:
[[Page S10526]]
(A) In the case of an aircraft having a maximum certified
takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds, upon
implementation of the program required by subsection (a).
(B) In the case of an aircraft having a maximum certified
takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, upon implementation
of the program required by subsection (b).
(3) Alien defined.--In this subsection, the term ``alien''
has the meaning given that term in section 44939(f) of title
49, United States Code, as so added.
(d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(1) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Commerce of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. McCAIN. These amendments have been agreed to on both sides. I
urge their adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed
to en bloc.
The amendments (Nos. 1889 through 1893 and 1873, as modified) were
agreed to en bloc.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to table was agreed to.
Vote on Amendment No. 1863
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to
table the Murkowski amendment No. 1863.
The yeas and nays have been ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 294 Leg.]
YEAS--53
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Cantwell
Carnahan
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Conrad
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Gramm
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCain
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Smith (OR)
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--47
Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Carper
Collins
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BIDEN. I yield to my friend from Alaska for 1 minute without
losing my right to the floor.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I share with Members the transcribed
words of our President from a few moments ago in an open Cabinet
meeting.
He urges the Senate to ``move a bill that will help Americans find
work and also make it easier for all of us around this table to protect
the security of this country. The less dependent we are on foreign
sources of crude oil, the more secure we are at home.
``We spend a lot of time talking about homeland security. An integral
piece of homeland security is energy independence. I ask the Senate to
respond to the call to get an energy bill moving.''
Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I was about to introduce, along with the
Presiding Officer in the chair, the Senator from New York, as well as
about 12 other colleagues, an amendment to this legislation for
security needs for Amtrak. They are at a minimum of $1.8 billion. Just
the six tunnels that go into New York City carry 350,000 people per
day. They are antiquated, built around 1910, and need significant
upgrading to protect the safety and security of the people traveling on
those rails. I could go down the list. I will not, in the interest of
time.
The managers of the bill have made an agreement with me and with the
Presiding Officer and many others to do the following: We will withhold
that amendment on this aviation safety bill. The chair and the ranking
member of the Commerce Committee are going to attempt to mark up an
Amtrak security bill and possibly a port security bill in their
committee as early as next Tuesday. God willing and the creek not
rising, as my grandfather would say, there is a possibility they will
be able to report that to the floor sometime next week. I have spoken
to the leadership on our side and have not had a chance to speak with
the leadership on the Republican side. It is our hope to bring that
bill up and vote on that piece of legislation.
In addition to that, I have had an opportunity to speak with the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee and others who have indicated
there would be an attempt as we deal with the appropriated money for
this legislation we are about to pass, as well as other security needs,
that Amtrak would be considered in that process. I particularly thank
my friend from Arizona who is all for safety but not so much all for
Amtrak. He has been very helpful here and has indicated if we are not
able to get--I ask him to correct me if I am wrong--if for some reason
we are prevented from getting the authorizing legislation up before the
appropriators do their job, he will not object to the appropriators
going forward, notwithstanding his long-held view, as I have as
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, of not wanting the
appropriators to do the work of the authorization committee.
I ask my friend, is that basically correct?
Mr. McCAIN. No.
The Senator from Delaware is correct, but I would like to emphasize
that we do have a safety and security problem with the railway system
in America. It isn't just Amtrak; it is railway, railroad stations, it
is railway centers and hubs all over America. So we need to take care
of security and safety requirements so that people can ride on
railroads just as we are attempting with this aviation legislation so
that people can ride on airplanes in safety and security.
Yes, I am sorry to say, the Senator from Delaware is correct. I would
support an appropriation for safety and security, but I certainly
would, as usually has been my custom, resist the appropriations that
would have to do with other matters, including additional track, rail,
salary, pay, union, and almost anything that can ever be imagined is
usually proposed on one of these bills.
I thank the Senator. I thank my dear friend from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. I think it is more appropriate to refer to this as rail
safety. To give an example, the 350,000 people who go through the
tunnels are not all on Amtrak trains. They are on the Long Island
Railroad, they are on the New Jersey transit, using the Baltimore
tunnel, for example, the Maryland transit, et cetera. It is rail
safety. It is not just Amtrak. But Amtrak is responsible for the rail
safety provisions of that. That is the reason I refer to it as Amtrak.
I thank Members on behalf of my 11 other colleagues. I see my
colleague from Delaware, a former board member of Amtrak. I am
delighted to yield to him for a few moments if he would like to make
comments on why we are not moving forward.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I thank the senior Senator for yielding.
To Senator Biden, to Senator McCain, to Senator Hollings, and others
who have been part of getting us to this rather extraordinary
compromise and position to go forward on the authorizing track and on
the appropriations track as well: Well done.
[[Page S10527]]
Mario Cuomo, when he was Governor of New York, would talk about
campaigning and governing. He used to say:
We campaign in poetry, we govern in prose.
Here in the Senate, here in Congress, we authorize in poetry, but we
appropriate in prose.
As important as this authorization is, and it is important that we
get the authorization for work on the tunnels, for work on having more
security onboard our trains and in our stations, and I think some help
in refurbishing some of the older rolling stock, locomotives and cars
that are needed to carry the extra people who are riding the trains
now, as important as the authorizing is, the appropriations is where
the rubber hits the road.
I pledge to work with Senator Biden and Senator Hollings and Senator
McCain and Senator Hutchison and others to make sure we get the work
done, not just on the poetry side but the hard work on the prose side
as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me affirm the exchange between the
distinguished Senator from Delaware and our ranking member, the Senator
from Arizona. The fact is, a railroad infrastructure enhancement bill
was introduced today, with some 10 cosponsors. The reason I mention
that is because we have been working long before September 11 on that
need of the Nation.
With respect to stimulus, there is no better stimulus than
construction, and there is no more needed construction than to
refurbish the Amtrak line itself. Extend that: America needs high-speed
rail.
Of course my distinguished colleague from Arizona, our ranking
member, is disposed at the moment only for safety. We will call up the
bill and we will mark up what we can, facilitate, if necessary, and try
to separate perhaps a bill. But I hope to move next week in committee
on this matter, as was indicated in our previous conversations, on
Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock when we can get a quorum and mark that
bill up and report authorization out here so we will not be confronted
later on with obstacles. I think long before any passage of an
authorization bill we are going to be hitting appropriations on the
stimulus bill or some other bill because we need to immediately take
care of safety and rail transportation.
The frustration of both Senators from Delaware is well understood.
When we adjourned last year, we had everybody running around--
Republican, Democrat, leader and plebeians like myself--saying: Oh, the
first thing we are going to do next year, the first thing we are going
to do is take up Amtrak. It is now October.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. I hope my distinguished friend and colleague from South
Carolina did not include me in that group.
Mr. HOLLINGS. No.
Mr. McCAIN. I again thank the Senator from Delaware. I believe we can
mark up a bill on Tuesday with the chairman's leadership. I think we
also need to address seaport security as well. I believe seaport
security is a very serious issue as well as rail security. I hope we
will understand those are priority items that need to be addressed.
Senator Hollings is far more knowledgeable than I am. But some of the
information we have about the amount of cargo, the amount of shipping,
the people and trafficking that goes in and out of the seaports in
America is also a very important issue that we need to address.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the Senator's leadership and support.
Arizona obviously doesn't have very many seaports. But Senator Graham
of Florida and myself have been on this issue for at least 2 years. We
have had all kinds of hearings long before September 11, and we have
produced a seaport security bill that we have been trying to fashion
because it is a many-splendored thing. You have to get the entities,
namely the Port Authorities, to connect with the Customs, Drug
Enforcement Administration, the Coast Guard, and the captain of the
port, who really has legal authority and responsibility. We have to get
them all working together rather than just moving, moving, moving cargo
but actually having as a primary concern, safety and security.
We will be moving that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. BIDEN. I will just take another second. I note the Senator from
South Carolina said the distinguished Senator from Arizona doesn't have
a port.
I am reminded when I first got here as a young Senator, I went to
Senator Eastland, who I served under on the Judiciary Committee.
Sitting in his office one day, as I often did, with Senator Thurmond,
asking him anything a young kid, a 30-year-old Senator would ask, I
asked: Who is the most powerful man you ever served with?
He said: Senator Kerr.
I said: Senator Kerr, Senator Kerr of Oklahoma?
He said: Yeah--in his southern drawl which I will not attempt to
imitate on the floor as I often do off the floor.
He said: Who in the heck else could bring up the Gulf of Mexico in
the middle of his State if he wasn't powerful?
I think, as the Senator's power continues to increase, he may bring
the Pacific Ocean to Arizona, but I am not sure how he will do it.
Mr. McCAIN. The most entertaining man I ever knew was Morris Udall,
who often was heard saying: We in Arizona eagerly await the next
earthquake so Arizona would be a coastal State.
That is not as amusing as it was once, since there was one out there.
But perhaps the Port of Yuma will still be a place the Senator from
Delaware can help us with.
In case our colleagues are wondering what we are doing, we are hoping
to resolve one remaining issue before final passage. Negotiations are
going on as we speak so we would be able to move to final passage. We
hope within minutes that we will have that issue resolved.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Amendment No. 1894
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Vermont,
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I send an amendment to the
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr.
Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 1894.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To amend title 49, United States Code)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. . REPORT.
Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Attorney General shall report to the House Committee
on the Judiciary, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on
the new responsibilities of the Department of Justice for
aviation security under this Act.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it has been cleared on both sides. This
is just to conform the Burns amendment relative to the Department of
Justice having certain authorities. This is to conform, then to report
back to the Judiciary Committees of both Houses.
I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1894) was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Amendment No. 1895
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the
distinguished Senator, Mr. McCain, I send an amendment to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for himself
and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1895.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
[[Page S10528]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 1, in the matter appearing after line 5, strike the
item relating to section 1 and insert the following:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
On page 4, line 23, strike ``hiring and training'' and
insert ``hiring, training, and evaluating''.
On page 8, beginning with line 18, strike through line 20
on page 9 and insert the following:
(a) In General.--As soon as possible after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall--
(1) issue an order (without regard to the provisions of
chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code)--
(A) prohibiting access to the flight deck of aircraft
engaged in passenger air transportation or intrastate air
transportation except to authorized personnel;
(B) requiring the strengthening of the flight deck door and
locks on any such aircraft operating in air transportation or
intrastate air transportation that has a rigid door in a
bulkhead between the flight deck and the passenger area to
ensure that the door cannot be forced open from the passenger
compartment;
(C) requiring that such flight deck doors remain locked
while any such aircraft is in flight except when necessary to
permit the flight deck crew access and egress; and
(D) prohibiting the possession of a key to any such flight
deck door by any member of the flight crew who is not
assigned to the flight deck; and
(2) take such other action, including modification of
safety and security procedures, as may be necessary to ensure
the safety and security of the aircraft.
On page 10, line 9, insert closing quotation marks after
``(1)'' the second place it appears.
On page 10, line 20, insert opening quotation marks before
``(3)'',
On page 15, line 17, insert a semicolon before the closing
quotation marks.
On page 16, beginning in line 18, strike ``Employment
Investigations and Restrictions.--'' and insert ``Airport
Security Pilot Program.--''.
On page 18, line 9, strike ``an'' and insert ``a''.
On page 18, line 10, strike ``215'' and insert ``2105''.
On page 21, beginning with line 22, strike through line 6
on page 22 and insert the following:
(b) Deputizing of State and Local Law Enforcement
Officers.--Section 512 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century is amended--
(1) by striking ``purpose of'' in subsection (b)(1)(A) and
inserting ``purpose of (i)'';
(2) by striking ``transportation;'' in subsection (b)(1)(A)
and inserting ``transportation, and (ii) regulate the
provisions of security screening services under section
44901(c) of title 49, United States Code;'';
(3) by striking ``not federal responsibility'' in the
heading of subsection (b)(3)(b);
(4) by striking ``shall not be responsible for providing''
in subsection (b)(3)(B) and inserting ``may provide'';
(5) by striking ``flight.'' in subsection (c)(2) and
inserting ``flight and security screening functions under
section 44901(c) of title 49, United States Code.'';
(6) by striking ``General'' in subsection (e) and inserting
``General, in consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation,''; and
(7) by striking subsection (f).
On page 31, after line 25, insert the following:
(3) Section 44936(a)(1)(E) is amended by striking clause
(iv).
On page 32, line 20, insert ``under section 44901 of title
49, United States Code,'' after ``screener''.
On page 32, strike line 23, and insert ``5, United States
Code.''.
On page 33, line 2, insert ``any other'' before
``provision''.
On page 36, line 8, after ``alien'' insert ``or other
individual''.
On page 38, line 25, strike ``Congress'' and insert
``Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure''.
On page 39, line 6, strike ``Congress'' and insert ``Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the
House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure''.
On page 41, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
(5) the use of technology that will permit enhanced instant
communications and information between airborne passenger
aircraft and appropriate individuals or facilities on the
ground.
On page 43, line 3, insert ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' before ``the best''.
On page 43, line 9, strike ``to certify'' and insert
``on''.
In amendment no. 1881, on page 1, line 5, insert ``Federal
service for'' after ``of''.
Mr. HOLLINGS. This amendment is a technical amendment, a final
wrapup, change of the ands and ifs and buts and what have you. It has
nothing to do with the substance but to conform various technicalities
in the other amendments that we agreed upon in the course of
consideration of this particular bill.
I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1895) was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following
disposition of the Warner amendment no further amendments be
considered, and that we go to third reading and final passage.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have to object. I know how hard the
Senator worked on this, but I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on this bill now
before the Senate, that there be three amendments in order, one by the
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and two by the Senator from Vermont,
Mr. Jeffords, and that no other amendments be in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. McCAIN. And that then the Senate will move to third reading and
final passage.
Mr. REID. Yes. That goes without saying, Mr. President. As soon as we
finish these, we move to third reading and final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Virginia.
Amendment No. 1896
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself and Senator Allen and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr.
Allen, proposes an amendment numbered 1896.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide payment for losses incurred by the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority and businesses at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport for limitations on the use of the airport
after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. ____. PAYMENT FOR LOSSES RESULTING FROM LIMITATIONS ON
USE OF RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL
AIRPORT FOLLOWING TERRORIST ATTACKS.
(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available
immediately by the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on
the United States (Public Law 107-38) that are available for
obligation, $65,648,183 shall be available to the Secretary
of Transportation for payment to the Metropolitan Washington
Airports Authority (MWAA) and concessionaires at Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport for losses resulting from
the closure, and subsequent limitations on use, of the
airport following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
and subsequent reopening of other United States airports
after September 13, 2001.
(b) Allocation of Funds.--The amount available under
subsection (a) shall be allocated as follows:
[[Page S10529]]
(1) $37,816,093 shall be available for payment for losses
of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority that
occurred as a result of the closure of Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport after September 13, 2001.
(2) $27,832,090 shall be available for payment for losses
of concessionaires at Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport that occurred as a result of the closure of Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport after September 13, 2001.
(c) Application.--A concessionaire at Ronald Reagan
Washington National Airport seeking payment under this
section for losses described in subsection (a) shall submit
to the Secretary an application for payment in such form and
containing such information as the Secretary shall require.
The application shall, at a minimum, substantiate the losses
incurred by the concessionaire described in subsection (a).
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my colleague from the State of Virginia
and I do this on behalf of the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority. It is all very clear to each and every one of us in the
Senate that for reasons which are justifiable--because of security
considerations--this airport had to be closed the longest of all. As a
consequence, the Airports Authority has an extensive financial package
that has been in place for several years. The ability to gain revenue
to service that package has been taken away from it.
We have a number of small businesses and others associated with
conducting, in the physical plant, the airport itself, their business
activities; they have suffered just irreparable injury. We all know
that. And we all want to help. There are various ways by which this can
be done.
I am prepared to hear from the distinguished manager, who I believe
will be speaking on behalf of the leadership, about how this serious
financial situation at this particular airport--mind you, all other
airports were able to open shortly afterwards. I am not quarreling at
all with the justification for closing it, but this one remained
closed, and also it is functioning at somewhere between 15 and 25
percent of flight capacity as of now. The projections are, as we go to
additional phases, that capacity will be increased, but we have no
assurance at what point we reach 50 percent, 60 percent, and are able
to gain the revenue to service the necessary financial requirements.
So if I might, for the moment, yield the floor in hopes that the
managers, who have been very helpful to me and to others on this
question, will address this issue. I would be happy to consider that
before proceeding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia, I
appreciate his cooperation on this issue, particularly his appreciation
of the fact that this is an airport/airline security bill, and the
issue, as compelling as it is, that the Senator from Virginia raises is
related to the compensation--well-deserved compensation--of the people
who live and work at National Airport and who, because of an order of
the Federal Government, have been deeply harmed economically and,
unfortunately, in other ways as well.
So I appreciate the sensitivity of the Senator from Virginia to the
parameters of this bill. The distinguished chairman and I have had to
turn back a number of amendments because they were not related--
liability, and a number of others--to airport security.
But that does not change the fact that there is still a compelling
problem out there. It is an issue that must be addressed. I believe the
stimulus package is a place where it would be very appropriate. I do
not think anyone who is aware of what happened at National Airport--a
3-week shutdown by direct order of the Federal Government--does not
realize that we have some responsibility. The size of that
responsibility, and how, I think can be the subject of negotiations and
discussion with the administration, the Finance Committee, members of
the Appropriations Committee, et cetera.
But I do not know of a Member of this body who isn't totally
sympathetic and appreciative of the leadership of the Senator from
Virginia--in fact, both Senators from Virginia--in their commitment on
this issue. Since this has happened, I know both Senators have made it
their highest priority to address this issue, so that these people who
are innocent--innocent of any wrongdoing, and are victims in a very
real way of a terrorist attack on America, and who need to receive
compensation--receive compensation and help.
I am very grateful for your leadership, as I am sure the people in
the northern part of Virginia are very appreciative of the Senators'
efforts.
So I would like to join with all of my colleagues in saying we want
to help, we want to assist, and we think there are ways that must be
implemented--not later, but sooner rather than later--to address this
compelling problem.
I thank the Senator from Virginia and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from
Virginia will yield, not only as chairman of the Commerce Committee but
also as a former member of the Metropolitan Washington Airports
Authority, I was vitally interested in the whys and wherefores of
holding back Reagan National Airport.
We had the Secretary of Transportation 2 days after this particular
tragic event. We were allowing, say, Dulles, and other airports, to
function. There was no reason, once we secured the cockpit--I realize
you had the general security problems--but once you secured that
cockpit--and Boeing said they could retrofit immediately sufficient
planes to be landing and taking off at Reagan National--that we at
least ought to start back the shuttles to New York and then on to
Boston.
So I have been down the path of the Senator from Virginia on this
particular score. I endorse his idea 100 percent. It is just that kind
of situation on airport security. As you know, the junior Senator, Mr.
Allen, has been vitally interested in it. He is a member of our
committee. He and I have been working on this particular bill, moving
as much as we possibly can.
So in any way I can possibly promise you that you will have my
support on the amounts, and everything else of that kind, I would be
glad to help.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, those are very reassuring comments from my
two long-time friends and associates here in the Senate, colleagues I
trust and colleagues who, when they make commitments, follow through.
Given that, and the fact that you have entertained the petitions of
other Senators with respect to facilities in their States----
Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
Mr. WARNER. And that there has been a uniform practice here between
the chairman and the distinguished ranking member as to how to deal
with those amendments, I am prepared, at this time, to withdraw the
amendment, with those assurances that at the stimulus package juncture,
this body will study that.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Very definitely we will be supporting that on the
stimulus package, or some other bill that comes up that is appropriate
and germane.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
Amendment No. 1896 Withdrawn
Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the
amendment be withdrawn.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
The Senator from Arizona.
Amendment No. 1897
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe we have one Jeffords amendment
to which we have agreed. I send it to the desk and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Jeffords,
proposes an amendment numbered 1897.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To give retired pilots the same preference as law enforcement
officers to be air marshals)
In amendment No. 1858, on page 1, line 8, insert ``or an
individual discharged or furloughed from commercial airline
cockpit crew position'' after ``age,''.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment is going to give pilots the
same preference as law enforcement officers to be air marshals. I think
it is
[[Page S10530]]
a good amendment. I think many of our pilots, including those who are
required to retire at age 60, would make excellent air marshals. This
amendment would give them the same preference as law enforcements
officers. I think it is a good amendment.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we support the amendment on this side.
It has been cleared. I urge its adoption.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 1897) was agreed to.
Mr. McCAIN. 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.
AIR MARSHALS FUNDING
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am concerned that the $2.50 user fee
in this bill is not sufficient to provide all of the air marshals we
need. The $2.50 user fee would only provide between $1.3 billion and
$1.7 billion annually, in my opinion, enough to fund Federal security
screeners at our airports, but not enough to provide additional air
marshals.
Today, I intended to offer an amendment to give the Secretary of
Transportation discretion to raise this fee to $5, which would raise
over $3 billion annually to devote to aviation safety.
To ensure that the bill on the Floor passes quickly and we provide
increased aviation security as soon as possible, I have decided not to
proceed with my amendment. I still believe, however, that people are
willing to pay more to feel safe on airplanes and the more air marshals
we have, the better.
I want to thank the Members of the Commerce Committee for their hard
work on this bill, and especially the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the Committee, Senator Hollings and Senator McCain.
Mr. McCAIN. Thank you Senator Feinstein. I too am concerned about
airline safety and want to be sure we have provided enough funding for
marshals. The Senator from California has my full assurance that if
more air marshals are needed, I will support providing more funding to
the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation
Administration to accomplish that goal.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I too am in agreement with the Senator from Arizona and
stand with him in support of funding the needed air marshal program.
airlines honoring airline tickets
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, because of the events of September 11, tens
of thousands of airline passengers who bought airline tickets before
and after that date will find that the flight they wanted is
unavailable. How do these ticket holders get another flight or get
their money back?
If they paid cash for their tickets, then, they are out of luck if
the airline goes bankrupt. There is no guarantee that another airline
will honor the ticket.
If they bought their ticket using a credit card, then as I understand
it, Federal law protects them, but at a tremendous cost to those few
banks who process airline tickets. The ticket holder has the right
under Federal law, the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, to seek a
refund from their credit card issuing bank. If the airline is unable to
cover such charge-backs, the loss is borne by the acquiring or
processing bank. The burden on the banking system as a result of the
events of September 11, and the requirements of Regulation Z, is not
small. About $5 billion of advanced ticket sales by credit card exist
at any given time. I doubt that anyone anticipated that Regulation Z
would be used in this manner after an act of war shut down the entire
air transportation system and caused the failure of perhaps several
airlines.
There is a simple and equitable way to protect these passengers who
paid cash and have no recourse. It can also relieve some of the burden
that the law puts on a very few banks. I have a letter from Consumers
Union that proposes the solution. It says, ``Consumers Union believes
that carriers that receive federal funds under H.R. 2926 should be
obligated to honor the tickets of other carriers, where due to service
changes or discontinuation, the issuing carrier is unable to provide
the contracted service.''
In short, if an airline has empty seats, then let the passengers who
would otherwise be denied service use those seats.
I intended to offer an amendment to this effect. Instead, I would ask
the distinguished floor manager a question. Does he agree that in light
of the aid this Congress has provided to the airlines, it is not too
much to ask them to honor, to the extent practicable, the tickets of
other carriers that are unable to provide the contracted service?
Mr. HOLLINGS. I think that is entirely reasonable. This could be done
by regulation or even by an explicit gentleman's agreement from the
airlines. I do not think it is too much to ask.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Administration has
taken the first step toward an important safety initiative by limiting
carry-on bags to one bag plus one personal item such as a purse or a
briefcase.
In this context, I would like to mention a special issue that has
arisen concerning the safety procedures we promulgate, and the impact
they might have on the practice of many musicians and musical artists
carrying their instruments with them. I know that many of us have heard
from the American Federation of Musicians, ASCAP, the Music Educators
National Conference, the National Association of Music Education, and
the Recording Industry Association of America, among others, about this
issue. These organizations have expressed concerns, in light of recent
security enhancements, about the ability of their members to continue
carrying musical instruments aboard airplanes.
Rules promulgated by the Federal Government or by air carriers that
would prohibit musicians from traveling with instruments in-cabin
would, among other things, severely limit the ability of orchestras to
present guest artists, audition musicians, and tour within the United
States and internationally, and put at risk valuable, historical
musical instruments. Limitations on carry-on bags should not put an
undue burden on musicians, consistent with the requirements of safety.
I am certain we can make it clear to those charged with the detailed
administration of air safety policies that there is obviously a rule of
reason and practicality to be observed.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Senators Hollings
and McCain for this much awaited, much needed piece of legislation and
to urge my colleagues to help pass it.
It is critical to our Nation's economy that we restore the flying
public's confidence in the safety of the aviation system. We need to
get more planes in the air and we need to make sure they are full.
Legislation that improves and expands security at our airports and on
planes is essential to getting citizens back in the air.
While it is safer to fly today than it ever has been before, this
package, which improves our Nation's aviation security, shows that the
Senate is making an aggressive and firm commitment to America's
aviation security and America's economy.
Two weeks ago I was on a flight from Montana back to Washington. By
chance, I sat next to a gentleman who I appointed to the Air Force
Academy in Colorado Springs 20 years ago. He was an F-16 fighter pilot.
And is now a commercial airline pilot.
In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, he had a bunch of
ideas to increase security on airplanes and airports. I asked him to
write his ideas down. He found a scrap of paper and jotted them down.
This is the paper he gave me. I am so pleased to see many of his ideas
in S. 1447.
From Federal marshals on domestic flights to protecting our pilots in
the cockpit. From vastly improving airport security measures to better
screening of airport employees, this legislation takes a giant step
forward in securing our flying public.
And securing our flying public is a giant step closer to securing our
economy.
I would like to specifically address three items in the bill that I
believe are of vital importance:
First, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I am pleased to say that
there is no ticket tax levied on airline passengers. I don't believe
that this is the time to raise taxes. In my State of
[[Page S10531]]
Montana, people believe they pay enough to fly around the country.
Since we are relieving the airlines of their security responsibilities,
it makes perfect sense that the $2.50 per passenger user fee be
assessed to the airlines, not the passengers.
Second, I am pleased to see a temporary expansion of the Airport
Improvement Program and Passenger Facility Charge funds for use on
security operations. This flexibility will surely help defray some of
the costs for smaller airports.
I have been hearing from many airports back home. They are desperate
for financial relief. These small, rural airports are faced with
significant increased costs in order to comply with new FAA security
standards. These new costs alone would be enough to tap their already
paltry resources. However, like all airports around the country they
are also facing declining revenues including landing fees, parking lot
fees, car rental fees, bars and restaurants and gift shop fees. We need
to help them, just like we helped the airlines.
I enthusiastically supported the airline relief package Congress
passed 2 weeks ago. We needed to assist the airlines for the good of
our traveling public and the good of our economy.
But relief to the airlines won't do anyone any good, if they don't
have airports to land in. We are in danger of many of our airports
closing their doors and their gates and their runways because they are
out of money.
The flexibility provided in this bill will make a real dent in the
airport's economic situation.
Third, I am also pleased to see a reimbursement program for these
airports for completed security-related projects. This program, along
with the AIP/PFC flexibility are extremely helpful, but are only a
temporary life preserver for the airports. Discussions need to continue
about how we can really save them from drowning.
I would like to close by once again commending the work done on this
bill by both staff and Senators and to urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of S. 1447. The public needs it and our economy needs it. Folks
at home will thank you for it.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation
before the Senate which is designed to overhaul aviation security in
this Nation.
This is an issue of vital national importance during these dark days
in America's history, and as a member of the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I believe it is critical that we
pass the strongest possible enhancements to our existing system and do
so as soon as possible.
The fact of the matter is, the images of the unspeakable horrors of
September 11, 2001, will be etched in our minds forever. When the
``devil incarnate'' hit the United States, he attacked not only
America, but freedom-loving nations everywhere. We are going to need
the resources of the United States coupled with the cooperation of our
global neighbors in order to wage this fight against terrorism. For it
is a fight we must win, and will win.
But there should be no mistake, victory will not come overnight. We
are here today debating this bill because, as we mourn the tremendous
loss of life both of those in the air and on the ground, we also know
that our transportation system must endure and must be secure if we are
to move the Nation forward.
We must leave no stone unturned in the effort to preserve this
Nation's transportation infrastructure, so that we might both carry on
the business of the Nation and ensure our continued economic viability,
and also ensure that we are in a position of strength to be able to
wage the kind of war necessary to eradicate terrorism. And, we cannot
remain strong if we cannot remain mobile.
Specifically, we are here today to improve our aviation security
infrastructure and policies, to instill the kind of confidence that is
vital to the health of our country's commercial airline industry.
Clearly, our way of life, our freedom to travel and do so with
relatively minimal encroachment, was used against us in the most
horrific way imaginable. And it is vital that we take the necessary
steps now to prevent such catastrophes from recurring.
The debate on this legislation is so critical because aviation
security will only be addressed with a comprehensive, exhaustive
approach that recognizes we are dealing with interlocking rings of
issues, from perimeter security to on-site airport security to on-board
aircraft security to a range of other issues, and that the entire
aviation security system is only as strong as the weakest ring.
That is why I have cosponsored Senator Hollings's comprehensive
legislation to improve aviation security. This bipartisan legislation
takes critical steps to safeguard the security of our airports and
aircraft. It includes provisions to strengthen cockpit doors, increase
the number of sky marshals, which is a critical issue also addressed in
Senator Hutchison's bill, S. 1421, of which I am a cosponsor, to
increase the number of sky marshals, federalize security, and improve
training and testing for screening personnel.
Federalizing security, in particular, is an issue I feel very
strongly about. The fact of the matter is, if the flying public does
not have confidence in airport security, they will remain reluctant to
fly, and this will have severe long-term repercussions in the aviation
sector and in our economy. Imposing stringent Federal control and
oversight over airport security will go a long way to helping instill
confidence in the flying public, and will enable the government to
exercise much greater control over the quality of screening.
This is a problem that was identified long ago. In September 1996,
the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security recommended
that FAA was, in fact, poised, at the time of the terrorist attacks, to
issue a final rule, as directed by Congress last year in the Airport
Security Improvement Act of 2000, establishing training requirements
for screeners and requiring screening companies to be certified.
And in its January 18, 2001, Top DOT Management Challenges Report,
the Department of Transportation Inspector General noted that, to close
this critical gap in security, the Government ``. . . needs to have a
means to measure screener performance, and methods of providing initial
and recurrent screener training as well as ensuring that the screeners
maintain their proficiency through actual experience with the machines
in the airport environment.'' The IG also concluded that the ``. . .
FAA must complete deployment of equipment that will help in the testing
and training of screeners.''
Quite frankly, I am not convinced that we can ever have full
confidence in our airport security without stringent Federal controls,
which is why it is vital we resolve the issue of federalization once
and for all.
In addition to addressing the issue of airport security, the Hollings
legislation:
Establishes a Deputy Administrator within the U.S. DOT for
Transportation Security,
Establishes an Aviation Security Council, comprised of
representatives from FAA, DOJ, DOD, and the CIA to coordinate national
security, intelligence, and aviation security information and make
recommendations;
Stipulates hijack training for flight crews;
Requires background checks on students at flight schools; and
Increases perimeter security.
I would note I am particularly pleased that the legislation before us
includes my amendment directing a new Deputy Secretary for
Transportation Security within U.S. DOT, which is established in the
underlying bill, to focus on the critical mission of better
coordinating all modes of transportation nationwide during a national
emergency, such as the tragic events that unfolded on September 11. And
I thank Senators Hollings and McCain, in particular, for working with
me and for their support on this important issue.
I am also very pleased that the Hollings bill addresses the issue of
background checks on students at flight schools. On September 21, I
introduced legislation, S. 1455, to regulate the training of aliens to
operate certain aircraft. Under S. 1455, background checks would be
required before any alien would be permitted to receive jet flight
training.
I also commend the President for his leadership. The President's
proposal addresses many of the same core
[[Page S10532]]
issues. His air travel security plan would expand the sky marshal
program. It urges Governors to deploy the National Guard at Federal
expense at all commercial airports. It would provide oversight and
control of airport screening by the Federal Government. And it would
provide $500 million to help airlines fortify cockpit doors, install
surveillance cameras and install aircraft tracking devices that cannot
be turned off.
Under the President's plan, contractors would continue to perform
screening. The Federal Government would set standards, supervise
operations, conduct background checks and training, purchase and
maintain equipment, and oversee airport access control.
I believe the administration's proposal would be a major step in the
right direction. And I understand that some have concerns that
federalizing the screener workforce could make it difficult to remove
employees who are not performing their important duties.
It is my hope and my expectation that we will find common ground on
this point while coming together to ensure that Americans have complete
confidence in the men and women who form the last line of defense when
it comes to preventing weapons from getting on our aircraft. And I am
very pleased that S. 1447 includes provisions to exert federal control
over security screening once and for all.
One way or the other, this issue must be worked out so there is no
doubt about the quality of this critical workforce, this has got to
happen if we are to restore the American public's confidence in flying
and, by extension, the health of America's commercial airline industry.
At the end of the day, we must have a screening system with stringent
Federal controls and oversight, so that the government will control
hiring standards, compensation, training, and re-training. We need a
reliable, professional force of screeners.
We must move heaven and earth to make flying safe. That is our
mission here today. One national poll, CNN/USA Today/Gallup, found that
43 percent of Americans are less willing to fly, with the majority of
their concerns centering on the adequacy of airport security. They are
also willing to sacrifice convenience for safety, with the same poll
finding widespread support for new measures, even if it means checking
in two to three hours before a flight, or paying more to cover the
increased security costs.
The failure to correct the existing deficiencies in the aviation
security system has already cost us dearly, and we no longer have the
luxury to postpone action. Accordingly, we must pass this bill now.
It is critical that we come together, as we did on a resolution
supporting the use of force to combat terrorism, as we did on
legislation providing emergency funding for the recovery and relief
effort after the tragic attacks of September 11, as we did on a
financial relief package for the airline industry, and pass legislation
promptly to address the gaps in aviation security and restore the
confidence of the American people in our aviation system.
____________________