[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 136 (Thursday, October 11, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10533-S10536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

[[Page S10533]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Senate

                    AVIATION SECURITY ACT--Continued

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few comments and 
observations about the September 11 attacks and about some of the 
aviation security issues facing the Senate in the pending legislation.
  To put these issues in perspective, I'd like to recall the 
extraordinary actions of the passengers on United Flight 93 on 
September 11, the ill-fated flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. In the 
ultimate act of self-sacrifice and heroism, a group of passengers 
rushed the cockpit and thwarted the terrorists aboard that flight from 
inflicting additional damage and loss on this great Nation.
  Without doubt, those fathers, mothers, husbands, and wives, patriots 
one and all, saved the lives of hundreds of Americans wherever that 
aircraft was targeted. They understood what was happening, that they 
would probably never again see their loved ones, but they acted 
heroically and, in sacrificing their own lives and dreams, probably 
saved the lives of hundreds of their fellow citizens.
  This Nation, and perhaps this Congress on an even more personal 
level, owes them a debt of honor and gratitude that is hard to 
articulate.
  They deserve our recognition and our commitment that we will meet, 
address, and repel the threat that forced them to pay so great a price.
  They were among the many Americans in New York, Virginia, 
Pennsylvania, and around the Nation who acted courageously during and 
in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on September 11. They brought 
honor to all who love this country and what it represents, they are 
what America is all about.
  These were not warriors or law enforcement officials. You might say 
that they were neighbors, members of parishes, or people we might meet 
in our grocery stores. They were just ``average'' Americans. And the 
world should wonder and our enemies should tremble at their mettle.
  As devastating as the heinous act of September 11 was, and as 
incalculable as the pain, disruption, and loss inflicted upon the 
victims at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and onboard the four 
hijacked United and American flights was, America and our very way of 
life we cherish will endure.
  No one can make right the loss that the families, the coworkers, the 
friends and loved ones of the victims suffered because of these 
despicable acts. I know that all of us here in the Senate and across 
this great Nation continue to reflect and pray every day for the 
aggrieved and the fallen.
  We must take every step to assure the Nation that this tragedy cannot 
be repeated. That is a tall order. I commend to your attention the 
comments made by the pilot of United Flight 564 on Saturday, September 
15 to the passengers aboard that flight after the door closed and as 
they prepared to depart from Denver International Airport. He is 
reported to have said:

       I want to thank you brave folks for coming out today. We 
     don't have any new instructions from the Federal government, 
     so from now on we're on our own.

  He continued:

       Sometimes a potential hijacker will announce that he has a 
     bomb. There are no bombs on this aircraft and if someone were 
     to get up and make that claim, don't believe him.
       If someone were to stand up, brandish something such as a 
     plastic knife and say ``This is a hijacking'' or words to 
     that effect, here is what you should do: Every one of you 
     should stand up and immediately throw things at that person, 
     pillows, books, magazines, eyeglasses, shoes, anything that 
     will throw him off balance and distract his attention.
       If he has a confederate or two, do the same with them. Most 
     important: get a blanket over him, then wrestle him to the 
     floor and keep him there. We'll land the plane at the nearest 
     airport and the authorities will take it from there.
       Remember, there will be one of him and maybe a few 
     confederates, but there are 200 of you. You can overwhelm 
     them.
       The Declaration of Independence says, ``We, the people . . 
     .'' and that's just what it is when we're up in the air: we, 
     the people, vs. would-be terrorists. I don't think we are 
     going to have any such problem today or tomorrow or for a 
     while, but some time down the road, it is going to happen 
     again and I want you to know what to do.
       Now, since we're a family for the next few hours, I'll ask 
     you to turn to the person next to you, introduce yourself, 
     tell them a little about yourself and ask them to do the 
     same.

  That pilot's guidance is serious--but these are serious times. 
Americans are a people who empower themselves to do great things. 
Clearly, the actions of the passengers and the crew on the American 
airlines flight earlier this week illustrate that the flying public, 
the pilots and the crews are willing and committed to maintaining the 
safety and security of our airways.
  We should not delude ourselves into thinking that simple 
pronouncements from the FAA, with all due respect, or tweaking the 
Federal Aviation Regulations, will allow us to sleep comfortably on 
transcontinental flights.
  It is all of our responsibility to ensure the safety of our airways. 
The passengers aboard United Flight 93 knew that instinctively, the 
pilot on the United flight out of Denver merely reminds us of it.
  Accordingly, as we review and reform our safety and security 
procedures, we must ask a simple question: would the actions and 
initiatives we propose to undertake have prevented the recent terrorist 
attacks and will they prevent future acts. Unfortunately, I'm concerned 
that the bill as currently drafted may fall short of meeting that 
standard.
  Our actions must be meaningful, effective, and they must restore the 
confidence of the American public in the integrity and safety of our 
transportation systems.
  If there ever were a time for bold and aggressive steps to improve 
the safety

[[Page S10534]]

of our transportation systems, now is that time. I believe, no, I know, 
that this Congress and the American people will accept and embrace 
meaningful steps toward that end.
  We only need look at the full measure of sacrifice made by the 
passengers aboard United Flight 93 to know the depths of our 
responsibility and I am heartened by the fact that I know that same 
spirit is aboard every plane in the sky.
  I believe that it all starts with our intelligence capability, we 
have to have the best possible intelligence about potential or imminent 
threats in order to constantly focus and modify security procedures and 
efforts. Intelligence is the first line of offense in our war against 
terrorism.
  The principle that should guide us is that through human scrutiny and 
technological screening, we should put passengers through sufficient 
security procedures to identify potential threats;
  For the passenger, that might mean answering computer generated and 
tailored questions at the ticket counter which might be followed by 
interviews with security personnel; passage through a metal detector 
which might be followed by a thorough physical search of carry-on 
baggage, and perhaps passage through another magnetometer or wanding 
before boarding the aircraft.
  For checked baggage, that should mean passage through various and 
increasingly sophisticated explosive detection systems followed by 
thorough physical search for any bag that requires further scrutiny, 
there should also be random physical searches for all bags to improve 
proficiency and to raise the security penetration.
  In addition, we should accelerate our research into emerging 
technologies to improve our ability to detect weapons carried by people 
or explosives secreted away in baggage. We also may need to consider 
stronger limitations on both hand carried and checked bags.
  For the aircraft, that should mean armed air marshals on flights and 
hardening the cockpit door, as Delta Airlines has already begun, 
revising access procedures to the cockpit, and increasing the security 
training of pilots and crews, including allowing pilots the option of 
defending themselves.
  We should require background checks of everyone who has access to the 
aircraft: whether pilots, crew, ground personnel, baggage handlers, 
caterers, and other contract personnel, with regular and periodic 
reviews.
  For the airport, it entails a more substantial armed police force, 
conspicuously and constantly present in the public areas and 
concourses. In addition, we need to improve the airport access 
procedures and technologies to make sure that people are where they are 
supposed to be and not in places that could present a threat to the 
aircraft or passengers.
  Simply put, we need to expeditiously pursue security technologies and 
procedures at airport access points that cannot be defeated by even 
well organized and clever terrorists.
  And so, we come full circle back to intelligence, without a robust 
and aggressive intelligence effort that is constantly questioning 
where, how, and who may plan the next attack, our security measure will 
not evolve to meet the challenge. Unfortunately, if that is the case, 
we're merely waiting for the next attack.
  Clearly, we must approach airline, airport, and aircraft security 
issues in complementary and overlapping ways to establish a security 
``net'' around our aviation system. What do I mean by a ``net?'' If we 
are suspicious about a bag or a passenger, that information is relayed 
and additional, more extensive security measure like I've described 
would be employed.
  The increased tempo and breadth of security operations pose dramatic 
cost increases for airlines and airports and for the Federal 
Government. I note that the legislation before the Senate contains an 
authorization to reimburse airports for the direct costs of increased 
law enforcement requirements mandated by the FAA.
  I think this is a legitimate and reasonable approach. The Federal 
Government should not place unfunded Federal mandates on our airports 
or any other unit of local government.
  Clearly, the FAA mandated security directive requiring airports to 
increase the law enforcement presence is necessary. I intend to work 
with my colleagues on the appropriations committee to provide funding 
to help defray these costs and I commend the authorizing committee for 
providing that authorization in this bill.
  However, notwithstanding that there are some useful provisions in 
this bill, I'm concerned that this legislation and this debate has 
gotten bogged down about whether we should ``federalize'' the aviation 
screening functions. I doubt that ``federalizing'' is the panacea that 
some would have you believe.
  For some, it is an instinctive response to turn to the Federal 
Government in the wake of a crisis without ever questioning if it is 
the responsible action to take or if the federal bureaucracy will be 
any better. So, ``federalization'' may be a bad idea whose time has 
come.
  We're missing the point if we misinterpret the mandate from the 
American people to improve aviation security with a public desire that 
the people searching our bags or manning the security checkpoint must 
be receive a paycheck from the U.S. Treasury.
  Keep in mind, the weapons that the terrorists carried on the aircraft 
were legal to carry on the aircraft. What failed was intelligence, our 
response time, and the lack of security on board the aircraft. Let's 
fix those things. Until September 11, it was legal to take a 4-inch 
knife on board an aircraft, and metal knives were commonplace in first 
class meal service.
  The price tag for full Federal assumption of airport security is not 
small, in excess of $2 billion annually and that cost will only rise. 
And that's forever.
  We must weigh that commitment of taxpayer dollars against whether it 
would result in either improved security, or the perception of improved 
security. There are a lot of things that the Federal Government does 
well, I would argue that this is not one of them.
  Let's not mislead the public into interpreting ``federalization'' to 
mean that baggage screening is going to be conducted by law enforcement 
officers.
  Not even the supporters of full federalization are contemplating 
having Federal law enforcement officers search passengers or carry-on 
baggage.
  In a federalized world, the metal detectors and bag searches would be 
conducted by Federal bureaucrats. I don't think that over time, the 
American taxpayer is going to look at a bureaucrat bag screener and 
say, ``I feel safer because a Federal employee is checking my bags.''
  Remember, the money we spend on replacing private sector employees 
with government bureaucrats means we will have that much less money for 
other security improvements, and we're talking about hiring as many as 
30,000 new Federal employees. That's three Army divisions.
  I'm also concerned about the concept of a two-tier airport security 
construct. Some have advocated that we ``federalize'' at the largest 
airports while not ``federalizing'' at other smaller airports. That 
logic is inconsistent with its proponents' other flawed reasoning that 
security will somehow be magically improved and tightened by virtue of 
``federalization.''
  The simple fact is we must improve aviation security at all airports. 
We cannot have weaker points and stronger points in the system. 
Instead, we must tailor our security architecture to stop terrorists no 
matter where they attempt to get into the system.
  Further, I fail to see how creating a new Deputy Administrator at the 
FAA or a new Deputy or Assistant Secretary at the Department of 
Transportation moves the aviation security ball down the field.
  Since both the past administration and this administration have had 
such difficulty in filling the Deputy Administrator of the FAA 
position, I'm concerned that we're unnecessarily confusing and 
complicating the Federal bureaucracy.
  I can't remember a case where an additional layer of bureaucracy led 
to the swift, decisive leadership I believe is necessary, especially in 
regards to safety and security. I'm also not certain that either the 
DOT or the FAA are the only, or the best place, for any new security 
function to reside.
  I would hope that the relevant committees of jurisdiction would 
explore whether these responsibilities wouldn't

[[Page S10535]]

be better executed at the Department of Justice, the Department of the 
Treasury, or in the new Office of Homeland Security.
  Personally, I believe that the President got it right in his 
proposal. The Federal Government would assume management and oversight 
of the security function. It is imperative that we have standards for 
personnel, background checks, and training, as the President proposed, 
to improve the security net.
  That is the appropriate role of the Federal Government. I'm 
disappointed that the bill before us today seems to be taking this 
issue in a different direction.
  When we addressed the imminent financial crisis facing the airline 
industry 2 weeks ago, we acted expeditiously to restore the confidence 
of the financial markets that Congress and the administration had 
confidence in the future of air travel in America.
  Congress and the administration must move expeditiously, but 
deliberately, to augment the interim security procedures already 
instituted by the Administration. This is not a one time infusion of 
capital or liquidity as was necessary in the Airline Stabilization 
legislation.
  Make no mistake, we must get this done and get it right before the 
end of this Congress. Taking a few more weeks as this bill moves 
through conference will not shake the confidence of the American 
public.
  The American people will live with our decisions on aviation security 
for a long time. It is critical that we address the problems in the 
system without rushing to judgment. If we act precipitously we run the 
risk of failing to address security in a thoughtful and comprehensive 
fashion, and, we may well lose the opportunity to make the meaningful 
improvements that are essential to provide a system worthy of the 
American public's confidence.
  In the extreme, we run the risk of perpetrating a fraud on the 
American public by misleading them into a false sense of comfort that 
we have met the security challenge in this bill.
  Congress has time to get this right. This is a complicated and 
crucial issue and we should take the time to get it right. The 
administration has taken the interim steps to restore public confidence 
and to bolster security at airports; our actions should augment and 
complement those steps, not quibble over organization charts and who 
mans the security checkpoints.
  Clearly, the airlines, the airports, and pilots, such as the United 
Airline captain I quoted earlier, are taking responsible and meaningful 
steps to improve safety and security. We should follow their example.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate will pass 
the Aviation Security Act. This bill will help restore our Nation's 
confidence in commercial aviation by boosting the security in our skies 
and our airports. The strengthening of cockpit doors and the deployment 
of sky marshals, among other security measures in this bill, are 
meaningful and worthwhile steps in making air travel safer.
  This bill also includes a safety provision based on a bill I recently 
introduced. The idea is from a couple of Wisconsinites. When I held one 
of my listening sessions following the vicious attacks on September 11, 
Fire Chief James Reseburg and Deputy Police Chief Charles Tubbs of 
Beloit, WI, suggested an idea that they thought would help make our 
skies safer. Part of their idea was to create a registration system 
through which law enforcement officials, firefighters, and emergency 
medical technicians could register voluntarily to serve in the event of 
an emergency on a commercial airplane.
  For example, if an official was going on vacation on an airplane, he 
would simply register with the airline beforehand to notify them that 
they would have a public safety official on that flight. Like the sky 
marshals, only authorized airline personnel would know when one of 
these volunteers was on the plane. In many cases, these public servants 
already notify the crew when they board that they are trained for 
emergencies and are willing to help out in the event they are needed. 
They are trained to respond calmly during emergencies and can be of 
great assistance to an airline crew.
  As many of my colleagues have stated, if the airline industry is to 
recover fully from the events of September 11, 2001, we must make the 
flying public feel safe once again in our skies. The Aviation Security 
Act will help us do just that.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Aviation 
Security Act.
  On September 11, four civilian airliners from three of our nation's 
airports were used as weapons of war. As were debating this 
legislation, our military is taking action against those who are 
responsible. One way to support our troops is to improve safety for all 
Americans. That is the goal of this legislation. This bill enables us 
to take three concrete actions to improve safety in our skies.
  First, it federalizes airport security operations. Security is a high 
skill job, yet airport screeners in this country are low paid, poorly 
trained, and inexperienced. Many of our airport screeners make $6.00 to 
$7.00 an hour. That is a lower wage than many of our fast food workers 
receive. Our airport screeners receive minimal training. The FAA 
currently requires 12 hours of classroom training for our airport 
screeners, while France requires at least 60 hours of training. 
Turnover rates are also abysmal. From May 1998 through April 1999, 
turnover rates for workers at our nation's nineteen largest airports 
averaged 126 percent, and as high as 416 percent in some instances. 
When morale and incentive are low, poor performance follows. FAA 
inspection reports reveal significant weaknesses in the performance of 
our airport screeners. Security inspections showed that B.W.I. 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, however. The GAO reports that in 1987 airport screeners missed 
20 percent of the potentially dangerous used in tests, and it's been 
getting worse over the past decade. That is why this legislation is so 
important. We have Federal officials protecting our borders and 
protecting our President. We also need federal officials protecting our 
flying public. Federal workers 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, 
requiring extensive training and deploying law enforcement personnel at 
airport security screening locations.
  The second item this bill addresses is the safety of our pilots. We 
all know that the safety of our pilots is critical to ensuring the 
safety of our passengers. The tragedies of September 11 showed that we 
need to strengthen the cockpit doors and locks to prevent entry by non-
flight deck crew members. This bill prohibits access to the flight deck 
cockpit by any person other than a flight deck crew member and requires 
the strengthening of the cockpit door and locks to prevent entry by 
non-flight deck crew members.
  The third critical item this bill addresses is the expansion of the 
Federal Air Marshal program. On September 11, some heroic Americans on 
United Airlines flight 93 lost their lives as they confronted the 
terrorists. They prevented the plane from possibly flying into the 
Capitol or the White House. These brave citizens lost their lives, yet 
they saved many others. Perhaps they saved the lives of those of us in 
this chamber. We can't ask American citizens to risk or lose their 
lives on airplanes. We need federal air marshals on our airplanes to 
protect our flying public. The Sky Marshal Program dates back to the 
Kennedy Administration when the concern of highjackings to Cuba was 
prevalent. In 1970 the program was greatly expanded to include U.S. 
Customs and military personnel. Two years later the program was phased 
out. Then, in 1985 a 727 flight from Athens was diverted to Beirut, 
where terrorists murdered Robert Dean Stetham of Maryland. The 
highjackings of 1985 prompted Congress to reinstate the Federal Air 
Marshal program, but it's skimpy and spartan. This bill would allow a 
federal air marshal on every domestic flight and every international 
flight originating in the United States.
  The events of September 11 were an attack against America and an 
attack against humanity. We are a nation that is grief stricken, but we 
are not paralyzed in our determination to rid

[[Page S10536]]

the world of terrorism. In the mean time we must act to make 
transportation safer in the United States. We must exhibit a sense of 
urgency and pass this legislation immediately.
  Airline security is a crucial part of transportation security, but we 
can't stop there. We must also improve the safety of our railroads and 
our ports. We must ensure the safety of all components of our rail 
system, including: tunnel security, terminal safety, bridge safety and 
protection of our track switchboards. Over 22 million people a year 
ride our railroads and forty percent of all freight is transported on 
our rails. A terrorist attack on our rails could result in catastrophic 
loss of life and paralyze our economy. Amtrak is ready and willing to 
improve passenger rail safety in this country, but it also must address 
its critical infrastructure needs. For example, the tunnels that run 
through Washington, Baltimore, and New York accommodates trains that 
carry roughly 350,000 people a day. These tunnels don't meet minimum 
safety standards, they don't have proper ventilation, and there is not 
adequate lighting. Rail safety requires federal help, but annual 
appropriations for Amtrak is frozen at $521 million, about half of its 
$955 million authorization in TEA-21. The Amtrak emergency package 
would improve safety and security on our trains by: hiring more police 
officers to patrol trains, stations and railroads; provide anti-
terrorism training for employees; install cameras to monitor 
facilities; improve the safety of tunnels, especially in the aging 
tunnels that run through Maryland, Washington, and New York.

  The Amtrak emergency package would also provide additional rail 
capacity to accommodates increased ridership. In the days following the 
September 11th tragedy, Amtrak employees worked around the clock to 
provide a safe, viable option to our traveling public. Daily ridership 
from September 12 to September 17 jumped 17 percent, and that doesn't 
include all of the airline tickets that Amtrak honored to keep America 
on the move. On the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak added roughly 30 percent 
more seating capacity, or 2,000 more seats per day on unreserved 
trains. Amtrak responded to our national crisis in many ways: they 
helped carry our mail, they delivered thousand of emergency relief kits 
to New York, and they provided transportation to firefighters, police 
and medical personnel. Some may argue that now is not the time to 
discuss Amtrak. I would argue there's never been a better time. Now is 
the time to give Amtrak the support it needs to keep America moving 
quickly and safely. The simple truth is that we have a National 
Passenger Railroad System in this country that needs our immediate help 
with security and capacity upgrades. It is our duty to respond.
  I would also like to take this opportunity to rise as a cosponsor of 
the Carnahan amendment. This important amendment would help those who 
are most hurt by the economic impact of the terrorist attacks of 
September 11. Thousands of American workers have lost their jobs during 
this economic downturn. These workers need our help. We need to act 
quickly on a economic stimulus package that targets the American 
worker. Airline and aviation employees have been especially hard hit. 
140,000 thousand of these workers have been laid off since the 
terrorist attacks. Unemployment is steadily rising in the industry. 
Last week, 528,000 people filed for unemployment. That is the nearly 
the population of Baltimore City, and a figure we haven't seen in nine 
years. These people are our pilots, our flight attendants, baggage 
handlers, concessionaires and aircraft builders. These workers have 
lost their paychecks, lost their health care and could lose their 
homes. They need our immediate help, just as we helped their former 
employers with a $15 billion stabilization package of grant and loan 
guarantees.
  I am confident that the airline industry and the U.S. economy will 
recover, but help is needed today. Senator Carnahan's amendment would 
provide financial assistance, training and health care coverage to 
employees of the airline industry who lose their jobs as a result of 
the attacks on September 11. The Carnahan amendment would provide 
income support by extending the number of weeks eligible individuals 
can receive unemployment insurance, from 26 weeks to 79 weeks. These 
cash payments would not create a strain on state budgets, because they 
would be funded entirely by the Federal Government. Workers who don't 
meet their states' requirements for unemployment insurance would not be 
left out. They would receive 26 weeks of federally financed 
unemployment insurance.
  This amendment also addresses job training. Workers who may not 
return to their jobs within the airline industry would be eligible for 
retraining benefits. Other workers would be eligible for training to 
upgrade their skills. This amendment would enable laid off workers to 
keep their health care by expanding the COBRA program. This would 
enable people who have lost their jobs to retain their health 
insurance. Madame President, I strongly support the Carnahan amendment. 
It is a thoughtful and comprehensive airline workers relief package. 
It's also a good starting point to address the needs of working 
families in America, and provides a good model for a broader economic 
stimulus package.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe in just a minute we will move to 
final passage.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if there are no further amendments, we 
are ready for third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.

                          ____________________