[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 17501-17505]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                            AVIATION SAFETY

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I believe this Transportation Safety 
Act, which I know Senator Hollings and others are going to introduce 
very soon, will certainly pass with strong support.
  First of all, I ask unanimous consent to be added as an original 
cosponsor of this piece of legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, the Senator from South Carolina is 
absolutely right. Not only does safety have to be there with the money, 
but the fact is, without the safety, people aren't going to fly. If 
they don't fly, we are never going to have this industry financially 
viable. It is that simple. You can see it traveling around the country 
right now. There are very few people at the airports. People are quite 
frightened. We have to absolutely pass this bill. I think it should be 
in this package right here. But we will be coming back to this very 
soon, and I think the sooner the better.
  There were some provisions that I desperately wanted to see in this 
bill. I know the Senator from South Carolina and others tried with all 
their might. I know Senator Daschle did. There were negotiations late 
into the evening.
  From my point of view, this language is essential to air service. I 
want to make sure that gets lived up to.
  A good part of our State is rural. We don't want our smaller airports 
left out.
  On the question of general aviation and VFR, there are a lot of 
people hurting right now. I traveled in a small plane this last 
weekend. They are having to lay off people. We don't have any 
protections for them. We will get back to that next week.
  But the final point I want to make is that we had, I think, about a 
$3.7 billion package that dealt with all the people who are being laid 
off. Northwest Airlines just announced that 10,000 people will be laid 
off. Half of them are in the State of Minnesota. Frankly, look at the 
economy.
  There are an awful lot of people in a world of economic pain. I 
believe what should have been in this package--I know there were 
Representatives on the House side who resisted this, talking about the 
companies, yes--is the extending of unemployment benefits and making 
sure people have access to job training, that there is a dislocated 
worker focus.
  The most frightening thing of all, next to losing your job, is that 
you then lose your health care coverage. COBRA is too expensive. I wish 
we had something better. For so many of these employees, this is going 
to be critically important.
  These are going to be some really hard times for people. As one 
Senator from the State of Minnesota, I am really disappointed we did 
not get this included. I know the Senate majority leader, Mr. Daschle, 
said this would be a first priority. I know Senator Hollings has said 
that. We have to come back next week and we have to focus on these 
employees. We have to make sure we provide the help to them and to 
their families. That has to be part of a relief package. We have to 
move fast now. We couldn't get it in today. It will be in next week or 
it will be in as soon as possible. It must be.
  Last point: We have all these huge issues staring us in the face. 
When I flew out here, I was talking to some of the employees of 
Northwest. I said: How are you doing? They said: We are holding on. 
They meant about the world they live in. Everybody is very worried. 
Everybody is very resolute. Everybody is very worried. But they

[[Page 17502]]

also meant: We are afraid we are going to lose our jobs. I am sure a 
number of those people now have lost their jobs. We have to provide 
help for them.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I 
be recognized for 5 minutes. It is my understanding, under a previous 
order, that the Senator from Illinois has time. If he is not ready, 
then I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 5 minutes prior 
to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, as we consider a major 
component of America's economic engine and what to do about it, clearly 
there are two things that stand out and that came out of our Commerce 
Committee hearing yesterday chaired by Senator Hollings.
  For the airlines to be able to fly again financially solvent, the 
security measures must be put into place so that the American public 
has confidence to fly again.
  I personally think it is safe to fly. I flew Monday night to Orlando, 
and there were only 10 people on the plane. Happily, when I flew back 
from Florida, from Tampa to Washington on Tuesday night, there were 40 
people on the plane. My recommendation on the basis of going to two 
major airports in Florida, checking all of their security arrangements, 
is that the security apparatus is beginning to work. It didn't work on 
September 11.
  The first part of restoring this industry to health is security, so 
that we can get people back in the airplanes and the American public 
flying again. That, of course, has been amply demonstrated by our 
discussion today. I am a cosponsor of this bill.
  The second component that came out of our hearing was that the 
airlines, in order to be able to operate, have to have insurance that 
is available and affordable. That is what is creating the crisis right 
now, that several of the insurance carriers are about to yank the 
coverage from the airlines. Of course, the airlines will be grounded if 
that is going to occur.
  That is what is so important in this package that is coming out that 
the majority leader and the Republican leader are about to describe, a 
component of victims' compensation which would eliminate a lot of the 
uncertainty about all that collateral damage that had been done as a 
result of the World Trade Center being rammed by those two jet liners 
and where would be the source of that funding.
  Preliminarily, for the leaders to discuss what has been agreed upon 
as a first step--and I do believe this is a first step in a long 
journey, as we return to normality in our airline traffic system, a 
very big, essential first step--the American public, the American 
traveling public, has to be a major component. They have to have the 
confidence that they are going to be safe when they get back into air 
travel.
  A major component of economic restoration in this country is hanging 
in the balance. I am going to discuss why I think this is of critical 
importance to the country.
  Once we get through and decide on this first package--hopefully we 
will enact it this afternoon--then there are going to be many steps in 
this journey. There are collateral industries that have been decimated. 
Clearly, all of these other collateral industries, such as hotels, 
restaurants, tourist attractions, car rental agencies--and I have three 
of the Nation's largest that are headquartered in the State of Florida:
  Alamo, National, and Budget Rent A Car companies are headquartered in 
the State of Florida. You can imagine, with 50 percent of their 
business now not coming in the door, what is happening to their 
financial obligations, and to the obligations they have to banks on 
loan payments, and their obligations to the salaries of their 
employees.
  So as we get on down the road, I think what we are going to discover 
is, first and foremost, we have to get the airline industry back in the 
air operating with fairly full loads, so the economic engine is working 
and so it is supplying all of the air traffic that feeds so many of 
these other collateral industries, such as car rentals, such as hotels, 
such as convention centers, such as restaurants. Once that package has 
been firmly established--and I hope this gathering right here in this 
Senate is bringing reasonable men together so they might agree--then I 
think in the very near future--and I am talking about next week--we can 
address some of these other collateral industries that desperately need 
help.
  Today we are going to proceed with the debate on the aviation 
security bill. I don't think there is going to be a lot of disagreement 
on that. I think it clearly will reestablish in the public's mind that 
it is safe to travel. Indeed, I am going to demonstrate that with my 
own feet tonight when I walk on to another commercial airliner. I 
really do believe it is safe. By the way, if you need to fly, now is 
the time to fly because there are no lines. But in addition, it is my 
hope that we are going to have agreement here so we can proceed with 
this financial package to give the aviation industry the security it 
needs and, thus, the insurance industry will not start canceling their 
insurance starting Monday and Tuesday. It is absolutely essential, and 
it is essential for one more reason: because we don't want the 
terrorists to win. If they disrupt our economy, if they cause financial 
distress to a major component of America's economic engine, then they 
will have scored a victory. But we are not going to let them. That is 
why this great democracy is functioning as it is to provide the needed 
help.
  I thank the Chair for the opportunity for me to share. I thank the 
chairman of the committee, Senator Hollings. I thank the ranking 
member, Senator McCain. It was an excellent all-day hearing yesterday 
in the Commerce Committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have a few observations to make and 
then the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, is here as well. He would like 
to follow after me.
  I want to say a few words in support of the Air Transportation System 
Stabilization Act, which we will pass, hopefully, in the Senate 
shortly. My only concern with this bill is that the Federal Government 
is not doing all it should for the victims of this tragedy with respect 
to their legal remedies. Specifically, there is no limit in this 
legislation on the amount of lawyer fees that personal injury lawyers 
can receive for filing lawsuits, either in absolute terms or as a 
percentage of the victim's recovery. In other words, there is no 
guarantee that the victims or their families will receive an amount of 
the damages awarded to ensure that the personal injury lawyers do not 
end up taking the lion's share of the award.
  I think this is, in short, completely wrong, particularly when this 
legislation caps the compensation of airline executives relative to the 
aid package. Bear in mind, what we have in the underlying bill is a cap 
on airline executives' compensation but no cap on personal injury 
lawyer fees. It is right that we are going to make sure airline 
executives do not take advantage of this terrible tragedy, but we 
should also make sure personal injury lawyers do not unduly profit from 
other people's miseries. I am relieved, however, that there is already 
in Federal law a bereavement rule in effect that will protect victims 
and families from being chased down and harangued by insensitive and 
opportunistic lawyers. Specifically, 49 U.S.C., section 1136 (g)(2) 
protects victims of a commercial airline disaster and their families 
from unsolicited contact from lawyers for 45 days after a disaster. In 
other words, already under Federal law--I remind all of those who are 
concerned about the victims that there is a 45-day period from the day 
of the disaster during which, under this bereavement rule, lawyers are 
not to contact the families of victims of planes that have been lost.
  It provides in relevant part that in the event of an accident 
involving an

[[Page 17503]]

air carrier providing interstate or foreign air transportation:

       No unsolicited communication concerning a potential action 
     for personal injury or wrongful death may be made by an 
     attorney (including an associate, agent, employee, or other 
     representative of an attorney) or any potential party to the 
     litigation to the individual injured in the accident, or to a 
     relative of an individual involved in the accident, before 
     the 45th day following the date of the accident.

  Let me repeat: For 45 days after this tragedy, Federal law protects 
the victims and their families from unsolicited contact and harassment 
by lawyers or their agents. And this protection applies to all victims, 
whether they are from New York, New Jersey, Virginia, or any other 
State.
  I am glad we acted in 1996 to protect the emotionally vulnerable from 
those in the legal community who do not have their best interests at 
heart. I am glad we acted again in 2000 to extend the bereavement time 
from 30 to 45 days. This gives the relatives of victims time to find 
their loved ones, arrange for burial, and come to grips with their 
loss. And I want to make sure that the victims and their families know 
that, as we speak, Federal law protects them in this fashion. This is a 
Federal Government guarantee to innocent victims that all aggrieved 
families will be protected until Friday, October 26, from any contact 
whatsoever on the part of lawyers seeking to represent those who have 
been victims of this disaster.
  I wish the legislation had included at least a 25-percent cap on 
fees, such as is already the case in the Federal Tort Claims Act today. 
Already today, in the Federal Tort Claims Act, there is a 25-percent 
cap on legal fees. I wish that had been applied to this bill. At least 
we do have the bereavement rule in existing law to protect the victims 
of this disaster from being contacted by lawyers for 45 days, and that 
will go up until October 26.
  I commend the Senator from South Carolina for his legislation 
regarding airport safety. There is no question that we need to make 
thoughtful and sweeping changes to help ensure that the tragedy of 
September 11 never occurs again.
  I would also like to commend the Senator from Arizona and the Senator 
from Texas for their leadership on this issue. Yesterday, I introduced 
legislation that had a similar purpose to expand airport and airplane 
security.
  The legislation I introduced yesterday, however, took a different 
approach by placing the primary responsibility for an expanded Federal 
Air Marshal program with the Attorney General, as our nation's top law 
enforcement official. I firmly believe that we need a comprehensive 
Federal Air Marshal program to secure airports from curbside to 
cockpit.
  So, the fundamental difference between my approach and the Committee 
approach is that my legislation would relieve the obligations of 
airport security from the FAA and the airlines, whose primary purpose 
is to facilitate and manage air travel, and entrust that obligation to 
the Department of Justice, whose primary mission is to enforce federal 
law, and most importantly, to safeguard and protect us from terrorism.
  Obviously this new Federal Air Marshals program will require 
additional manpower and financial resources. And that is where we 
intend to harness the volunteer spirit espoused by so many of our law 
enforcement personnel throughout the country. The new Federal Air 
Marshals program not only will recruit new full-time active 
professional marshals but will augment that program with Deputy Federal 
Air Marshals drawn from retired military personnel, as well as active 
or retired Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers--anyone 
from a DEA agent to a local law enforcement officer who wants to serve 
his country by securing our airports and aircraft. It is also crucial 
that we retain a sufficient measure of cost-sharing with private and 
state and local entities. Private airlines and airport authorities 
should share a responsibility, as they do now, to help fund a portion 
of airport security.
  We actually already have models in place for the type of curbside to 
cockpit security envisioned in this bill. Our federal courthouses 
currently are secured by our United States Marshals, who also employ 
Court Security Officers (CSOs) to provide security around the perimeter 
of the building, at each point of entry, and in the courtrooms 
themselves. These CSO are themselves retired Federal, State, and local 
law enforcement personnel. Part of the reason our courthouses are so 
secure today is that this unified system provides for layers of 
security far before one enters the actual courtroom. This is perhaps 
why Americans have so little to fear today when they walk inside a 
federal courtroom. What is good for our federal judges is good for all 
Americans. Our nation's Capitol also is secured by a uniform system of 
federal officers who patrol from the interior of this chamber to the 
surrounding neighborhood sidewalks. Our democracy now demands, in the 
interest of our national security, that we make sure our cockpits are 
every bit as secure as our courthouses and this chamber.
  I believe we should entrust this national security item with the 
resources, expertise, and experience of our Nation's top law 
enforcement agency, and that we do so immediately.
  I look forward to ongoing discussions with my colleagues who serve on 
the Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee. I think we can work 
together to produce a thoughtful and effective airline security law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I wish to speak on this bill and to add my 
voice to those who have pointed out how critical it is that the U.S. 
Government support our airline industry.
  I share some concerns, such as those expressed by the Senator from 
Kentucky. There are other concerns that others have expressed that also 
have merit. I will note in a moment why I am very concerned about a 
provision of the bill. I would not have written it the way it is 
written, but I think fundamentally the U.S. Government must support our 
airlines at this critical time.
  Everyone knows what happened on September 11. Everybody knows that as 
a result the U.S. Government shut down the airlines--no more air travel 
until we deemed it was safe.
  That shutdown resulted in huge losses to our airlines, not just for 
the days those airlines were down, but we have seen a continuation of a 
reluctance of people to fly, a diminution in the revenues of these 
airlines, fewer flights, people laid off and, frankly, the possibility 
of a spiraling down of this industry to the point that it could affect 
many other facets of our economy and drive our GNP down to an 
unacceptable level.
  In my State, which depends a lot on tourism--either everyone has come 
to Arizona for a vacation or would like to, I suspect, just as they 
would for the State of the Presiding Officer, States such as Hawaii, 
Nevada, Arizona--we have had a tremendous loss in our tourism industry, 
everything from the hotels and the motels, the golf courses, the 
limousine and taxi services, and everything else connected with it. 
Those losses are going to be extraordinary and a huge drag on our 
economy if people do not begin to have confidence that they can fly in 
safety at reasonable fares.
  That brings up the concern I have about the legislation. We need to 
support this industry. I think we are going to pass this legislation 
overwhelmingly. I hope so. I look forward to supporting it. I want to 
issue a warning about the way this will be implemented because the 
administration will have a fork in the road and they will have to 
choose which path to follow. I am going to argue strongly for the first 
path rather than the second, and I want to explain why.
  This bill actually provides, among other things, some financial 
relief for the airlines of two different kinds. The first is $5 billion 
of grants. This is to make up for the immediate loss to the airlines 
when the Federal Government shut them down. That is fair. Everybody 
agrees with that. There is a formula for that based on passenger miles 
and some other factors that have been agreed to by the airline 
industry.

[[Page 17504]]

  That same formula was supposed to apply to the subsequent loan 
guarantees. The bill has $10 billion of loan guarantees. The industry 
wanted more, but there is $10 billion of loan guarantees in the bill. 
That is also very important for the industry because besides getting 
over the immediate hump of those revenue losses, they need to make 
themselves whole again by going out to the financial market and 
financing their future needs until the fares begin to make up for that 
lost revenue. To do that, they need the backing of the U.S. Government 
because most of them cannot convince lenders at this point that they 
are a good credit risk, for all of the obvious reasons of which we are 
aware.
  The administration did not want the formula to apply to the loan 
guarantees and has fought very hard to take that formula out. This is 
regrettable because it suggests the possibility that this 
administration will actually involve itself in picking winners and 
losers in a free market. That is not right. One can say it is not a 
free market if the Government guarantees loans, but the Government is 
supposed to be guaranteeing these loans on an equal basis to everybody. 
It should not be deciding which companies to favor and which ones not 
to favor.
  That is my concern about the possibility that because there is no 
formula for the loan guarantees, some Federal official is going to 
literally be picking winners and losers. They certainly would not do 
that on the basis of some prejudice. I am not suggesting that. Instead, 
they would argue they need to protect the taxpayers' money. There is 
not anybody who has been stronger in this body on that than I have 
been. We all agree we need to protect the taxpayers and to grant these 
loans on the basis that they are going to be repaid, obviously so the 
taxpayers are not left holding the bag. Therein lies the rub because 
some airlines are different from other airlines in terms of what they 
can show the bank. Let me give an example.
  The older, larger, well-established airlines have what is called 
collateral. They have assets they can pledge as collateral for the 
loans. They go to the bank and say: We need to borrow $200 million, and 
we promise, if we do not pay it back, you can have these three 
airplanes worth $200 million. That is probably way off, but you get my 
point.
  The newer airlines have not established the collateral, the asset 
base which enables them to pledge to the bank that if their loan 
defaults, they have all these assets with which they can repay the 
loan. Instead, the newer airlines have financed themselves based upon 
the projection of future revenues, and future revenues have, obviously, 
panned out in most cases. So they have been able to obtain financing, 
too.
  I will give an example. An airline headquartered in my State, America 
West Airlines, which is 9th or 10th in the country, but a relatively 
new airline, had just obtained a commitment for a $200 million line of 
credit based upon future expected revenues. That was set to go through 
on September 11, when the bottom fell out. Obviously, no lender under 
the current circumstances wants to lend to anybody. That is why we are 
talking about guaranteed loans.
  There are those who say these loans should be based on some 
collateral, something very specific and definite, or else the Federal 
Government should not be in the business of guaranteeing the loan. That 
would cut out certain companies, the very companies that offer the 
primary competition to these older, larger airlines to keep the fares 
low.
  The reason these newer airlines have succeeded is that they have been 
able to offer low-fare service, and the net result has been a lot of 
people have gone to these newer, smaller airlines. But it has also 
served to keep the older, larger airlines' fares within a reasonable 
level.
  I happen to fly a couple of these older, larger airlines a lot, and I 
love them. They have provided very good service, and I want to help 
them, but I think they would agree that it would not be fair simply 
because of a difference in size or age, therefore representing 
different circumstances, that one airline should be preferred over 
another airline in terms of the ability to get these loans.
  The legislation has embodied within it total discretion on the part 
of the President and his agents in any event because it says that the 
loans that are made under this guaranteed loan provision are only to be 
offered under rules and regulations the President deems necessary--no 
other further restrictions.
  The reality is, if the President of the United States wants to say: I 
want to make sure the taxpayers get their money back, so I am going to 
require a condition of X, he can do that. The ability, however, to do 
that should not be confused with the ability of an airline to say: Even 
though the President has total discretion to grant terms and conditions 
that we may not be able to satisfy, if there is a formula involved, we 
at least have the right to go to the banks or other lenders and say: 
Under the legislation, we are, in effect, guaranteed the right to apply 
for 3 percent or 5 percent, or whatever that percentage is, of the 
available loans, and therefore would you, please, based upon that 
commitment of the Federal Government, lend us that money? There is at 
least a right to apply for a certain amount of money to borrow. There 
is no guarantee the Government is going to approve the terms of the 
loan, but there is at least the right to do that. That is what 
returning the formula to the legislation would do.
  Senator McCain and I have considered offering an amendment to that 
effect. We know the leadership would like to consider the bill without 
amendments, and we are willing to proceed on that basis if everyone 
else is as well.
  What I am saying to our leadership, to you, Mr. President, and to 
anybody in the administration who will listen, is we are willing to 
cooperate on this, and, on behalf of the people we represent, we are 
willing to be cooperative, but we plead with them that for good public 
policy, they need to appreciate the differences among the airlines, the 
fact that some can do one thing, others can do another, and that this 
Government should not be in the business of literally picking winners 
and losers, the result of which could be to drive companies into 
bankruptcy. I do not think anybody wants that on their hands.
  In the granting of these loans, I hope it will be done in such a way 
that they do not disadvantage certain companies with the result that 
they cannot stay in business. All of the industry will suffer as a 
result, and the American travelers will suffer as a result.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise before you today to support 
the Aviation Security Bill introduced by Senator Hollings and me. As 
the nation strives to recover from the tragic events of September 11, 
2001, one of the vital steps we must take to protect our economy and 
regain our sense of national security is to restore full function and 
confidence to our nation's air transport system. We are on the verge of 
passing a large financial package to aid in relieving the financial 
pressures placed on our airlines as the result of these heinous 
attacks. This is a crucial first step in restoring consumer confidence 
in our airlines, both to the passengers who rely on their services and 
to the economy.
  While the financial package is of critical importance, I believe the 
single most crucial element in the airlines' recovery is restoring 
confidence in air travel by making it as safe and secure as is 
practical. While the financial package will help the airlines recover 
from the short-term losses associated with the September 11th disasters 
and subsequent shutdown, only the public's return to air travel can 
guarantee their long-term success. Travelers must be confident that the 
United States has the most advanced, secure aviation system in the 
world. The Aviation Security Bill before us today is an important first 
step in restoring such confidence to those in the sky and those on the 
ground. I am proud to stand with Senator Hollings to introduce this 
momentous legislation.
  The Aviation Security Bill contains important security measures which

[[Page 17505]]

will drastically reduce the potential for future disruptions in our 
nation's air traffic. The bill demands the strengthening of cockpit 
doors and limits access to the cockpit itself, thus assuring that a 
commercial plane can never again be used as a guided weapon of 
destruction. Only pilots will be able to allow others into the cockpit. 
Under the provisions of this bill, even flight attendants won't have 
keys. It federalizes airport security operations, improving the 
training and testing programs for screening personnel, giving these 
invaluable men and women the tools necessary to perform their jobs 
properly. It increases perimeter security at airports, in their parking 
lots, and in air traffic facilities so that we can be sure at all times 
that only authorized personnel and vehicles have immediate access to 
our airports and aircraft. Additionally, it increases the number of 
federal Air Marshals and provides hijack training for flight crews to 
make certain those in the skies are equipped to deal with any situation 
that may arise after takeoff. It establishes a Deputy Administrator at 
the Federal Aviation Administration for Aviation Security and 
establishes an interagency Aviation Security Council to make it easier 
for the government to assess and respond to the needs of the aviation 
community. It requires the performance of background checks on those 
seeking training in the operation of large planes. This will allow us 
to ensure that those who know how to fly our planes have the noble 
goals of service and self-betterment in mind. All of these steps 
guarantee that air transportation will be safer and more secure than it 
has ever been.
  However, it is important to remember that this is only the first 
step. It is crucial that we take immediate, but not final action. In 
the eleven days since these tragic events, many common-sense security 
solutions have emerged all over the country and on Capitol Hill. These 
are the solutions included in this bill. Yet a longer look remains 
necessary. We must continue to examine aviation security, working in 
phases to implement newer and better security measures as we go. We 
cannot forget about smaller commercial airports and general aviation 
airports. My home state of West Virginia is full of these airports and 
we must ensure that they receive the same scrutiny and attention as 
larger airports. We must ensure that customers in smaller markets can 
also travel with confidence. Furthermore, additional security measures 
for our major airlines, such as limits on carry-on baggage, must also 
be considered. I am certain that as we continue to examine the safety 
issues before us, we cannot only restore confidence in our nation's air 
transport system but, in fact, instill in the flying public a level of 
confidence even greater than before. I ask you to join me in supporting 
The Aviation Security Bill and to join me in finding future solutions 
to improve our national aviation system.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________