[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18716-18717]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   BIPARTISAN RESPONSE TO THE CRISIS

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I was so inspired by the comments of the 
Senator from North Dakota that I felt compelled to rise to offer my 
additional comments to the thoughts the Senator from North Dakota has 
offered.
  I have gone home each weekend and heard my people respond that they 
are so proud that they have seen a unanimity of purpose, a unity of 
leadership, unity of the executive and legislative branches of 
Government, and they are so proud that they have seen bipartisanship as 
America has responded to the crisis we now face.
  In the midst of that unity and that bipartisanship, we have seen 
swift action on a number of pieces of legislation:
  First of all, the emergency supplemental that would appropriate $20 
billion to respond to the terrorists and another $10 billion to respond 
to the crisis in New York;
  Then, as the Senator pointed out, the quick action on the financial 
package for the airlines so that we can get people back into the air 
and help shore up this major component of our economy.
  But in the midst of all this unity, I think that partisanship and 
ideological rigidity is beginning to raise its ugly head again, for as 
the Senator from North Dakota has pointed out, there was an objection 
offered last week when we needed to pass a Department of Defense 
authorization bill that held it up some 5 days more. Finally, we got an 
agreement after a tortuous process of trying to explain to others that 
you couldn't load down the Department of Defense authorization bill 
with everybody's agenda, that you had to keep it pure and address the 
defense needs of this country, particularly at a time such as this.
  We came to a point yesterday late in the day where the majority 
leader--and I believe the minority leader--wanted to agree to the 
unanimous consent request of the majority leader to proceed on this 
airline security bill, and yet there were objections--perhaps for some 
partisan reasons, perhaps for some ideological reasons, perhaps for 
some parochial reasons. But as so eloquently pointed out by the Senator 
from North Dakota, are we forgetting what is in the interest of the 
country, which is to get the American public flying again, and to help 
all of these

[[Page 18717]]

myriad of industries that are dependent upon a healthy airline industry 
with lots of passengers?
  My State is clearly one that is so desperately affected by the lack 
of airline travel and its spillover into the hotels, restaurants, and 
the visitor attractions. You can go on with car rental companies, on 
and on.
  The majority leader, our wonderful leader, Senator Daschle--I think 
with the concurrence of the minority leader certainly in wanting to be 
there--wants a bill that would put sky marshals on the planes, that 
would strengthen the cockpit doors, that would have enhanced and 
federalized screening of passengers, that would help train the crews 
for anti-hijacking procedures, that would require background checks on 
those who are not citizens who want to learn to fly in our flight 
schools, and all of those things that are unanimously embraced in this 
country and that we want to pass.
  As so adequately pointed out by the Senator from North Dakota, it is 
4:25 on Thursday and we can't proceed to the bill. We can't even 
proceed to the motion to proceed because it is going to be 
filibustered.
  We will pass the motion to proceed next Tuesday. But then there are 
30 hours of debate on the motion to proceed before we can ever get to 
the airline security bill unless people will come to their senses as to 
what is in the national interest, putting aside their partisan 
concerns, putting aside their parochial concerns, and coming together 
again in what has been a bright, shining moment for America in the 
unity and bipartisanship that has been displayed in the last 3 weeks.
  I was sufficiently moved by the comments of the Senator from North 
Dakota that I wanted--I thank him for taking my place in the chair as 
the Presiding Officer--to offer these remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Nelson of Florida pertaining to the introduction 
of S. 1506 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). Without objection, it 
is so ordered.

                          ____________________