[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18718-18719]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                         RESOLVING DIFFERENCES

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon I want to speak to the issue 
that many of my colleagues have spoken about. For the first time since 
September 11, I have heard an interesting word used by the majority 
leader of the Senate, the word ``obstruction.''
  I am disappointed Senator Daschle has decided that is a word he needs 
to use to express his concern about where we are in the Senate at this 
moment.
  What I will say this afternoon to the majority leader is there is an 
awful lot about trying to get the work product we are going to offer to 
the American people next week right correct, well done, before we bring 
it to the floor. For example, if Senator Daschle had suggested we bring 
the antiterrorism package to the floor yesterday, we would not have had 
a completed product. Somebody would have had to stand up and object and 
say, wait a moment, Tom, somehow you have the cart before the horse.
  If we spend another 24 hours on it, maybe we can resolve our 
differences. You know what happened in that 24-hour period? Differences 
were resolved. The Senate stood in a bipartisan way last night and 
crafted an antiterrorism package, and the House voted out of committee 
unanimously in a bipartisan way to resolve it.
  There is not a great deal of difference between that and the airport 
safety package that came to the floor without clear instructions and a 
bipartisan unity that would have led us to resolve it in the correct 
fashion. Many of our colleagues were lining up, and rightfully so, to 
offer a variety of amendments that could have taken us well into next 
week, substantially changed the character of an airport safety package, 
and sent a very confusing message to the American public. The public 
has a right to be concerned at this moment because current airport 
safety failed us on September 11. They want to make darn sure that 
whatever we do this time we get it right.
  In getting it right, my guess is the first question you would ask is, 
Are you going to use the old model that failed us on September 11 and 
throw more money at it and throw more people at it, or are you going to 
think differently? Are you going to step out of that box and look at 
something new that really is an awful lot about law enforcement and a 
lot less about hiring the cheapest kind of personnel you can get to 
fill what is required by the FAA? That really is the debate that is 
going on behind the closed doors that the majority leader has not been 
willing to expose to the American people this afternoon. He has simply 
stood on this floor, wrung his hands, and used the word 
``obstruction.''
  Let me say what is going on in the back rooms at this moment: The 
White House, the Secretary of Transportation, the chairman of the 
Commerce Committee, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and a 
good many others are trying to craft a final product that is a hybrid, 
that is out of the box, that is different, that is unique, that we can 
bring to the floor next Tuesday and show to the American people we can 
get it right and they will, from that day forward, as this new product 
gets implemented, have the kind of airport security they want, demand, 
and are going to require of their government.
  Is it more of a model of law enforcement, maybe like the U.S. 
Marshals Service that has a cadre of professionals that allows 
contracting out but does so with very strict parameters? The White 
House has said they do not want to federalize all of it. They recognize 
you cannot make all of these people Federal employees and expect the 
best product, but if you do, then you have to change the character of 
the way you hire a Federal employee, and you have to allow hiring and 
you have to allow firing. You have to be able to proscribe and demand 
and inspect and make sure the end product, the inability to penetrate 
security at all of our Nation's airports, is absolute.
  I suggest to the majority leader the reason we are not debating this 
issue

[[Page 18719]]

on the floor this afternoon is not a matter of obstruction; it is a 
matter of getting it right before it is brought to the floor. It is an 
awful lot more about airport security in the long term because we only 
have one more bite at this apple. If we get it wrong this time, shame 
on us.
  We heard the Senator from New Jersey talk about a very important 
issue: rebuilding the infrastructure of the rail delivery system of the 
east coast. Should it be a part of airport security or should it be a 
part of an infrastructure bill that has long been needed that addresses 
the refurbishing of a very antiquated rail system? How much money is it 
going to cost? Should we rush to judgment and spend a few billion 
dollars more when we are on the verge of spending beyond what we now 
have available to spend?
  September 11 awakened us to a great many needs, but it does not mean 
we do them all overnight or we spend hundreds of billions of dollars 
into deficit to accommodate it. It says, though, that we have some 
immediate needs. One of the most immediate is airport security.
  While Americans are beginning to return to our airports because they 
know security has been substantially heightened, what we are going to 
offer them in the package that is brought to the floor next week is a 
new model that creates a new paradigm of thinking, that clearly allows 
the American people to see on an annual basis, as we review it, as it 
is implemented by this administration, an airport security system that 
has the integrity not to allow the penetration, not to allow a 
September 11 to ever happen again in this country, and to say to them, 
as I should as a policymaker in a legitimate way, we have offered the 
best product available to guarantee security and a sense of well-being 
when one steps on an airliner at any airport in this country.
  So should we be rushing now to get it out or should we be trying to 
do it right?
  Our President spoke about being calm, about missiles or bombs not 
flying the day after September 11, about going out and finding out 
where the enemy is, building coalitions and doing it in a progressive, 
constructive way that forever would rid this world of terrorism. He 
preached calmness and he asked us to unite. The kind of divisive word, 
``obstruction,'' that I heard this afternoon does not serve this body 
well. It does not bring us together. It divides us. It divides Members 
along a line that says: there is somebody for something and somebody 
against something.
  I suggest there isn't anything that we can all be unanimously for at 
this moment because there are very legitimate questions about the 
integrity of the proposal and how it will work and who will manage it--
FAA? Department of Transportation? Department of Justice? Is it a 
transportation issue? Is it a law enforcement issue? They are 
reasonable questions to be asked, not after the fact but before the 
fact, before you get to the floor, before you have a final product, so 
we can stand united, together, as the American people are expecting in 
this time of national crisis, and not to divide along party lines.
  As a result of that need that I think is critical and that my leader 
thinks is critical, we had to say: Wait a moment; back off for just a 
little bit. Let's finish that product and let the chairman of the 
committee, who has worked hard and had a good idea, and the ranking 
member and the White House, and others, come together.
  It is true there was a bill and the bill they tried to present and 
bring forward yesterday afternoon had not been before the committee, 
had not had hearings, had not worked the process. I understand that. We 
all understand that. It is a time of urgency. But in that urgency, in 
the very critical character of what we do, we cannot do it wrong. We 
cannot rush to judgment and load it down with everything else, 
including social agendas, unemployment agendas, a whole infrastructure, 
transportation system for Amtrak. That is for another day and another 
issue. Darned important, yes. We need time to debate it on the floor. 
Let the committee work its will.
  I am not going to suggest I understand exactly how any of these 
systems ought to work. I understand when we take our time and involve 
all of our colleagues and use the process appropriately, we produce 
better public policy.
  Clearly, the White House engaged us yesterday in a much more direct 
way with some examples of things they believed were necessary that were 
not in the bill, that the leader was trying to bring to the floor, that 
he now accuses us of having obstructed. Mr. Leader, of course you speak 
out as you wish, but I will suggest that come next Tuesday or Wednesday 
we will have a better product. We will be more united. We will stand 
together as the American people ask. We will craft out of a box, out of 
the old failed paradigm, a new product, and we will be able to turn to 
the American people and say, in the collective best thinking of the 
U.S. Congress, the President of the United States, the Secretary of 
Transportation, and all of the experts we could assemble, we are 
creating an airport security system in this Nation that will work.
  Following that, I hope we can move to antiterrorism and the kind of 
package that was crafted in an unhurried but aggressive environment 
which the House voted out unanimously last night from their committee, 
and Senators came around yesterday evening in final draft to say that 
is a product that will work, that will give the FBI, that will give 
other law enforcement agencies in our country the kind of seamless web 
and communications system that allows them to know what the right hand 
is doing for the left hand, and vice versa, and the ability to track in 
a modern, electronic way those who might be brewing ill will for our 
Nation and our Nation's citizens.
  Let us stand together in this Nation's time of need. ``Obstruction'' 
is not a constructive word. It is not the glue we need. My guess is, 
getting it right is what we are about and what the American people 
expect.
  For tomorrow, for Saturday, and for Monday, our work is all about 
getting an airport security bill right. When we do, then we can turn to 
the American people and say we are putting in place a security system 
second to none. And from that, we can suggest the skies of America and 
America's air carriers are safer than they have ever been. That is our 
goal. It is our charge. Frankly, it is our responsibility. We are up to 
it in a bipartisan fashion with the whole Senate speaking as one voice. 
Next week we will be prepared to do that.
  I yield the floor and 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 that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________