[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 19148-19151]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                AVIATION SECURITY ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, almost exactly 1 month ago to the day 
this Nation was rocked by the most horrific act of terrorism ever 
leveled against the United States. Following the events of September 
11, we resolved as a nation to work together to secure our borders and 
do all in our power to prevent a repeat of the kind of assault that 
shook this country 30 days ago. Key to the security of America is our 
ability to quickly put in place enhanced security measures at our 
airports and on our planes to ensure that our skies are safe and that 
Americans are no longer afraid to fly. Yet the legislation that is key 
to ensuring that America's aviation system is secure--the very measure 
that is our most direct legislative response to the hijacking of four 
U.S. airliners--has been stalled now for a week. This body is in 
agreement on many issues in this bill and we have compromised on 
others. It is time that we bring this critically important bill to the 
floor and openly debate the differences which remain.
  Whether or not to ``federalize'' airport security personnel is an 
issue that still deeply divides this body. I also attended the briefing 
by El Al officials which the distinguished Chairman of the Commerce 
Committee and others have referred to throughout this debate. We are 
all aware of the extraordinary security measures the Israeli airline 
has put in place and the extraordinary success of those measures. 
Because of the constant threat of terrorism to Israel and the Israeli 
people, El Al has taken the following steps to ensure the safety of its 
passengers and the integrity of its operations: armed, plain-clothes, 
in-flight guards; extensive passenger questioning and Interpol 
background checks; extensive luggage inspections, both visual 
inspection by employees and high-tech explosive detection, including 
the placing of luggage and cargo in decompression chambers; and secure 
cockpit doors that remain locked from the inside. Since the 
implementation of these measures, no Israeli airline has ever been 
hijacked. This record speaks for itself.
  In that briefing the El Al officials were asked if airport security 
personnel were government workers or contract workers. The response was 
telling. The El Al officials did not even know what contract workers 
are. They want government workers on the front line to enforce the 
tightest security measures possible. As others have pointed out, we 
want Secret Service, government employees to provide the greatest 
protection possible to the President of the United States. We want 
Federal law enforcement officers

[[Page 19149]]

to protect the elected members of the House and Senate. Why would we 
want any less for the people of this Nation?
  There was a recent article in the Atlanta Constitution about an 
Atlanta-based security company which provides baggage screening for 17 
of the 20 largest airports in the country, including baggage screening 
for Dulles and Newark airports--where two of the four hijacked planes 
originated on September 11. According to the Atlanta Constitution:
  The company has 19,000 employees and provides security for office 
buildings, colleges and Federal facilities. In the past year, it pled 
guilty to allowing untrained employees--including some with criminal 
backgrounds--to operate checkpoints in Philadelphia International 
Airport. Its parent company was fined $1.2 million. In addition, the 
company is also said to have falsified test scores for at least 2 dozen 
applicants and hired at least 14 security screeners with criminal 
backgrounds ranging from aggravated assault and burglary to drug and 
firearm possession. The highest advertised job at this company pays $7 
to $8.50 an hour.
  Mr. President, to repeat, these workers are paid $7 to $8 an hour. 
With minimum wage pay like this, no wonder many of these screeners look 
at going to work at a fast-food restaurant as a promotion. Clearly we 
cannot have this attitude as our first line of defense.
  In the El Al briefing, there was a slide describing the onion-like 
layers of security in their aviation system. At the outer layer was the 
layer of intelligence--key to any effective protection of our skies and 
borders. In Israel, when there is knowledge of a possible security 
threat, there is immediately a line of intelligence communication from 
the highest levels of government down, and in that intelligence loop 
are the security officers at Ben Gurion Airport. This is a compelling 
reason why we should have Federal workers at the airport checkpoints in 
this country. There are over 700 of these checkpoints at over 420 
airports. We need a domestic version of the Customs Service as our 
first line of defense against hijackers.
  The General Accounting Office in assessing our aviation 
vulnerabilities stated that ``the human element is the weakest link in 
the chain.'' We saw that on September 11. The airline industry is in 
favor of federalizing airport security personnel. More importantly, the 
American people support it. In a recent national poll, 82 percent of 
the people surveyed said they would support having the Federal 
Government take over security screening at U.S. airports even if it 
cost $2 billion a year.
  All of us appreciate the value of rapid response in combating 
terrorism. It is time to bring the aviation security bill to the floor 
and fulfill the number one responsibility of Congress: to work to 
ensure the safety and protection of the Nation and its citizens. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note the Senator from Oklahoma is not in 
the Chamber, so I will withhold until he reaches the floor. What I 
intend to do when he does reach the floor is ask unanimous consent that 
we vitiate the remaining hours on postcloture and proceed to immediate 
consideration of S. 1447.
  Today there was an ABC news poll that showed 42 percent of the 
American people are still concerned about flying on an airliner.
  The day before yesterday there was a meeting in New York City between 
the Speaker of the House, the Democrat leaders, Representative 
Gephardt, and 20 business and labor leaders, as well as Alan Greenspan, 
Chairman of the Federal Reserve. According to published media reports, 
there were strong recommendations by all these individuals to move on 
airport security so the confidence of the American people could be 
restored and the economy would have a chance to recover.
  For 2 weeks we have been trying to get this bill considered. 
Meanwhile, we have American men and women who are in combat, putting 
their lives on the line for the safety of American citizens and we 
cannot even act on an airport security bill. I don't feel like running 
through the litany of all the things that have happened, all the 
meetings the Senator from Texas and I have had, and not had, the 
scheduled meetings and the unscheduled meetings, the canceled meetings, 
and the negotiations. This legislation is being held up for reasons 
that have nothing to do with airport security. There are legitimate 
differences of opinion on this issue. I respect those differences.
  The Senator from Oklahoma was going to state when he objects that he 
is afraid a nongermane amendment or nonrelevant amendment may be added 
to the bill. I oppose, as does the distinguished chairman, Senator 
Hollings, nonrelevant and nongermane amendments, but, at the same time, 
that is not reason to block the legislation from being considered.
  Because there are objections that are related or nonrelated to this 
legislation, we are blocking the legislation because of certain select 
interests or concerns. That is not the way we should do business. The 
way we should do business is to take up bills, vote on them, have 
debate, have amendments, and vote on them. That is the way the process 
is supposed to work.
  Is this an issue that is a minor policy disagreement? Is this an 
issue that has to do with only a small number of Americans, maybe the 
State of Arizona or just the State of Texas? No. This is an issue of 
compelling requirements. Very few Americans, if any, will ever forget 
the sight of those airliners flying into the World Trade Center. All of 
us will remember it as long as we live. Every time they see it, they 
will want to know that their Government, working with the elected 
representatives, not by Executive order but by working with their 
elected officials, has taken every measure possible to ensure the 
safety of the flying public, which is a large number of Americans.
  Supposedly at 4:57, as a result of my parliamentary inquiry before 
lunch, we will be going to the bill, but the reason I propose a 
unanimous consent request now is by the time there are opening 
statements tonight, we will have killed another day. Perhaps we may 
even use all of tomorrow. Usually we don't do a lot of work around here 
on Friday. And we would then have expended another week before we could 
get on this legislation.
  I thank the Senator from Texas for all of her hard work on this 
issue. I know the Senator from Oklahoma will object and give his well-
thought-out reasons for doing so. I know the Senator from Texas will 
make her comments. The time for backroom negotiations and conversations 
and proposals and counterproposals is over. We have a bill. We had 
hearings in the Commerce Committee on airport and airline security. 
This legislation is a direct result of those hearings. This is not 
something made up in the backroom. This legislation was produced 
through thoughtful consultation with the best minds in America that we 
could find. We think it is vital we move forward with this legislation.
  At this time, I ask unanimous consent we vitiate the remaining hours 
in postcloture and move directly to the consideration of S. 1447, the 
Aviation Security Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if my colleague 
and friend from Arizona would be willing to modify his unanimous 
consent request, that he amend it to say that all amendments be 
relevant to the underlying airport security bill?
  Mr. McCAIN. In response to the Senator from Oklahoma, that would be a 
highly unusual request, as he knows, because the normal procedure in 
the Senate is to take up legislation. If there is a concern about 
nongermane or nonrelevant amendments, then a cloture motion is filed, 
as has already been filed in one case.
  So, no, I do not agree to modify my request for that because I think 
it would be depriving Members, at least temporarily, of their voice and 
their concerns and their amendments that they might want to propose. I 
promise the Senator from Oklahoma I will object and vote against and 
argue

[[Page 19150]]

against, as the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee 
stated, any nonrelevant and nongermane amendment. I hope that satisfies 
his concerns.
  Mr. NICKLES. Further reserving the right to object, I appreciate the 
remarks of my friend and colleague. If we can keep the bill itself 
pretty much to relevant amendments, I think and believe we can get this 
bill passed this week.
  For the information of our colleagues, we are very close to 
concluding the antiterrorism package. I appreciate the patience of my 
friend and colleague from Arizona. We have been trying to pass two 
bills this week: one, an antiterrorism package, and the other an 
airport security package. I hope and believe we can pass both this 
week. The antiterrorism package is much closer to being there. In fact, 
it is our hope we can pass it today. We are in the process of trying to 
conclude a unanimous consent request to pass the antiterrorism package 
today that will be in agreement and hopefully have the vote by 6 
o'clock tonight.
  With that in mind, the fact we are so close to doing the 
antiterrorism package and getting it to conclusion at this point, I 
object to the unanimous consent request proposed by the Senator from 
Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am getting as frustrated as the 
senior Senator from Arizona. We have been working on aviation security 
since September 12, 2001. I introduced the bill that would increase the 
number of sky marshals that very week. I could see the traveling public 
was going to be stunned. Of course what has happened is even worse than 
that. The impact on the economy of having people stay out of airplanes 
and airports is staggering. It was a domino effect. The airlines are 
flying at half capacity. They are not flying as many flights. Hotels 
are not full. Rental cars are not being rented. The cancellation of 
conventions all over the country is being reported.
  We can do something about this. We have been working on it in a very 
bipartisan way. There are very few disagreements on the bill--things we 
can work out or have amendments, vote them up or down, and we can send 
a decent package to the President.
  What is holding the legislation up is extraneous amendments. These 
amendments may have merit, but they are not worked out yet and they are 
not relevant to aviation security. We are dealing with some very 
complicated matters. Antiterrorism is complicated. We have tried to 
keep that clean so that the disagreements are on the bill and 
disagreements on other issues don't encroach on that bill.
  We need to do the same thing for aviation security so we are not 
talking about differences on an unemployment bill in the middle of 
other differences on the relevant bill and not be able to come to the 
conclusion on the aviation security bill because of something that does 
not relate to aviation security.
  The President wants to deal with unemployment. We want to deal with 
unemployment. We can do that in the economic stimulus package or in a 
freestanding bill. That would be the responsible thing to do, 
particularly when we know if there are going to be other jobs 
available. Right now we have a huge loss of jobs in the aviation 
industry. But we are trying to add jobs in aviation security. We are 
trying to add jobs in the defense industry because we are going to be 
ratcheting up our defense needs. So let's give our employees a chance 
to seek other jobs before we pass something when we are not even sure 
how much we are going to need or if that is relevant by the time we see 
if these other jobs can be filled.
  But it is a whole different issue. So why not talk about aviation 
security? I see the distinguished Commerce Committee chairman, Senator 
Hollings. He has worked with Senator Rockefeller, the chairman of the 
Aviation subcommittee. I am the ranking member of the Aviation 
subcommittee, and Senator McCain is the ranking member of the full 
committee. We have worked on this bill.
  We have worked with the White House trying to come to the agreements 
on this bill, and we are very close. We are going to strengthen the 
cockpit doors. You would think that after what happened just yesterday 
on the airplane where the deranged man fought his way into a cockpit--
just yesterday--there would be an impetus to take up this bill.
  We are going to add air marshals in the bill that I introduced the 
week of September 11, because we know people will feel safer if there 
are air marshals on airplanes. We know the more we can get in, the more 
likely people are to fly and the less likely we are to have incidents, 
because we will have on those airplanes trained law enforcement 
personnel.
  We are trying to upgrade the screening. Everybody who has been 
through an airport knows there have been holes in security, in the 
screening process. Today in many airports there are long lines at the 
screening stations. We want to regularize that process so people know 
what to expect and so we can get through on a more expedited basis 
using trained people with good equipment.
  Those are the things we are trying to do with this bill. So I support 
Senator McCain's motion. I think we need to proceed to the bill, and I 
think we need to keep extraneous amendments off, and that should be a 
bipartisan agreement. Then we can argue legitimately about the bill 
itself and how much federalization we have and where it goes and what 
the dollars are. All of that is legitimate disagreement. Let's get to 
the bill. Let's do what we must do to get people back into airplanes 
feeling safe and secure. Let's give them that security, and let's help 
the economy strengthen.
  We must do that. We are wasting valuable time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Texas, and our ranking member, the distinguished Senator from Arizona, 
Mr. McCain.
  We did not come to our particular bill for the federalization of 
airport and airline security in America in a casual fashion. The truth 
of the matter is that having been on this committee for over 30-some 
years, I can say we have been trying to beef up security for quite some 
time.
  I could go back to the 1970s in speaking on this topic, but I will 
bring you right up to 1988. When Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over 
Lockerbie, Scotland, we heard of security breaches there--which have 
now been proved in court. As a result, we had hearings, we had 
conferences with the White House and the leadership and the airlines 
and everyone concerned, and what did we come up with?
  We wanted to keep it just the way it is with privatization, but what 
we were going to do is have higher standards, more training, more 
supervision, more money: The same old same old after 1988.
  Then, of course, they had the TWA Flight 800 disaster in 1996, 5 
years ago. Following the disaster, we had the Gore commission, and what 
did we come up with? We came up with more training, higher standards, 
more supervision, more money--the same old same old.
  So I determined, along with Senator McCain, that bygones were bygones 
with all this fetish about privatization. In a time of war we can't 
relegate security and safety to any kind of low-cost bidder.
  You can put in the words, is my point, of higher standards and more 
supervision and more training and more money, but you have to fix the 
lack of accountability and standards, as they have in Israel.
  Right to the point, while the distinguished Senator from Texas was 
talking about just the screeners, I believe we must focus on the whole 
security picture, including the outer perimeter or rim in the Israeli 
onion ring plan--the outer ring is intelligence.
  Incidentally, I have just been in a discussion where they were 
talking about too many leaks of classified information to the public. 
Let me say

[[Page 19151]]

this, the war on terrorism is not a military war, it is an intelligence 
war, and intelligence operates on a need-to-know basis.
  You do not have to tell the Senator from South Carolina anything. 
Just tell me what we have done. Don't tell me you are backing up 
aircraft carriers and you are going to do this and you are going to 
jump from the helicopters like they have in the headlines, or that you 
are working with this group and that group--they don't know how to run 
a war, particularly against terrorism.
  Mr. President, this war is not the hundred-yard dash. This is going 
to be an endurance contest, and it is going to be off the front pages 
if there are going to be any successes.
  Back to the screeners, they have to have the highest security 
clearance. When we get terrorist watch lists from international 
security, we might get it from the Brits, we might get it from the 
French, we might get it from one of the Muslim countries themselves. 
But these watch lists are not going to be effective prevention tools to 
that screener who is being paid $5 or $6 an hour and has only been on 
the job for 3 weeks.
  We must have the highest type of personnel, not only as screeners, 
but as trustworthy security professionals. That is what we are talking 
about. That not only relates to the screener but to the person who 
vacuum-cleans the rug in the airplane. Don't worry about somebody going 
through with a pistol in an airport to get on a plane. What they are 
going to do is have someone working the tarmac, with a loaded gun 
available, and I call up ahead of time, and I say I have seat 9-A, and 
you tape the weapon underneath the seat. We must address these types of 
security weaknesses.
  You have to understand, you are in a war with a clever bunch of 
rascals, absolute fanatics. In this kind of war you can't have 20 
percent of security personnel privately contracted, for instance. 
Someone came to me late last evening and said: How about 20 percent of 
the screeners? Go out there and tell that to the Pentagon--let's have 
the privates and the corporals and the sergeants privately contracted.
  They have 669,000 civilian civil service security personnel in 
defense. But they are wrangling about 18 plus 10, or 28,000 new 
government airport security personnel. It is not money. We have paid 
for it.
  I have mentioned ad nauseam the $917 round-trip coach class ticket to 
Charleston, SC. I will willingly pay a fee to know my life is safe and 
there is no chance ever again of using a flight in the United States of 
America as a weapon of mass destruction. The pilots ought to be able to 
seal that cockpit door, which should have been done--they ought not 
have to be waiting for legislation. The airlines should not have to 
delay safety because of bureaucracy. They have pilots to fly 
airplanes--not to fight--once they go on and secure that cockpit door. 
As the chief pilot of El Al told this Senator: If my wife is being 
assaulted back in the cabin, I do not open that door. So everybody will 
know that, hereafter, no matter if they are hijacking a plane to run it 
into the Golden Gate bridge, or into a building, or into the Sears 
Tower, or anyplace else--they are picking out all kinds of targets in 
people's minds--airplane hijackings are not going to happen; that is 
done with.
  We have to move along to protect other terrorist targets, because 
that is how the terrorist's mind moves. They can maybe get 100 trying 
to wrestle the plane down. I don't believe they can get the plane down. 
Once the pilot hears a disturbance, yes, people can be hurt, someone 
can be killed, but he immediately knows his orders. Rather than open 
the door and say, ``Do you want to go to Cuba? Let's go''--no; now the 
doors stay closed, and he immediately lands the plane. He wires ahead, 
and the FBI and security is there to take charge. They are not going to 
get very far trying to hijack the plane.
  Having taken these preventive steps, the Israelis knew, almost proof 
positive, when the plane that came out of Israel and went down with an 
explosion over the Black Sea, that a bomb had not been put on that 
plane. You have to go through those parameters of defense, of security 
and safety, in Israel. There is no way to get a bomb on the plane 
unless you have the pilots and everybody conspiring together.
  That is not going to happen. The security system that we have set up 
and planned to pay for was approved by whom? By the pilots. We have 
their official approval of our approach in this particular bill. The 
flight attendants approved of it, and begged for it. The executives of 
the airlines are for it. The municipal associations, the tourism 
associations--I am getting boiled up.
  We have held this bill up on the floor for 1 week on the motion to 
proceed. Why? On account of procedural Mickey Mouse nonsense, or--there 
is no better word--constipation. Everybody wants to add this or that 
measure onto it. We have to get Amtrak. No. We have to get benefits. 
No. We have to have a stimulus bill. No. We have to get this. Sure, 
let's take care of all those issues, but in order.
  It is unforgivable to stand around here now for a week just on a 
motion to proceed. Objection just occurred when the distinguished 
ranking member of the committee and chief cosponsor said let's move to 
it, debate it, and listen and learn about these amendments, and vote 
them up or down; that is all. But we apparently have a minority. I am 
ready to vote, because I think I have some votes. Being in the minority 
does not surprise me, with all the undercurrents and the lobbying going 
on by the contractors. We read in Roll Call yesterday that when I am 
talking on the floor to an empty Senate, the lobbyists are back talking 
on individual treatment to the Senators.
  Should I have to go around and call on the 99 other Senators and 
explain this bill to them and get past the lobbyists? What has the 
Government come to in a time of crisis? Let's move on. Don't wait until 
5 o'clock and maybe then file some amendments and maybe have some more 
cloture and some more delay.
  This bill, from its origin, should not have been called airline 
safety but airline stimulus. Ironically, this crowd will go forward 
with any kind of stimulus.
  We are under limited time. We are on the motion to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is informed that his 1 hour of 
cloture has expired.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that I continue with an 
additional hour from any other Senator, that I proceed for another few 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I will conclude with a thought I just 
expressed about stimulus.
  This measure would stimulate the airline industry--exactly what we 
are trying to do all over America. When you get people traveling, when 
you get them on the airlines, when you get them in the hotels, when you 
get New York going again, and when you get all of these other places 
back to normalcy, the best way to stimulate the airlines is to get 
safety for them.
  What the bureaucracy has done up here with the procedural hangups is 
to give $15 billion to keep the airlines alive and then guarantee that 
they go broke by not giving them the safety and, therefore, ensure that 
the traveling public is not on the planes.
  This is the best way I know of to not just stimulate the airlines and 
air travel but to stimulate the economy. Please come forward. Let's 
move on this particular bill.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware and the Senator from 
Alaska for indulging me the extra moments.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

                          ____________________