[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19447-19481]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    AVIATION SECURITY ACT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada, the assistant 
majority leader, is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, during the next 55 minutes we are under 
controlled time, controlled by the majority and minority leaders. So if 
anyone desires to speak on this very important matter which will occur, 
as I said, in 55 minutes--each side has an equal amount of time--I will 
yield to whomever wants to speak.
  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.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. We have plenty of time. I ask the Senator from New York, 
how much time does the Senator wish to use?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 25 minutes 48 seconds remaining on 
the Democratic side.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I expect to consume 5 minutes or less.
  Mr. REID. On behalf of the majority leader, Senator Rockefeller will 
yield the time until the vote occurs, or if Senator Hollings comes in, 
he will yield the time.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I do not want to impinge upon the time 
of my good friend, Senator Rockefeller.
  Mr. REID. No. Please go ahead.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise again in support of the amendment 
offered by Senator Carnahan to provide immediate assistance to the over 
100,000 airline workers and those in aviation-related industries who 
have been laid off and lost their jobs as a direct result of the 
terrorist attacks of September 11.
  I just came from a very moving ceremony of commemoration at the 
Pentagon, where the lives of those military and civilian employees at 
the Pentagon, as well as the lives of the crew and passengers of the 
airplane that was mercilessly driven into the Pentagon, were honored.
  I know we are working on other kinds of relief, and I am grateful to 
the President, the administration, and my colleagues for the work that 
is being done on the economic stimulus package and for the work that is 
being done with respect to unemployment insurance and dislocated 
workers' assistance, but I believe we have an obligation to move 
quickly with respect to the workers who have been laid off through no 
fault of their own or of their industry, and we cannot wait for the 
larger packages to be put together and negotiated.
  Just as we must provide security to all Americans who are flying in 
our skies, we also should provide economic security to those who have 
supported us in the hundreds of thousands and millions of flights that 
were a matter of course before September 11. They were doing an 
important job in maintaining our free travel and supporting an 
important economic activity, and now they are confronting the cruelest 
kind of questions: How will they make their next car payment? How will 
they be able to afford the clothes their children might need? How will 
they know whether to go out and look for another job or hope and wait 
that business picks up on our airlines? I do not think we should be 
leaving our workers who have already been laid off. They need our help 
right now. I do agree we have to address the need to help all workers.
  In New York, for example, the State labor department is estimating 
that 285,000 workers throughout New York will lose their jobs as a 
result of the attack we suffered. I do not think we should leave any of 
these workers behind. If we are trying to build confidence--confidence 
in consumers, confidence in citizens--then we should address the needs 
of those people who have been economically harmed by these attacks. I 
respect the work that others are undertaking. I will support that.
  I ask this Chamber to send a message by voting in favor of Senator 
Carnahan's amendment that we are not going to just bail out airlines; 
we are not just going to protect the traveling public. We are going to 
help protect economically those who we hope will be back in the skies, 
back behind the counters, handling the baggage.
  I met yesterday with a group of executives from the travel and 
tourism industry. Stories from them about the low occupancy rates, the 
fact that people are not traveling for business or pleasure, were very 
disturbing to me. Everyone knows we have real economic challenges. The 
last thing in the world we need is people who are scared to go about 
their daily business, who are scared to take that long-planned trip to 
Disney World, who are scared to fly across the country to show off 
their new baby to their mother or grandmother.
  Until we can get that confidence up--and I applaud our wonderful 
leadership

[[Page 19448]]

of Chairman Hollings and Ranking Member McCain on the aviation security 
bill--until we can get that confidence once again moving forward so 
people will fly, we can't turn our backs on those men and women who 
were the backbone of this airline industry.
  I hope every Senator will support the Carnahan amendment and do 
everything possible to demonstrate our concern and commitment to those 
who were on the front lines and lost their jobs and livelihood because 
of the terrorist attacks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from New York for 
her statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
West Virginia controls the time.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator 
from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding time 
and commend my colleague from New York for her statement. What she has 
heard in traveling about her State and the Nation I have heard in 
Illinois. During the last 2 weeks I had roundtables across my State, 
from the city of Chicago to major cities downstate, bringing in 
business and economic leaders and saying, what can we do at this moment 
to breathe life back into this economy? They have said, restore 
consumer confidence. We have to get people back into the stores and 
making decisions for purchases.
  The Carnahan amendment which we are going to consider today takes an 
unfortunate group of people related to the aviation industry, who have 
been disadvantaged by being laid off or terminated, and says we are 
going to try to give them a hand to get back on their feet as quickly 
as possible.
  A few weeks ago when President Bush suggested we help the aviation 
industry, I was happy to do it. We have 50,000 people in the 
Chicagoland area who work in aviation in some way, shape, or form. We 
are proud to be the home of United Airlines, a major hub for American 
Airlines, and now the business headquarters for Boeing aircraft. With 
that sensitivity, I voted for that bill, understanding that unless we 
got the airlines back on their feet, it was unlikely the economy would 
respond. So we gave some $5 billion in grants and $10 billion in loans 
to the industry.
  The sad part was the bill was passed in a hurry and didn't include 
everything that should have been included. It did not include the 
Carnahan amendment. Senator Jean Carnahan of Missouri has rightfully 
stated that if we are going to help the companies, if we are going to 
help the airlines, don't forget the employees. She notes, in preparing 
for this bill, that some 140,000 people related to airlines and the 
aviation industry may find themselves laid off as a result of the 
September 11 terrorism attack against the United States.
  I met with several flight attendants today who worked for Trans World 
Airlines, now part of American Airlines. They were concerned about the 
fact that 20 percent of their flight attendants have been laid off 
already. We have seen 20,000 employees at United and American laid off, 
and perhaps even more.
  The heartening thing is people are flying again. I notice it in the 
airports. I am glad to see it. We want to encourage more and more 
people to take that trip, whether it is for business or for pleasure. 
But in the meantime, over 100,000 of our fellow Americans in jobs 
related to the aviation industry are struggling to survive.
  Senator Carnahan's amendment addresses three particular areas that 
need to be changed in the law to help these people. First and foremost, 
eligibility for unemployment compensation. The 26-week eligibility 
certainly may be enough, but Senator Carnahan suggests we give them 
eligibility for an additional 52 weeks, if necessary. Most of them will 
either be back at work or find another job before that, but giving them 
the peace of mind that they will have unemployment compensation is 
appropriate.
  Second, she talks about training. Some of the people in the industry 
may decide to go into another field--for one thing, into security. We 
have talked about aviation security. We will need some of the best and 
brightest working in our airports and all across this country to 
protect the people and the traveling public. She includes in her 
amendment a training provision. I think that makes sense as well.
  The last point is one that not only makes sense for 140,000 aviation 
industry employees, but it makes sense for every American. Senator 
Carnahan wants to make certain that we help these laid-off employees 
pay for their health insurance. When I was in Chicago, I talked to some 
administrators of hospitals. They said if we reach a point where more 
and more people are out of work and lose their health insurance, these 
folks will turn up at the hospital sick, and they will be treated, but 
the cost of their treatment will have to be absorbed by the hospital 
and generally by everyone else paying health insurance premiums. It 
makes sense, under the Carnahan amendment, to be sensitive to this, to 
help the laid-off aviation and airline industry employees pay for their 
health insurance.
  A lot of Members have talked about how to get the economy moving 
again. Believe me, by taking this group of employees and saying to 
them, we are going to give you a helping hand, it has to help them, 
their families, and our economy in general. Having said that, I will 
vote for the Carnahan amendment. I hope my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle will join me.
  I suggest further that there are many people in many other industries 
who are also losing their jobs. A friend of mine who has a number of 
hotels told me about the necessary cutbacks in employment at those 
hotels. Many know that the people working in hotels, whether in food 
service or working in room service, or trying to do the housekeeping, 
have startup jobs. They are low paying jobs. And these folks are being 
laid off. Many of them are facing very difficult times. I am glad the 
President has suggested extending unemployment insurance. But we as a 
Congress should be sensitive to this as well.
  If you want to know how to stimulate America's economy, it is not by 
leaving our friends, neighbors, and relatives by the side of the road 
as we press forward. Bring them along on this journey. Bring them along 
to see the economy's rebirth, which I believe will take place. It means 
that Congress has to do something about it.
  Frankly, let me tell you, a few of my colleagues, and only a few, 
think the way to get the economy moving again is not to pay attention 
to the unemployed and the laid off but rather those who are doing well 
and are prosperous. They are suggesting we should, again, give tax cuts 
to the wealthiest people in America. That is just incredible to my 
mind, to suggest at this moment in our history we would show less 
sensitivity to those who are out of work and more generosity to those 
who are already doing extremely well.
  I think if we are going to have tax cuts, they should be focused on 
those in the lower and middle-income categories, the millions who have 
been left behind by the original tax cut package which Congress passed 
a few months ago, and others who need a helping hand. It is by 
invigorating our economy in this way that I think we will see the 
restoration of consumer confidence.
  I hope this Congress not only passes the Carnahan amendment to help 
the specific employees but goes on to pass an economic stimulus package 
which can be helpful as well. How can we do it? One suggestion is a 
moratorium on the FICA tax, a holiday on the FICA tax. It means a 7 or 
8 percent increase in pay for every employee in America. That means 
more money to take home when it is payday, more money to spend, I hope, 
to get this economy moving. That is something that can be done quickly 
and across the board.
  The one thing Congress usually fails to do is come up with a solution 
in a timely fashion. Sadly, we don't have time on our side. We have 
started the holiday buying season and purchasing season across America. 
We need to do

[[Page 19449]]

something this month, in October, or early November that will tell 
people they are going to have more resources to deal with meeting the 
needs of their family and planning for the holidays. That means doing 
something immediately. Putting a moratorium on the FICA tax is one of 
those things. It will be seen in the next paycheck. People will know it 
instantly.
  There are also suggestions of State sales tax holidays. That is 
something we ought to explore. Of course, the Federal Government would 
compensate the State and local governments for the loss of revenue from 
sales tax, but it would mean a reduction in price of many products 
which people might turn around and buy.
  These are reasonable suggestions. I also think we ought to consider 
in the economic stimulus package tax benefits to businesses which are 
now making necessary investments in security. These investments are 
important. They are absolutely critical in light of the September 11 
attack, and we ought to help these businesses--whether it is in 
surveillance cameras or additional security personnel. Unfortunately, 
those acquisitions do not add to productivity; they just take from the 
bottom line. If we can help businesses get through this, then they may 
not be forced to lay off people because of the pressures they face as a 
result of the recession we are currently experiencing.
  So I say to my colleagues, as you consider all the possibilities of 
what we might do this week, don't forget the people on the front line. 
Don't forget the aviation and airline employees. We were good to their 
companies when we should have been. I was happy to cast my vote that 
way. But I believe we should not forget the men and women who make up 
the employee workforce of the aviation and airline industry. I am going 
to support the Carnahan amendment and recommend all my colleagues do 
the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  Mrs. BOXER. May I ask my friend, would he be willing to yield me 3 
minutes following completion of the remarks of my colleague? Would he 
yield me 3 minutes once the Senator finishes?
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I say to the Senator from California, there are at 
least one, perhaps two Senators on this side of the aisle who wish to 
speak.
  Mrs. BOXER. Would they be willing to yield me the 3 minutes?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I will agree to that if following the 8 minutes I 
will have the opportunity to give Senator Allard 10 minutes, and then I 
will take the rest of my time according to--let me just ask how much 
time is remaining on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JOHNSON). There remains 23 minutes 48 
seconds.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If I could have some time following the Senator from 
California, I agree to that.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend from Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I can do this in less than 5 minutes because it feels 
as if every day, day after day after day, week after week after week, I 
have been on the floor to speak to the question of simple justice, 
which is to make sure we provide help to aviation employees.
  I am starting to regret that I just didn't hold up the $15 billion 
package for the industry. I want to support the industry. I think it 
was the right thing to do. But I knew then--I have been here long 
enough--that this was some leverage that we had to make sure the 
employees were included.
  I don't think the aviation industry was exaggerating their 
difficulty. We were very worried about what was going to happen, but I 
knew we would have some leverage for employees. But on the basis of 
commitments that had been made from other Senators that surely we were 
going to help the employees, I thought: Let's go forward and help the 
aviation industry. Surely there will not be any opposition to helping 
the employees.
  We have 4,500 Northwest employees out of work. There is also Sun 
Country; there is Mesaba Airlines. There are other aviation employees 
out of work as well. I find it hard to believe that we do not have 
enough heart here to provide the help for them.
  We have an aviation airline safety bill on the floor with Senator 
Hollings providing great leadership. It is an important piece of 
legislation and must be passed. It makes all the sense in the world to 
support the Carnahan amendment. For people who are in a lot of economic 
pain, the Carnahan amendment says do three things: No. 1, extend the 
unemployment benefits up to a year; No. 2, since the economy is fluid 
and some people may want to get skills for other jobs that are 
available, make sure you have the workforce development; No. 3, and I 
argue most important of all, since it is terrifying not only to be out 
of work but to know in a couple of months you are not going to have any 
health care coverage for yourself and your loved ones, provide up to 12 
months of helping these families afford health care coverage for 
themselves and their children.
  Is this too much to support now? Instead, we have a second-degree 
amendment. I will not get into ANWR. Some of my colleagues are so much 
in a rush to help the oil industry, so much in a rush to do something 
that is environmentally reckless--it doesn't have a heck of a lot to do 
with what we need to do by way of having an independent energy policy--
anything that can be done to block help for hard-pressed employees who 
are out of work. This doesn't make sense.
  I was convinced 2 weeks ago when we passed this package for the 
companies that there would not be any resistance at all. I said 
yesterday--I will say it again--99.9 percent of the people in Minnesota 
believe that we should not only help the industry, but we should be 
helping the employees. Mr. President, 99 percent of the people in 
Minnesota believe it is a matter of elementary justice and fairness. 
Apparently too many Senators do not get it, and they are blocking this 
assistance.
  If this is the dividing line between Democrats and Republicans, I am 
proud to be a Democrat. Better yet would be if we had the support of 
every single Senator, which would be the right thing to do, but 
apparently we have an all-out effort to block this package.
  I wish my colleagues had such passion and had such a heart not to 
oppose helping people who are flat on their backs but to help them 
instead. And the Senator from Illinois is right. Actually the sooner we 
do this the better because the fact is, we are in a recession in our 
country. It is a deep recession. It has cut across a broad section of 
the population--certainly in Minnesota, way beyond the aviation 
industry. There are lots of small businesses and lots of other 
employees--tourism, you name it--and the fact is, we need to pass an 
economic stimulus package. We need to pass an economic stimulus package 
that puts the purchasing power back into the hands of working 
families--whether it be tax rebates vis-a-vis payroll tax that helps 
them or whether it be a massive school construction program where we 
repair buildings that have been crumbling and create jobs; whether it 
be affordable housing and we create jobs; whether it be extending 
unemployment benefits; getting the health care benefits; whether or not 
we do a lot of other things that will help employees support their 
families and buy in this economy.
  The sooner the better. We ought to be supporting the Carnahan 
amendment as an important first step.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized for 
3 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, this country gives trade adjustment 
assistance to workers when they lose their jobs due to trade. I support 
that. We all seem to support that. But it is shocking to me that a 
number of people in this Senate today do not support such

[[Page 19450]]

assistance because of terrorism, an attack on our country, on our 
people, on our workers. It is stunning to me.
  You will hear every excuse in the book about why it doesn't belong on 
this bill. People cannot pay their mortgages; they have been laid off. 
They cannot pay their health insurance; they have been laid off.
  Let me read to you simply a letter that went out from one of my 
airlines, American Eagle:

       Unfortunately, due to the circumstances of this national 
     emergency which are beyond our control, it may be necessary 
     to close or reduce the size of some of our business 
     locations. This will cause some or all American Eagle 
     personnel at those locations to be laid off. Because American 
     Eagle's future rests on how well we can rebound from our 
     current situation, we cannot say at this time how long these 
     layoffs may last.

  We gave the airlines a huge package. I supported it. I still support 
it. But I assumed we would follow it up to help those people who make 
those airlines run. I am shocked, stunned, and in disbelief that we are 
not here as patriotic Americans, both sides of the aisle, standing up 
for the patriotic workers who lost their jobs because of an attack on 
the United States of America.
  I will look at this vote very carefully. It will hurt my heart if we 
don't win this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes of my remaining 
time to the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Texas.
  (The remarks of Mr. Allen pertaining to the introduction of S. 1532 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I support the Carnahan amendment which 
addresses the issues faced by employees who have been dislocated as a 
result of the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. 
While we have not yet determined the full impact of the events of 
September 11 on our economy, the preliminary information from the 
Department of Labor estimates that over 200,000 U.S. jobs were 
eliminated in September. This includes a first-time unemployment claim 
increase of over 7,700 jobs in my own State of Michigan. Expectations 
are that the October unemployment claim numbers will be even higher. 
Many of these workers were individuals employed in the airline and 
travel related industries. The Carnahan amendment will help these 
workers by providing extended income support, training benefits and 
health care benefits.
  The issue of assisting dislocated workers should have been addressed 
last month when we passed legislation to assist the airline industry at 
a price tag of $15 billion. But over the objections of many of us, 
provisions to assist workers in the airline and travel industry were 
taken out of the airline industry assistance bill. We cannot continue 
to sit by idly while thousands of American workers lose their jobs 
because of the actions of terrorists. We now have an opportunity to 
assist workers who have been devastated economically by the tragic 
events of September 11. Senators who oppose assisting those workers 
should at least allow the Senate to debate the issue openly and vote 
quickly on the bill on its merits.
  The Carnahan amendment specifically addresses the current economic 
situation of employees of airlines, commercial aircraft manufacturers, 
suppliers to airlines and airports. This bill currently has bipartisan 
support and over 35 cosponsors. I would like to commend Senator 
Carnahan for her tireless efforts to assist dislocated workers.
  The Carnahan amendment would provide individuals who exhaust their 
26-week eligibility for State unemployment insurance an additional 20 
weeks of cash payments funded entirely by the Federal Government. The 
bill would also allow individuals who do not meet their States' 
requirements for unemployment insurance to receive 26 weeks of 
federally financed unemployment insurance.
  The bill would also allow individuals who would not be expected to 
return to their jobs within the airline industry to become eligible for 
retraining benefits. Individuals who would not be expected to return to 
their jobs, but who may find some alternative job within the airline 
industry, would be eligible for upgrade training.
  Finally under the provisions of the Carnahan amendment, the Federal 
Government would fully reimburse eligible individuals for their COBRA 
premiums so they can continue to be fully insured. Individuals who do 
not qualify for COBRA and are otherwise uninsured would be eligible for 
Medicaid with the Federal Government covering 100 percent of the 
premiums. These health care benefits would last for a maximum of 12 
months.
  I can't stress enough the importance of assisting these dislocated 
workers. The tragedy of September 11 has brought American families 
closer together and given us all an opportunity to help those who have 
been directly affected by the terrorist attacks. I hope that in the 
Senate's newly found spirit of bipartisanship, we can agree to help 
those American workers who urgently need our assistance.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, how much time is remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for 3 additional minutes, for a total of 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, this Senate has acted swiftly and with 
unity in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. We provided 
$40 billion to begin the relief effort. We authorized the President to 
use force in pursuing the terrorists and the nations that harbor them. 
And we created a $15 billion relief package to help stabilize our 
Nation's airlines.
  I have been very proud of the manner in which this body has acted 
over the last month, but we have not yet acted on behalf of the tens of 
thousands of Americans who have lost their jobs as a result of these 
attacks. Now is the time to do something for the workers.
  Before we passed the airline stabilization bill, I came to this 
Chamber on several occasions to argue on behalf of including assistance 
to displaced workers as part of that package, but in an effort to pass 
the bill expeditiously, I was asked to withhold my amendment. So I did. 
That was the right thing to do.
  We cannot delay any longer. Some of my colleagues have spoken in 
opposition to my amendment, by arguing that we have already helped 
airline workers by providing assistance to airlines. That is only half 
right. By helping the airlines avoid bankruptcy, we saved many jobs. 
However, we have not done anything for the families of the 140,000 
airline industry employees who are losing their jobs despite the 
airline stabilization package.
  The $15 billion we gave to the airlines is not helping those families 
pay their mortgage. That money is not helping them put food on the 
dinner table. And that money certainly is not helping them pay for 
health insurance for their families. The modest assistance provided in 
this amendment will help these families deal with a tough situation.
  There are hundreds of thousands of Americans who are losing their 
jobs. Some of my colleagues have asked why we should provide special 
assistance to airline workers.
  First, let me say, I am eager to work with President Bush and my 
colleagues to provide assistance to all displaced workers as a part of 
the economic stimulus package. This vote is not a choice between my 
plan and the President's plan. We can do both. I believe we must 
address airline workers separately, and now.
  Furthermore, current law already treats some displaced workers 
differently than others. The Trade Adjustment Assistance Program 
provides special benefits to workers who have lost their jobs as a 
result of increased

[[Page 19451]]

imports. Over 1 million workers have benefitted from this program. I am 
glad they did. But let's be clear; they received a better benefit 
package than other laid off workers. If we can provide these benefits 
to aid workers who lost jobs due to trade, can't we do so for workers 
who lost their jobs due to terrorism?
  The amendment we are about to vote on would provide similar benefits 
to airline industry workers who have lost their jobs as a result of the 
September 11 attacks.
  The more than 140,000 airline industry employees who are being laid 
off have been dealt a terrible blow. I don't know how many Members of 
this body know what it is like to be a child in a family with a laid 
off worker. I do. My grandparents, with whom I lived for many years, 
when my parents worked, lived in this very city. I can recall a time 
when my grandfather, a carpenter, came home and sat in the kitchen and 
said to my grandmother: I have been laid off. I remember her tears, and 
I remember their fears, as they did not know what the future held for 
them.
  It is time we gave to these workers of America's airlines a sense of 
confidence that their future is assured. This is our chance to send a 
message to the workers of America that we know they are facing hard 
times, we want to help, and this Senate stands ready to take action.
  It is not enough to say, wait for the next piece of legislation, and 
the next after that. It is not enough to say that we have to move on to 
other pressing business. This measure deserves an up-or-down vote on 
its merits, not a filibuster.
  I urge my colleagues to let the Senate vote on this amendment, and I 
urge a vote in favor of cloture.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Carnahan for her 
amendment. I congratulate her and express my appreciation for her 
efforts on behalf of employees of the airlines who have suffered 
directly as a result of Federal action.
  I am sympathetic to the needs of the displaced workers who she and so 
many of our colleagues want to address. I say this to the Senator: I 
believe this issue has to be addressed. There are people who, as a 
result of Federal action, were put out of work. That is a fact.
  I cannot support this amendment. For one reason, Senator Hollings and 
I made a commitment; and we made that commitment because, if we allow 
one amendment that is not germane to this bill, then there is no reason 
why we should not allow numerous others, which is the same reason why I 
will oppose any other amendment, including the Murkowski-Smith 
amendment.
  But I hope we can work together. I think Senator Carnahan's amendment 
needs to be narrowed dramatically. I think it can be addressed to 
specific individuals who have been affected by Federal action. I 
believe in the Senator's amendment there are some employees who are not 
directly impacted who would receive help that may not be necessary.
  I also submit that both the airlines and the employees needed to be 
helped. We did give financial assistance to the airlines, and we do 
need to move forward. I know the chairman shares my views that we need 
to move forward on that issue.
  I agree that we still need to provide assistance to workers who have 
been laid off as a result of these attacks. The appropriate amount, 
nature, and recipients of Federal assistance for the unemployed is a 
difficult and inevitably contentious issue.
  Last night Senator Gramm criticized the Carnahan amendment for being 
unfairly narrow because it only helps certain industry sectors where 
workers have been laid off as a result of the September 11 attacks and 
does not address hotel workers, restaurant workers, transportation 
service workers, travel agents, and many others whose layoffs can be 
attributed to terrorist actions. I do not agree with that comment.
  I understand that the benefits provided under the expanded trade 
adjustment assistance model are over and above traditional unemployment 
assistance available to other displaced employees.
  In addition to concerns about the scope of the amendment--which may 
be overinclusive in some respects and underinclusive in others--I think 
there are very significant practical problems that render the amendment 
fundamentally unworkable.
  The Carnahan amendment charges the Department of Labor with paying 
100 percent of eligible workers' COBRA premiums and suggests these 
premiums be made directly to insurance providers. I understand, 
however, that Labor simply has no mechanism in place for doing this. 
Determining COBRA eligibility; verifying the amounts that are owed to 
insurers on behalf of tens of thousands of workers; to whom it is owed; 
and how it is to be paid is not something that can be turned around 
overnight. If the intention is to provide laid off workers with 
benefits in the near term, the Carnahan COBRA compensation mechanism 
does not seem very workable to me.
  But having addressed some of the concerns I have with it, let me 
reiterate again, however, that I agree with what Senator Carnahan and 
others are doing in trying to provide assistance to workers who have 
been laid off as a result of the terrorist attacks.
  I look forward to working with her and others.
  I say to Senator Carnahan, no matter how this amendment is taken care 
of--and I believe that the required 60 votes will not be obtained by 
the sponsor of the amendment--the issue is not going away. I know that 
Senator Hollings and I are committed to working with the Senator. We 
have taken care of the shareholders and the airline executives and the 
airlines themselves. Now we need to take care of the unfortunate 
victims of this terrorist attack.
  I hope Senator Carnahan recognizes that it is not out of a lack of 
sympathy, but we simply have to move forward because the safety and 
security of Americans on airliners is the most important and paramount 
factor, and the reason why this legislation is on the floor, as we 
speak--safety and security. That is why this amendment has to be 
rejected at this time, in my opinion.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, is there time remaining on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 10 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I agree with my colleague, Senator 
McCain. I support much of what is in the Carnahan amendment, but this 
is not the right vehicle for it. It has not yet been determined how 
much we need to do and how we should do it. We need to work that out.
  I will be working with Senator Allen, Senator Carnahan, and others to 
assure we have the help we need for displaced workers. Right now, if we 
are going to keep jobs in the aviation industry, we need to pass the 
Aviation Security Act. If something is going to keep the bill from 
having the strong support of the Senate, then we will get bogged down 
in that amendment.
  Let's get these people back to work. The way we get them back to work 
is for people in America to be secure in flying again. That is what our 
bill will do. It is going to provide a security system that gives 
people confidence that they will be safe when they fly. If we can bring 
the people back to flying again, we will bring the jobs back on the 
market. That is what these people want. They want to work for the same 
airline, the aircraft manufacturing company or the hotel that they 
left. The way to keep those jobs is to bring the public back to flying 
again.
  We want business as usual in our country. We want the economy to 
stabilize. We want to get those people back on the job. They would 
rather work than collect unemployment benefits. We can put them to work 
if we can pass this aviation security bill. We are very close. If we 
can keep from starting a process of having extraneous amendments on 
this bill, we will be able to pass it because we will be able to take

[[Page 19452]]

amendments, vote on them, and pass the bill. I hope we will be able to 
do that tonight.
  I thank everybody who has cooperated so much on the bill. I look 
forward to working on passage of the bill after we have taken the stand 
that we will not allow extraneous amendments.
  I ask the distinguished Senator from Arizona if it would be proper to 
yield back the time and start the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Lincoln). All time is yielded back. Under 
the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Daschle 
     amendment No. 1855 to S. 1447, the Aviation Security bill:
         Harry Reid, Bob Graham, Bob Torricelli, Jean Carnahan, 
           Jeff Bingaman, Maria Cantwell, Richard J. Durbin, John 
           Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, Mark Dayton, Ben Nelson, Evan 
           Bayh, Tim Johnson, Russell Feingold, Kent Conrad, Tom 
           Daschle, Bill Nelson, Edward M. Kennedy, Barbara A. 
           Mikulski, and Paul Wellstone.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on 
amendment No. 1855 to S. 1447, a bill to improve aviation security, and 
for other purposes, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are required under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 293 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--44

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Bunning
     Burns
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). On this vote, the yeas are 56, 
the nays are 44. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, it is clear a majority of the Senate 
wants to act in favor of taking some action for those directly affected 
by the shutdown of America's airlines after September 11. So if a 
majority of the Senate has expressed their will, I strongly suggest we 
sit down and negotiate a reasonable package. We did take care of the 
airlines in a very generous package. Now we need to move forward with 
an agreement that would get at least 60 votes so we can address the 
needs and plight of 100,000 employees, at least, who have been rendered 
unemployed by the September 11 events.
  I voted to not invoke cloture on this amendment. I intend to work 
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle so we can come up with a 
reasonable package to compensate individuals who were directly affected 
by an act of the Federal Government. That is what we are talking about. 
That is what we are talking about. I always thought one of the 
obligations of government was to care of those who were affected by 
events and decisions beyond their control. It was a decision of the 
Federal Government, and a right one, to shut down the airlines of 
America, including 3 weeks at Reagan National Airport.
  I want to work with my colleagues and get this legislation in a 
package that can be agreed to by, hopefully, all, including the 
administration. I believe very strongly we need to act on it. I don't 
want to be repetitive except to say we should have a sense of urgency 
about 100,000 employees who were rendered unemployed just as we did 
over the plight of the airlines and their shareholders and executives, 
as well as the American flying public.
  Very shortly we will hopefully move to an amendment from Senator 
Smith and Senator Murkowski. In the meantime, 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. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, with the consent of the two managers of 
the bill, we have three people who wish to speak on the vote that just 
took place. I ask unanimous consent Senators Dodd, Cantwell, and Reid 
be allowed to speak for a total of up to 15 minutes, and prior to that, 
Senator Murkowski will introduce his amendment. As soon as we finish 
with the three speeches, we will move to the Smith-Murkowski amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I failed to acknowledge we still have 
pending the Carnahan amendment. So what I would ask in the consent is 
we temporarily set aside the Carnahan amendment; that we go to the 
Murkowski amendment, but at such time as the majority leader, who 
offered the amendment on behalf of Senator Carnahan, comes to the 
floor, that he be recognized to take whatever appropriate action on the 
underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 1863

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, it is my intention to propose 
amendment No. 1863, about which I have already spoken at some length. 
This particular amendment allows, under the circumstances, the 
extension to commercial airline pilots the right to fly beyond the age 
of 60 to the age of 63. It is my intention to ask for a recorded vote 
on the amendment.
  I ask that the clerk report the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1863.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

           (Purpose: To establish age limitations for airmen)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. AGE AND OTHER LIMITATIONS.

       (A) General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     beginning on the date that is 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act--
       (1) section 121.383(c) of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations shall not apply;
       (2) no certificate holder may use the services of any 
     person as a pilot on an airplane engaged in operations under 
     part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, if that 
     person is 63 years of age or older; and
       (3) no person may serve as a pilot on an airplane engaged 
     in operations under part 121 of title 14, Code of Federal 
     Regulations, if that person is 63 years of age or older.

[[Page 19453]]

       (b) Certificate Holder.--For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``certificate holder'' means a holder of a certificate 
     to operate as an air carrier or commercial operator issued by 
     the Federal Aviation Administration.
       (c) Reservation of Safety Authority.--Nothing in this 
     section is intended to change the authority of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration to take steps to ensure the safety of 
     air transportation operations involving a pilot who has 
     reached the age of 60, including its authority--
       (1) to require such a pilot to undergo additional or more 
     stringent medical, cognitive, or proficiency testing in order 
     to retain certification; or
       (2) to establish crew pairing standards for crews with such 
     a pilot.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, it is my understanding at a time 
agreed upon by the floor leaders, Senator Smith will be recognized to 
offer a first-degree amendment for himself as well as Senator Murkowski 
regarding cockpit security, and no second-degree amendments will be in 
order.
  I further ask consent that there be 20 minutes for debate equally 
divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of the 
time, the amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, is this the amendment we 
anticipated coming up?
  I have no objection.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 1855

  Mr. DODD. Madam President, if I may, I want to take a couple of 
minutes to express my disappointment at the Senate's failure to invoke 
cloture and to allow for the consideration of the Carnahan amendment. I 
am saddened, in the midst of this otherwise harmonious relationship we 
have been developing, that we would deny the opportunity to have a 
vote, an up-or-down vote, where 51 votes would win, 50 or fewer would 
cause the amendment to fail. We are not even going to have a chance for 
a straight vote on the amendment being offered by the Senator from 
Missouri.
  Let me tell you why I am disappointed. First, I think the country 
has, with almost unanimity, watched the Congress of the United States 
and the President of the United States work in a fashion unprecedented 
for those of us who are today serving here. There are some whose 
service goes back many years. But I suggest even for those with the 
longest service in the Senate, they could not recall a time during 
their service when we have been as united as a people and as united as 
public servants as we are today.
  With that as a backdrop, it was terribly disappointing to me to see 
us walk away from those individuals who every day go to work and try to 
make our airlines work as well as they can. We all stood together 
here--with the exception of 1 vote--when the airline industry came up 
and said, we need some help. We did not get involved in filibusters or 
demanding 30 hours of debate. Democrats and Republicans, with the 
exception of one of our colleagues, raised their hands and cast their 
votes ``aye'' to help out this industry.
  The suggestion was made during that debate that we could not do 
anything to help out the workers right away but we would do it as soon 
as we could. So we said: Fine, with that kind of a general assurance, 
we will vote to bail out the shareholders--in effect. That is what we 
did. I voted for that bill, and I am glad I did. I think it was 
necessary because not just the airlines but other industries that 
depend upon a healthy airline service would be adversely affected as 
well.
  But to turn around and say to the thousands of people who have lost 
their jobs, whose home mortgages, car payments and health care benefits 
are in jeopardy--you must go find a meaningful level of employment in 
an economy that was already in trouble before September 11. Mr. 
President, I do not understand this Chamber that could find in its 
pockets enough money to bail out a shareholder and yet couldn't find 
the small change to bail out innocent people.
  This has been tough enough on our country over the last month. We 
have seen today at the Pentagon, and elsewhere, memorial services to 
recognize the contribution of those who lost their lives. That is 
appropriate and proper.
  I listened to the eloquent words of the Secretary of Defense, and the 
eloquent speech of the President to the employees at the Pentagon, and 
to the world, for that matter.
  But it is our obligation as well, not only to recognize those who 
have given their lives but to also recognize the living and what they 
are going through. The idea that you cannot have a simple vote on 
whether or not you are going to extend unemployment insurance for an 
additional number of weeks; that you are not going to provide for COBRA 
continuation coverage for individuals--I do not understand that.
  What happened to us in the last couple of weeks? When it comes to 
those at the very top of the income spectrum, with all due respect, 
they are not the ones suffering from the airline industry problems. But 
the idea that the majority of people who lose their jobs have little or 
no value is something I do not understand.
  My hope is that we have a vote on this issue and those who did not 
vote for cloture would cast a vote in favor of the thousands who have 
lost their jobs and find themselves and their families in a very 
precarious situation.
  Individuals who do not qualify for extended health insurance under 
COBRA and who are otherwise uninsured would be eligible for Medicaid, 
with the Federal Government covering 100 percent of the premiums. For a 
few weeks, to get people back on their feet, could we not find it in 
our hearts to extend to them the kind of help they need?
  Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. I am happy to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I took to the floor earlier, in a brief moment that I 
had, and I made the connection between trade adjustment assistance and 
this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). The time of the Senator from 
Connecticut has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I made the connection between trade adjustment assistance 
and this bill, which Senator Carnahan based on the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Act. I ask my friend, doesn't he think if we can help people 
when they lose their job because of trade, we should help people when 
they lose their job because of a terrorist attack on this country? I 
ask him, doesn't it seem ironic that somehow, when you lose your job 
because of trade, you get the help, but not if it is a result of a 
terrorist attack?
  Mr. DODD. I think the Senator from California raises a very good 
question, and one that she provides the answer for in her question.
  Obviously, over the years, we have said to people, if you lose your 
job because of trade policies--which we think have a long-term 
beneficial effect on the country and we see something good come out of 
that--if you lose your job because we are trying to achieve a greater 
good, we will step into that breach and provide some assistance to you 
and your family.
  How ironic that when something terrible happens and you lose your 
job, we can't provide benefits to help you and your family during 
difficult times.
  I am stunned by this. I thought this was going to be a non-issue. I 
could see where people might want to modify this a bit. Instead of 52 
weeks, make it 45 weeks; instead of 100 percent of Medicaid, we will 
make it 90 percent.
  I can understand people making a case that we need to modify the 
Carnahan amendment. But not to provide for any kind of alternative is 
something that just gets away.
  We have to finish the bill. I know the distinguished chairman of the 
committee has an awful burden to get this done. He has argued very 
persuasively that we have a responsibility to meet the security needs.
  Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 19454]]


  Mr. DODD. I understand the sense of urgency to get this done. I am 
sure my friend from South Carolina would not argue with that coming up 
rather quickly as we did with the airline bailout. That didn't take 
long. We managed to find the time around here to come up with the time 
to debate it, discuss it, and work it out. Again, I voted for that 
bill. I would again today. I don't argue with that at all.
  But I am stunned that we can't find the time somehow to say to those 
thousands of workers--baggage handlers, flight attendants, and 
mechanics--who have lost their jobs and are wondering how they are 
going to make ends meet--we have time for everybody but you. Everybody 
else got in line. But you don't. We are sending the message that we 
don't have enough time to take care of you.
  I am terribly disappointed that our colleagues have decided to reject 
this cloture motion. But I tell you that people out there have lost 
their jobs. Millions of other Americans are watching this vote to see 
what we did to average people out there on this day, 1 month later. We 
memorialize those who lost their lives but this Chamber couldn't find 
in its heart to come up with a few extra dollars to help some people 
who have lost their work.
  That is a sad day. That is not the way to commemorate those who gave 
so much 1 month ago. I am deeply disappointed in my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I also rise with a great deal of 
frustration over the last vote where the majority of my colleagues in 
the Senate want to act to help workers who have been impacted by the 
acts of September 11 and the emergency that has prevailed; that we do 
something to help those who have been most impacted by job layoffs by 
cutbacks in major industries related to transportation; and that we act 
immediately.
  I am very frustrated, even though a majority of my colleagues want to 
see such legislation passed to help workers who are going to be laid 
off, who are going to have to struggle with how to pay for health 
insurance, who will not have the assistance for job training that might 
put them back in the economy sooner, that they are going to be without 
assistance. They are going to be without that assistance, even though a 
majority of my colleagues wanted to see that legislation passed, 
because we could not get this cloture vote in the Senate today.
  I ask, if not now, when?
  We were told after the events of September 11, when everybody wanted 
to work in a bipartisan fashion to expedite the decisionmaking in the 
Senate, that we needed to band together. We did. We acted quickly on 
legislation to help and assist the airline industry. I think the vote 
was 98 to 0.
  At that same time, we were told we need to act now to help the 
industry. We will come back to help workers. So with earnest, Senator 
Carnahan, Senator Kennedy, myself, and Senator Murray from Washington 
have been working diligently on this proposal.
  Today we are sending the wrong message to the American people. We are 
sending the message that this body thinks it is more important to help 
the corporate executives and the shareholders of the airline industry 
than it is to help the American workers. That is absolutely the wrong 
message.
  When you think about it, consumer confidence counts for about two-
thirds of our economy. In the past month of September, consumer 
confidence has been at its all-time low since 1996.
  This is an economic issue. Just as the assistance package for the 
airlines was an economic issue, this assistance to the workers is an 
economic issue. Instead of working together in a bipartisan fashion, we 
showed our partisan colors today by not allowing this vote to take 
place. The majority of Senators wish this legislation would have 
passed.
  In Washington State, where 20,000 to 30,000 workers could be laid off 
by the end of next year, the impact will be real. Some estimates are 
that a $1.29 billion loss will be felt by our local economy. That is 
quite significant in the State of Washington where we have already been 
feeling the impact of the downturn in the economy.
  When you think about the individual workers, yes, they will receive 
some unemployment benefits. What about health care? When you think 
about it, a typical worker in the aerospace industry might make $40,000 
to $50,000. Yet the impact of losing that income and having 
unemployment insurance is not being able to pay for health care 
benefits. An average worker with a family might pay as much as $850 a 
month for the loss of health care benefits, on top of other bills they 
have to pay--for their mortgage, for their food, and for their 
children's education.
  We are sending a terrible message that it is more important to help 
corporate executives and shareholders than to care about the 
educational needs of the airline workers in our country. That is the 
wrong message.
  We need to move ahead in a bipartisan fashion to think about the 
ripple effect on our economy. It is not just the airline manufacturing 
industry, as I said, with 20,000 to 30,000 layoffs, but the hundred-
plus thousand layoffs in the airline industry overall. That impact on 
our economy at a time when our economy is already seeing a downturn is 
not the kind of message we need to be sending.
  It is very important that we move ahead. If not now, when will we act 
to support workers in this country in their time of need?
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, the majority leader is now in the Chamber. 
I am not going to use the 5 minutes allocated to me under the previous 
order. I ask unanimous consent that the time be given to the majority 
leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Madam President, I come to the floor to express my grave 
disappointment at what the Senate has just done.
  This is the first time we have said no to any of the victims of 
disaster of 1 month ago. It is the first time we have said no to 
working families struggling to put their lives back together.
  I am troubled, disappointed, and disillusioned.
  I will say this: We will not give up. We will not quit. We will not 
allow those workers to in any way believe that this country is going to 
turn its back on them when they need it the most. We will help them. We 
will find a way to do this. We will keep the fight. We are committed, 
as people determined to help all of those who are hurting so badly, 
including those who have no job, including those who have no health 
insurance, including those who need training today--including all of 
those victims. We cannot say no to these people. We will be back. We 
will not give up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cantwell). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, under the previous order, it is now my 
understanding we are going to go to the Smith-Murkowski amendment on a 
20-minute time agreement; is that right?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Amendment No. 1874

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I have amendment No. 
1874 at the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration as 
described under the previous order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Smith], for himself, 
     Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Burns, and Mr. Thurmond, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1874.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To further provide for the safety of American aviation and 
                     the suppression of terrorism)

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

[[Page 19455]]



     SEC.   . FLIGHT DECK SECURITY.

       (a) Title.--This Section may be cited as the `Flight Deck 
     Security Act of 2001'.
       (b) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four 
     civilian aircraft, crashing two of the aircraft into the 
     towers of the World Trade Center in New York, New York, and a 
     third into the Pentagon outside Washington, District of 
     Columbia.
       (2) Thousands of innocent Americans and citizens of other 
     countries were killed or injured as a result of these 
     attacks, including the passengers and crew of the four 
     aircraft, workers in the World Trade Center and in the 
     Pentagon, rescue workers, and bystanders.
       (3) These attacks destroyed both towers of the World Trade 
     Center, as well as adjacent buildings, and seriously damaged 
     the Pentagon.
       (4) These attacks were by far the deadliest terrorist 
     attacks ever launched against the United States and, by 
     targeting symbols of America, clearly were intended to 
     intimidate our Nation and weaken its resolve.
       (5) Armed pilots, co-pilots, and flight engineers with 
     proper training will be the last line of defense against 
     terrorists by providing cockpit security and aircraft 
     security.
       (6) Secured doors separating the flight deck from the 
     passenger cabin have been effective in deterring hijackings 
     in other nations and will serve as a deterrent to future 
     contemplated acts of terrorism in the United States.
       (c) Aviation Safety and the Suppression of Terrorism by 
     Commercial Aircraft.--
       (1) Possession of firearms on commercial flights.--The FAA 
     is authorized to permit a pilot, co-pilot, or flight engineer 
     of a commercial aircraft who has successfully completed the 
     requirements of section (c)(2) of this Act, who is not 
     otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, from 
     possessing or carrying a firearm approved by the FAA for the 
     protection of the aircraft under procedures or regulations as 
     necessary, to ensure the safety and integrity of flight.
       (2) Federal pilot officers.--
       (A) In addition to the protections provided by the section 
     (c)(1) of this Act, the FAA shall also establish a voluntary 
     program to train and supervise commercial airline pilots.
       (B) Under the program, the FAA shall make available 
     appropriate training and supervision for all such pilots, 
     which may include training by private entities.
       (C) The power granted to such persons shall be limited to 
     enforcing Federal law in the cockpit of commercial aircraft 
     and, under reasonable circumstances the passenger compartment 
     to protect the integrity of the commercial aircraft and the 
     lives of the passengers.
       (D) The FAA shall make available appropriate training to 
     any qualified pilot who requests such training pursuant to 
     this Act.
       (E) The FAA may prescribe regulations for purposes of this 
     section.
       (d) Reports to Congress.--Not later than six months after 
     the date of the enactment of this Act, and every six months 
     thereafter, the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the effectiveness of the requirements in 
     this section in facilitating commercial aviation safety and 
     the suppression of terrorism by commercial aircraft.''.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I say to my colleagues, 
I will be very brief. If there are others who wish to speak, they may 
want to come to the Chamber. We have only, as I understand it, 20 
minutes equally divided.
  This amendment, I say to my colleagues, is the one that has been 
known as the gun-in-the-cockpits amendment. I am pleased to report 
that, to the best of my knowledge, the Senate has agreed to accept this 
amendment, which I think is good news for the airline industry and good 
news for all of us who fly across America, and all over the world, as a 
matter of fact.
  First of all, I thank my colleagues, Senator Murkowski and Senator 
Burns, for their leadership, and also Senator Thurmond for working with 
me to put this amendment together. Also, Senator McCain and Senator 
Hollings were very helpful as we worked out the compromise so we could 
offer this amendment without a lot of rancor.
  The motto of my legislation is that armed pilots are the first line 
of deterrence and the last line of defense--the first line of 
deterrence because terrorists will know that armed pilots will be able 
to defend the cockpit and defend the aircraft from a hijacking; the 
last line of defense because when all else fails, including the air 
marshals and perhaps even a reinforced cockpit door, an armed pilot 
will be in the cockpit to defend that cockpit from terrorist hijackers.
  I think it is important for us to think and reflect back on what has 
happened in the past month. We all know what happened on September 11. 
Those terrorists got in that cockpit, and the pilots had no defense 
once that door was kicked in, except their bare hands. We have had 
another----
  Mrs. BOXER. The Senate is not in order, and I am extremely interested 
in hearing about the content of this amendment. I hope the Senate can 
be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Senators will take 
their conversations to the back of the Chamber.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I thank the Senator from California for 
her courtesy.
  In the last week, we have had another incident--not a terrorist 
incident but one where a person got into the cockpit and caused the 
plane to be destabilized momentarily.
  I think it is important to understand, after all of the events of 
September 11, and all of the efforts we have made to encourage and 
bring people back to flying again, we still had another incident where 
a person actually got into the cockpit.
  Now we know--and we are working on all of this--we are going to 
reinforce the cockpit doors; there will be armed marshals; we are going 
to increase security on the aircraft. All of these things are being 
done. But I would ask my colleagues to reflect for a moment as to what 
would happen if, in spite of all of that--in spite of all three of 
those things: The marshals, the reinforced cockpit doors, and increased 
security around the aircraft--somebody got into that cockpit again. 
They could bring that plane down.
  If, in fact, a pilot had a gun, that pilot would have the opportunity 
to stop that hijacker or person coming into that cockpit to cause 
damage. If the pilot could not do it, if the pilot did not have a 
weapon, and that person got into the cockpit, the worst of all things 
could be that the hijacker would commandeer the plane and do some 
terrible destruction using the aircraft as a weapon of mass 
destruction. But what might happen, and what could have happened last 
time, were it not for the brave passengers on Flight 93, we could have 
to shoot down our own commercial aircraft with our own American 
citizens in that aircraft.
  It is far preferable to have the pilot shoot the hijacker and 
maintain control of the cockpit than it is to have the hijacker get 
control of the cockpit and have the President of the United States have 
to make that god-awful, gut-wrenching decision to shoot down a 
commercial aircraft to save the lives of thousands, killing perhaps a 
couple hundred American citizens. So this is the right thing to do.
  The Senator from California mentioned that she wants to know the 
content of the amendment. The content of the amendment, I say to the 
Senator, is very reasonable. It says that the FAA is authorized to 
permit, if the airlines and the pilots would agree to do it--if they 
did agree; no one is forced to carry a weapon into the cockpit. That is 
the pilots' and the airlines' decision.
  So I think it is reasonable. I have met with dozens of pilots on this 
issue, many from New Hampshire and Massachusetts, some here, from most 
of the airlines. I know there are very few who disagree with this 
amendment, but the vast, overwhelming majority of the pilots, probably 
95 percent of them, agree with it. It is the right thing to do, and not 
only for safety reasons but also, if we are going to bring back the 
airline industry and get those people back to work who have lost their 
jobs, we have to bring passengers back to the airplanes; we have to 
restore their confidence.
  I am going to feel a lot more confident knowing that pilot is going 
to have the opportunity to stop that hijacker when that hijacker comes 
through that cockpit door, if he gets through the cockpit door in spite 
of all the other things we are doing.
  So remember, this is not an amendment that is just hanging out there 
with nothing else. This is an amendment that is working in conjunction

[[Page 19456]]

with increased airport and aircraft security, reinforced cockpit doors, 
and perhaps a Federal marshal--at least spot-checked on flights. It 
goes with all of that. And this is the final stop, so that pilot can 
have the assurance, with that TV camera or monitor, so he or she can 
see what is going on in the back of that aircraft, in the cabin. At 
that point, the pilot can turn and be prepared to face that hijacker 
who could cause unbelievable destruction.
  So I am pleased and proud to offer the amendment on behalf of myself, 
Senator Burns, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Thurmond. I know there 
are others who support it as well.
  Madam President, I know other people would like to speak, so I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield the Senator whatever time she 
wishes to consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.
  Madam President, as someone who for a long time has taken the 
opposite position on guns, I think this amendment makes sense.
  We are working toward having air marshals on our airplanes. We will 
also be working--and I want to announce here my support of the Burns 
amendment--to really move security into the Department of Justice where 
it belongs.
  Until we do all this, I think this amendment makes sense. It gives 
the FAA a chance to decide if they think it is prudent for a pilot, who 
is trained, and who wants to, and who is willing to, to be able to 
defend the aircraft.
  I just want to remind my colleagues that every single plane that was 
hijacked was going to my State of California. I want you to know that 
every time I think about this, I think of how many people are 
suffering. I think we need to do everything we can to prevent any more 
of these hijackings from occurring.
  Therefore, I believe this amendment is right. I believe it is 
prudent. It also was supported in front of our Commerce Committee--I 
see my chairman in the Chamber--by the gentleman who represented the 
pilots at the last hearing we had.
  So I thank my friend. I am supporting this amendment, as well as the 
Burns amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Madam President, I yield whatever time he 
may consume to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes remain to the sponsor.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Before I yield, however, I ask unanimous 
consent to have three letters of support printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        Gun Owners of America,

                                 Springfield, VA, October 3, 2001.
       Dear Senator: Senator Bob Smith will be introducing an 
     amendment to the Aviation Security Act. I urge you to vote in 
     favor of his amendment.
       The Smith amendment will provide the opportunity for pilots 
     to use firearms to defend their passengers and planes, as 
     well as provide for reinforcing the cockpit doors on 
     commercial aircraft.
       I urge you to vote for the Smith amendment, as it can help 
     save the lives of pilots, crew members, and passengers--not 
     to mention the lives of thousands of citizens on the ground.
       Sincerely,
                                                     John Velleco,
     Director of Federal Affairs.
                                  ____

         National Rifle Association of America, Institute for 
           Legislative Action,
                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 2001.
       Dear Senator: In the aftermath of the tragedy that occurred 
     on September 11th, various proposals have been offered to 
     deal with airline security. As the United States Senate 
     begins debate on the Aviation Security Act, S. 1147, 
     amendments may be offered relating to pilot and passenger 
     security.
       One proposal, sponsored by Senators Bob Smith and Conrad 
     Burns, addresses pilot safety by allowing--not requiring--
     properly trained commercial pilots, co-pilots, and flight 
     engineers to carry firearms. On behalf of the 4 million 
     members of the National Rifle Association, I urge you to 
     support this common sense and well-balanced measure.
       Armed pilots with proper training and suitable equipment 
     will be the last line of defense against hijackers and 
     terrorists in providing cockpit and aircraft security. 
     Obviously, proper training is an essential component of this 
     legislation. Along with the possibility of U.S. Air Marshals 
     accompanying commercial flights, this measure would send a 
     strong message to potential attackers that self-defense 
     exists in the air as well as on our land.
       The National Rifle Association stands with the Air Line 
     Pilots Association and the Allied Pilots Association in 
     supporting this amendment. This measure will provide both 
     deterrence to hijackers and terrorists and safety to airline 
     employees and the traveling public. Please vote ``yes'' on 
     the Smith/Burns amendment to S. 1147.
       Sincerely,
                                            Charles H. Cunningham,
     Director, NRA Federal Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                   Air Line Pilots


                                   Association, International,

                                  Washington, DC, October 3, 2001.
     Hon. Robert C. Smith,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the 67,000 members of the 
     Air Line Pilots Association, International, I want to offer 
     our most sincere thanks and our support for your amendment to 
     S. 1447, which would provide for armed federal pilot 
     officers.
       The Administration, Congress, and the industry are all 
     heavily involved in activities and discussions aimed at 
     improving security. Many of the proposed security initiatives 
     and proposals will take months, even years to implement; some 
     of them are also very expensive.
       We have learned, in a most tragic fashion, that the 
     occupants of the cockpit must be protected in the event of a 
     cockpit door breach in order to prevent further loss of life 
     to passengers, crew, and those on the ground. Provision of 
     armed air marshals and enhanced cockpit doors will help. 
     However, not all flights will have the protection of air 
     marshals, and new, more secure cockpit doors will not be 
     installed overnight.
       For those reasons, it is our strong belief that the last 
     line of defense must be a method of training, deputizing and 
     arming those pilots who both volunteer and qualify to carry a 
     means of lethal self-defense. Not all pilots will want to 
     carry a weapon, and some who do may not qualify under the 
     FBI's strict screening and training criteria, but there will 
     be thousands of our members who can meet both criteria. Once 
     the cost of training these pilots is complete, there would be 
     virtually no other expense for providing an FBI-trained 
     federal officer in the cockpit who is capable of 
     administering lethal force.
       In addition to adding a genuine security enhancement in the 
     very near term, the creation of a federal pilot officer 
     program would also generate a tremendous amount of confidence 
     among pilots to protect themselves and, thereby, their 
     passengers. We believe that your proposal, if implemented, 
     should also translate into greater confidence in air travel 
     security by the traveling public and help the airlines return 
     to profitability much sooner than they could otherwise.
       In summary, we believe that your proposed federal pilot 
     officer program is a most reasonable, practical, cost-
     effective, and efficient means of enhancing airline security. 
     ALPA supports it and we urge its enactment.
       Sincerely,
                                                  Duane E. Woerth,
                                                        President.

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my friend from New Hampshire.
  Madam President, I want to say to all those folks who would be 
critical, this does not make it mandatory for a weapon to be on the 
flight deck. This says they are able to take one if they are 
comfortable with one.
  I point to American Airlines Flight 11, which was the first plane to 
hit the north tower. The pilot was a Vietnam veteran and the copilot 
was a Navy Top Gun pilot. On American Airlines Flight 77, Charlie 
Burlingame was a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy and a Top Gun 
pilot. On United Airlines 175, which was the second plane to hit the 
south tower, both the pilot and copilot were veterans, one a Navy 
pilot, one a Marine Corps veteran.
  What we are saying is, if these men and women who operate the flight 
deck are comfortable with a weapon, they should be allowed to have a 
weapon. That is what this amendment says.
  I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for his leadership and the 
Senator from California for her support.

[[Page 19457]]


  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the following letter from the Allied Pilots Association be printed 
in the Record in support of amendment No. 1874.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    Allied Pilots Association,

                                  Fort Worth, TX, October 7, 2001.
     Hon. Robert Smith,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Smith: On behalf of the Allied Pilots 
     Association, which represents the 11,500 pilots of American 
     Airlines, I wish to express our strong support for the 
     ``Flight Deck Security Act of 2001.''
       We must take immediate action to enhance our nation's 
     aviation security. We believe the ``Flight Deck Security 
     Act,'' S. 1463, will help ensure the safety of both airline 
     flight crews and the flying public.
       APA supports allowing qualified pilots to carry firearms. 
     The majority of our pilots have served in the military, where 
     they received weapons training, and many are already 
     qualified to handle small arms. Armed pilots will help deter 
     terrorists from attempting to hijack an aircraft. 
     Furthermore, they would provide a last line of defense to 
     resist the hijacking of commercial aircraft.
       The Allied Pilots Association urges the Senate to pass the 
     ``Flight Deck Security Act.'' We believe S. 1463's voluntary 
     firearm program should be enacted immediately.
           Sincerely,
                                              Captain John Darrah,
                                                        President,

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how many minutes would the Senator want?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I know there is an amendment. I want to make some 
general comments about the bill. What would be the appropriate way?
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that we temporarily set aside the 
amendment and the Senator from Maryland be allowed to speak for 5 
minutes on the legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from Arizona, the national leader 
on this topic.
  Madam President, we just came from the Pentagon memorial for all of 
those who died at the Pentagon on the fateful day, 9/11, one month ago.
  We have been going to several memorials. They have been heartfelt. 
Whether it was at Emmitsburg for the National Fallen Firefighters 
Memorial, today at the Pentagon, joining with Senators Lott and 
Daschle, having the resolution on a national day of remembrance, all of 
these are very special to me because on that fateful day, I lost 60 
Maryland constituents: 54 at the Pentagon, those who were working at 
the Pentagon and who were on that fateful flight. Six others, who we 
currently know of, lost their lives at other sites.
  I know the Chair knows we feel a great debt of gratitude to the 
gallant people on Flight 93 who probably saved our lives. I support the 
memorials. I was honored to be there.
  I am pleased to join in a resolution for a national day of 
remembrance. I think we need a permanent way of remembering those 
people who died on that very fateful, grim, horrific day. The way we 
honor their memory is to make sure it never, ever can happen again.
  This is why I am so passionate about our moving our aviation security 
bill, why I am very firm in terms of trying to make our railroads safe 
and also ensuring that those people who work in the field of 
transportation and in airports and airlines are not doubly victimized, 
first by the terrorists and then by an economic compensation system 
that leaves them without jobs, without incomes, without future 
training, and a bleak future. We should not doubly punish them by 
leaving them without an economic security safety net.
  I plead to my colleagues today: Let us put aside our ideologies on 
how we think Government should be this size or Government should be 
that size. We need to think about what is the right thing to do for the 
American people. I want to get America moving again. I want them to be 
on the rails. I want them to be in planes. I want them to feel free to 
travel. This is why I am so passionate about the need to have an 
aviation security bill that also federalizes our security operations.
  It ensures that we have the best to guard us. We have the best to 
guard us at the military; God bless them. We have the best to help 
rescue us in our fire and police departments; God bless them. Let's 
have the very best and the best trained at our airports.
  While we are making our airports safe, let us look at other areas of 
vulnerability, and then that goes to our railroads. We need, again, 
passenger screening. We need baggage screening. We need to assure the 
safety of our tunnels, of which we have many in the Northeast corridor. 
I know the Chair is from a railroad corridor State. Last but not at all 
least, I am concerned about those 528,000 people who filed for 
unemployment last week. That is just a little bit less than the size of 
my great city of Baltimore. A half million people are on unemployment, 
not because they were laggards, not because they don't want to work, 
not because they don't want to show up for duty, but because of 
circumstances outside of their control.
  We have it within our control to make an economic safety net for 
them. I say to my colleagues, we have clotured this; we have bargained 
that; we have negotiated that. Let us get back to the spirit we had a 
few weeks ago when we were not a Republican Party or a Democratic 
Party. We were the red, white, and blue party. Let's do right for 
airline security. Let's do right for railroad security. Let's do right 
for the people who have lost their jobs because of terrorist attacks. 
That will be the best permanent memorial we could make to those who 
have fallen because of this horrific deed.
  Madam President, four civilian airliners from three of our Nation's 
airports were used as weapons of war on September 11. As we're debating 
this legislation, our military is taking action against those who were 
responsible. One way to support our troops is to improve safety for all 
Americans. That's the goal of this legislation. This bill enables us to 
take three concrete actions to improve the safety of our skies.
  Security is a high skill job. Yet airport screeners in this country 
are low paid--$6.00 an hour or less. Fast food restaurant employees are 
paid better.
  They are poorly trained. The FAA requires 12 hours of classroom 
training. Other countries do a better job. France requires 60 hours of 
training. Belgium requires at least 40 hours. Often, those who perform 
the training have had only a few hours of training themselves.
  They are inexperienced. Turnover rates are alarming: 126 percent from 
May 1998 through April 1999 at our nation's 19 largest airports; as 
high as 416 percent in some instances.
  They have low morale which leads to poor performance.
  FAA inspection reports reveal significant weaknesses in the 
performance of our airport screeners. Security inspectors showed that 
BWI 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. The GAO reports that in 1987 airport 
screeners missed 20 percent of the potentially dangerous objects used 
in tests and it's been getting worse over the past few years.
  Part of the solution is to federalize our airport security workforce. 
We have Federal officials protecting our borders and protecting our 
President. We also need Federal officials protecting our flying public. 
Why federal workers? They 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, by 
requiring extensive training--40 hours of classroom training, 60 hours 
of on-the-job instruction--by deploying law enforcement personnel at 
each airport, including armed personnel at airport security screening 
locations.
  The safety of our pilots is critical to ensuring the safety of the 
passengers. The tragedies of September 11 showed that we need to 
strengthen the cockpit door and locks to prevent entry by non-flight 
deck crewmembers.

[[Page 19458]]

  In a hijacking situation, we've always focused on deterrence, that 
pilots and copilots should negotiate with hijackers until the aircraft 
is safely on the ground. September 11 shattered that idea.
  This bill prohibits access to the flight deck cockpit by any person 
other than a flight deck crew member. It requires the strengthening of 
the cockpit door and locks to prevent entry by non-flight deck crew 
members and requires commuter aircraft that do not have doors to get 
doors.
  On September 11, some heroic Americans on United Airlines flight 93 
lost their lives as they confronted the terrorists. They prevented the 
plane from flying into the Capitol or the White House. These brave 
citizens lost their lives, yet they saved many others--perhaps even 
those of us in this chamber.
  Yet we can't ask American citizens to risk or lose their lives. We 
need Federal air marshals on our airplanes to protect our citizens.
  The Sky Marshal Program dates back to the Kennedy Administration when 
the concern of hijackings to Cuba was prevalent. In 1970, the program 
was greatly expanded to include 1,500 U.S. Customs officers, 800 
military personnel. Two years later, the U.S. Customs Sky Marshal 
Program was phased out.
  Then, in 1985, a 727 TWA flight from Athens was diverted to Beirut 
where terrorists murdered Robert Dean Stetham of Maryland. The 
highjackings of 1985 prompted Congress to reinstate the Air Marshal 
program, but it is spartan and skimpy.
  This legislation would require a marshal on every flight. That's 
about 25,000 flights a day, pre-September 11, on all domestic flights 
and on all international flights originating in the U.S.
  The events of September 11 were an attack against America and against 
humanity. We are a nation that is grief stricken, but we are not 
paralyzed in our determination to rid the world of terrorism. In the 
mean time, we must act to make transportation safer in the United 
States. We must have a sense of urgency and pass this legislation 
immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, unless the Senator from New Hampshire 
would like to speak again, we yield back the remainder of our time and 
urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1874) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1875

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I have an amendment and I send it to the 
desk and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns], for himself, Mr. 
     McConnell, Mr. DeWine, and Mrs. Boxer, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1875.

  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make the Attorney General responsible for aviation safety 
                             and security)

       On page 4, strike lines 10, 11, and 12.
       On page 4, line 13, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(A)''.
       On page 4, line 18, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(B)''.
       On page 4, line 22, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
       On page 4, beginning with line 23, strike through line 5 on 
     page 5.
       On page 5, line 6, strike ``(E)'' and insert ``(C)''.
       On page 5, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:
       (b) Attorney General Responsibilities.--The Attorney 
     General of the United States--
       (1) is responsible for day-to-day Federal security 
     screening operations for passenger air transportation or 
     intrastate air transportation under sections 44901 and 44935 
     of title 49, United States Code;
       (2) shall work in conjunction with the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration with respect to any actions 
     or activities that may affect aviation safety or air carrier 
     operations;
       (3) is responsible for hiring and training personnel to 
     provide security screening at all United States airports 
     involved in passenger air transportation or intrastate air 
     transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation, Secretary of Defense, and the heads of other 
     appropriate Federal agencies and departments; and
       (4) shall actively cooperate and coordinate with the 
     Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Defense, and 
     the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies and 
     departments with responsibilities for national security and 
     criminal justice enforcement activities that are related to 
     aviation security through the Aviation Security Coordination 
     Council. On page 5, line 14, strike ``(b)'' and insert 
     ``(c)''.
       On page 6, line 4, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       On page 10, between lines 6 and 7, insert the following:
       (a) Air Marshals Under Attorney General Guidelines.--The 
     Attorney General shall prescribe guidelines for the training 
     and deployment of individuals authorized, with the approval 
     of the Attorney General, to carry firearms and make arrests 
     under section 44903(d) of title 49, United States Code. The 
     Secretary of Transportation shall administer the air marshal 
     program under that section in accordance with the guidelines 
     prescribed by the Attorney General.
       On page 10, line 7, strike ``(a) In General.--'' and insert 
     ``(b) Deployment.--''.
       On page 10, line 23, strike ``(b) Deployment.--'' and 
     insert ``(c) Training, Supervision, and Flight Assignment.--
     ''.
       On page 11, line 14, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(d)''.
       On page 11, line 20, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       On page 12, line 3, strike ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       On page 12, line 4, before ``Secretary'' insert ``Attorney 
     General and the''.
       On page 12, line 22, before ``Secretary'' insert ``Attorney 
     General and the''.
       On page 12, line 24, strike ``the Secretary'' and insert 
     ``they''.
       On page 13, line 3, strike ``(f)'' and insert ``(g)''.
       On page 18, beginning in line 2, strike ``Secretary of 
     Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General,'' 
     and insert ``Attorney General, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Transportation,''.
       On page 18, line 11, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 18, beginning in line 17, strike ``Secretary of 
     Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General'' 
     and insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 18, line 25, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 19, line 4, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 19, line 7, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 19, beginning in line 12, strike ``Secretary of 
     Transportation, with the approval of the Attorney General,'' 
     and insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 20, line 9, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 20, beginning in line 12, strike ``Secretary, in 
     consultation with the Attorney General,'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation,''.
       On page 20, beginning in line 14, strike ``Secretary'' and 
     insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 21, beginning in line 3, strike ``Secretary and''.
       On page 21, line 12, strike ``Administrator'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 21, line 19, strike ``Administrator'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 21, line 23, strike ``Administrator'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General or the Secretary of Transportation''.
       On page 22, line 4, strike ``Administrator'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 22, beginning in line 7, strike ``Secretary of 
     Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 22, line 9, strike ``the Attorney General or''.
       On page 22, strike lines 13 through 22.
       On page 22, line 23, strike ``(c) Transition.--The 
     Secretary of Transportation'' and insert ``(b) Transition.--
     The Attorney General''.
       On page 23, line 3, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 23, line 6, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 23, beginning in line 18, strike ``Secretary of 
     Transportation, in consultation with the Attorney General,'' 
     and insert ``Attorney General, in consultation with the 
     Secretary of Transportation,''.
       On page 23, line 23, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 24, line 20, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 24, beginning in line 21, strike ``Secretary'' and 
     insert ``Attorney General''.

[[Page 19459]]

       On page 25, line 3, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 25, line 11, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 25, beginning in line 14, strike ``Secretary'' and 
     insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 26, line 3, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 26, line 15 strike, ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 29, beginning in line 1, strike ``Secretary'' and 
     insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 29, line 20, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 29, beginning in line 23, strike ``Secretary of 
     Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 29, beginning in line 25, strike ``the Attorney 
     General, or''.
       On page 30, line 6, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 30, line 14, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 30, beginning in line 21, strike ``Secretary'' and 
     insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 31, beginning in line 5, strike ``Secretary of 
     Transportation'' and insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 31, line 9, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 31, line 22, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 31, line 25, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 32, line 1, strike ``Secretary of Transportation'' 
     and insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 32, beginning in line 4, strike ``Secretary'' and 
     insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 32, line 7, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 32, line 11, strike ``Secretary of Transportation'' 
     and insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 33, line 3, strike ``Secretary of Transportation'' 
     and insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 33, beginning in line 5, strike ``Secretary'' and 
     insert ``Attorney General''.
       On page 33, line 9, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 33, line 13, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 33, line 16, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 33, line 19, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 33, line 22, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 34, line 15, strike ``Transportation'' and insert 
     ``Justice''.
       On page 34, line 17, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 34, line 21, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 34, line 22, strike ``Secretary'' and insert 
     ``Attorney General''.
       On page 35, line 4, insert ``(a) In General.--'' before 
     ``Section''.
       On page 35, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:
       (b) Coordination With Attorney General.--Section 44912(b) 
     of title 49, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(3) Beginning on the date of enactment of the Aviation 
     Security Act, the Administrator shall conduct all research 
     related to screening technology and procedures in conjunction 
     with the Attorney General.''.




  Mr. BURNS. Madam President, Senator DeWine of Ohio and Senator 
McConnell of Kentucky are cosponsors of this amendment. It has been a 
subject of conversation for the last week. The events of September 11 
changed a lot of things--where we place emphasis and how we do business 
in this town. We are changing who is directly responsible and directly 
accountable for airport security.
  When I first looked at the legislation as it was being drafted, there 
was one glaring fault. That was that the enforcement of security and 
safety of America's traveling air passengers was still in the 
Department of Transportation. I have believed since September 11 that 
something had to be changed. In other words, we had to do something 
that would give the flying public a sense of security and safety and 
the rules would be made outside of the Department of Transportation. I 
believe it should be in the Department of Justice.
  If you look at what we have to do and the areas in which we have to 
do it, the argument that the chairman of the full committee made, which 
is when you take those areas of intelligence and passengers lists, 
which we are going to have to scrutinize a little bit better and more 
in the future than we have in the past, when we take a look at the 
outside of the airport or the peripherals and the security of the 
airport security itself, when you look at security in the check-in area 
and also the area known as the departure gate, then we shift our 
emphasis to cargo, that which is shipped on regularly scheduled flights 
and also among the people who are in the air freight business, also the 
area in which we park our aircraft overnight or aircraft that has been 
parked for some length of time, and the aircraft itself--those are 
distinct areas where we have responsibilities for security and safety--
no other agency in the Government is better equipped to do the job in 
all those areas than the Department of Justice.
  So what my amendment says is that we give a bright line of authority 
to the Attorney General, who is accountable and responsible for the 
security and safety of air traffic. That does not say that the 
Department of Transportation, or even the FAA, doesn't have a little 
say about what goes on in their business. They should be able to set 
some of the rules and make sure aircraft are certified to fly and 
pilots are certified to fly, and those things. But on the security end 
of it, America is telling me they want law enforcement powers just for 
the sense of security when they travel.
  I have often used this analogy with folks who like football and those 
folks who like baseball and basketball: they are great sports, but you 
never see the teams refereeing or umpiring themselves. It has to be 
done by an entity that understands the rules or the mission of safety, 
and security. So that is where we are.
  That is what this amendment is all about. It allows a setting of 
standards. It allows the checking of employees, if they work in 
sensitive areas, such as bag handling, and they are near the aircraft. 
Those employees are going to have to stand the scrutiny of the Justice 
Department in order to get a job on the ramp, so to speak.
  When I came out of the Marine Corps, I worked for the airlines for 
about 3 years. I understand what goes on out there. They are not doing 
many things differently today than they did 35 or 40 years ago. They 
have better equipment. They don't have to lift as much as we used to in 
the old days, but there is more security.
  What this amendment does is it says the Department of Justice, the 
Attorney General of the United States of America, will be responsible 
for setting up the apparatus through the Justice Department to make 
sure that our areas are secure and people are safe when they fly.
  So I offer this amendment. I ask for your support as we move forward. 
I think we have worked out just about all of the kinks. We have people 
who want to make statements. I say to my ranking member and my boss on 
the Commerce Committee that they want to speak a little bit on this 
amendment. Then I will turn it over to him.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Corzine). The Senator from Arizona is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Montana, who I 
have had the privilege of working with for many years on the Commerce 
Committee, I think this is a good amendment. One of the reasons I think 
it is a good amendment is because we are trying to address a major 
issue with this legislation, and that is to restore confidence on the 
part of the American people in the belief that they can fly on 
airliners and be in airports with a sense of security.
  I think the Senator's amendment, by putting these responsibilities 
into the Department of Justice, will increase that confidence factor 
rather dramatically. I don't think right now that most Americans know 
who is in charge of the airport screening procedures. I have often 
asked that question myself. I don't think Americans believe that one 
agency that is in charge has done a very good job, whoever is 
responsible for it. We see continued breaches of airport security--even 
after September 11. So I think the amendment of the Senator from 
Montana is a good one. I think it will move the process in the 
direction we are seeking for this legislation.
  I thank Senator Burns for his active participation and involvement in 
this issue. I know Mr. McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, wants to 
speak on this amendment as well. If the chairman wants to speak, 
perhaps we can wait a few minutes for Senator McConnell after he 
finishes.

[[Page 19460]]

  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Arizona 
has pointed out the main concern that we have, and that is that airline 
travelers have complete confidence in the security, safety, and 
normalcy of our airlines--as we are all pleading with the people of the 
country to get back to normal travel. The best way to do that is to 
have law enforcement immediately connected to personnel in and around 
the facility, and out on the tarmac, that they are all aware of 
security threats--specifically, to be on the lookout for people on a 
watch list.
  The overall security effort would be developed, no question, by the 
FBI domestic homefront security office. They are the ones that would 
have immediate knowledge of anyone on a watch list, communicating 
immediately, of course, with their screeners and others working in the 
airport and its facility.
  I think it is a well-considered measure. The Senator from Montana 
recommended this when we approached this subject 3 or 4 weeks ago. We 
talked back and forth. We are trying to get things done. In order to 
get things done, sometimes your own personal choice is subjugated to 
the good of the body generally. The good of the body and the White 
House, for that matter, was to put responsibility for airport security 
under the Department of Transportation's purview.
  But there is no question, as the Senator from Arizona says, this 
amendment would facilitate the enactment and passage of this 
legislation. I support it.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the bill we are discussing today would help 
to ensure the safety of flying for passengers on the planes as well as 
innocent civilians on the ground.
  However, I am concerned that the bill will broadly expand the law 
enforcement authority of the Department of Transportation and the 
Federal Aviation Administration. I believe we should let experienced 
law enforcers set the standards to protect the safety of commercial air 
operations.
  The mission of the DOT is to:

       serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, 
     efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system 
     that meets our vital national interests and enhances the 
     quality of life of the American people, today and into the 
     future.

  The mission of the U.S. Marshall Service under the oversight of the 
Attorney General is to:

       enforce federal laws and provide support to virtually all 
     elements of the federal justice system by providing for the 
     security of federal court facilities and the safety of judges 
     and other court personnel; apprehending criminals; exercising 
     custody of federal prisoners and providing for their security 
     and transportation to correctional facilities; executing 
     federal court orders; seizing assets gained by illegal means 
     and providing for the custody, management and disposal of 
     forfeited assets; assuring the safety of endangered 
     government witnesses and their families; and collecting and 
     disbursing funds.

  The key phrase is to ``enforce Federal laws.'' The Justice Department 
is a law enforcement body. That agency is tasked to protect the 
American people through the enforcement of laws set by Congress.
  Prior to 9/11, the primary responsibility for aviation security was 
shared by the FAA, airports and the carriers.
  The FAA set the standards and regulations that were followed by the 
airports and carriers. The FAA was responsible to provide threat 
information obtained from the intelligence community to the security 
apparatus protecting our airports and carriers.
  The Air Marshall program, although active, was relatively non-
existent as there were fewer than 50 security personnel enlisted to 
secure our passenger airplanes.
  Airports remain responsible for the physical security of airport 
facilities, law enforcement and security personnel. In Montana, our 
Governor has temporarily deployed the Montana National Guard to protect 
our airports while a threat remains significant. I have discussed 
airport security with Montana's airport managers and they have informed 
me of their current practices.
  Airlines and cargo carriers are responsible for implementing those 
security activities that directly affect the flow of passengers, 
baggage and cargo aboard aircraft.
  Since 9/11 we have entered a new era. The last hijacking of a U.S. 
airline using a weapon was in 1989, when a passenger used a starter 
pistol and two folding knives to hijack an American Airlines plane.
  Prior to that, a Pacific Southwest Airline jet crashed in 1987 after 
a former ticket agent for the airline smuggled a gun aboard and broke 
into the cockpit, killing the flight crew. All 43 people aboard were 
killed.
  But is was the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988 over 
Lockerbie, Scotland that turned the attention of security officials 
from guns to bombs, which can be relatively small and made of plastic.
  While we have upgraded our equipment to detect bombs, we have not 
addressed concerns about uniform standards used to detect potential 
human threats in a plane.
  At airport security checkpoints, walk-through metal detectors 
currently screen passengers. If the detector alarms, screeners use 
metal-detecting hand wands. Nonmetallic objects, including plastic and 
ceramic weapons, will generally not be found by either procedure.
  At the same checkpoints, carry-on bags are screened by equipment that 
displays an x-ray image of bag contents. An operator who sees a 
suspicious object in the image, or whose view is blocked by a 
concealing object, may hand search a bag as a backup procedure. 
Nonmetallic objects may be visible in the checkpoint x-ray image, but 
less clearly than metal items, and operator training has, up to now, 
been focused on identifying metal items.
  The checkpoint screeners who work for these private security 
companies have rapid turnover, more than 100 percent per year at many 
airports. The pay is low and is largely attributed to this high rate of 
turnover.
  Until directed otherwise by the Secretary of Transportation on 
September 12, 2001, many small knives, such as pocketknives, were 
permitted on board aircraft, even if detected by security personnel.
  I have concerns about unsecured access to the plane. There were 
several reports about finding box cutters and other potential weapons 
on planes that had landed on 9/11/01. These findings could lead one to 
believe there were other planned attacks during that fateful day.
  Prior to 9/11, several people had access to an aircraft and could, 
perhaps, leave a weapon in a hidden location for use by someone else. 
These people include the flight crew, maintenance personnel, cleaners, 
caterers, and baggage handlers.
  The DOT Inspector General reported his office was able to gain 
unauthorized access to secure areas of airports 68% of the time in 
tests during 1998 and 1999 and has found in audits that background 
checks of airport personnel are ineffective and are frequently not 
conducted as required.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. We need to 
establish a national standard that protects American citizens. I 
believe the Justice Department is the proper authority to set that 
standard.
  I thank the chairman, and I yield the floor.


                     Amendment No. 1855, Withdrawn

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of 
Senator Daschle, that the Carnahan amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1875

  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise to support the Burns amendment. 
First, I congratulate my colleague for his work on this amendment. He 
has been very diligent in explaining in meeting after meeting off the 
floor of the Senate for the last week or 10 days why his amendment 
should pass. I congratulate him on his amendment. I congratulate him on 
his diligence and his perception of what we should be doing.
  This is a simple amendment, one that I believe makes a very big 
statement. The statement says we believe our Justice Department is best 
suited to manage particular aspects of security at

[[Page 19461]]

our airports. The reality is we need accountability. We need to know 
there is an agency in charge that knows how to manage security. That 
agency, I believe, is the Justice Department of the United States.
  I say that because the Justice Department is in the business of law 
enforcement, and it is in the business of security in the Marshal 
Service. Protecting our airports and protecting the traveling public is 
a law enforcement and a security function. It is a function, I believe, 
best handled by the Department of Justice.
  The fact is, those in charge of law enforcement have a different way 
of looking at things. I first understood that when I became an 
assistant county prosecuting attorney at the age of 25. I could not 
believe how the police officers in Xenia, OH, or the sheriff's office 
in Fairborn, OH, saw things differently than I saw them.
  They saw things through the eyes of a trained officer. They saw 
things from the law enforcement point of view. They saw things from a 
security point of view. We would go to crime scenes, and they would 
explain what they saw. We would look at situations where we were 
worried about security, and they would see things that I would never 
see.
  It is not just training. It is not just experience. It also is a 
culture. I guess we use the word ``culture'' when we do not know 
another word to explain it, but it is a fundamental way of approaching 
things.
  I believe it makes eminent sense to take an agency that is concerned 
every single day about the security of Americans--that is what they get 
paid to do--and say we are going to put you in charge of the flying 
public's security while they are on the ground. We are going to leave 
it up to the FAA, the experts, about how to fly, when those planes fly, 
when they do not fly, and things that go on in the air. But when we are 
talking about ground security, we are going to leave that up to other 
experts, and those experts are in the Justice Department.
  We have an example of how this is done. Justice really does two 
things: They do law enforcement, but they also do security. The Marshal 
Service does security every single day. They break it down. They make a 
distinction between the sworn officers and the contract employees. 
Later on in this debate, before final passage, I am going to have a 
little more to say about that.
  When you go in, for example, to a Federal courthouse, or when you go 
into a Federal building, it is the U.S. Marshal Service that is in 
charge of that security. So there is precedent for doing this. There is 
an experience level that exists in the Justice Department.
  I do not want to take a lot of the time of my colleagues, but I again 
congratulate my colleague, Senator Burns, for this idea. I think it is 
the right idea. It basically says the whole issue of security on the 
ground--not just the checking of the baggage, not just the checking of 
the passengers, but the whole view and concept of what should be done 
in regard to each individual airport in this country--should be in the 
hands of the experts. And I believe those experts are in the Justice 
Department.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the 
pending amendment in order to address some amendments that have been 
agreed to on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1876

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Domenici, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1876.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

    (Purpose: To further enhance research and development regarding 
                           aviation security)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       ( ) Additional Matters Regarding Research and 
     Development.--
       (1) Additional program requirements.--Subsection (a) of 
     section 44912 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5); and
       (B) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following new 
     paragraph (4):
       ``(4)(A) In carrying out the program established under this 
     subsection, the Administrator shall designate an individual 
     to be responsible for engineering, research, and development 
     with respect to security technology under the program.
       ``(B) The individual designated under subparagraph (A) 
     shall use appropriate systems engineering and risk management 
     models in making decisions regarding the allocation of funds 
     for engineering, research, and development with respect to 
     security technology under the program.
       ``(C) The individual designated under subparagraph (A) 
     shall, on an annual basis, submit to the Research, 
     Engineering and Development Advisory Committee a report on 
     activities under this paragraph during the preceding year. 
     Each report shall include, for the year covered by such 
     report, information on--
       ``(i) progress made in engineering, research, and 
     development with respect to security technology;
       ``(ii) the allocation of funds for engineering, research, 
     and development with respect to security technology; and
       ``(iii) engineering, research, and development with respect 
     to any technologies drawn from other agencies, including the 
     rationale for engineering, research, and development with 
     respect to such technologies.''.
       (2) Review of threats.--Subsection (b)(1) of that section 
     is amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) through (F) as 
     subparagraphs (B) through (G), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so 
     redesignated, the following new subparagraph (A):
       ``(A) a comprehensive systems analysis (employing 
     vulnerability analysis, threat attribute definition, and 
     technology roadmaps) of the civil aviation system, 
     including--
       ``(i) the destruction, commandeering, or diversion of civil 
     aircraft or the use of civil aircraft as a weapon; and
       ``(ii) the disruption of civil aviation service, including 
     by cyber attack;''.
       (3) Scientific advisory panel.--Subsection (c) of that 
     section is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Scientific Advisory Panel.--(1) The Administrator 
     shall establish a scientific advisory panel, as a 
     subcommittee of the Research, Engineering, and Development 
     Advisory Committee, to review, comment on, advise the 
     progress of, and recommend modifications in, the program 
     established under subsection (a) of this section, including 
     the need for long-range research programs to detect and 
     prevent catastrophic damage to commercial aircraft, 
     commercial aviation facilities, commercial aviation personnel 
     and passengers, and other components of the commercial 
     aviation system by the next generation of terrorist weapons.
       ``(2)(A) The advisory panel shall consist of individuals 
     who have scientific and technical expertise in--
       ``(i) the development and testing of effective explosive 
     detection systems;
       ``(ii) aircraft structure and experimentation to decide on 
     the type and minimum weights of explosives that an effective 
     explosive detection technology must be capable of detecting;
       ``(iii) technologies involved in minimizing airframe damage 
     to aircraft from explosives; and
       ``(iv) other scientific and technical areas the 
     Administrator considers appropriate.
       ``(B) In appointing individuals to the advisory panel, the 
     Administrator should consider individuals from academia and 
     the national laboratories, as appropriate.
       ``(3) The Administrator shall organize the advisory panel 
     into teams capable of undertaking the review of policies and 
     technologies upon request.
       ``(4) Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the Aviation Security Act, and every two years 
     thereafter, the Administrator shall review the composition of 
     the advisory panel in order to ensure that the expertise of 
     the individuals on the panel is suited to the current and 
     anticipated duties of the panel.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the information of my colleagues, this 
amendment provides for the appointment of an advisory board which would 
make recommendations concerning the best way to ensure the best 
technology is available to increase security, especially at airports, 
but also at other vital installations around the country. It is a good 
amendment. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

[[Page 19462]]

  The amendment (No. 1876) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1877

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Georgia, Mr. 
Cleland, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Cleland, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1877.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To expand the registration requirements with respect to 
                                airmen)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. AMENDMENTS TO AIRMEN REGISTRY AUTHORITY.

       Section 44703(g) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) in the first sentence of paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking ``pilots'' and inserting ``airmen''; and
       (B) by striking the period and inserting ``and related to 
     combating acts of terrorism.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end, the following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) For purposes of this section, the term `acts of 
     terrorism' means an activity that involves a violent act or 
     an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the 
     criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that 
     would be a criminal violation if committed within the 
     jurisdiction of the United States or of any State, and 
     appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian 
     population, to influence the policy of a government by 
     intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a 
     government by assassination or kidnaping.
       ``(4) The Administrator is authorized and directed to work 
     with State and local authorities, and other Federal agencies, 
     to assist in the identification of individuals applying for 
     or holding airmen certificates.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment by the Senator from Georgia 
has been agreed to on both sides. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1877) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a very brief 
statement?
  Mr. McCAIN. It will be my pleasure.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I withdrew the Carnahan amendment. One 
reason it was withdrawn is because of the statements made by the 
Senator from Arizona that on the next vehicle moving through here, we 
can look to help the employees we are trying to help, and he said he 
would help us. He has been very good on this legislation, and his 
statements regarding these displaced workers and people who need help 
so badly is very much appreciated.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. We are in the process of 
continuing negotiations. I think we are very close to an agreement 
between myself and the principals.


                           Amendment No. 1878

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Thompson, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Thompson, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1878.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

   (Purpose: To amend the Aviation Security Act to ensure that those 
  responsible for security meet performance standards, and for other 
                               purposes)

       Insert at the appropriate place the following:

     SEC.    . RESULTS-BASED MANAGEMENT.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 449 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end of the 
     following:

     Sec.   Performance Goals and Objectives

       (a) Short Term Transition.--
       (1) In general.--Within 60 days of enactment, the Deputy 
     Secretary for Transportation Security shall, in consultation 
     with Congress--
       (A) establish acceptable levels of performance for aviation 
     security, including screening operations and access control, 
     and
       (B) provide Congress with an action plan, containing 
     measurable goals and milestones, that outlines how those 
     levels of performance will be achieved.
       (2) Basics of action plan.--The action plan shall clarify 
     the responsibilities of the Department of Transportation, the 
     Federal Aviation Administration and any other agency or 
     organization that may have a role in ensuring the safety and 
     security of the civil air transportation system.
       (b) Long-Term Results-Based Management.--
       (1) Performance plan and report.--
       (A) Performance plan.--
       (i) Each year, consistent with the requirements of the 
     Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), the 
     Secretary and the Deputy Secretary for Transportation 
     Security shall agree on a performance plan for the succeeding 
     5 years that establishes measurable goals and objectives for 
     aviation security. The plan shall identify action steps 
     necessary to achieve such goals.
       (ii) In addition to meeting the requirements of GPRA, the 
     performance plan shall clarify the responsibilities of the 
     Secretary, the Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security 
     and any other agency or organization that may have a role in 
     ensuring the safety and security of the civil air 
     transportation system.
       (iii) The performance plan shall be available to the 
     public. The Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security may 
     prepare a non-public appendix covering performance goals and 
     indicators that, if revealed to the public, would likely 
     impede achievement of those goals and indicators.
       (B) Performance Report.--
       (i) Each year, consistent with the requirements of GPRA, 
     the Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security shall 
     prepare and submit to Congress an annual report including an 
     evaluation of the extent goals and objectives were met. The 
     report shall include the results achieved during the year 
     relative to the goals established in the performance plan.
       (ii) The performance report shall be available to the 
     public. The Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security may 
     prepare a nonpublic appendix covering performance goals and 
     indicators that, if revealed to the public, would likely 
     impede achievement of those goals and indicators.

     Sec.   Performance Management System.

       (a) Establishing a Fair and Equitable System for Measuring 
     Staff Performance.--The Deputy Secretary for Transportation 
     Security shall establish a performance management system 
     which strengthens the organization's effectiveness by 
     providing for the establishment of goals and objectives for 
     managers, employees, and organizational performance 
     consistent with the performance plan.
       (b) Establishing Management Accountability for Meeting 
     Performance Goals.--
       (i) Each year, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary for 
     Transportation Security shall enter into an annual 
     performance agreement that shall set forth organizational and 
     individual performance goals for the Deputy Secretary.
       (ii) Each year, the Deputy Secretary for Transportation 
     Security and each senior manager who reports to the Deputy 
     Secretary for Transportation Security shall enter into an 
     annual performance agreement that sets forth organization and 
     individual goals for those managers. All other employees 
     hired under the authority of the Deputy Secretary for 
     Transportation Security shall enter into an annual 
     performance agreement that sets forth organization and 
     individual goals for those employees.
       (c) Compensation for the Deputy Secretary for 
     Transportation Security.--
       (i) In general.--The Deputy Secretary for Transportation 
     Security is authorized to be paid at an annual rate of pay 
     payable to level II of the Executive Schedule.
       (ii) Bonuses or other incentives.--In addition, the Deputy 
     Secretary for Transportation Security may receive bonuses or 
     other incentives, based upon the Secretary's evaluation of 
     the Deputy Secretary's performance in relation to the goals 
     set forth in the agreement. Total compensation cannot exceed 
     the Secretary's salary.
       (d) Compensation for Managers and Other Employees.--
       (i) In general.--A senior manager reporting directly to the 
     Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security may be paid at 
     an annual rate of basic pay of not more than the maximum rate 
     of basic pay for the Senior Executive Service under section 
     5382 of title 5, United States Code.

[[Page 19463]]

       (ii) Bonuses or other incentives.--In addition, senior 
     managers can receive bonuses or other incentives based on the 
     Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security's evaluation of 
     their performance in relation to goals in agreements. Total 
     compensation cannot exceed 125 percent of the maximum rate of 
     base pay for the Senior Executive Service. Further, the 
     Deputy Secretary for Transportation Security shall establish, 
     within the performance management system, a program allowing 
     for the payment of bonuses or other incentives to other 
     managers and employees. Such a program shall provide for 
     bonuses or other incentives based on their performance.
       (e) Performance-Based Service Contracting.--To the extent 
     contracts, if any, are used to implement this act, the Deputy 
     Secretary for Transportation Security shall, to the extent 
     practical, maximize the use of performance-based service 
     contracts. These contracts should be consistent with 
     guidelines published by the Office of Federal Procurement 
     Policy.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President. The attacks of September 11 demonstrated 
that we had not done all we could to prevent or mitigate them. But even 
these events weren't necessary to show us that. We have known for some 
time that airport security was less than acceptable, and we all agree 
that the system used to screen airline passengers and baggage needs to 
be overhauled. However, in the rush to fix the problem by 
``federalizing'' the security workforce, I am concerned that not enough 
attention is being given to a critical flaw in existing security 
operations, that is, the failure to set and insist on performance 
standards. It doesn't matter who does this work, if we continue to fail 
to hold those responsible for security, from top to bottom, 
accountable. In the past, some fines were levied, but no one was held 
accountable for improvement.
  Passenger and baggage screeners and their employers, whether civil 
servants or contractors, must be required to meet performance 
standards, and then must be subject to meaningful sanctions if those 
standards are not met. This has not occurred in the past. The General 
Accounting Office has issued several reports that document the Federal 
Aviation Administration's failure to hold airlines accountable for the 
declining performance of their baggage screeners over the last decade. 
Note that I said detection rates have declined virtually every year 
over the last decade.
  It's important to note that we have been trying to implement 
performance-based management in the Federal Government for some time. 
Since 1994, agencies of the Federal Government have been required to 
set goals for what they do and report to Congress and the American 
people on whether agencies are meeting those goals. Oddly, the 
Department of Transportation has been a leader in setting goals. It's 
just that in the area of aviation security, they haven't been meeting 
them.
  In 1997, we asked the Department of Transportation Inspector General 
to identify the Department's worst management challenges. Since that 
time, the Inspector General has routinely identified aviation security 
as the Department's greatest management challenge. And since 1999, I've 
been asking the Department of Transportation to set goals to address 
and improve aviation security. The Department did set a goal for the 
rate at which screeners detect dangerous objects, and it reported as 
recently as April of this year that it failed to meet its goal.
  Let me read to you from the Department of Transportation's 
Performance Report, which it issued this spring:

       DOT did not meet this year's performance target [for 
     aviation security, which specifically measures the detection 
     rate for explosives and weapons that may be brought aboard 
     aircraft.] The technology is functioning well and provides 
     superior security protection, but screener performance has 
     not improved enough.

  The report states further: FAA may face a greater challenge than 
expected to meet the FY 2001 performance targets in some areas of 
screening.
  Like so many things in Washington, we have known this was a problem 
for some time. Detection rates at the Nation's airports have been 
declining steadily since 1993. But clearly, we weren't holding those 
responsible for aviation security accountable for their performance. 
So, I have to ask, what assurances do we have that the Department of 
Transportation will hold new screeners, under this bill, more 
accountable?
  Lax enforcement of standards inevitably leads to lax security, 
regardless of who hires those screeners. This amendment will ensure 
that results-oriented management is a key component of whatever changes 
are made to our airport security system. We can not afford more 
business as usual. We have to insist that the traveling public is safe 
from those who would perpetrate evil deeds like those of September 11.
  First, my amendment requires the Federal Government to set and 
enforce goals for aviation security. It requires the head of aviation 
security, within 60 days of enactment, to establish acceptable levels 
of performance and provide Congress with an action plan to achieve that 
performance. Over the long-term, the head of aviation security must 
establish a process for performance planning and reporting that informs 
Congress and the American people about how the Government is meeting 
its goals. By creating this process, we will be constantly assessing 
the threats we face and ensuring that we have the means to measure our 
progress in preparing for those threats. This is a new, detailed method 
for ensuring that performance management is in place specifically in 
the Government's aviation security programs.
  I firmly believe that good people, well managed, can substantially 
improve our aviation security. So this amendment gives those 
responsible for aviation security enhanced tools to regain the 
confidence of America's flying public. We employ a good mix of carrots 
and sticks to drive performance. For instance: This amendment 
establishes an annual staff performance management system that includes 
setting individual, group, and organizational performance goals 
consistent with an annual performance plan. Managers and employees 
would be eligible for bonuses for good performance. The amendment 
allows management to hold employees, whether public, private, or a mix 
thereof, accountable for meeting their performance standards.
  This approach is not new. Agencies like IRS, the Patent and Trademark 
Office, and the Office of Student and Financial Assistance, have 
performance-based management systems. But this will be the first time 
that performance-based management has been used to better government 
performance at every level of a government agency.
  I've been trying for many years to get agencies to set goals and 
strive to meet them. It seems so commonsensical, but for so many years, 
the Federal Government did not do that. And we in the Congress, 
admittedly, have not really held agencies' feet to the fire as far as 
performance goes.
  There has never been, in my opinion, a clearer example of good goals, 
but poor performance, as in the area of aviation security. This 
amendment will restore confidence in air travel. With my amendment, we 
will say, if you are not meeting your goals, whether it be detecting 
dangerous objects that people try to get on planes or preventing access 
to secure areas of an airport or airplane, you can be held accountable. 
And those who meet their goals can be rewarded.
  This amendment makes sense. I hope we can assure the American people 
that we are doing all we can, remaining vigilant, by strictly enforcing 
standards for the safety and security of the Nation's airports and 
airplanes. I urge the adoption of this simple, but critical, 
performance-based amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is an important amendment. It 
deserves a couple minutes of explanation.
  One of the difficulties we have had in the past is we passed 
legislation and authorized certain activities, and then we forgot about 
them as a Congress. We do not pay enough attention to the performance 
of the bureaucracies that we either create or designate to carry out 
certain programs.
  Senator Thompson's amendment is basically results-based management. 
It is going to require reporting. It is going to require performance 
reports. It is going to require performance plans. It is going to 
establish a system for measuring staff performance, management 
accountability for meeting

[[Page 19464]]

performance goals, compensation, the Deputy Secretary for 
Transportation Security, et cetera.
  It is comprehensive performance-based management and results-based 
management. I believe it is an important amendment in making sure this 
legislation is accountable to the American people as well as the 
Congress. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1878) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1879

     (Purpose: To require expanded utilization of current security 
    technologies, establish short-term assessment and deployment of 
        emergency security technologies, and for other purposes)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, finally, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, I 
send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Lieberman, 
     for himself, and Mr. Durbin, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1879.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator 
Durbin to offer an amendment to S. 1447, the Aviation Security Act, to 
improve airport and aircraft safety through heightened screening of 
passengers, carry-on luggage, checked baggage, and those entering 
secure areas of airports. The overriding purpose of my amendment is to 
put our superior technological knowledge to better, more accurate, more 
widespread, and, therefore, more effective use.
  In the wake of the horrific attacks of September 11, the Nation's 
confidence in the safety of our skies has been deeply shaken. Apart 
from the thousands of lives lost, public trust in airport security has 
suffered a severe blow, which in turn has had a devastating impact on 
the fortunes of the airline sector as well as the general economy. 
Three weeks ago, Congress approved a $15 billion bailout plan for the 
airline industry, which we all hope will keep the nation's carriers 
financially and operationally viable for at least the immediate future. 
Ultimately, however, the long-term recovery of air commerce will 
require nothing less than developing ironclad confidence in the safety 
of our airports and air carriers. My amendment and the bill now under 
discussion are first steps toward achieving that goal.
  On September 25, the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair, 
held a joint hearing with the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 
Management, chaired by Senator Durbin, to explore the adequacy of 
airline and airport screening. Witnesses from the airline industry, the 
aviation security industry, major airports, the Federal Aviation 
Administration, the Department of Transportation Inspector General's 
Office, and the General Accounting Office provided sobering testimony 
on shortcomings in our current airport security system. The amendment I 
am offering today is derived in large part from the expert advice and 
recommendations the Committee received at the hearing.
  The amendment has three general aims: First, to expand the use of 
current security technologies and procedures; second, to improve upon 
and upgrade those existing technologies and procedures; and, third, to 
fund development of newer, better, and more cost-effective technologies 
and procedures.
  The very first step that must be taken in order to accomplish these 
ends must be to ensure that those working in and around airports are 
beyond reproach, because the best technologies and procedures are, 
frankly, useless if the people employing them cannot be trusted. My 
amendment, therefore, would require completion of intensive background 
checks on all airport personnel who have access to secure areas at 
commercial airports. This includes FBI criminal checks for all workers, 
not just for new hires but for current employees as well.
  Next, the amendment would require the Federal Aviation Administration 
to expand the use of bulk explosive detection technology already being 
deployed at most major airports. We would require the technology to be 
used more precisely, more cost effectively, and more often than is 
currently the case. To ensure that every link in the chain of security 
is strong, the FAA would also be asked to establish goals for the 
purchase of additional detection machines for certain mid-sized 
airports.
  Carriers would be required to increase the number of checked bags 
that are positively matched with a boarded passenger, until airports 
are scanning 100 percent of checked baggage with explosive detection 
technology. The purpose here is to prevent a situation in which a 
terrorist loads explosives onto a plane in his baggage, without 
actually boarding the plane himself.
  The measure would require carriers to build upon the Computer-
Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System, (CAPPS), which now uses a 
range of criteria to identify passengers who may present a threat. The 
way it works now, baggage checked by selected passengers is subjected 
to scanning for possible explosives. Under this amendment I am 
offering, passengers identified under this system would be subject to 
additional security checks of their persons and their carry-on luggage, 
whether or not they had checked baggage.
  Additionally, to improve and upgrade existing procedures, the 
amendment focuses on the ease with which people may obtain unauthorized 
access to restricted areas within airports. This is a widespread and 
potentially lethal problem that can be easily remedied. In 1998 and 
1999, undercover investigators working for the Department of 
Transportation Inspector General's office were able to access secure 
areas in airports a whopping 68 percent of the time. Once the 
investigators entered the secure areas, they were able to board 
aircraft in 117 cases, an astonishing number.
  The amendment calls on the Department of Transportation to recommend 
ways to prevent unauthorized access to restricted areas--for example, 
by employing so-called biometrics systems, systems that employ retinal, 
facial, and hand identification technologies or similar scanning 
methods, that are currently in use at several U.S. airports; or by 
increasing surveillance at access points; upgrading card- or keypad-
based access systems; improving airport emergency exit systems; and 
eliminating the practice commonly referred to as ``piggy-backing,'' 
where an unauthorized person follows an authorized person through a 
security access point.
  Further, the amendment calls for better coordinating the distribution 
of information about passengers on law enforcement ``watch lists.'' 
And, it requests a review of options for improving the positive 
identification of passengers, through biometrics and smart cards.
  Finally, the amendment would set aside $50 million for researching 
and developing new technologies to improve aviation safety in the 
future; and, $20 million for research and development of longer-term 
security improvements, including further advances in biometrics, 
advanced weapons detection, and improved systems for the sharing of 
information among law enforcement entities.
  I believe that these provisions together represent a substantial 
improvement on the present state of passenger and baggage screening and 
other elements of the aviation security system. In conjunction with the 
larger changes contemplated in the underlying bill, I am confident that 
the measures I call for in this amendment will take us

[[Page 19465]]

along the path toward real and measurable safety and security for our 
airways. Like all Americans, I look forward to the day when each of us 
can once again enter an airport, and board an airplane, knowing that 
terror has been banished from our skies.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Lieberman, this 
amendment requires expanded utilization of current security 
technologies, establishes short-term assessment and deployment of 
emergency security technologies, and for other purposes.
  This has been agreed to by both sides. I think it is a good amendment 
and, again, along with the amendment on the part of Senator Thompson, I 
think it would give an efficient reporting and accountability aspect to 
this amendment which was lacking in its original form.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1879) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 1880

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray, Senator 
Shelby, Senator Byrd, myself, and the managers, I send an amendment to 
the desk with respect to the language clarification subjecting, of 
course, the fees and amounts under this particular measure to the 
appropriations process. I think it is clear in the bill but we wanted 
to make it absolutely clear, and on behalf of Senator Murray, Senator 
Byrd, and Senator Shelby, we are pleased to present the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mrs. 
     Murray, for herself, Mr. Byrd, and Mr. Shelby, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1880.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

          (Purpose: To clarify the user fee funding mechanism)

       On page 43, line 19, add the words ``annual appropriations 
     for'' after the word ``offset'';
       On page 43, line 20, strike the sentence beginning with the 
     word ``The'' and ending with the word ``expended.'' on line 
     23;
       On page 43, at the end of line 25, insert the following new 
     subsection:
       (c) User of Fees.--A fee collected under this section shall 
     be used solely for the costs associated with providing 
     aviation security services and may be used only to the extent 
     provided in advance in an appropriation law.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1880) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1881

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, I send a technical 
amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1881.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To authorize the employment, suspension, and termination of 
 airport passenger security screeners without regard to the provisions 
of title 5, United States Code, otherwise applicable to such employees)

       On page 32, beginning with line 9, strike through line 2 on 
     page 35 and insert the following:
       (d) Screener Personnel.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation may employ, 
     appoint, discipline, terminate, and fix the compensation, 
     terms, and conditions of employment of such a number of 
     individuals as the Secretary determines to be necessary to 
     carry out the passenger security screening functions of the 
     Secretary under section 44901 of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       (e) Strikes Prohibited.--An individual employed as a 
     security screener under section 44901 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is prohibited from participating in a strike or 
     asserting the right to strike pursuant to section 7311(3) or 
     7116(b)(7) of title 5, United States Code.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment has to do with the 
management of the programs and the terms of employment. It has been 
discussed by both sides. I ask for its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1881) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1875

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Kentucky, 
Mr. McConnell, is on his way over to speak on the pending amendment. I 
ask that we return to the pending amendment.
  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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I announce on behalf of Senator Hollings 
and myself we are now down to just a couple or three amendments. If 
there are Senators who have amendments, we would like for them to come 
to the Chamber and offer them because I think we are about ready to 
wrap up. I understand there may be at least two amendments on this side 
but we would like to get them considered and disposed of.
  It would be very helpful if we could move from this legislation to 
the antiterrorism legislation.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield.
  Mr. REID. As I announced today on behalf of Senator Daschle, there 
are some really important things to do. This bill is extremely 
important. The two managers of this bill have been talking about its 
importance for 1 week. It seems at least people with amendments could 
come and offer them. If they do not, the majority leader and the 
minority leader are going to move from this legislation, finish it, 
because we have waiting in the wings the very important antiterrorism 
legislation which the Attorney General and the President of the United 
States and all of us think is vitally important. So people do not have 
the luxury of finishing their appointments or whatever else they are 
doing. The business of the Senate is proceeding and we are going to 
move to third reading.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Nevada. If it is agreeable, in 
about 20 minutes--it is now 25 after 3--we will move that no further 
amendments be considered. That gives Senators 20 minutes to come over 
and propose their amendments.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Very good.
  Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1875

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, it is my understanding the amendment of 
my good friend from Montana, Senator Burns, has been agreed to on both 
sides. It is that amendment to which I want to speak for a few moments 
prior to its adoption.
  Immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, airline 
security suddenly became a national law enforcement priority, shedding 
its former status as a routine administrative

[[Page 19466]]

function of the airlines. Once this occurred, it became imperative that 
we enlist the expertise of our Nation's top law enforcement agencies to 
prevent further attacks on America through our aviation system.
  Three weeks ago, and before Senators Hollings and McCain introduced 
their first comprehensive airline security bill, I also introduced S. 
1444, the Federal Air Marshal and Safe Sky Act. My bill had two 
important objectives that I felt strongly about. One, to make airport 
security a national priority by having Federal standards, Federal 
training, and Federal oversight of all airport security functions and, 
two, to make airport security a law enforcement responsibility in the 
hands of the Attorney General, our Nation's top law enforcement 
official.
  Since I introduced my bill, which was cosponsored by Senators 
Brownback, Gregg, Thurmond, and Helms, we have worked closely with both 
the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee, as well as 
Senator Burns and Senator DeWine, on these important issues. That is 
why I am proud to be a cosponsor of Senator Burns' amendment, which 
would transfer airport screening and armed personnel to the Department 
of Justice and allow the Department of Justice to set standards of 
training for Federal air marshals.
  For a comprehensive air marshal program to be most effective, we need 
to relieve the obligations of airport security from the FAA and the 
airlines, where the primary purpose is to facilitate the managed air 
travel, and entrust that responsibility to the Department of Justice, 
whose primary mission is to enforce Federal law and, most importantly, 
to safeguard and protect us from further acts of terrorism.
  The Justice Department already has a model in place for Federal 
security. That model is our Federal courthouses which are currently 
secured by the U.S. marshals who employ court security officers, 
commonly referred to as CSOs, to provide security around the perimeter 
of the building, at each point of entry, and in the courtrooms 
themselves. These court security officers are themselves retired 
Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel.
  Part of the reason our courthouses enjoy such security today is that 
this unified system provides for layers of security far before when one 
enters the actual courtroom. Our democracy demands, in the interests of 
our national security, that we make sure our airports are every bit as 
secure as our courthouses.
  Finally, I would add that it is important both substantively and 
symbolically for the American people to know that one of our nation's 
top law enforcement priorities will now be handled by our nation's top 
law enforcement agency.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, for his 
leadership and hard work on this amendment. I also thank the chairman 
and ranking member for their hard work on this important piece of 
legislation and express my enthusiastic support for the Burns amendment 
and indicate my pride in being added as a cosponsor. I enjoyed working 
with the Senator from Montana on this matter and am glad the amendment 
will be accepted. It is an outstanding amendment and will add 
substantially to the goal of ensuring we have airports that are as safe 
as possible.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank my good friend, the Senator from Kentucky. I also 
thank him for his legislation issuing war bonds to pay for this 
operation, this antiterrorism effort, and to bring fugitives to justice 
and to fulfill this operation.
  Since he introduced that legislation--and I was a cosponsor of it--I 
have been getting mail from all over the State of Montana wanting to 
know where to buy a war bond because they want to participate in the 
security of this country. Since September 11, we as a society have 
changed a lot of our priorities and agenda.
  Mr. McCONNELL. As Senator Burns pointed out, this legislation has now 
passed the Senate and was added as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal 
appropriations bill. We are optimistic that the conferees will keep 
that amendment since it was not in the House version and it could be on 
the way, hopefully, for the President's signature downtown. We are 
optimistic that the Treasury Department will pick up this device which 
gives Americans a great opportunity.
  One hears the question, What can I do? As the Senator from Montana 
pointed out, this is the answer to that.
  Mr. BURNS. It was a great amendment. Americans want to participate. 
They want to do their share. Knowing we are in a crisis in this 
country, this is a way to help.
  The operations we have going on are very expensive. This is a way we 
ask Americans to help us get the job done, help this President who has 
dedicated himself to getting this job done.
  I yield the floor and 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I don't believe there is further debate on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1875) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BURNS. I thank the leadership for their courtesy and their staffs 
who worked with my staff closely in passing this amendment. It does 
enhance the legislation. We hope what we have done gives a bright line 
of accountability. I appreciate the leadership of the chairman of the 
Commerce Committee, the ranking member, and their staffs.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from Montana for his leadership and 
help in enhancing security with respect to airline travel.
  Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know the manager and the Senator McCain 
are working very hard to resolve the final issues on this legislation. 
I take the floor again to say thank them for their hard work on this 
legislation. It has been a long, tortured trail to get this aviation 
security bill to the floor of the Senate; and, second, to begin to 
resolve all of the difficulties and hopefully get it passed as quickly 
as possible.
  I mention one issue that will not hang up the bill for me. I will 
strongly support this bill because of the work they have done. The one 
issue I talked to both Senator Hollings and Senator McCain about is 
something that they have agreed to discuss in conference to see if we 
can make some adjustments.
  Here is the situation with respect to the enplanement fee of $2.50. 
If you are flying in this country from one of the spokes in the system 
and fly from the spoke to a hub and to another hub--for example, from 
Bismark you go to Minneapolis, get on another plane, fly to Washington, 
DC, and then you fly back--you are going to pay four enplanement fees 
totaling $10.
  The problem with respect to that enplanement fee is one in which if 
you start at a spoke in this system and fly to a hub and then to 
another hub, which many people do, they are going to always pay $10, 
because they will have taken four segments at $2.50 per segment.
  Those who live in the big cities that fly to another major city will 
pay $5. If you are from a small airport and go to a hub and then 
another big city, which

[[Page 19467]]

most travelers do--I do for every trip to North Dakota; I fly from here 
to Minneapolis, and either from there to Minot, or Grand Forks, or 
Fargo--for every one of those tickets, my constituents will always pay 
four $2.50 enplanement fees. Someone who lives in Chicago or 
Minneapolis and flies to Washington, DC will always pay a $5 fee. They 
will pay a fee when they leave Chicago, then a fee when they leave 
Washington, DC because they do not have to change planes. They only 
have two segments, not four. We have a circumstance where the current 
fee will double for those who are on the spokes part of the hub in the 
spoke system. That is just not fair.
  So I visited just in this Chamber today with Senator Hollings and 
Senator McCain and described that circumstance. They have agreed to 
take a look at that in conference. I understand we cannot modify that 
at this moment, but they have said, yes, they understand that 
circumstance, and they would be willing to take a look at that in 
conference. I appreciate that.
  It is just a circumstance where, in one more situation, those at the 
end of the line, those in the smaller airports who have to fly to a hub 
and then change planes to go someplace are going to end up paying more. 
They already pay too much, in my judgment.
  Those who have the satisfaction of flying between pairs of the 
largest cities in the country have the wonderful treat of being able to 
see multiple carriers competing around price for those seats; and they 
get a pretty good deal under deregulation. That has not been the case 
for a lot of other consumers.
  When we add to the airline tickets some fee to recover the charge for 
aviation security, we must do it in a manner that is fair. I submit, as 
I have indicated to Senator Hollings and Senator McCain, it is not, in 
my judgment, good policy for us to say to all of those who live out on 
the end of a spoke in the hub-and-spoke system pay twice as much as 
those who live in the hub. That is not something that would make sense, 
not something that would be fair to a lot of folks around this country 
who fly from the smaller airports.
  So let me again say, I wanted to call this to the attention of my 
colleagues today. I did today, with a discussion with Senator Hollings 
and Senator McCain. They have agreed to take a good look at that in 
conference. That is all I can ask at this point.
  Let me conclude, as I started, by saying this bill has an urgency to 
it. It has been frustrating that it has taken so long to get to the 
floor, but it is here. I will take great satisfaction in the work that 
my colleague from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, has done; my 
colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, has done; along with many 
others--Senator Rockefeller, Senator Hutchison, myself, and so many 
others who worked on this bill in the Commerce Committee. Thanks to 
their good work, we will pass an aviation security bill now--I hope 
today--and get to conference, make the changes necessary, and get this 
bill to the President's desk.
  This country needs this bill. The airline industry needs it. This 
economy needs it. It is much more than just this piece of legislation. 
It is about confidence. This economy and this country, and especially 
the airline industry at this point, desperately need that cushion of 
confidence that a number of steps, including this piece of legislation, 
will offer.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 1863

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I now offer the amendment that I spoke 
of earlier in the afternoon, which would allow pilots under Part 121--
who are now required to retire at the age of 60--to continue to pilot 
commercial airlines until the age of 63.
  It is my intention, at the end of my statement, to ask for the yeas 
and nays on the amendment. My understanding is that the floor managers 
are reviewing the amendment.
  If procedure allows, I would like to speak on the amendment at this 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is currently pending.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I am sorry; I did not hear the Presiding Officer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's amendment is currently pending.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, earlier today I spoke of an amendment that I planned 
to offer that would repeal the Federal Aviation Administration's rule 
which requires pilots who fly under Part 121 to retire at the age of 
60. This is a mandatory retirement.
  It is kind of interesting to note that foreign airlines--Lufthansa, 
and others--allow pilots to fly beyond age 60; in some cases 65, in 
some cases longer.
  Under the amendment, pilots in excellent health--and I mean subject 
to not just the regular physical exams which they have to undergo now 
to fly under age 60--but, as a consequence of extending this to age 63, 
would be allowed to continue to pilot commercial airlines. It would 
allow the FAA to require those pilots to undergo additional medical and 
cognitive testing for certification as well as establish standards for 
crew pairings.
  I live in Alaska. I fly a great deal. To suggest that suddenly, when 
an experienced pilot reaches age 60, he or she is no longer fit to fly, 
flies in the face of age discrimination certainly. It flies in the face 
of the value that an experienced pilot has.
  Some might suggest that this is not germane to aviation safety. Well, 
if anything is germane to aviation safety, it is an experienced pilot. 
How do you get experience? You get experience in aviation by flying, 
you gain experience in what to do during mechanical difficulties, you 
gain experience in what to do during weather difficulties. It is 
experience, Mr. President. And it is germane to this legislation, which 
is airline safety.
  I do not want to fly, necessarily, in adverse weather, under IFR 
conditions, in an unpressurized aircraft in my State of Alaska without 
an experienced pilot.
  The former Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hale Boggs, and 
the Representative for the State of Alaska in the House of 
Representatives, Nick Begich, were flying in adverse weather in an 
unpressurized aircraft. It was the largest aerial search ever 
undertaken. They have never found any remains, any evidence of where 
the aircraft crashed.
  My point is, experience counts. This particular amendment is germane. 
This particular amendment has had a hearing in the Commerce Committee. 
The protections that we provide, by requiring commercial airline pilots 
to undergo additional medical and cognitive testing for certification 
covers the exposure.
  As I look around this Chamber, with the exception of a few of our 
colleagues who happen to be in the candy drawer right now, virtually 
everyone is over 60 years old. Suddenly, at their 60th birthday, are 
they no longer fit to represent their constituents? They are certainly 
experienced. And this measure is applicable here.
  There is an objection from the unions, and I recognize their 
objection, but it is a matter of retirement. That is an agreement 
between the unions and the airlines. What we are talking about is 
airline safety. We are talking about experience. You have a legitimate 
complaint about the unions wanting to move these pilots out, to make 
room for others.
  But what we are doing in this country today is, we are calling our 
pilots back to the military because we have a crisis. We need them. For 
all practical purposes, we have a pilot shortage in this country.
  The European airlines recognize reality. Experience counts. 
Experience counts in my State. This measure was subject to a full 
Commerce Committee hearing. It was voted out of committee by a majority 
in March of this year. We have had numerous studies sponsored by the 
FAA. None have ever produced concrete evidence that pilots over 60 
years of age are a threat to the flying public. In fact, the studies 
have not even included pilots over 60. So where is this coming from?
  Experience does count. If you are in good physical condition--you 
live

[[Page 19468]]

longer; you take better care of yourself; you have a better health 
provider--what is wrong here? We have age discrimination against pilots 
who are 60 years old; you do not let them fly anymore. That is 
discrimination of the worst kind. If they can pass a physical, why not?
  Advanced psychological and neurobehavioral testing methods do exist 
to test pilots of any age. More importantly, we have simulator training 
that can estimate the risk of any number of things--such as cardiac 
complaints as evidence shows that there is one event in more than 20 
million hours of flight time. Sudden flight incapacitation is clearly 
less a threat to aviation safety than are mishaps due to inexperienced 
pilot error.
  Let's go through the list of accidents. We recognize that most 
accidents associated with aviation in the area of qualifications under 
pilot error are due to inexperienced pilots, not experienced pilots. 
That can only come with time and age. That is why it is so important to 
recognize that when a pilot becomes 60 years of age, he or she should 
not be simply eliminated from commercial aviation.
  The European countries recognize this and take experience into 
consideration and allow pilots to fly until the age of 65. My amendment 
would allow them to fly until age 63.
  Medical science has vastly improved since 1959--improvements in 
diagnosis, which include early detection, prevention, health awareness, 
and diet. All of these factors have increased life expectancy since 
1959.
  Our airline pilots consistently demonstrate superior task 
performances across all age groups when compared to age-matched non-
pilots. Pilots are subjected to comprehensive medical examinations 
every 6 months. In the 42 years since the rule was promulgated, there 
has not been any evidence that pilots over age 60 are not fully capable 
of handling their flight responsibilities.
  As an example, pilots who flew in commuter operations were allowed to 
fly past the age of 60 until the end of 1999. This practice ended with 
the 1995 commuter rule. It mandated that any airline company which 
offered scheduled service using aircraft with nine or more seats had to 
fly under part 121 operations. However, this rule made special 
provisions to allow pilots who were then flying over 60 to continue to 
fly for 4 more years as pilots in command and allowed companies to 
continue to hire pilots 60 and older for 15 months. There were over 100 
pilots over 60 years of age flying at that time. A study of 31 
determined that they flew without a single accident or a single 
incident.
  In 1999, 69 current and former airline captains organized and 
underwent extensive medical testing and petitioned the FAA to drop this 
antiquated mandatory retirement. They were tested by a panel of 
nationally and internationally recognized experts in the field of 
aerospace medicine, cardiology, internal medicine, geriatrics, and 
neuropsychological medicine. The panel determined that they were all 
qualified to perform airline captain and command duties beyond 60. Do 
you know what happened? The FAA denied their exemption request.
  In supporting documents to their petition, they showed that the FAA 
had relaxed its medical requirements to allow pilots to fly with 
various medical problems, including hypertension, diabetes, alcoholism, 
spinal cord injury, defective vision, liberalized height and weight 
restrictions. They allowed that. It was an exemption. They were under 
60. But if you were 60 and in good health, you couldn't fly the next 
day.
  In the area of cardiovascular special issuances, the American Medical 
Association applauded the FAA as having demonstrated an understanding 
of the advances in diagnostic treatment and rehabilitation. So we have 
the American Medical Association applauding the FAA for allowing 
exemptions for those under 60, but if you are in perfect health and you 
are over 60, you can't fly.
  In 1999, the FAA granted medical certificates to 6,072 airline pilots 
under the age of 60 who had sufficient medical pathology permitting 
them to operate as airline crewmen.
  How does the FAA derive its medical consensus that it is safe for 
those pilots to continue to fly and not those who have been flying for 
41 years without such medical pathology who happen to just arrive at 
the age of 60? It is rather interesting. You can go down to the FAA and 
see who is flying, who is giving check rides. Most of them are over 60 
because they are exempt. Where is the logic in this, if the FAA can 
keep its pilots on over 60, have them checked out, then you have a 
regulation here that is absolutely inconsistent with reality?
  Twenty-five countries belonging to the European Joint Aviation 
Authority raised the mandatory retirement age to 65, joining many Asian 
countries that increased the age to 63 or 65. I know of no evidence 
that those foreign pilots have a worse safety record than pilots under 
the age of 60.
  The time has come for Congress to repeal the age restriction on 
commercial pilots. This is age discrimination. Years of medical and 
safety data have failed to support the position that the chronological 
age of 60 represents a passenger safety concern. Therefore, as long as 
a pilot can pass the rigorous medical exam, he or she should be allowed 
to fly.
  We must, as a legislative body, eliminate age discrimination against 
pilots who can and should be flying our commercial aircraft.
  To suggest that somehow this is not germane to this bill flies in the 
face of reality. This is an aviation safety bill. What is more basic to 
aviation safety than having experience? And how do you get experience? 
It comes with age, whether you like it or not.
  I think it is time we end this age discrimination once and for all. 
We need experience in the cockpit. I know that I appreciate it when I 
am flying with a pilot who has seen more than a few thousand hours in 
the air as well as simulator time. We value the aspects certainly 
associated with life and maturing, but we should not be hypocritical in 
how we treat pilots.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and ask for the yeas 
and nays on the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, only a month ago, our Nation faced a 
terrible tragedy. We learned loud and clear that we need to improve 
aviation security and safety, not decrease it, which is what this 
amendment would do. At a time that we need to protect the American 
public, Congress should not be decreasing safety standards. Even the 
FAA opposes this amendment because of safety concerns.
  This amendment would eliminate the current rule that commercial pilot 
must retire at age 60. It was put into place to help ensure safety in 
the air. It should only be changed if research can prove the effects of 
aging do not impact a pilot's ability to fly a commercial jet at age 
60.
  The ``Age 60 Rule'' for retirement of airline pilots was implemented 
by the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, based on safety concerns 
that medical evidence showed that as a group pilots begin to 
demonstrate the affects of aging around age 60.
  Here is what the medical evidence of aging shows: there is a 
progressive deterioration of physiological and psychological functions 
and this increases more rapidly as people age; sudden incapacity from 
heart attacks or strokes become more frequent in any group reaching age 
60; there is a the loss in ability to perform highly skilled tasks 
rapidly; it becomes harder to maintain physical stamina; it is more 
difficult to perform effectively in a complex and stressful environment 
and to apply experience, judgment and reasoning rapidly in new, 
changing and emergency situations; and, there is an increased 
difficulty to learn new techniques, skills and procedures.
  While it is recognized that such losses generally start well before 
age 60, it determined that beyond age 59, the risks associated with 
these losses become unacceptable for pilots in airline operations.

[[Page 19469]]

  Additionally, the Airline Pilots Association, the largest pilot 
union, does not support raising the mandatory retirement age. In fact, 
they oppose it.
  Also, older pilots with seniority fly the largest, highest 
performance aircraft that carry the greatest number of passengers with 
the longest nonstop flights into the highest density air traffic. These 
are concerns as pilots age.
  Additionally, a mandatory retirement age is not unique in the airline 
field. For example, air traffic controllers have a congressionally 
mandated retirement age of 56 years old.
  Yes, I am sure that there are a few pilots who can fly past 60. But, 
our decision should be made to protect the safety of the American 
flying public.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I know the good intentions of the Senator 
from Alaska. I have spoken to him on many occasions about this issue. 
There likely is a time and place for this amendment. It is not on this 
bill.
  I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for the 
consideration of several amendments that have been agreed to prior to 
the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1886

  Mr. McCAIN. On behalf of Senators Enzi and Dorgan, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Enzi and Mr. 
     Dorgan, proposes an amendment numbered 1886.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  On page 15, line 2, after the period insert the following:

       ``The Federal Aviation Administration, in consultation with 
     the appropriate State or local government law enforcement 
     authorities, shall reexamine the safety requirements for 
     small community airports to reflect a reasonable level of 
     threat to those individual small community airports, 
     including the parking of passenger vehicles within 300 feet 
     of the airport terminal building with respect to that 
     airport.''

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1886) was agreed to.


                 Amendments Nos. 1887 and 1888, En Bloc

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I send two amendments on behalf of 
Senator Hutchison of Texas to the desk, en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mrs. Hutchison, 
     proposes amendments numbered 1887 and 1888, en bloc.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           Amendment No. 1887

     (Purpose: To apply present law background and fingerprinting 
requirements to existing, as well as new, airport employees with access 
                      to security-sensitive areas)

       On page 35, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       (e) Background Checks for Existing Employees.--
       (1) In general.--Section 44936 of title 49, United States 
     Code is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``is or'' before ``will'' in subsection 
     (a)(1)(B)(i); and
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     apply with respect to individuals employed on or after the 
     date of enactment of the Aviation Security Act in a position 
     described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 44936(a)(1) 
     of title 49, United States Code. The Secretary of 
     Transportation may provide by order for a phased-in 
     implementation of the requirements of section 44936 of that 
     title made applicable to individuals employed in such 
     positions at airports on the date of enactment of this Act.
                                  ____



                           Amendment No. 1888

       (Purpose: To require screening of all airport and airport 
                       concessionaire employees)

       On page 18, line 1, strike ``passengers'' and insert 
     ``passengers, individuals with access to secure areas,''.
       On page 18, line 10, after the period, insert ``The 
     Secretary, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall 
     provide for the screening of all persons, including airport, 
     air carrier, foreign air carrier, and airport concessionaire 
     employees, before they are allowed into sterile or secure 
     areas of the airport, as determined by the Secretary.
       The screening of airport, air carrier, foreign air carrier, 
     and airport concessionaire employees, and other nonpassengers 
     with access to secure areas, shall be conducted in the same 
     manner as passenger screenings are conducted, except that the 
     Secretary may authorize alternative screening procedures for 
     personnel engaged in providing airport or aviation security 
     at an airport.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, the first amendment requires background 
checks for existing aviation security employees over a time certain. 
The other one requires screening of all employees prior to entering the 
secure areas.
  I want to take a moment to thank Senator Hutchison for her wonderful 
work on this bill and on these amendments.
  I urge adoption of the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendments?
  Without objection, the amendments are agreed to.
  The amendments (Nos. 1887 and 1888) were agreed to, en bloc.


    Amendments Nos. 1889 through 1893 and 1873 As Modified, En Bloc

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order for me to send to the desk a couple more amendments; that they be 
agreed to, en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
and that any modifications of the filed amendments be in order with 
respect to these amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes amendments 
     en bloc numbered 1889 through 1893 and 1873, as modified.

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendments be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1889

  (Purpose: To require the Assistant Administrator for Civil Aviation 
             Security to establish an employment register)

       At the end of the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . USE OF FACILITIES.

       (a) Employment Register.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the Secretary of Transportation shall 
     establish and maintain an employment register.
       (b) Training Facility.--The Secretary of Transportation 
     may, where feasible, use the existing Federal Aviation 
     Administration's training facilities to design, develop, or 
     conduct training of security screening personnel.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1890

  (Purpose: To require a report on any air space restrictions put in 
  place as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that 
                            remain in place)

       Strike the section heading for section 14 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 14. REPORT ON NATIONAL AIR SPACE RESTRICTIONS PUT IN 
                   PLACE AFTER TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT REMAIN IN 
                   PLACE.

       (a) Report.--Within 30 days of the enactment of this Act, 
     the President shall submit to the committees of Congress 
     specified in subsection (b) a report containing--
       (1) a description of each restriction, if any, on the use 
     of national airspace put in place as a result of the 
     September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that remains in place 
     as of the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (2) a justification for such restriction remaining in 
     place.
       (b) Committees of Congress.--The committees of Congress 
     specified in this subsection are the following:
       (1) The Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
       (2) The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
     House of Representatives.
       (3) The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate.

[[Page 19470]]

       (4) The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of 
     the House of Representatives.

     SEC. 15. DEFINITIONS.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1891

 (Purpose: To facilitate the voluntary provision of emergency services 
                     during commercial air flights)

       Strike the section heading for section 14 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 14. VOLUNTARY PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES DURING 
                   COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS.

       (a) Program for Provision of Voluntary Services.--
       (1) Program.--The Secretary of Transportation shall carry 
     out a program to permit qualified law enforcement officers, 
     firefighters, and emergency medical technicians to provide 
     emergency services on commercial air flights during 
     emergencies.
       (2) Requirements.--The Secretary shall establish such 
     requirements for qualifications of providers of voluntary 
     services under the program under paragraph (1), including 
     training requirements, as the Secretary considers 
     appropriate.
       (3) Confidentiality of registry.--If as part of the program 
     under paragraph (1) the Secretary requires or permits 
     registration of law enforcement officers, firefighters, or 
     emergency medical technicians who are willing to provide 
     emergency services on commercial flights during emergencies, 
     the Secretary shall take appropriate actions to ensure that 
     the registry is available only to appropriate airline 
     personnel and otherwise remains confidential.
       (4) Consultation.--The Secretary shall consult with 
     appropriate representatives of the commercial airline 
     industry, and organizations representing community-based law 
     enforcement, firefighters, and emergency medical technicians, 
     in carrying out the program under paragraph (1), including 
     the actions taken under paragraph (3).
       (b) Protection From Liability.--
       (1) In general.--Subchapter II of chapter 449 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 44939. Exemption of volunteers from liability

       ``(a) In General.--An individual shall not be liable for 
     damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court 
     that arises from an act or omission of the individual in 
     providing or attempting to provide assistance in the case of 
     an inflight emergency in an aircraft of an air carrier if the 
     individual meets such qualifications as the Secretary shall 
     prescribe for purposes of this section.
       ``(b) Exception.--The exemption under subsection (a) shall 
     not apply in any case in which an individual provides, or 
     attempts to provide, assistance described in that paragraph 
     in a manner that constitutes gross negligence or willful 
     misconduct.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``44939. Exemption of volunteers from liability.''.

       (c) Construction Regarding Possession of Firearms.--Nothing 
     in this section may be construed to require any modification 
     of regulations of the Department of Transportation governing 
     the possession of firearms while in aircraft or air 
     transportation facilities or to authorize the possession of a 
     firearm in an aircraft or any such facility not authorized 
     under those regulations.

     SEC. 15. DEFINITIONS.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1892

  (Purpose: To make minor and technical corrections in the managers' 
                               amendment)

       On page 1, in the matter appearing after line 5, strike the 
     item relating to section 1 and insert the following:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
       On page 4, line 23, strike ``hiring and training'' and 
     insert ``hiring, training, and evaluating''.
       On page 8, beginning with line 18, strike through line 20 
     on page 9 and insert the following:
       (a) In General.--As soon as possible after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall--
       (1) issue an order (without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code)--
       (A) prohibiting access to the flight deck of aircraft 
     engaged in passenger air transportation or intrastate air 
     transportation except to authorized personnel;
       (B) requiring the strengthening of the flight deck door and 
     locks on any such aircraft operating in air transportation or 
     intrastate air transportation that has a rigid door in a 
     bulkhead between the flight deck and the passenger area to 
     ensure that the door cannot be forced open from the passenger 
     compartment;
       (C) requiring that such flight deck doors remain locked 
     while any such aircraft is in flight except when necessary to 
     permit the flight deck crew access and egress; and
       (D) prohibiting the possession of a key to any such flight 
     deck door by any member of the flight crew who is not 
     assigned to the flight deck; and
       (2) take such other action, including modification of 
     safety and security procedures, as may be necessary to ensure 
     the safety and security of the aircraft.
       On page 10, line 9, insert closing quotation marks after 
     ``(1)'' the second place it appears.
       On page 10, line 20, insert opening quotation marks before 
     ``(3)''.
       On page 15, line 17, insert a semicolon before the closing 
     quotation marks.
       On page 16, beginning in line 18, strike ``Employment 
     Investigations and Restrictions.--'' and insert ``Airport 
     Security Pilot Program.--''.
       On page 18, line 9, strike ``an'' and insert ``a''.
       On page 18, line 10, strike ``215'' and insert ``2105''.
       On page 21, beginning with line 22, strike through line 6 
     on page 22 and insert the following:
       (b) Deputizing of State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Officers.--Section 512 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
     Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century is amended--
       (1) by striking ``purpose of'' in subsection (b)(1)(A) and 
     inserting ``purposes of (i)'';
       (2) by striking ``transportation;'' in subsection (b)(1)(A) 
     and inserting ``transportation, and (ii) regulate the 
     provisions of security screening services under section 
     44901(c) of title 49, United States Code;'';
       (3) by striking ``not federal responsibility'' in the 
     heading of subsection (b)(3)(b);
       (4) by striking ``shall not be responsible for providing'' 
     in subsection (b)(3)(B) and inserting ``may provide'';
       (5) by striking ``flight.'' in subsection (c)(2) and 
     inserting ``flight and security screening functions under 
     section 44901(c) of title 49, United States Code.'';
       (6) by striking ``General'' in subsection (e) and inserting 
     ``General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation,''; and
       (7) by striking subsection (f).
       On page 31, line 20, strike ``(2)Section'' and ``(2) 
     Section''.
       On page 31, after line 25, insert the following:
       (3) Section 44936(a)(1)(E) is amended by striking clause 
     (iv).
       On page 32, line 20, insert ``under section 44901 of title 
     49, United States Code,'' after ``screener''.
       On page 32, strike line 23, and insert ``5, United States 
     Code.''.
       On page 33, line 2, insert ``any other'' before 
     ``provision''.
       On page 36, line 8, after ``alien'' insert ``or other 
     individual''.
       On page 38, line 25, strike ``Congress'' and insert 
     ``Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure''.
       On page 39, line 6, strike ``Congress'' and insert ``Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure''.
       On page 41, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       (5) The use of technology that will permit enhanced instant 
     communications and information between airborne passenger 
     aircraft and appropriate individuals or facilities on the 
     ground.
       On page 43, line 3, insert ``to the maximum extent 
     practicable'' before ``the best''.
       On page 43, line 9, strike ``to certify'' and insert 
     ``on''.
       In amendment No. 1881, on page 1, line 5, insert ``Federal 
     service for'' after ``of''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 1893

  (Purpose: To require the Assistant Administrator for Civil Aviation 
 Security to have certain detection technologies in place by September 
                               30, 2002)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC. __. IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES.

       (a) In General.--Not later than September 30, 2002, the 
     Assistant Administrator for Civil Aviation Security shall 
     review and make a determination on the feasibility of 
     implementing technologies described in subsection (b).
       (b) Technologies Described.--The technologies described in 
     this subsection are technologies that are--
       (1) designed to protect passengers, aviation employees, air 
     cargo, airport facilities, and airplanes; and
       (2) material specific and able to automatically and non-
     intrusively detect, without human interpretation and without 
     regard to shape or method of concealment, explosives, illegal 
     narcotics, hazardous chemical agents, and nuclear devices.
                                  ____



                     AMENDMENT No. 1873 as modified

       At the appropriate place, insert:

     SEC. __. ENHANCED SECURITY FOR AIRCRAFT.

       (a) Security for Larger Aircraft.--
       (1) Program required.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall commence implementation 
     of a program to provide security

[[Page 19471]]

     screening for all aircraft operations conducted with respect 
     to any aircraft having a maximum certified takeoff weight of 
     more than 12,500 pounds that is not operating as of the date 
     of the implementation of the program under security 
     procedures prescribed by the Administrator.
       (2) Waiver.--
       (A) Authority to waive.--The Administrator may waive the 
     applicability of the program under this section with respect 
     to any aircraft or class of aircraft otherwise described by 
     this section if the Administrator determines that aircraft 
     described in this section can be operated safely without the 
     applicability of the program to such aircraft or class of 
     aircraft, as the case may be.
       (B) Limitations.--A waiver under subparagraph (A) may not 
     go into effect--
       (i) unless approved by the Secretary of Transportation; and
       (ii) until 10 days after the date on which notice of the 
     waiver has been submitted to the appropriate committees of 
     Congress.
       (3) Program elements.--The program under paragraph (1) 
     shall require the following:
       (A) The search of any aircraft covered by the program 
     before takeoff.
       (B) The screening of all crew members, passengers, and 
     other persons boarding any aircraft covered by the program, 
     and their property to be brought on board such aircraft, 
     before boarding.
       (4) Procedures for searches and screening.--The 
     Administrator shall develop procedures for searches and 
     screenings under the program under paragraph (1). Such 
     procedures may not be implemented until approved by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Security for Smaller Aircraft.--
       (1) Program required.--Not later than one year after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     commence implementation of a program to provide security for 
     all aircraft operations conducted with respect to any 
     aircraft having a maximum certified takeoff weight of 12,500 
     pounds or less that is not operating as of the date of the 
     implementation of the program under security procedures 
     prescribed by the Administrator. The program shall address 
     security with respect to crew members, passengers, baggage 
     handlers, maintenance workers, and other individuals with 
     access to aircraft covered by the program, and to baggage.
       (2) Report on program.--Not later than 180 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit 
     to the appropriate committees of Congress a report containing 
     a proposal for the program to be implemented under paragraph 
     (1).
       (c) Background Checks for Aliens Engaged in Certain 
     Transactions Regarding Aircraft.--
       (1) Requirement.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law and subject to paragraph (2), no person or entity may 
     sell, lease, or charter any aircraft to an alien, or any 
     other individual specified by the Secretary for purposes of 
     this subsection, within the United States unless the Attorney 
     General issues a certification of the completion of a 
     background investigation of the alien, or other individual, 
     as the case may be, that meets the requirements of section 
     44939(b) of title 49, United States Code, as added by section 
     13 of this Act.
       (2) Expiration.--The prohibition in paragraph (1) shall 
     expire as follows:
       (A) In the case of an aircraft having a maximum certified 
     takeoff weight of more than 12,500 pounds, upon 
     implementation of the program required by subsection (a).
       (B) In the case of an aircraft having a maximum certified 
     takeoff weight of 12,500 pounds or less, upon implementation 
     of the program required by subsection (b).
       (3) Alien defined.--In this subsection, the term ``alien'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 44939(f) of title 
     49, United States Code, as so added.
       (d) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
     section, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress'' 
     means--
       (1) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     of the Senate; and
       (2) the Committee on Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives.

  Mr. McCAIN. These amendments have been agreed to on both sides. I 
urge their adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 1889 through 1893 and 1873, as modified) were 
agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to table was agreed to.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 1863

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the Murkowski amendment No. 1863.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 294 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gramm
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carper
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. 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. BIDEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. I yield to my friend from Alaska for 1 minute without 
losing my right to the floor.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I share with Members the transcribed 
words of our President from a few moments ago in an open Cabinet 
meeting.
  He urges the Senate to ``move a bill that will help Americans find 
work and also make it easier for all of us around this table to protect 
the security of this country. The less dependent we are on foreign 
sources of crude oil, the more secure we are at home.
  ``We spend a lot of time talking about homeland security. An integral 
piece of homeland security is energy independence. I ask the Senate to 
respond to the call to get an energy bill moving.''
  Mr. BIDEN. Madam President, I was about to introduce, along with the 
Presiding Officer in the chair, the Senator from New York, as well as 
about 12 other colleagues, an amendment to this legislation for 
security needs for Amtrak. They are at a minimum of $1.8 billion. Just 
the six tunnels that go into New York City carry 350,000 people per 
day. They are antiquated, built around 1910, and need significant 
upgrading to protect the safety and security of the people traveling on 
those rails. I could go down the list. I will not, in the interest of 
time.
  The managers of the bill have made an agreement with me and with the 
Presiding Officer and many others to do the following: We will withhold 
that amendment on this aviation safety bill. The chair and the ranking 
member of the Commerce Committee are going to attempt to mark up an 
Amtrak security bill and possibly a port security bill in their 
committee as early as next Tuesday. God willing and the creek not 
rising, as my grandfather would say, there is a possibility they will 
be able to report that to the floor sometime next week. I have spoken 
to the leadership on our side and have not had a chance to speak with 
the leadership on the Republican side. It is our hope to bring that 
bill up and vote on that piece of legislation.
  In addition to that, I have had an opportunity to speak with the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee and others who have indicated 
there would be an attempt as we deal with the appropriated money for 
this legislation

[[Page 19472]]

we are about to pass, as well as other security needs, that Amtrak 
would be considered in that process. I particularly thank my friend 
from Arizona who is all for safety but not so much all for Amtrak. He 
has been very helpful here and has indicated if we are not able to 
get--I ask him to correct me if I am wrong--if for some reason we are 
prevented from getting the authorizing legislation up before the 
appropriators do their job, he will not object to the appropriators 
going forward, notwithstanding his long-held view, as I have as 
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, of not wanting the 
appropriators to do the work of the authorization committee.
  I ask my friend, is that basically correct?
  Mr. McCAIN. No.
  The Senator from Delaware is correct, but I would like to emphasize 
that we do have a safety and security problem with the railway system 
in America. It isn't just Amtrak; it is railway, railroad stations, it 
is railway centers and hubs all over America. So we need to take care 
of security and safety requirements so that people can ride on 
railroads just as we are attempting with this aviation legislation so 
that people can ride on airplanes in safety and security.
  Yes, I am sorry to say, the Senator from Delaware is correct. I would 
support an appropriation for safety and security, but I certainly 
would, as usually has been my custom, resist the appropriations that 
would have to do with other matters, including additional track, rail, 
salary, pay, union, and almost anything that can ever be imagined is 
usually proposed on one of these bills.
  I thank the Senator. I thank my dear friend from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I think it is more appropriate to refer to this as rail 
safety. To give an example, the 350,000 people who go through the 
tunnels are not all on Amtrak trains. They are on the Long Island 
Railroad, they are on the New Jersey transit, using the Baltimore 
tunnel, for example, the Maryland transit, et cetera. It is rail 
safety. It is not just Amtrak. But Amtrak is responsible for the rail 
safety provisions of that. That is the reason I refer to it as Amtrak.
  I thank Members on behalf of my 11 other colleagues. I see my 
colleague from Delaware, a former board member of Amtrak. I am 
delighted to yield to him for a few moments if he would like to make 
comments on why we are not moving forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I thank the senior Senator for yielding. 
To Senator Biden, to Senator McCain, to Senator Hollings, and others 
who have been part of getting us to this rather extraordinary 
compromise and position to go forward on the authorizing track and on 
the appropriations track as well: Well done.
  Mario Cuomo, when he was Governor of New York, would talk about 
campaigning and governing. He used to say:

       We campaign in poetry, we govern in prose.

  Here in the Senate, here in Congress, we authorize in poetry, but we 
appropriate in prose.
  As important as this authorization is, and it is important that we 
get the authorization for work on the tunnels, for work on having more 
security onboard our trains and in our stations, and I think some help 
in refurbishing some of the older rolling stock, locomotives and cars 
that are needed to carry the extra people who are riding the trains 
now, as important as the authorizing is, the appropriations is where 
the rubber hits the road.
  I pledge to work with Senator Biden and Senator Hollings and Senator 
McCain and Senator Hutchison and others to make sure we get the work 
done, not just on the poetry side but the hard work on the prose side 
as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, let me affirm the exchange between the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware and our ranking member, the Senator 
from Arizona. The fact is, a railroad infrastructure enhancement bill 
was introduced today, with some 10 cosponsors. The reason I mention 
that is because we have been working long before September 11 on that 
need of the Nation.
  With respect to stimulus, there is no better stimulus than 
construction, and there is no more needed construction than to 
refurbish the Amtrak line itself. Extend that: America needs high-speed 
rail.
  Of course my distinguished colleague from Arizona, our ranking 
member, is disposed at the moment only for safety. We will call up the 
bill and we will mark up what we can, facilitate, if necessary, and try 
to separate perhaps a bill. But I hope to move next week in committee 
on this matter, as was indicated in our previous conversations, on 
Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock when we can get a quorum and mark that 
bill up and report authorization out here so we will not be confronted 
later on with obstacles. I think long before any passage of an 
authorization bill we are going to be hitting appropriations on the 
stimulus bill or some other bill because we need to immediately take 
care of safety and rail transportation.
  The frustration of both Senators from Delaware is well understood. 
When we adjourned last year, we had everybody running around--
Republican, Democrat, leader and plebeians like myself--saying: Oh, the 
first thing we are going to do next year, the first thing we are going 
to do is take up Amtrak. It is now October.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I hope my distinguished friend and colleague from South 
Carolina did not include me in that group.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. No.
  Mr. McCAIN. I again thank the Senator from Delaware. I believe we can 
mark up a bill on Tuesday with the chairman's leadership. I think we 
also need to address seaport security as well. I believe seaport 
security is a very serious issue as well as rail security. I hope we 
will understand those are priority items that need to be addressed.
  Senator Hollings is far more knowledgeable than I am. But some of the 
information we have about the amount of cargo, the amount of shipping, 
the people and trafficking that goes in and out of the seaports in 
America is also a very important issue that we need to address.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the Senator's leadership and support. 
Arizona obviously doesn't have very many seaports. But Senator Graham 
of Florida and myself have been on this issue for at least 2 years. We 
have had all kinds of hearings long before September 11, and we have 
produced a seaport security bill that we have been trying to fashion 
because it is a many-splendored thing. You have to get the entities, 
namely the Port Authorities, to connect with the Customs, Drug 
Enforcement Administration, the Coast Guard, and the captain of the 
port, who really has legal authority and responsibility. We have to get 
them all working together rather than just moving, moving, moving cargo 
but actually having as a primary concern, safety and security.
  We will be moving that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. I will just take another second. I note the Senator from 
South Carolina said the distinguished Senator from Arizona doesn't have 
a port.
  I am reminded when I first got here as a young Senator, I went to 
Senator Eastland, who I served under on the Judiciary Committee. 
Sitting in his office one day, as I often did, with Senator Thurmond, 
asking him anything a young kid, a 30-year-old Senator would ask, I 
asked: Who is the most powerful man you ever served with?
  He said: Senator Kerr.
  I said: Senator Kerr, Senator Kerr of Oklahoma?
  He said: Yeah--in his southern drawl which I will not attempt to 
imitate on the floor as I often do off the floor.
  He said: Who in the heck else could bring up the Gulf of Mexico in 
the middle of his State if he wasn't powerful?
  I think, as the Senator's power continues to increase, he may bring 
the

[[Page 19473]]

Pacific Ocean to Arizona, but I am not sure how he will do it.
  Mr. McCAIN. The most entertaining man I ever knew was Morris Udall, 
who often was heard saying: We in Arizona eagerly await the next 
earthquake so Arizona would be a coastal State.
  That is not as amusing as it was once, since there was one out there. 
But perhaps the Port of Yuma will still be a place the Senator from 
Delaware can help us with.
  In case our colleagues are wondering what we are doing, we are hoping 
to resolve one remaining issue before final passage. Negotiations are 
going on as we speak so we would be able to move to final passage. We 
hope within minutes that we will have that issue resolved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 1894

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Vermont, 
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I send an amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for Mr. 
     Leahy, proposes an amendment numbered 1894.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

            (Purpose: To amend title 49, United States Code)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . REPORT.

       Not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General shall report to the House Committee 
     on the Judiciary, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the 
     House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the 
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on 
     the new responsibilities of the Department of Justice for 
     aviation security under this Act.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it has been cleared on both sides. This 
is just to conform the Burns amendment relative to the Department of 
Justice having certain authorities. This is to conform, then to report 
back to the Judiciary Committees of both Houses.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1894) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1895

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and the 
distinguished Senator, Mr. McCain, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for himself 
     and Mr. McCain, proposes an amendment numbered 1895.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 1, in the matter appearing after line 5, strike the 
     item relating to section 1 and insert the following:

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

       On page 4, line 23, strike ``hiring and training'' and 
     insert ``hiring, training, and evaluating''.
       On page 8, beginning with line 18, strike through line 20 
     on page 9 and insert the following:
       (a) In General.--As soon as possible after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall--
       (1) issue an order (without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 5 of title 5, United States Code)--
       (A) prohibiting access to the flight deck of aircraft 
     engaged in passenger air transportation or intrastate air 
     transportation except to authorized personnel;
       (B) requiring the strengthening of the flight deck door and 
     locks on any such aircraft operating in air transportation or 
     intrastate air transportation that has a rigid door in a 
     bulkhead between the flight deck and the passenger area to 
     ensure that the door cannot be forced open from the passenger 
     compartment;
       (C) requiring that such flight deck doors remain locked 
     while any such aircraft is in flight except when necessary to 
     permit the flight deck crew access and egress; and
       (D) prohibiting the possession of a key to any such flight 
     deck door by any member of the flight crew who is not 
     assigned to the flight deck; and
       (2) take such other action, including modification of 
     safety and security procedures, as may be necessary to ensure 
     the safety and security of the aircraft.
       On page 10, line 9, insert closing quotation marks after 
     ``(1)'' the second place it appears.
       On page 10, line 20, insert opening quotation marks before 
     ``(3)'',
       On page 15, line 17, insert a semicolon before the closing 
     quotation marks.
       On page 16, beginning in line 18, strike ``Employment 
     Investigations and Restrictions.--'' and insert ``Airport 
     Security Pilot Program.--''.
       On page 18, line 9, strike ``an'' and insert ``a''.
  On page 18, line 10, strike ``215'' and insert ``2105''.
       On page 21, beginning with line 22, strike through line 6 
     on page 22 and insert the following:
       (b) Deputizing of State and Local Law Enforcement 
     Officers.--Section 512 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
     Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century is amended--
       (1) by striking ``purpose of'' in subsection (b)(1)(A) and 
     inserting ``purpose of (i)'';
       (2) by striking ``transportation;'' in subsection (b)(1)(A) 
     and inserting ``transportation, and (ii) regulate the 
     provisions of security screening services under section 
     44901(c) of title 49, United States Code;'';
       (3) by striking ``not federal responsibility'' in the 
     heading of subsection (b)(3)(b);
       (4) by striking ``shall not be responsible for providing'' 
     in subsection (b)(3)(B) and inserting ``may provide'';
       (5) by striking ``flight.'' in subsection (c)(2) and 
     inserting ``flight and security screening functions under 
     section 44901(c) of title 49, United States Code.'';
       (6) by striking ``General'' in subsection (e) and inserting 
     ``General, in consultation with the Secretary of 
     Transportation,''; and
       (7) by striking subsection (f).
       On page 31, after line 25, insert the following:
       (3) Section 44936(a)(1)(E) is amended by striking clause 
     (iv).
       On page 32, line 20, insert ``under section 44901 of title 
     49, United States Code,'' after ``screener''.
       On page 32, strike line 23, and insert ``5, United States 
     Code.''.
       On page 33, line 2, insert ``any other'' before 
     ``provision''.
       On page 36, line 8, after ``alien'' insert ``or other 
     individual''.
       On page 38, line 25, strike ``Congress'' and insert 
     ``Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure''.
       On page 39, line 6, strike ``Congress'' and insert ``Senate 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
     House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure''.
       On page 41, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:
       (5) the use of technology that will permit enhanced instant 
     communications and information between airborne passenger 
     aircraft and appropriate individuals or facilities on the 
     ground.
       On page 43, line 3, insert ``to the maximum extent 
     practicable'' before ``the best''.
       On page 43, line 9, strike ``to certify'' and insert 
     ``on''.
       In amendment no. 1881, on page 1, line 5, insert ``Federal 
     service for'' after ``of''.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. This amendment is a technical amendment, a final 
wrapup, change of the ands and ifs and buts and what have you. It has 
nothing to do with the substance but to conform various technicalities 
in the other amendments that we agreed upon in the course of 
consideration of this particular bill.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1895) was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 19474]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
disposition of the Warner amendment no further amendments be 
considered, and that we go to third reading and final passage.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have to object. I know how hard the 
Senator worked on this, but I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I 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 the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on this bill now 
before the Senate, that there be three amendments in order, one by the 
Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and two by the Senator from Vermont, 
Mr. Jeffords, and that no other amendments be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. And that then the Senate will move to third reading and 
final passage.
  Mr. REID. Yes. That goes without saying, Mr. President. As soon as we 
finish these, we move to third reading and final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 1896

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself and Senator Allen and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr. 
     Allen, proposes an amendment numbered 1896.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide payment for losses incurred by the Metropolitan 
     Washington Airports Authority and businesses at Ronald Reagan 
 Washington National Airport for limitations on the use of the airport 
            after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. PAYMENT FOR LOSSES RESULTING FROM LIMITATIONS ON USE 
                   OF RONALD REAGAN WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT 
                   FOLLOWING TERRORIST ATTACKS.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, of the amounts appropriated or otherwise made available 
     immediately by the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations 
     Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on 
     the United States (Public Law 107-38) that are available for 
     obligation, $65,648,183 shall be available to the Secretary 
     of Transportation for payment to the Metropolitan Washington 
     Airports Authority (MWAA) and concessionaires at Ronald 
     Reagan Washington National Airport for losses resulting from 
     the closure, and subsequent limitations on use, of the 
     airport following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks 
     and subsequent reopening of other United States airports 
     after September 13, 2001.
       (b) Allocation of Funds.--The amount available under 
     subsection (a) shall be allocated as follows:
       (1) $37,816,093 shall be available for payment for losses 
     of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority that 
     occurred as a result of the closure of Ronald Reagan 
     Washington National Airport after September 13, 2001.
       (2) $27,832,090 shall be available for payment for losses 
     of concessionaires at Ronald Reagan Washington National 
     Airport that occurred as a result of the closure of Ronald 
     Reagan Washington National Airport after September 13, 2001.
       (c) Application.--A concessionaire at Ronald Reagan 
     Washington National Airport seeking payment under this 
     section for losses described in subsection (a) shall submit 
     to the Secretary an application for payment in such form and 
     containing such information as the Secretary shall require. 
     The application shall, at a minimum, substantiate the losses 
     incurred by the concessionaire described in subsection (a).

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, my colleague from the State of Virginia 
and I do this on behalf of the Metropolitan Washington Airports 
Authority. It is all very clear to each and every one of us in the 
Senate that for reasons which are justifiable--because of security 
considerations--this airport had to be closed the longest of all. As a 
consequence, the Airports Authority has an extensive financial package 
that has been in place for several years. The ability to gain revenue 
to service that package has been taken away from it.
  We have a number of small businesses and others associated with 
conducting, in the physical plant, the airport itself, their business 
activities; they have suffered just irreparable injury. We all know 
that. And we all want to help. There are various ways by which this can 
be done.
  I am prepared to hear from the distinguished manager, who I believe 
will be speaking on behalf of the leadership, about how this serious 
financial situation at this particular airport--mind you, all other 
airports were able to open shortly afterwards. I am not quarreling at 
all with the justification for closing it, but this one remained 
closed, and also it is functioning at somewhere between 15 and 25 
percent of flight capacity as of now. The projections are, as we go to 
additional phases, that capacity will be increased, but we have no 
assurance at what point we reach 50 percent, 60 percent, and are able 
to gain the revenue to service the necessary financial requirements.
  So if I might, for the moment, yield the floor in hopes that the 
managers, who have been very helpful to me and to others on this 
question, will address this issue. I would be happy to consider that 
before proceeding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Virginia, I 
appreciate his cooperation on this issue, particularly his appreciation 
of the fact that this is an airport/airline security bill, and the 
issue, as compelling as it is, that the Senator from Virginia raises is 
related to the compensation--well-deserved compensation--of the people 
who live and work at National Airport and who, because of an order of 
the Federal Government, have been deeply harmed economically and, 
unfortunately, in other ways as well.
  So I appreciate the sensitivity of the Senator from Virginia to the 
parameters of this bill. The distinguished chairman and I have had to 
turn back a number of amendments because they were not related--
liability, and a number of others--to airport security.
  But that does not change the fact that there is still a compelling 
problem out there. It is an issue that must be addressed. I believe the 
stimulus package is a place where it would be very appropriate. I do 
not think anyone who is aware of what happened at National Airport--a 
3-week shutdown by direct order of the Federal Government--does not 
realize that we have some responsibility. The size of that 
responsibility, and how, I think can be the subject of negotiations and 
discussion with the administration, the Finance Committee, members of 
the Appropriations Committee, et cetera.
  But I do not know of a Member of this body who isn't totally 
sympathetic and appreciative of the leadership of the Senator from 
Virginia--in fact, both Senators from Virginia--in their commitment on 
this issue. Since this has happened, I know both Senators have made it 
their highest priority to address this issue, so that these people who 
are innocent--innocent of any wrongdoing, and are victims in a very 
real way of a terrorist attack on America, and who need to receive 
compensation--receive compensation and help.
  I am very grateful for your leadership, as I am sure the people in 
the northern part of Virginia are very appreciative of the Senators' 
efforts.
  So I would like to join with all of my colleagues in saying we want 
to help, we want to assist, and we think there are ways that must be 
implemented--not later, but sooner rather than later--to address this 
compelling problem.
  I thank the Senator from Virginia and yield the floor.

[[Page 19475]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia will yield, not only as chairman of the Commerce Committee but 
also as a former member of the Metropolitan Washington Airports 
Authority, I was vitally interested in the whys and wherefores of 
holding back Reagan National Airport.
  We had the Secretary of Transportation 2 days after this particular 
tragic event. We were allowing, say, Dulles, and other airports, to 
function. There was no reason, once we secured the cockpit--I realize 
you had the general security problems--but once you secured that 
cockpit--and Boeing said they could retrofit immediately sufficient 
planes to be landing and taking off at Reagan National--that we at 
least ought to start back the shuttles to New York and then on to 
Boston.
  So I have been down the path of the Senator from Virginia on this 
particular score. I endorse his idea 100 percent. It is just that kind 
of situation on airport security. As you know, the junior Senator, Mr. 
Allen, has been vitally interested in it. He is a member of our 
committee. He and I have been working on this particular bill, moving 
as much as we possibly can.
  So in any way I can possibly promise you that you will have my 
support on the amounts, and everything else of that kind, I would be 
glad to help.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, those are very reassuring comments from my 
two long-time friends and associates here in the Senate, colleagues I 
trust and colleagues who, when they make commitments, follow through.
  Given that, and the fact that you have entertained the petitions of 
other Senators with respect to facilities in their States----
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
  Mr. WARNER. And that there has been a uniform practice here between 
the chairman and the distinguished ranking member as to how to deal 
with those amendments, I am prepared, at this time, to withdraw the 
amendment, with those assurances that at the stimulus package juncture, 
this body will study that.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Very definitely we will be supporting that on the 
stimulus package, or some other bill that comes up that is appropriate 
and germane.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.


                      Amendment No. 1896 Withdrawn

  Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 1897

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe we have one Jeffords amendment 
to which we have agreed. I send it to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Jeffords, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1897.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To give retired pilots the same preference as law enforcement 
                      officers to be air marshals)

       In amendment No. 1858, on page 1, line 8, insert ``or an 
     individual discharged or furloughed from commercial airline 
     cockpit crew position'' after ``age,''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment is going to give pilots the 
same preference as law enforcement officers to be air marshals. I think 
it is a good amendment. I think many of our pilots, including those who 
are required to retire at age 60, would make excellent air marshals. 
This amendment would give them the same preference as law enforcements 
officers. I think it is a good amendment.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, we support the amendment on this side. 
It has been cleared. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1897) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                          AIR MARSHALS FUNDING

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am concerned that the $2.50 user fee 
in this bill is not sufficient to provide all of the air marshals we 
need. The $2.50 user fee would only provide between $1.3 billion and 
$1.7 billion annually, in my opinion, enough to fund Federal security 
screeners at our airports, but not enough to provide additional air 
marshals.
  Today, I intended to offer an amendment to give the Secretary of 
Transportation discretion to raise this fee to $5, which would raise 
over $3 billion annually to devote to aviation safety.
  To ensure that the bill on the Floor passes quickly and we provide 
increased aviation security as soon as possible, I have decided not to 
proceed with my amendment. I still believe, however, that people are 
willing to pay more to feel safe on airplanes and the more air marshals 
we have, the better.
  I want to thank the Members of the Commerce Committee for their hard 
work on this bill, and especially the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
the Committee, Senator Hollings and Senator McCain.
  Mr. McCAIN. Thank you Senator Feinstein. I too am concerned about 
airline safety and want to be sure we have provided enough funding for 
marshals. The Senator from California has my full assurance that if 
more air marshals are needed, I will support providing more funding to 
the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation 
Administration to accomplish that goal.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I too am in agreement with the Senator from Arizona and 
stand with him in support of funding the needed air marshal program.


                   airlines honoring airline tickets

  Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, because of the events of September 11, tens 
of thousands of airline passengers who bought airline tickets before 
and after that date will find that the flight they wanted is 
unavailable. How do these ticket holders get another flight or get 
their money back?
  If they paid cash for their tickets, then, they are out of luck if 
the airline goes bankrupt. There is no guarantee that another airline 
will honor the ticket.
  If they bought their ticket using a credit card, then as I understand 
it, Federal law protects them, but at a tremendous cost to those few 
banks who process airline tickets. The ticket holder has the right 
under Federal law, the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, to seek a 
refund from their credit card issuing bank. If the airline is unable to 
cover such charge-backs, the loss is borne by the acquiring or 
processing bank. The burden on the banking system as a result of the 
events of September 11, and the requirements of Regulation Z, is not 
small. About $5 billion of advanced ticket sales by credit card exist 
at any given time. I doubt that anyone anticipated that Regulation Z 
would be used in this manner after an act of war shut down the entire 
air transportation system and caused the failure of perhaps several 
airlines.
  There is a simple and equitable way to protect these passengers who 
paid cash and have no recourse. It can also relieve some of the burden 
that the law puts on a very few banks. I have a letter from Consumers 
Union that proposes the solution. It says, ``Consumers Union believes 
that carriers that receive federal funds under H.R. 2926 should be 
obligated to honor the tickets of other carriers, where due to service 
changes or discontinuation, the issuing carrier is unable to provide 
the contracted service.''
  In short, if an airline has empty seats, then let the passengers who 
would otherwise be denied service use those seats.
  I intended to offer an amendment to this effect. Instead, I would ask 
the distinguished floor manager a question.

[[Page 19476]]

Does he agree that in light of the aid this Congress has provided to 
the airlines, it is not too much to ask them to honor, to the extent 
practicable, the tickets of other carriers that are unable to provide 
the contracted service?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I think that is entirely reasonable. This could be done 
by regulation or even by an explicit gentleman's agreement from the 
airlines. I do not think it is too much to ask.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Administration has 
taken the first step toward an important safety initiative by limiting 
carry-on bags to one bag plus one personal item such as a purse or a 
briefcase.
  In this context, I would like to mention a special issue that has 
arisen concerning the safety procedures we promulgate, and the impact 
they might have on the practice of many musicians and musical artists 
carrying their instruments with them. I know that many of us have heard 
from the American Federation of Musicians, ASCAP, the Music Educators 
National Conference, the National Association of Music Education, and 
the Recording Industry Association of America, among others, about this 
issue. These organizations have expressed concerns, in light of recent 
security enhancements, about the ability of their members to continue 
carrying musical instruments aboard airplanes.
  Rules promulgated by the Federal Government or by air carriers that 
would prohibit musicians from traveling with instruments in-cabin 
would, among other things, severely limit the ability of orchestras to 
present guest artists, audition musicians, and tour within the United 
States and internationally, and put at risk valuable, historical 
musical instruments. Limitations on carry-on bags should not put an 
undue burden on musicians, consistent with the requirements of safety. 
I am certain we can make it clear to those charged with the detailed 
administration of air safety policies that there is obviously a rule of 
reason and practicality to be observed.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to commend Senators Hollings 
and McCain for this much awaited, much needed piece of legislation and 
to urge my colleagues to help pass it.
  It is critical to our Nation's economy that we restore the flying 
public's confidence in the safety of the aviation system. We need to 
get more planes in the air and we need to make sure they are full. 
Legislation that improves and expands security at our airports and on 
planes is essential to getting citizens back in the air.
  While it is safer to fly today than it ever has been before, this 
package, which improves our Nation's aviation security, shows that the 
Senate is making an aggressive and firm commitment to America's 
aviation security and America's economy.
  Two weeks ago I was on a flight from Montana back to Washington. By 
chance, I sat next to a gentleman who I appointed to the Air Force 
Academy in Colorado Springs 20 years ago. He was an F-16 fighter pilot. 
And is now a commercial airline pilot.
  In the wake of the tragic events of September 11, he had a bunch of 
ideas to increase security on airplanes and airports. I asked him to 
write his ideas down. He found a scrap of paper and jotted them down. 
This is the paper he gave me. I am so pleased to see many of his ideas 
in S. 1447.
  From Federal marshals on domestic flights to protecting our pilots in 
the cockpit. From vastly improving airport security measures to better 
screening of airport employees, this legislation takes a giant step 
forward in securing our flying public.
  And securing our flying public is a giant step closer to securing our 
economy.
  I would like to specifically address three items in the bill that I 
believe are of vital importance:
  First, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I am pleased to say that 
there is no ticket tax levied on airline passengers. I don't believe 
that this is the time to raise taxes. In my State of Montana, people 
believe they pay enough to fly around the country. Since we are 
relieving the airlines of their security responsibilities, it makes 
perfect sense that the $2.50 per passenger user fee be assessed to the 
airlines, not the passengers.
  Second, I am pleased to see a temporary expansion of the Airport 
Improvement Program and Passenger Facility Charge funds for use on 
security operations. This flexibility will surely help defray some of 
the costs for smaller airports.
  I have been hearing from many airports back home. They are desperate 
for financial relief. These small, rural airports are faced with 
significant increased costs in order to comply with new FAA security 
standards. These new costs alone would be enough to tap their already 
paltry resources. However, like all airports around the country they 
are also facing declining revenues including landing fees, parking lot 
fees, car rental fees, bars and restaurants and gift shop fees. We need 
to help them, just like we helped the airlines.
  I enthusiastically supported the airline relief package Congress 
passed 2 weeks ago. We needed to assist the airlines for the good of 
our traveling public and the good of our economy.
  But relief to the airlines won't do anyone any good, if they don't 
have airports to land in. We are in danger of many of our airports 
closing their doors and their gates and their runways because they are 
out of money.
  The flexibility provided in this bill will make a real dent in the 
airport's economic situation.
  Third, I am also pleased to see a reimbursement program for these 
airports for completed security-related projects. This program, along 
with the AIP/PFC flexibility are extremely helpful, but are only a 
temporary life preserver for the airports. Discussions need to continue 
about how we can really save them from drowning.
  I would like to close by once again commending the work done on this 
bill by both staff and Senators and to urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of S. 1447. The public needs it and our economy needs it. Folks 
at home will thank you for it.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the legislation 
before the Senate which is designed to overhaul aviation security in 
this Nation.
  This is an issue of vital national importance during these dark days 
in America's history, and as a member of the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I believe it is critical that we 
pass the strongest possible enhancements to our existing system and do 
so as soon as possible.
  The fact of the matter is, the images of the unspeakable horrors of 
September 11, 2001, will be etched in our minds forever. When the 
``devil incarnate'' hit the United States, he attacked not only 
America, but freedom-loving nations everywhere. We are going to need 
the resources of the United States coupled with the cooperation of our 
global neighbors in order to wage this fight against terrorism. For it 
is a fight we must win, and will win.
  But there should be no mistake, victory will not come overnight. We 
are here today debating this bill because, as we mourn the tremendous 
loss of life both of those in the air and on the ground, we also know 
that our transportation system must endure and must be secure if we are 
to move the Nation forward.
  We must leave no stone unturned in the effort to preserve this 
Nation's transportation infrastructure, so that we might both carry on 
the business of the Nation and ensure our continued economic viability, 
and also ensure that we are in a position of strength to be able to 
wage the kind of war necessary to eradicate terrorism. And, we cannot 
remain strong if we cannot remain mobile.
  Specifically, we are here today to improve our aviation security 
infrastructure and policies, to instill the kind of confidence that is 
vital to the health of our country's commercial airline industry. 
Clearly, our way of life, our freedom to travel and do so with 
relatively minimal encroachment, was used against us in the most 
horrific way imaginable. And it is vital that we

[[Page 19477]]

take the necessary steps now to prevent such catastrophes from 
recurring.
  The debate on this legislation is so critical because aviation 
security will only be addressed with a comprehensive, exhaustive 
approach that recognizes we are dealing with interlocking rings of 
issues, from perimeter security to on-site airport security to on-board 
aircraft security to a range of other issues, and that the entire 
aviation security system is only as strong as the weakest ring.
  That is why I have cosponsored Senator Hollings's comprehensive 
legislation to improve aviation security. This bipartisan legislation 
takes critical steps to safeguard the security of our airports and 
aircraft. It includes provisions to strengthen cockpit doors, increase 
the number of sky marshals, which is a critical issue also addressed in 
Senator Hutchison's bill, S. 1421, of which I am a cosponsor, to 
increase the number of sky marshals, federalize security, and improve 
training and testing for screening personnel.
  Federalizing security, in particular, is an issue I feel very 
strongly about. The fact of the matter is, if the flying public does 
not have confidence in airport security, they will remain reluctant to 
fly, and this will have severe long-term repercussions in the aviation 
sector and in our economy. Imposing stringent Federal control and 
oversight over airport security will go a long way to helping instill 
confidence in the flying public, and will enable the government to 
exercise much greater control over the quality of screening.
  This is a problem that was identified long ago. In September 1996, 
the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security recommended 
that FAA was, in fact, poised, at the time of the terrorist attacks, to 
issue a final rule, as directed by Congress last year in the Airport 
Security Improvement Act of 2000, establishing training requirements 
for screeners and requiring screening companies to be certified.
  And in its January 18, 2001, Top DOT Management Challenges Report, 
the Department of Transportation Inspector General noted that, to close 
this critical gap in security, the Government ``. . . needs to have a 
means to measure screener performance, and methods of providing initial 
and recurrent screener training as well as ensuring that the screeners 
maintain their proficiency through actual experience with the machines 
in the airport environment.'' The IG also concluded that the ``. . . 
FAA must complete deployment of equipment that will help in the testing 
and training of screeners.''
  Quite frankly, I am not convinced that we can ever have full 
confidence in our airport security without stringent Federal controls, 
which is why it is vital we resolve the issue of federalization once 
and for all.
  In addition to addressing the issue of airport security, the Hollings 
legislation:
  Establishes a Deputy Administrator within the U.S. DOT for 
Transportation Security,
  Establishes an Aviation Security Council, comprised of 
representatives from FAA, DOJ, DOD, and the CIA to coordinate national 
security, intelligence, and aviation security information and make 
recommendations;
  Stipulates hijack training for flight crews;
  Requires background checks on students at flight schools; and
  Increases perimeter security.
  I would note I am particularly pleased that the legislation before us 
includes my amendment directing a new Deputy Secretary for 
Transportation Security within U.S. DOT, which is established in the 
underlying bill, to focus on the critical mission of better 
coordinating all modes of transportation nationwide during a national 
emergency, such as the tragic events that unfolded on September 11. And 
I thank Senators Hollings and McCain, in particular, for working with 
me and for their support on this important issue.
  I am also very pleased that the Hollings bill addresses the issue of 
background checks on students at flight schools. On September 21, I 
introduced legislation, S. 1455, to regulate the training of aliens to 
operate certain aircraft. Under S. 1455, background checks would be 
required before any alien would be permitted to receive jet flight 
training.
  I also commend the President for his leadership. The President's 
proposal addresses many of the same core issues. His air travel 
security plan would expand the sky marshal program. It urges Governors 
to deploy the National Guard at Federal expense at all commercial 
airports. It would provide oversight and control of airport screening 
by the Federal Government. And it would provide $500 million to help 
airlines fortify cockpit doors, install surveillance cameras and 
install aircraft tracking devices that cannot be turned off.
  Under the President's plan, contractors would continue to perform 
screening. The Federal Government would set standards, supervise 
operations, conduct background checks and training, purchase and 
maintain equipment, and oversee airport access control.
  I believe the administration's proposal would be a major step in the 
right direction. And I understand that some have concerns that 
federalizing the screener workforce could make it difficult to remove 
employees who are not performing their important duties.
  It is my hope and my expectation that we will find common ground on 
this point while coming together to ensure that Americans have complete 
confidence in the men and women who form the last line of defense when 
it comes to preventing weapons from getting on our aircraft. And I am 
very pleased that S. 1447 includes provisions to exert federal control 
over security screening once and for all.
  One way or the other, this issue must be worked out so there is no 
doubt about the quality of this critical workforce, this has got to 
happen if we are to restore the American public's confidence in flying 
and, by extension, the health of America's commercial airline industry. 
At the end of the day, we must have a screening system with stringent 
Federal controls and oversight, so that the government will control 
hiring standards, compensation, training, and re-training. We need a 
reliable, professional force of screeners.
  We must move heaven and earth to make flying safe. That is our 
mission here today. One national poll, CNN/USA Today/Gallup, found that 
43 percent of Americans are less willing to fly, with the majority of 
their concerns centering on the adequacy of airport security. They are 
also willing to sacrifice convenience for safety, with the same poll 
finding widespread support for new measures, even if it means checking 
in two to three hours before a flight, or paying more to cover the 
increased security costs.
  The failure to correct the existing deficiencies in the aviation 
security system has already cost us dearly, and we no longer have the 
luxury to postpone action. Accordingly, we must pass this bill now.
  It is critical that we come together, as we did on a resolution 
supporting the use of force to combat terrorism, as we did on 
legislation providing emergency funding for the recovery and relief 
effort after the tragic attacks of September 11, as we did on a 
financial relief package for the airline industry, and pass legislation 
promptly to address the gaps in aviation security and restore the 
confidence of the American people in our aviation system.
  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

[[Page 19478]]

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 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

[[Page 19479]]

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 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.

[[Page 19480]]

  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 weapons 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 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.

[[Page 19481]]

  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.

                          ____________________