[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16167-16193]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     HOMELAND SECURITY ACT OF 2002

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of H.R. 5005, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5005) to establish the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Lieberman amendment No. 4471, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Wellstone Amendment No. 4486 (to amendment No. 4471), to 
     prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from contracting 
     with any corporate expatriate.
       Reid amendment No. 4490 (to amendment No. 4486), in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Smith (N.H.) amendment No. 4491 (to amendment No. 4471), to 
     amend title 49, United States Code, to improve flight and 
     cabin security on passenger aircraft.
       Reid (for Boxer/Smith (N.H.)) amendment No. 4492 (to 
     amendment No. 4491), to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to improve flight and cabin security on passenger aircraft.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator 
Wellstone has a modification that will allow us to proceed and finish 
his amendment. Recognizing that as the case, people still wish to speak 
in relation to that amendment. I think that can be done after we take 
that action. So if Senator Wellstone is ready, I will ask that he be 
allowed to modify his amendment, and that will be accepted by voice 
vote.
  Following that, the Senator from Texas will be recognized for 20 
minutes to speak in relation to the legislation before the Senate; and 
the manager of the bill, Senator Thompson, wishes to speak, and I ask 
that he be recognized following the statement of the Senator from 
Texas.
  Senator Lieberman wishes to speak after Senator Thompson. At that 
time, we should be in a position to move forward on the Smith-Boxer 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume consideration of the 
Wellstone amendment; that Senator Wellstone then modify his amendment 
with changes that have been agreed upon; that Senator Wellstone have 20 
minutes to speak with respect to his amendment; that upon the use or 
yielding back of time, the Reid second-degree amendment No. 4490, as 
modified, be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table; and that the Wellstone amendment 4486, as amended, be agreed to, 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening 
action or debate, with the proviso that Senators be recognized as I 
indicated: Senators Gramm, Thompson, Lieberman. And at that time, we 
would be in an almost certain position to move forward on the Smith-
Boxer amendment. There have been conversations taking place among 
people with regard to this.
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object, I apologize. I was called 
to the Cloakroom. It was my understanding that after Senator Gramm 
speaks in morning business that we were going to go to the Smith-Boxer 
amendment.
  Mr. REID. That was the case, but we have the two managers of the bill 
who wish to speak on the amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. On which amendment?
  Mr. REID. On the Wellstone amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. May I ask, where are we in terms of time?
  Mr. REID. Senator Thompson wants 10 minutes. We are talking about 40 
minutes. We hope at that time we will have something that will dispose 
of this amendment on which Senator Boxer and Senator Smith have worked. 
At that time, we will be in a position to determine what is going to 
happen thereafter. We have had conversations. Senator Thompson has an 
amendment he wishes to offer today or on Monday.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mrs. BOXER. Reserving the right to object one more second.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I want to make the point that Senator Smith and I are 
anxious to move forward on our amendment. We are working with Senator 
Feinstein on an amendment that she would like to offer by UC which, if 
it is in the spirit of what we discussed, would be fine with us. We do 
hope we can move forward.
  Talk about homeland security, 9/11, planes being hijacked and pilots 
and flight attendants being essentially helpless--we want to change 
that. We are going to stay here and push hard to try to get a vote on 
that before the end of the day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Senator from 
Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Reserving the right to object, as I understand it, 
Senator Gramm will speak first. Then I will have the opportunity to 
speak and then Senator Lieberman. Does the Senator from Minnesota want 
additional time?
  Mr. REID. Under the agreement I just stated, he has 20 minutes if he 
wishes to use it.
  Mr. THOMPSON. First? First meaning immediately, right now, before 
Senator Gramm?
  Mr. REID. After the vote. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

[[Page 16168]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Just so everyone understands--and I am sure they do--the 
Senator from Minnesota will send his modification to the desk. At that 
time, we will vote in relation to the Wellstone amendment. Following 
that, Senator Wellstone will speak. Then the lineup will be what was 
enunciated before, all in relation to the Wellstone amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.


                    Amendment No. 4490, As Modified

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I send a technical modification to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the modification is 
accepted.
  The amendment (No. 4490), as modified, is as follows:
       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS WITH CORPORATE EXPATRIATES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may not enter into any 
     contract with a foreign incorporated entity which is treated 
     as an inverted domestic corporation under subsection (b), or 
     any subsidiary of such entity.
       (b) Inverted Domestic Corporation.--For purposes of this 
     section, a foreign incorporated entity shall be treated as an 
     inverted domestic corporation if, pursuant to a plan (or a 
     series of related transactions)--
       (1) the entity has completed the direct or indirect 
     acquisition of substantially all of the properties held 
     directly or indirectly by a domestic corporation or 
     substantially all of the properties constituting a trade or 
     business of a domestic partnership,
       (2) after the acquisition at least 50 percent of the stock 
     (by vote or value) of the entity is held--
       (A) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic corporation, by former shareholders of the domestic 
     corporation by reason of holding stock in the domestic 
     corporation, or
       (B) in the case of an acquisition with respect to a 
     domestic partnership, by former partners of the domestic 
     partnership by reason of holding a capital or profits 
     interest in the domestic partnership, and
       (3) the expanded affiliated group which after the 
     acquisition includes the entity does not have substantial 
     business activities in the foreign country in which or under 
     the law of which the entity is created or organized when 
     compared to the total business activities of such expanded 
     affiliated group.
       (c) Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of this 
     section--
       (1) Rules for application of subsection (b).--In applying 
     subsection (b) for purposes of subsection (a), the following 
     rules shall apply:
       (A) Certain stock disregarded.--There shall not be taken 
     into account in determining ownership for purposes of 
     subsection (b)(2)--
       (i) stock held by members of the expanded affiliated group 
     which includes the foreign incorporated entity, or
       (ii) stock of such entity which is sold in a public 
     offering related to the acquisition described in subsection 
     (b)(1).
       (B) Plan deemed in certain cases.--If a foreign 
     incorporated entity acquires directly or indirectly 
     substantially all of the properties of a domestic corporation 
     or partnership during the 4-year period beginning on the date 
     which is 2 years before the ownership requirements of 
     subsection (b)(2) are met, such actions shall be treated as 
     pursuant to a plan.
       (C) Certain transfers disregarded.--The transfer of 
     properties or liabilities (including by contribution or 
     distribution) shall be disregarded if such transfers are part 
     of a plan a principal purpose of which is to avoid the 
     purposes of this section.
       (D) Special rule for related partnerships.--For purposes of 
     applying subsection (b) to the acquisition of a domestic 
     partnership, except as provided in regulations, all 
     partnerships which are under common control (within the 
     meaning of section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) 
     shall be treated as 1 partnership.
       (E) Treatment of certain rights.--The Secretary shall 
     prescribe such regulations as may be necessary--
       (i) to treat warrants, options, contracts to acquire stock, 
     convertible debt instruments, and other similar interests as 
     stock, and
       (ii) to treat stock as not stock.
       (2) Expanded affiliated group.--The term ``expanded 
     affiliated group'' means an affiliated group as defined in 
     section 1504(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (without 
     regard to section 1504(b) of such Code), except that section 
     1504(a) of such Code shall be applied by substituting ``more 
     than 50 percent'' for ``at least 80 percent'' each place it 
     appears.
       (3) Foreign incorporated entity.--The term ``foreign 
     incorporated entity'' means any entity which is, or but for 
     subsection (b) would be, treated as a foreign corporation for 
     purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (4) Other definitions.--The terms ``person'', ``domestic'', 
     and ``foreign'' have the meanings given such terms by 
     paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) of section 7701(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, respectively.
       (d) Waiver.--The President may waive subsection (a) with 
     respect to any specific contract if the President certifies 
     to Congress that the waiver is required in the interest of 
     national security.
       This section shall take effect one day after the date of 
     this bill's enactment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the second-degree 
amendment No. 4490, as modified, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4490), as modified, was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the first-degree 
amendment No. 4486, as amended, is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 4486) as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, Democrats and 
Republicans, that I am very pleased this amendment has been accepted. A 
good part of this is in a similar amendment passed in the House. This 
will be part of the law of this homeland defense bill.
  Maybe I will take up all my time; maybe I should reserve some time to 
respond. I am interested in what my colleagues, Senators Thompson and 
Gramm, say about the amendment. Let me explain briefly to other 
Senators why I have done this.
  We did this on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. That 
was only for 1 year. We offered an amendment yesterday that would bar 
the Secretary of Homeland Security from entering into contracts with 
U.S. companies that give up their U.S. citizenship to avoid U.S. taxes.
  I will give an example. It is a small story that I think tells a 
larger story. This is the story of Tyco. We heard all about Tyco 
International. They saved $400 million in taxes last year by chartering 
its base in Bermuda.
  There was an article in the Wall Street Journal about a month ago 
that suggested actually these savings might have helped the company buy 
CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $19 million home in Boca Raton and a $6,000 
shower curtain for his place in Manhattan. They have received $220 
million in Government contracts. I guess the question is whether or not 
any of that was used to pay for the shower curtain.
  This amendment, and the reason I have been focused on no Federal 
contracts for expatriates, is all about corporate reform. It is an 
egregious practice when these companies set up sham headquarters in 
countries such as Bermuda.
  They have no staff. They have no operation. Not only do they not end 
up paying taxes on foreign profits but they can also take the profit in 
our own country and then cook the books and move it overseas to Bermuda 
or wherever else. It is not all that patriotic. It means a lot of other 
businesses, large and small, in my State of Minnesota and the Presiding 
Officer's State of Rhode Island get the short end of the stick.
  Most of the large and small businesses in Minnesota, Rhode Island, 
and around the country would never do this. They would not do it, even 
if they had the lawyers and the accountants to tell them how, because 
they would not believe it was the right thing to do if they could do 
it. A lot of smaller businesses would never have the lawyers and the 
accountants to tell them how to do it.
  If these companies are going to renounce their citizenship and engage 
in this kind of egregious behavior and not

[[Page 16169]]

pay their fair share of taxes, it seems to me that is fine. Renounce 
their citizenship and they do not get any more Government contracts. It 
is that simple.
  By the way, I do not think the companies that are good corporate 
citizens, that do not engage in any of this sham activity, should be 
penalized. Why should they end up being penalized in bidding for the 
contracts because they are paying their fair share of taxes or even 
more because other companies are engaged in this tax avoidance? Why 
should they be penalized for doing the right thing, which is to stay in 
our country? That is what is going on right now.
  We have a situation where former U.S. companies that have renounced 
their citizenship currently hold about $2 billion worth of contracts 
with the Federal Government. This amendment has now passed the Senate, 
and it is now in the House bill, so it is going to become a part of 
law. So they are not going to be able to do that anymore.
  These Bermuda companies have no staff, have no offices, have no 
business activity. The only thing they are trying to do is shield 
income and not pay their fair share of taxes. These are Enron-like 
schemes involving sham loans and other income transfers that allow 
these companies to reduce their U.S. taxes on U.S. source income, 
including income from Government contracts. It is called earnings 
stripping.
  I am pleased with this amendment, and I want people to know about 
this because it has now passed the Senate. If a company reincorporates 
in a foreign country and 50 percent or more of the shareholders of the 
new foreign corporation are the same as the shareholders of the old 
U.S. company, then they do not get to contract with the Homeland 
Security Agency, and if the company does not have any substantial 
business activity in its foreign home. That is the two-part test. This 
is actually the two-part test in the Grassley-Baucus tax bill, and I 
thank them for their superb work.
  There are many sacrifices people are making today. The only sacrifice 
this amendment asks of Federal contractors is that they pay their fair 
share of taxes like everybody else.
  I say to my colleagues, I know we had a debate last time when I did 
this on the DOD appropriations bill. About 99 percent of the people in 
Minnesota in coffee shops would say: Absolutely. If these companies 
want to do this kind of tax avoidance, then they should not be getting 
the Government contracts. I think people are tired of this kind of 
egregious corporate behavior.
  My second point: I am very proud of the fact that the vast majority 
of businesses in Minnesota and in our country do not engage in this 
kind of behavior. I do not want to see them put at any kind of 
competitive disadvantage because they do the right thing.
  My third point: I think this is good public policy. I know last time 
in the debate some of my colleagues said it is a great thing to do, it 
is a good, populace thing to do, and people are going to be for it--in 
fact, I think that is why we had a voice vote, because a lot of people 
do not want to vote against it--but it is not good public policy. There 
are two Senators in the Chamber who are probably going to say that. 
They are going to say that in good faith, and they are going to marshal 
evidence for their point of view.
  I have watched them both. Both of them are going to be retiring, and, 
frankly, though I do not always agree with one of them and I never 
agree with the other one, both of them have made the Senate a much 
better place. So I am not arguing that there is not a place for honest, 
intellectual disagreement.
  From my point of view, it is good public policy. There is no reason 
in the world that these companies should be able to engage in this kind 
of egregious behavior. It is a big scam. There is no reason in the 
world that other businesses and other people should end up having to 
pay more taxes, and there is certainly no reason in the world that the 
vast majority of U.S. companies, that play by the rules of the game, 
stay in our country and do not engage in this kind of tax avoidance, 
should be at any kind of disadvantage.
  I am glad the Senate has passed this amendment. I cannot overstate 
its importance. This is part of maybe the new look in the Senate. The 
Sarbanes bill was a powerful step forward. It took some jarring events 
to get that bill out of committee, but all of a sudden people started 
realizing we have to deal with some of these scandals, we have to deal 
with some of these abuses.
  We are going to have a pension bill on the floor soon. That is going 
to be part of this. I am really glad the Senate has now passed this 
amendment because I think this is all about dealing with these kinds of 
corporate abuses. This is all about corporate accountability, and this 
is all about reform.
  I am very proud of the fact the Senate has accepted the amendment, 
and I thank my colleagues for doing so.
  I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Johnson and Senator Harkin as 
original cosponsors.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this amendment is a perfect example, if one 
goes around doing surveys to decide on public policy, of how far afield 
from logic and reality and good sense one can get.
  Let me try to make a couple of points. If someone wants to get a 
good, rousing round of applause in front of any group, stand up and say 
companies that are domiciled in the United States that change their 
domicile to any other country should not be able to do business with 
the Federal Government. They will get applause every time.
  I wonder if one is going to get the applause when they explain to 
people that for the entire history of America, companies born in other 
countries have moved their domicile to America because we have had a 
better business climate.
  Secondly, let me make it clear that these are private businesses. 
This is private property.
  Another point: we sell about 80 to 90 percent of all defense and 
security goods sold in the world. They are produced by American 
companies, by American workers. The vast majority of those companies 
are domiciled in the United States, although not all of them. Why in 
the world we should be saying to the various parliaments and congresses 
around the world--some of whom may be having similar debates about why 
should they buy goods for their government that are produced by 
Americans when they can produce inferior goods at higher cost at home--
why we should be picking this fight, I do not understand.
  Finally, the world must think we have gone mad. We are the country 
that has drawn capital and business and literally created a brain drain 
in the world as people have voluntarily chosen to come to America and 
bring their wealth and bring their genius. They have helped make us the 
greatest country in the history of the world, but now the greatest 
deliberative body on Earth is trying to punish people who want to move 
the domicile, the headquarters, of their company, to another country? 
If I have ever seen logic in history turned on its head for political 
reasons, this is it.
  This bill is not prospective. It does not make any sense. What about 
a company that was born in America and in 1812 decided that most of its 
business was in Britain? Now, we have to understand, Britain is the 
largest investor in the United States of America and they are investing 
tens of billions of dollars in our country every day. But we will say, 
because a company in 1812 decided it could operate its business better 
by having the headquarters in London, but the ownership of the company 
did not change, that we are not going to let them do business with the 
Federal Government?
  Finally, this is simply a sign of a logic that is very dangerous; 
that is, this logic that somehow this is America against the world, and 
people are trying to get their businesses out of America, get their 
wealth out of America, and we have to stop them. For the long history 
of America, the preponderance of movement has been into our country, 
not out of it. Do we want other countries to be passing laws to

[[Page 16170]]

prevent businesses from moving to America? I don't think so.
  In the Finance Committee today, there was an effort to mark up a 
bill--and people will think this is a joke, but it is the truth--that 
said if you own property and you want to leave America and you want to 
go become a citizen in Ireland or Germany or Argentina, we will act as 
if you have sold your property, and you have to pay a tax to the 
American Government before you leave. Now, forgive me, but that is 
right out of Nazi Germany. I don't understand, when people are trying 
to bring wealth to America every day, when we have been a net gainer 
from people moving capital for over 200 years, why all of a sudden we 
are passing laws that sound as if they are right out of Nazi Germany.
  The idea that somebody cannot leave America and take their property 
with them, that they have to pay a tax in order to get their property 
out of America--forgive me, but that rings of another era and another 
system, a system that I hated when I read about it as a schoolboy, and 
I still hate it.
  Look, it is good politics to bash on companies that are increasingly 
international. Many of these companies end up with more American 
employees by relocating their headquarters than they would have 
otherwise. It is very good politics to say: We are going to show them. 
Move your headquarters out of America, or if you did it in 1812, you 
can't do business with the government. It is good politics, but it is 
terrible public policy.
  We have probably, over the 200 years with active commerce in America, 
gained 100 companies domiciling in America for every one that has gone 
in the other direction. Do we really want to create an economic war 
where companies say, if you ever open a headquarters in our country, 
you can never move it anywhere else? Do we want that to happen to 
companies that want to come and locate in Texas? I don't think so. So, 
boy, you can get a great, rousing applause--probably even the Rotary 
Club would applause this--until they understood what you were talking 
about.
  We took this amendment because people do not want to vote on it. I am 
happy to vote on it. This is a bad policy. It is a wrongheaded policy 
that is basically counter to everything we believe in as a nation. If 
you do not want to live in America, I just as soon you leave. If you 
want to take your property, great, go to it.
  Now, the fact that for the whole history of America, property and 
people have been coming our direction, that does not change the fact 
you either believe in freedom or you do not. But to start saying, in 
order to sell us a good--even if your product is better, even if your 
product would save lives, even if your product would save money, if 
anyone cares about saving money--that you cannot sell it to us if, in 
1812 you were domiciled in Boston and you moved to London and you did 
not change your ownership by moving. People make business decisions for 
business reasons. Part of what economic freedom is about is the ability 
of people to move their money and to move their labor by moving 
themselves.
  It is great to get rousing applause. It is wonderful. I don't doubt 
that 90 percent of the people in Minnesota would be for it. I am not 
criticizing Minnesota. I don't believe 90 percent of the people in 
Texas would be for it, but there may be. There may be. But whether it 
is 90 percent or 100 percent, you either believe in freedom or you do 
not.
  And I must stand up and speak out when, for over 200 years, people 
have been bringing their businesses to America, bringing wealth to 
America. We had almost $100 billion of wealth coming to America 
annually in the 1990s. Why we are suddenly passing laws saying you 
cannot go in the other direction? The problem with that is, if you 
cannot take it out, you will not bring it in.
  One of the reasons I am being so hard on the Senator from Minnesota 
is this amendment we had in the Finance Committee today. I am sure 
somebody can defend it and say: People ought to pay taxes. We want 
their taxes. We want their money. We do not want them to take their 
money out of America.
  Look, it is their money. It is a free country. Being a free country 
does not mean that you can do business with the Government if you do 
what the Government wants you to do. Freedom means you can do whatever 
you want to do. If people want to move their businesses, they ought to 
have a right to do it. If people want to take their money, their 
wealth, and move to France--I don't know why in the world anyone would 
want to do that--but if they do, my basic position is, God bless them 
and let them go. For every person that does that, there will be three 
people from France who want to move their wealth here.
  Good applause. Great political issue. You could run a dynamite 
political spot on this: Old Joe Jones voted to let people move their 
businesses out of America and that cost us tax revenue. Yet he let them 
sell to the Homeland Security Department.
  To me, that is what freedom is about.
  This is bad policy coming on the same day as this Finance Committee 
bill that would force you to act as if you sold your property when you 
want to leave America, to pay a tax. God forbid this should be the 
policy of the United States of America. And it is not going to be. This 
amendment is not going to become law. I intend to work very hard to see 
it doesn't. I don't believe it will.
  Again, nobody wants to vote against it. Everybody is going to applaud 
it, but in the end, some logic is going to prevail. When for 200 years 
people have been bringing wealth here, moving businesses here, why we 
want to prevent people from going in the other direction is beyond my 
comprehension, other than we are going to get a big applause in doing 
it. Applause is a poor reason to have public policy.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will take just 2 minutes, and I know the Senator 
from Tennessee will speak. I assume I have a little bit of time.
  The fact is, this will become law. It will be in this bill. It will 
stay in this bill. The House passed a similar provision.
  I will say a couple things to my colleague from Texas. I appreciate 
what he said, although I think a lot of it did not describe this 
amendment. This is not about buy America, or about business moving. It 
is basically about going after tax cheats. It is about people paying 
their fair share of taxes. Frankly, as long as we are going to talk 
about freedom--
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the Senator yield on that?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. GRAMM. Nothing in this amendment talks about taxes. This 
amendment says if you redomicile without changing half your ownership, 
that you can't sell the products in America.
  You are assuming that if I move my business to France that I did it 
for tax reasons. I may do it for some other reason. I may just do it 
because I like French food.
  So you are acting as if the only reason people do this is for taxes. 
And, even if that were the case, that wouldn't change my opinion.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. No, I would say to my colleague--I appreciate it and I 
will finish up--I know I will not change his opinion. I am well aware 
of that. I will just tell you the Senate Finance Committee did a pretty 
thorough investigation of this, and we know very well that these 
companies have engaged in what I think is blatant tax avoidance. We 
know they set up these sham companies that don't have personnel there 
or they do not do any business there. We know they avoid paying taxes, 
including actually transferring some of the money they made in this 
country to avoid taxes. It is Enron-like schemes.
  You talked about freedom. I am free, as a United States Senator, to 
introduce a piece of legislation that says we go after these tax cheats 
and they should pay their fair share of taxes. I am free, as a Senator 
from the State of

[[Page 16171]]

Minnesota, to represent the people of my State and do so, and that is 
what I have done and this amendment passed and that is a fact.
  Frankly, when my colleague says: Well, the only reason it passed is 
because it is just a popular thing to do, so Senators really would not 
have voted against it, that is quite an indictment of the Senate. I 
would have thought if the majority of Senators believed this was bad 
public policy, they would have been out here to oppose it--or at least 
some of them would have. I have to believe the majority believed it was 
good public policy. Otherwise I don't think it would have passed. I 
don't assume Senators are afraid to come and debate and are afraid to 
express their viewpoint and are afraid to oppose a policy if they don't 
think it is a good public policy. If that is the case, it is a sad 
commentary.
  As my colleague knows, I would have been pleased to debate anybody 
because I think this is absolutely the right thing to do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have other business to attend to, so I 
am not going to belabor this. Let me make my point. Nothing in this 
amendment has anything to do with or says anything about tax cheating. 
This amendment would apply to a company that moved from the United 
States to Great Britain in 1812.
  The Finance Committee did not do any great deliberation in coming up 
with this amendment. It was a pay-for, something to create money they 
wanted to spend, and it seemed like a popular thing to do. Let's not 
deceive ourselves into thinking any great thought was behind it. And 
anybody who does not understand that amendments pass every day in the 
Senate that everybody hopes and believes will end up dying somewhere in 
some dark corner somewhere--where much of God's work is done, by the 
way--then I don't think they understand the reality of politics.
  So I just stand by the following points: First, this amendment has 
nothing to do with taxes. This amendment is punitive to companies that 
may have started in America, may still employ 90 percent of their 
people in America but are now domiciled abroad; that is, they call 
another country their economic home. The incredible paradox of the 
amendment is that for every American company that has moved abroad, 100 
have moved to America over the last 200 years.
  Look, it is going to be on this bill. It is in the House bill. But I 
do not believe it is going to become law.
  Second, I want to make the point that we are going to end up hurting 
America in the capital markets of the world if we keep this business 
up. If we had our major trading partners pass and enforce a similar 
law, we would lose 100 or maybe 1,000 companies that are coming here 
for every one we are preventing going there. This is not smart.
  Third, I just have to raise this provision considered by the Finance 
Committee, which is based on the same logic: How dare anybody move out 
of America and take anything with them? My God, for over 200 years, 
people have moved from Asia and Europe and South America and 
everywhere, and they brought wealth with them to America. The idea of 
taxing people to get out of your country, the most dramatic example of 
that I remember is Nazi Germany.
  So I just ask people to please take a long, hard look at some of 
these things we are doing. Some people think they won't actually become 
law. I hope not. But I do believe we are going to reach a point where 
we are going to begin to do some harm. The people in the financial 
markets around the world must think we are crazy when they see these 
kinds of amendments.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Wellstone for 
introducing this important amendment to the homeland security bill.
  Our international tax code currently has a loophole that allows U.S. 
corporations to open shell companies in tax haven countries while 
enjoying all of the benefits of conducting business in the United 
States without paying taxes. The Finance Committee has reported out a 
bill that temporarily addresses this very issue. I hope that in the 
coming weeks we will debate and pass the Finance Committee bill.
  The amendment currently before us prohibits the new homeland security 
agency from contracting with any corporate expatriate. I commend my 
colleague for introducing this fair and very simple amendment. What 
this amendment says is that if you are incorporated outside of the 
United States and do not have substantial business activities in the 
foreign country you are incorporated in, and if at least 50 percent of 
the stock of the entity is held by former shareholders of the domestic 
corporation or by former partners of the domestic partnership, you will 
not be allowed to contract with the new homeland security agency.
  Also, unlike previous discussions on this issue, Senator Wellstone's 
amendment includes all inverted companies, so that there is no 
difference between companies who have just inverted or have been 
inverted for 6 months or 6 years. This is plain and simple, and more 
importantly, this is fair.
  The U.S. government should not be in the business of contracting with 
U.S. based corporations that are avoiding their tax responsibilities by 
incorporating in offshore tax havens. Corporations have a right to 
determine where they should incorporate and what is best for their 
business, just like we have a right to determine how hard earned U.S. 
tax dollars should be spent. I strongly believe that U.S. tax dollars 
should not be spent in government contracts to companies that have 
expatriated in order to avoid paying taxes.
  Companies who are or will be affected by this amendment must 
understand that there are benefits and costs to the decisions they 
make. This amendment, if adopted, will force corporations to include in 
their calculus the fact that they may no longer be able to enjoy the 
earnings that are brought to them through Government contracts if they 
incorporate off shore to avoid U.S. taxes. That may or may not alter 
management's decision to move--management may decide that it does not 
matter that the company will not be able to contract with the 
government. If this is the decision, so be it. But we should not 
perpetuate a system that puts companies that do pay U.S. taxes at a 
competitive disadvantage because their counterparts have less of a tax 
burden.
  I represent the State where Stanley Works is located. Stanley Works 
has a wonderful history and tradition in Connecticut, and so it was a 
great disappointment to many of us when they took steps towards 
inverting their company to Bermuda. Obviously Stanley Works executives 
weighed the benefits and costs to inverting the company and found that 
the costs outweighed the benefits, and so I can speak on behalf of 
Connecticut when I say, that we are pleased that Stanley Works dropped 
its plan to reincorporate to Bermuda.
  In FY 2001, Stanley Works had a total of $5.2 million of defense and 
homeland security related Government contracts. Now that they are going 
to stay incorporated in the U.S., they would be put at an unfair 
disadvantage if they have to compete with companies who also weighed 
the cost and benefit, but decided that they are better off leaving the 
U.S. or remaining incorporated outside of the U.S.
  The amendment currently before us takes away this unfair advantage. 
And so if companies like Ingersoll-Rand, Cooper Industries, and others 
are interested in continuing to contract with the Federal Government, 
then all they have to do is come back.
  To continue to contract with companies that have inverted, to 
continue to allow companies to engage in tax saving techniques not 
available to most individual taxpayers and yet still be eligible for 
important and profitable government contracts, would in the words of 
the Treasury Department, ``reduce confidence in the fairness of the tax 
system.''
  U.S. companies that have decided to move offshore currently hold at 
least

[[Page 16172]]

$2 billion worth of contracts with the Federal Government. We have a 
responsibility to ensure that these offshore shell companies are not 
rewarded for turning their backs on America. And that is exactly what 
this Amendment does.
  At a time when confidence in U.S. business practices is at an all 
time low, when the country is engaged in foreign policy challenges, and 
when CBO is projecting lasting deficits until 2006 we cannot continue 
to condone this practice, and we surely cannot allow the Government to 
continue to allow this unfair loophole to continue. Offshore tax havens 
are a massive $200 billion loss of U.S. tax revenue that should stay in 
the U.S. The 2002 U.S. deficit is expected to be at $157 billion--a 
deficit that would be closed were these offshore companies to pay their 
fair share of taxes.
  I think that we can agree that we must address the problems in our 
flawed international tax code which is obviously in need of reform. 
There are problems with the fact that the tax code is currently putting 
American companies at a competitive disadvantage by taxing income from 
their overseas operations while other nations do not tax income earned 
abroad. But what we need to do is work together to change the law and 
not just abandon ship and reincorporate. And so while we work on making 
changes to the tax code, it is important that we do not disadvantage 
those companies who remain in the U.S. by also awarding contracts to 
those who have left. That is why I am pleased that this amendment 
passed the Senate today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas is right. This is 
a significant change in procurement policy. The Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs, which has jurisdiction over Federal procurement 
policy, has not had a single hearing to consider this issue and the 
impact it will have on the procurement process.
  I think at the outset it ought to be observed that it is very unfair 
to publicly accuse a company of being a tax cheat when they have not 
violated one single law, rule, or regulation of the United States. I 
have been informed since this discussion has been going on that one of 
the many unintended consequences, probably, and potentially unintended 
results, is one involving a company called Intelsat.
  If we are going to prohibit companies from dealing with the new 
Department of Homeland Security, why limit it to the Department of 
Homeland Security? Let's prohibit them from doing business with--I 
guess, the closest comparable department would be the Department of 
Defense. But the Department of Defense uses satellites of Intelsat.
  I do not know the extent of the traffic, but I think it is 
significant, and I know it is important to the national security of 
this country. Intelsat is a Bermuda company, and it is an inversion. 
That is the sort of thing we are dealing with, if thoughtful people 
think this thing through before we finish up this process.
  Another result of this amendment would be to allow foreign companies 
that have always been foreign companies to be able to bid on Department 
of Homeland Security contracts. But it would preclude foreign companies 
that have at one time in the past been headquartered in the United 
States from bidding on those contracts, even if the work would be 
performed in the United States by American workers.
  So if you have always been foreign, you can deal with the Federal 
Government. But if at one time, at any time in your past history you 
were an American company, you can't. That doesn't make any sense to me.
  I am also concerned that this amendment might violate our trade 
obligations because it is discriminatory against certain foreign-based 
companies. If we were to enact the amendment, what would be the 
unintended results? I am concerned we would be giving governments an 
excuse to ban U.S. companies from bidding on foreign contracts, when we 
have been fighting to get foreign governments to open their procurement 
process to U.S. companies.
  Denying a company the ability to be awarded Federal contracts based 
solely on the location of its headquarters represents a significant 
change in Federal procurement policy and counteracts years of work to 
streamline the Federal acquisition process. If we begin to use Federal 
contracts as leverage against potential contractors, the system will 
inevitably become highly politicized and the goal of obtaining the best 
value on Government contracts will no longer be a priority; It will be 
a political football, where the procurement process will turn into an 
attempt to punish our enemies and reward our friends instead of trying 
to get the best deal for the Government--which, of course, is the best 
deal for the taxpayer, who the proponents of this amendment claim they 
are looking out for.
  Government contracts are not gifts. Federal contractors face a 
burdensome process full of redtape, paperwork, and unique Government 
regulatory requirements. That is why it can be difficult to get 
multiple companies to even bid on a contract.
  We have attempted to streamline this process in recent years in order 
to increase competition, to save taxpayers money, but restrictions such 
as this discourage companies from bidding in the first place. We do not 
want to end up in a situation where DHS has to rely on sole-source 
vendors because we prohibit the Department from contracting with an 
inverted corporation. The least we could do is provide the Secretary 
with the authority to waive the ban in order to ensure competition in 
the bidding process. That procurement bar is a serious sanction, 
reserved only for egregious conduct such as fraud or criminal offenses 
in connection with obtaining the contract or performing a public 
contract.
  What is important to Government procurement officials when evaluating 
a contract bid is not where the bidding company is headquartered. They 
look at where the work is to be done, whether the company will do a 
good job, and whether the bid is cost effective.
  Whether or not you believe corporate inversions should be prohibited, 
the fact of the matter is that inversion transactions are legal under 
the current tax laws. Because the amendment is retroactive, it would 
bar companies that have engaged in legal behavior--an inversion--from 
bidding on DHS contracts. The inversion could have occurred a year ago 
or 10 years ago. Either way, these companies had no way of knowing that 
they could be banned from bidding on federal contracts if they 
inverted.
  This amendment's definition of an inversion is problematic, because 
it would snag any company that inverted at any time if 50 percent of 
the shareholders are the same before and after the inversion. This 
amendment would not just go after the sham transactions that are 
targeted by the Finance Committee bill. It would also catch companies 
that engaged in inversion transactions for legitimate business reasons. 
The Finance Committee-reported bill has an 80 percent shareholder test, 
which is intended to target the most egregious transactions.
  It is important to note that these companies do and will pay U.S. tax 
on the income earned from their government contracts regardless of 
whether they are headquartered in the U.S.
  The amendment does not address the root cause of corporate 
inversions, which is our highly complex foreign tax regime that taxes 
companies on a worldwide basis. U.S. tax laws put domestic companies at 
a distinct disadvantage relative to their foreign competitors who are 
taxed on a territorial basis.
  That is the heart of the problem. That is the root cause, and that is 
what we ought to be addressing.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Connecticut is recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder if I could have 2 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of my time to the 
Senator from Minnesota.

[[Page 16173]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, that is very gracious of the Senator 
from Connecticut.
  I just wanted to say again that I appreciate the remarks of both of 
my colleagues. I did want to address one point that was made by my 
colleague from Texas, which is to say this won't become law when almost 
the identical provision was passed in the House and the Senate has 
agreed to it. I believe the chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee is committed to it. I believe there are many people in the 
House who are as well.
  I will tell you one other thing. The public is committed to this as 
well. There are going to be a lot of people looking at the conference 
committee. The only time I get feisty is when there is an implication: 
Oh, well, you know we don't want to go on record because we are afraid 
to oppose it, which I think is unfair implication. I think it is bad 
public policy. They come out here and say: We will just knock it out in 
the conference committee; never mind that the vast majority of people 
think, of course, this is about tax avoidance; of course, we know what 
we are doing. Don't worry about that because it will be business as 
usual. We will just go to the conference committee and knock it out.
  I want to say to my colleagues that I believe there are many Senators 
and representatives in that conference committee who will make sure 
that doesn't happen. I sure will be monitoring this. It will become 
law. It is not going away. We will not be back to the business of 
helping these corporations with all their egregious behavior and 
thinking they can get away with it. It doesn't work that way any 
longer. It is a new world. People do not stand for that kind of 
egregious behavior.
  That is the standard of ordinary citizens and good public policy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I want to speak in favor of the amendment that the 
Senator from Minnesota has introduced, which has been adopted, as 
amended. I want to say to him that not only do I support it personally, 
but as the manager of this bill and as chairman of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, from which the underlying bill has emerged, when we 
go into conference on this bill with the House, I will naturally have 
in mind not only my personal support of the Senator's amendment but the 
fact that the Senate has adopted the amendment by voice vote 
unanimously. I will be pledged to do everything I can to keep it in the 
ultimate conference report, particularly since the House has adopted a 
similar amendment.
  Mr. President, I want to speak briefly on this. I think the Senator 
has done something that is important and that is just. He attached this 
to a bill on homeland security. But it responds to a broader problem. 
It does, in a sense, touch the same spirit of patriotism that we 
generally responded to after the events of September 11 which 
engendered the basic bill before us. It is this notion that a 
significant number of American businesses that have been born and grown 
up here, benefitted from all the opportunities that America provides, 
decided to wriggle their way out of the taxes and locate offshore to 
avoid paying taxes to the United States of America. This is just wrong. 
It is like so much else that is going on around it.
  Unfortunately, more than a few of our biggest companies have chosen 
to incorporate overseas and thereby avoid paying U.S. taxes.
  Evidently, these companies have asked themselves if it is legal 
instead of asking if it is right or wrong. They have had some lawyers 
or accountants tell them it is legal to do this. Legality isn't the 
only standard for what is right and wrong.
  It seems to me that a company that has grown up in America and that 
has benefitted from American workers and all that America does to 
create a climate for enterprise, economic growth, and markets for goods 
and services that are provided ought to, as an act of citizenship, even 
though it might not be illegal to go offshore, as an act of citizenship 
pay its fair share of taxes.
  My dad was a small businessman. He did well as he went along. I 
always remember, it makes me think that I was raised in an age longer 
ago than it was. In fact, my dad used to say: I never complain about 
paying taxes because the taxes I pay are the price I pay as a 
businessman for doing business in this country, for the extraordinary 
not only blessings of liberty that America gives, but as part of that, 
the blessings of economic opportunity that are allowed me--dad never 
went to college--to start this business and be able to make enough 
money to send my kids to college and graduate school.
  That ethic, which is still shared by the great majority of businesses 
in our country, including particularly, may I say, small businesses 
that don't have the wherewithal to kind of wriggle their way through 
the legal system, is not reflected as often in the actions that we have 
seen documented so well.
  I share the view of many of my colleagues that we should close the 
tax loophole to prevent companies from further irresponsible behavior. 
That is the most direct way to address the problem. But I also support 
this amendment, which sends a simple and profound message: if you don't 
want to participate as U.S. citizens and pay your fair share of taxes, 
then don't expect to make billions of dollars of profits from U.S. 
government contracts that are paid with the tax dollars of Americans 
who pay their fair share in taxes.
  My State of Connecticut has some recent history on this issue--
history with a happy ending--that I would like to relate to the Senate. 
Back in May, StanleyWorks, a proud company based in New Britain, wanted 
to pack its corporate bags and reconstitute in Bermuda. And not because 
its executives wanted to try driving on the left side of the road. It 
was because some of its leadership decided it would be nice to avoid 
paying taxes to the United States of America.
  It is sad and ironic, when you think about it. This company was 
founded in ``New Britain''--a name that calls to mind our roots as 13 
colonies that broke away from the mother country because she tried to 
tax us from afar without giving us the rights, representation, and 
respect that we deserved. And here was a New Britain-based company 
thinking of setting up a shell in Bermuda to avoid paying taxes even 
though it is in every other way a full-fledged citizen of our United 
States.
  StanleyWorks started in 1843 when an enterprising businessman named 
Frederick Trent Stanley set up a small shop to make door bolts and 
other hardware from wrought iron. It was one of dozens of small 
foundries and other backyard industries in town struggling to make a go 
of it by turning out metal products--but Stanley had a special 
innovative spirit and an uncommon passion for doing things right. So, 
as often happens in America, what began as a modest enterprise 
prospered and grew.
  To see this company so willing to scrap its proud history and proud 
presence in my State, and to see similar things happening around the 
country, really got me angry. It got a lot of us angry. And with good 
reason. Thousands and thousands of hardworking small businesses like 
the business my father owned and operated, and thousands of 
corporations, contribute to America every single day--not only the way 
that all businesses do, by producing jobs for Americans--but also by 
paying their fair share of taxes. Meanwhile, other companies have the 
gall to look for a clever way to fatten their bottom line and get an 
edge over their competitors who play by the rules.
  That is why in May I cosponsored the bill by Senators Baucus and 
Grassley to close the tax loophole that Stanley attempted to exploit, 
and supported adding to that bill a provision preventing overseas tax 
dodgers from competing for or receiving federal contracts.
  I am proud that at least in my State, at least with StanleyWorks, a 
little bit of shame seemed to have an effect. StanleyWorks decided not 
to go overseas after all. They made the right decision, and I 
appreciate it.

[[Page 16174]]

  But other corporations are still busy relinquishing their American 
citizenship and, in the process, relinquishing their good corporate 
citizenship in the very same act. Mr. President, when you wriggle out 
of taxes you wriggle out of responsibility. When you evade the basic 
requirements that everybody else meets, you erode our common bonds as a 
community. It may seem to make sense for individual companies at first 
when they're viewing through the narrow and amoral blinders of the 
bottom line, but it's downright destructive for American society as a 
whole.
  And I must say, in the end it may not help a company's bottom line 
either, and this amendment helps make that clear. The fact is, when a 
company thumbs its nose at the country that gives it the opportunity to 
prosper, it loses credibility. It loses trust. It loses respect. It 
loses customers. And, yes, though it may seem that way based on the 
initial calculations of the CFO, it loses money.
  Good ethics make good business. This amendment leaves no doubt about 
that fact. The border, in this case, is the line between right and 
wrong. We in Congress have to draw that line--to say that if you cross 
it, you will not be eligible for Federal contracts. Plain and simple.
  In the context of Homeland Security, these actions seem even more 
unsavory. If a U.S. company wants to bid for work to defend the 
homeland--work that is being paid for in the tax dollars of its 
customers, among others--how can that company not even pledge 
allegiance, in the most basic fiscal sense, to the United States of 
America?
  This measure that the Senator from Minnesota has attached is right on 
target. It says if an American-based company is not willing to pay 
taxes to America, they ought not to receive contracts through the new 
Department of Homeland Security that we are establishing in this bill, 
which after all are contracts that will be paid for by taxes paid by 
American companies. To me, that seems to be elementary fairness.
  So I close with a quote from Paul Krugman of the New York Times, 
which I think says it well, when he wrote:

       [T]he trouble is that hinting, even by silence, that it's 
     O.K. not to pay taxes is a dangerous game. . . . Accountants 
     and tax planners have taken the hint; they now believe that 
     it's safe to push the envelope. . . . Furthermore, what does 
     it say to the nation when companies that are proud to stay 
     American are punished, while companies that are willing to 
     fly a flag of convenience are rewarded?

  That is what this amendment is all about and why I was pleased to 
support it on the voice vote and why I intend to work with all the 
strength and skill I have in the conference committee to make sure it 
is part of the final conference report that comes back to the Senate 
with this bill.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think under the unanimous consent request 
I have 20 minutes to speak on the bill. We have been talking about the 
amendment of the Senator from Minnesota, and I had yet to get the 20 
minutes. I think maybe the Senator from California was under the 
impression that I had spoken before that debate but----
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. It was my understanding, in the unanimous consent 
agreement Senator Reid propounded, that Senator Gramm would have a 
total of 20 minutes, which he could use either to speak on the 
Wellstone amendment or more generally on the bill.
  I see Senator Reid in the Chamber. Perhaps he can clarify.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator from Texas yield?
  Mr. GRAMM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I thought you were going to speak 20 minutes on the 
Wellstone amendment, and then Senator Wellstone would speak for 20 
minutes, and then 20 minutes for the two managers. But if you want to 
speak on the bill, that certainly is your right.
  The thing is, we have been waiting to finish this Smith-Boxer 
amendment. We would like to get that done. But if you have the 
understanding that you were to speak for 40 minutes----
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, probably we could move everything along by 
my just starting and trying to be expeditious. I speak slowly, so I 
will try not to repeat myself.
  Mr. REID. The Senator has the floor, and he has the right. I would 
just indicate to everyone, we are going to have a vote sometime this 
afternoon on the Smith-Boxer amendment. Everyone has agreed that would 
take place. So everyone should understand that after the Senator from 
Texas completes his statement, Senator Boxer will modify her amendment 
to meet a couple of the objections that were raised, and then she will 
speak, Senator Smith will speak, and maybe even Senator Hollings will 
come and speak.
  So I would estimate that probably at around 4:30 or thereabouts we 
could have a vote on the Smith amendment. I think that would be all of 
the legislation on this bill today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we have started the debate on homeland 
security, and one of the things that has struck me is that while we 
have talked about the President's request for flexibility--about his 
ability, in a national emergency, to override collective bargaining 
agreements--the debate, to this point, has basically been in the 
abstract. So while it does not make for a pretty speech, I would like 
to try to get specific this afternoon for 20 minutes and try to give 
some concrete examples as to what this debate is about.
  The President has said that in order to protect the American 
homeland, he needs the ability to put the right person in the right 
place at the right time, and that he also needs the ability to move or 
remove people who are not capable of doing the job that needs to be 
done in order to protect our country, its people, its property.
  I would like to just note the following things on this issue. No. 1, 
this is not a new concern. In 1984, the Grace Commission stated:

       The lack of integration of the INS, the Border Patrol, and 
     the Customs Service would lead to security breakdowns.

  That was the Grace Commission in 1983.
  Does anybody doubt when INS approved a visa for two of the people who 
flew airplanes into the World Trade Center, after their pictures and 
names have been on every television station and every front page of 
every newspaper in the world, that the concern expressed by the Grace 
Commission in 1983 has been borne out?
  In 1989, the Volcker Commission, on the National Commission on Public 
Service, concluded:

       The current system----

  They are talking about our system of hiring, firing, and promoting.

       The current system is slow, it is legally trampled, and 
     intellectually confusing. It is impossible to explain to 
     potential candidates. It is almost certainly not fit for 
     filling the spirit of our mandate to hire the most 
     meritorious candidates.

  Does anybody doubt that the young lady who was an FBI agent who tried 
to warn headquarters that we had suspected terrorists taking lessons on 
flying planes but not on landing them should have been promoted and 
given a raise? I think the concerns of the Volcker Commission in 1989 
have been borne out.
  And then the U.S. Commission on National Security, chaired by our 
dear friend and former colleague, Warren Rudman, stated:

       An agile, flexible personnel system is required for us to 
     have a successful defense of the American homeland.

  We can debate whether the current system is flexible enough, but let 
me just let the facts speak for themselves. And they are pretty simple 
facts.
  Mr. President, 1,800,000 people worked for the Federal Government in 
the year 2000--1,800,000. How many do you think were fired because they 
were incapable of doing their job? With 1,800,000 people working for 
the Federal Government, how many of them do you think lost their job 
because they were not getting it done? The answer: 6.

[[Page 16175]]

  In 2001, how many Government employees do you think lost their job 
out of 1.8 million because they were not getting the job done? The 
answer: 3.
  Does anybody believe that all but three Federal employees in all of 
America, in every agency combined, would have met the standards of the 
private sector to keep their job? I do not think so.
  Only 500 people out of the 1.8 million people who worked for the 
Federal Government were demoted in the year 2000 for lack of 
performance. Only 600 were denied pay raises.
  Think about that. The vast majority of people who got bad ratings--
over 99 percent of the people who work for the Federal Government who 
were given failing grades on their evaluations--got automatic pay 
increases with the Federal Government. No wonder two-thirds of Federal 
workers, in independent polls that have been conducted, believe that 
poor performers are not adequately disciplined. Further, nearly half of 
all Federal workers believe that job performance has little or nothing 
to do with a chance for promotion.
  It seems to me when you look at these facts, the President is simply 
asking, in the area where life and death are at stake, to have greater 
flexibility in being sure we hire the right person; it does not take 6 
months to do it; and if somebody is clearly not doing the job, that we 
at least move them out of these highly sensitive areas.
  In listening to people who are defending workers instead of defending 
the homeland, you get the idea that the President is proposing a 
wholesale rewriting of personnel laws.
  I just want people to look at the facts and see that under the 
President's bill, only 6 of the 70 chapters in the Federal Registry 
governing the civil service system are modified, and none of them is 
repealed.
  Another area where people are wondering what are all these 
politicians talking about is this whole area of collective bargaining. 
Why, in this area of national security, in order to get a decision made 
and to get up our shield and to protect our people, does the President 
want to be able to waive collective bargaining agreements on a 
selective basis?
  I simply picked out 8 that are very different to give you examples of 
the kind of problem you have in trying to make the Government work. 
Please forgive my clumsiness in reading them, but they are pretty 
revealing.
  No. 1: Collective bargaining agreements can prohibit improvements to 
border protection in inspection areas. Let me give an example. In 1987, 
the Customs Service office at Logan Airport was renovated with a minor 
change in the area where the baggage of international flight passengers 
was inspected. The National Treasury Employees Union objected, saying 
the renovation had to be part of a collective bargaining agreement. The 
Federal Labor Relations Authority ruled that the Customs Service could 
not renovate its baggage inspection areas without a collective 
bargaining agreement.
  Are we kidding? Are we going to put American lives at stake over 
changing collective bargaining agreements so that we can upgrade 
inspection areas? I don't think so. I don't think that is protecting 
workers or protecting jobs. I think that is protecting the status quo 
and exposing Americans to being hurt.
  Let me give another example: Collective bargaining agreements can 
prohibit agencies from working together to protect the border. 
President Clinton's drug czar, Barry McCaffrey, as many will remember, 
noted the separate union rules that controlled how its inspectors would 
search vehicles. According to the San Francisco Examiner--this is 
General McCaffrey speaking--

       Officials at one agency were actually forbidden to open the 
     trunks of cars, a policy well known to drug dealers.

  We are not asking people to share toothbrushes. We are just asking 
that the President have the ability to jointly train people at the 
Border Patrol and at INS and at Customs so that they can work together. 
This is a perfect example of where that has not happened.
  Another example: Collective bargaining agreements could prohibit 
agencies from increasing the number of immigration inspectors. In 1990, 
the Immigration and Naturalization Service added an extra shift at the 
Honolulu International Airport to handle a surge of international 
flights in the afternoon. The American Federation of Government 
Employees objected, saying the new shift affected overtime and 
differential pay of existing workers and had to be negotiated with the 
union. The Federal Labor Relations Authority agreed that new shifts of 
border inspectors could not be added without a collective bargaining 
agreement.
  Do we really think the President ought to have the ability to add 
personnel if our lives are at stake? I think the answer is yes.
  Another example: Collective bargaining agreements could prohibit 
special task forces of the Border Patrol from being deployed in any 
region. Let me read you the union agreement and what it requires for 
deploying Border Patrol. I am not criticizing them. I have been maybe 
the biggest supporter of the Border Patrol. Under normal circumstances, 
when you are posting people, you want them to be posted in areas where 
they can preserve the basic quality of life. But let me read to you 
what the union agreement says.
  They have to be posted where there are ``suitable eating places, drug 
stores, barber shops, places of worship, cleaning establishments, and 
similar places necessary'' to sustain the comfort or health of the 
employees.
  In peacetime, when we are getting the job done, that is perfectly 
reasonable. But are we going to stand by and let a union work agreement 
say that we can't, in an emergency, deploy the Border Patrol where 
there are no dry cleaners? I don't think so.
  Another example: Collective bargaining agreements could prohibit the 
forward deployment of the best Customs Service inspectors to foreign 
ports to inspect container ships destined for the United States. Unions 
are currently negotiating with the Customs Service to determine which 
inspectors will be shifted abroad based not on merit, but on seniority.
  When we have a critical area where people's lives are at stake, we 
can't be fooling around with seniority. We have to give the President 
the right to say: Look, that agreement is perfectly good under ordinary 
circumstances, and at the post office we are going to agree with it. 
But when people's lives are at stake, we are not going to be fooling 
around where we can't put the best person in the best place. That is 
what this debate is about.
  Another example: Collective bargaining agreements could prohibit 
agencies from implementing a new body search policy on detainees. 
Listen to this one. In 1995, the INS sought to change its policies 
regarding body searches and detentions in order to protect employees 
from harm and the Service from lawsuits. The American Federation of 
Government Employees insisted that no change in body search policy 
occur until a broader collective bargaining agreement was reached. When 
the INS implemented the new policy, the union challenged it before the 
Federal Labor Relations Authority, and they ruled that the new body 
search policy could not be implemented without a new collective 
bargaining agreement.
  The President is asking for flexibility in the name of national 
security. This is exactly the kind of circumstance he is talking about. 
When we have people at these press conferences saying, protect our 
workers, they are not talking about protecting workers, they are 
talking about protecting agreements that don't make any sense, given 
that we have had over 3,000 of our fellow citizens killed.
  Let me give you a couple more examples. Collective bargaining 
agreements could prohibit agencies from canceling annual leave during a 
border crisis. In 2000, the Customs Service was pushing a drug 
interdiction effort along the Florida coast. When annual leave was 
canceled, the union filed a grievance on behalf of those Customs 
officers who wanted to attend the World Police and Firearms Games. The 
FLRA ruled that despite the interdiction effort, annual leave could not 
be canceled.

[[Page 16176]]

  When people are saying the President doesn't need this authority and 
these agreements are sacred, is anybody willing to say that in order to 
protect people's right to go to some conference, we are going to deny 
the President the ability to say no, today we are going to protect 
people's lives in your hometown? I don't think so.
  Let me give you one more example. Collective bargaining agreements 
could prohibit agencies from disbanding a single office. In 1991, INS 
attempted to shut down a unit facility due to a steady decrease in 
activity and staffing. No more than two union workers were at the 
facility in its last year, and one manager was capable of handling the 
workload. Yet, the union challenged the move and the Federal Labor 
Relations Authority ruled that the elimination of any unit could not 
occur until the collective bargaining agreement was changed.
  So when we are talking about giving the President, for national 
security reasons, the right to waive these work rules, this is exactly 
the kind of thing that we are talking about. When people's lives are at 
stake, should we be able to deploy the Border Patrol on a sustained 
basis where they don't have dry cleaners? When people's lives are at 
stake, should we be able to change facilities without renegotiating 
union contracts? When lives are at stake, should we be able to require 
that people that were attending some conference stay on their job to 
protect our fellow citizens? That is what this debate is about.
  The President has asked for the right to use a policy that has been 
available to every President for the last 20 years. Yet, in this bill, 
when we are supposed to be promoting homeland security, that right is 
taken away from the President. So what has happened here is we are 
providing a lot more money, and that will help. But we are imposing 
restrictions on the President that guarantee the money will not be well 
spent.
  I understand the power of special interest groups. I understand that 
people have other concerns in national security. But I think, under the 
circumstances, given the crisis that we face, that those who say the 
President is trying to trample on labor rights, trying to take away 
from unions their power, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. I 
think if my colleagues would look at these examples, they show very 
clearly exactly the kind of thing we have to do.
  Finally, I believe that the vast majority of people who are going to 
be in these emergency agencies would like to have these restrictions 
removed. They would like to have promotions based on merit. They would 
like incompetents who endanger their lives, as much or more than they 
endanger our lives, to be removed. That is what this debate is about. 
We have been sort of shouting back and forth at each other, and I 
thought it was important to come over and put some meat on the bones 
and give concrete examples.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.


                    Amendment No. 4492, As Modified

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I send a modified amendment to the desk, 
which has been cleared by Senator Smith and myself, regarding training 
for pilots and flight attendants.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 4492), as modified, is as follows:
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the 
     following new title:

       TITLE __--FLIGHT AND CABIN SECURITY ON PASSENGER AIRCRAFT

     SECTION __1. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Arming Pilots Against 
     Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002''.

     SEC. __2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) Terrorist hijackers represent a profound threat to the 
     American people.
       (2) According to the Federal Aviation Administration, 
     between 33,000 and 35,000 commercial flights occur every day 
     in the United States.
       (3) The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (Public 
     Law 107-71) mandated that air marshals be on all high risk 
     flights such as those targeted on September 11, 2001.
       (4) Without air marshals, pilots and flight attendants are 
     a passenger's first line of defense against terrorists.
       (5) A comprehensive and strong terrorism prevention program 
     is needed to defend the Nation's skies against acts of 
     criminal violence and air piracy. Such a program should 
     include--
       (A) armed Federal air marshals;
       (B) other Federal agents;
       (C) reinforced cockpit doors;
       (D) properly-trained armed pilots;
       (E) flight attendants trained in self-defense and terrorism 
     prevention; and
       (F) electronic communications devices, such as real-time 
     video monitoring and hands-free wireless communications 
     devices to permit pilots to monitor activities in the cabin.

     SEC. __3. FEDERAL FLIGHT DECK OFFICER PROGRAM.

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

     ``Sec. 44921. Federal flight deck officer program

       ``(a) Establishment.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin 
     Defense Act of 2002, the Under Secretary of Transportation 
     for Security shall establish a program to deputize qualified 
     pilots of commercial cargo or passenger aircraft who 
     volunteer for the program as Federal law enforcement officers 
     to defend the flight decks of commercial aircraft of air 
     carriers engaged in air transportation or intrastate air 
     transportation against acts of criminal violence or air 
     piracy. Such officers shall be known as `Federal flight deck 
     officers'. The program shall be administered in connection 
     with the Federal air marshal program.
       ``(b) Qualified Pilot.--Under the program described in 
     subsection (a), a qualified pilot is a pilot of an aircraft 
     engaged in air transportation or intrastate air 
     transportation who--
       ``(1) is employed by an air carrier;
       ``(2) has demonstrated fitness to be a Federal flight deck 
     officer in accordance with regulations promulgated pursuant 
     to this title; and
       ``(3) has been the subject of an employment investigation 
     (including a criminal history record check) under section 
     44936(a)(1).
       ``(c) Training, Supervision, and Equipment.--The Under 
     Secretary of Transportation for Security shall provide or 
     make arrangements for training, supervision, and equipment 
     necessary for a qualified pilot to be a Federal flight deck 
     officer under this section at no expense to the pilot or the 
     air carrier employing the pilot. Such training, 
     qualifications, curriculum, and equipment shall be consistent 
     with and equivalent to those required of federal law 
     enforcement officers and shall include periodic re-
     qualification as determined by the Under Secretary. The Under 
     Secretary may approve private training programs which meet 
     the Under Secretary's specifications and guidelines. Air 
     carriers shall make accommodations to facilitate the training 
     of their pilots as Federal flight deck officers and shall 
     facilitate Federal flight deck officers in the conduct of 
     their duties under this program.
       ``(d) Deputization.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Under Secretary of Transportation 
     for Security shall train and deputize, as a Federal flight 
     deck officer under this section, any qualified pilot who 
     submits to the Under Secretary a request to be such an 
     officer.
       ``(2) Initial deputization.--Not later than 120 days after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary 
     shall deputize not fewer than 500 qualified pilots who are 
     former military or law enforcement personnel as Federal 
     flight deck officers under this section.
       ``(3) Full implementation.--Not later than 24 months after 
     the date of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary 
     shall deputize any qualified pilot as a Federal flight deck 
     officer under this section.
       ``(e) Compensation.--Pilots participating in the program 
     under this section shall not be eligible for compensation 
     from the Federal Government for services provided as a 
     Federal flight deck officer.
       ``(f) Authority To Carry Firearms.--The Under Secretary of 
     Transportation for Security shall authorize a Federal flight 
     deck officer under this section to carry a firearm to defend 
     the flight deck of a commercial passenger or cargo aircraft 
     while engaged in providing air transportation or intrastate 
     air transportation. No air carrier may prohibit a Federal 
     flight deck officer from carrying a firearm in accordance 
     with the provisions of the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism 
     and Cabin Defense Act of 2002.
       ``(g) Authority To Use Force.--Notwithstanding section 
     44903(d), a Federal flight deck officer may use force 
     (including lethal force) against an individual in the defense 
     of a commercial aircraft in air transportation or intrastate 
     air transportation if the officer reasonably believes that 
     the security of the aircraft is at risk.
       ``(h) Limitation on Liability.--
       ``(1) Liability of air carriers.--An air carrier shall not 
     be liable for damages in any

[[Page 16177]]

     action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the 
     air carrier employing a pilot of an aircraft who is a Federal 
     flight deck officer under this section or out of the acts or 
     omissions of the pilot in defending an aircraft of the air 
     carrier against acts of criminal violence or air piracy.
       ``(2) Liability of federal flight deck officers.--A Federal 
     flight deck officer shall not be liable for damages in any 
     action brought in a Federal or State court arising out of the 
     acts or omissions of the officer in defending an aircraft 
     against acts of criminal violence or air piracy unless the 
     officer is guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
       ``(3) Employee status of federal flight deck officers.--A 
     Federal flight deck officer shall be considered an `employee 
     of the Government while acting within the scope of his office 
     or employment' with respect to any act or omission of the 
     officer in defending an aircraft against acts of criminal 
     violence or air piracy, for purposes of sections 1346(b), 
     2401(b), and 2671 through 2680 of title 28 United States 
     Code.
       ``(i) Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of enactment of this section, the Under Secretary of 
     Transportation for Security, in consultation with the 
     Firearms Training Unit of the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation, shall issue regulations to carry out this 
     section.
       ``(j) Pilot Defined.--In this section, the term `pilot' 
     means an individual who is responsible for the operation of 
     an aircraft, and includes a co-pilot or other member of the 
     flight deck crew.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Chapter analysis.--The analysis for such chapter 449 is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 44920 
     the following new item:

``44921. Federal flight deck officer program.''.

       (2) Employment investigations.--Section 44936(a)(1)(B) is 
     amended--
       (A) by aligning clause (iii) with clause (ii);
       (B) by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (iii);
       (C) by striking the period at the end of clause (iv) and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (D) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(v) qualified pilots who are deputized as Federal flight 
     deck officers under section 44921.''.
       (3) Flight deck security.--Section 128 of the Aviation and 
     Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C. 44903 note) is 
     repealed.

     SEC. __4. CABIN SECURITY.

       (a) Technical Amendments.--Section 44903, of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (h) (relating to authority 
     to arm flight deck crew with less-than-lethal weapons, as 
     added by section 126(b) of Public Law 107-71) as subsection 
     (j); and
       (2) by redesignating subsection (h) (relating to limitation 
     on liability for acts to thwart criminal violence or aircraft 
     piracy, as added by section 144 of public law 107-71) as 
     subsection (k).
       (b) Aviation Crewmember Self-Defense Division.--Section 
     44918 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(a) In General.--
       ``(1) Requirement for air carriers.--Not later than 60 days 
     after the date of enactment of the Arming Pilots Against 
     Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002, the Under Secretary 
     of Transportation for Security, shall prescribe detailed 
     requirements for an air carrier cabin crew training program, 
     and for the instructors of that program as described in 
     subsection (b) to prepare crew members for potential threat 
     conditions. In developing the requirements, the Under 
     Secretary shall consult with appropriate law enforcement 
     personnel who have expertise in self-defense training, 
     security experts, and terrorism experts, and representatives 
     of air carriers and labor organizations representing 
     individuals employed in commercial aviation.
       ``(2) Aviation crewmember self-defense division.--Not later 
     than 60 days after the date of enactment of the Arming Pilots 
     Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002, the Under 
     Secretary of Transportation for Security shall establish an 
     Aviation Crew Self-Defense Division within the Transportation 
     Security Administration. The Division shall develop and 
     administer the implementation of the requirements described 
     in this section. The Under Secretary shall appoint a Director 
     of the Aviation Crew Self-Defense Division who shall be the 
     head of the Division. The Director shall report to the Under 
     Secretary. In the selection of the Director, the Under 
     Secretary shall solicit recommendations from law enforcement, 
     air carriers, and labor organizations representing 
     individuals employed in commercial aviation. The Director 
     shall have a background in self-defense training, including 
     military or law enforcement training with an emphasis in 
     teaching self-defense and the appropriate use force. Regional 
     training supervisors shall be under the control of the 
     Director and shall have appropriate training and experience 
     in teaching self-defense and the appropriate use of force.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (b), and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(b) Program Elements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The requirements prescribed under 
     subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum, 28 hours of self-
     defense training that incorporates classroom and situational 
     training that contains the following elements:
       ``(A) Determination of the seriousness of any occurrence.
       ``(B) Crew communication and coordination.
       ``(C) Appropriate responses to defend oneself, including a 
     minimum of 16 hours of hands-on training, with reasonable and 
     effective requirements on time allotment over a 4 week 
     period, in the following levels of self-defense:
       ``(i) awareness, deterrence, and avoidance;
       ``(ii) verbalization;
       ``(iii) empty hand control;
       ``(iv) intermediate weapons and self-defense techniques; 
     and
       ``(v) deadly force.
       ``(D) Use of protective devices assigned to crewmembers (to 
     the extent such devices are approved by the Administrator or 
     Under Secretary).
       ``(E) Psychology of terrorists to cope with hijacker 
     behavior and passenger responses.
       ``(F) Live situational simulation joint training exercises 
     regarding various threat conditions, including all of the 
     elements required by this section.
       ``(G) Flight deck procedures or aircraft maneuvers to 
     defend the aircraft.
       ``(2) Program elements for instructors.--The requirements 
     prescribed under subsection (a) shall contain program 
     elements for instructors that include, at a minimum, the 
     following:
       ``(A) A certification program for the instructors who will 
     provide the training described in paragraph (1).
       ``(B) A requirement that no training session shall have 
     fewer than 1 instructor for every 12 students.
       ``(C) A requirement that air carriers provide certain 
     instructor information, including names and qualifications, 
     to the Aviation Crew Member Self-Defense Division within 30 
     days after receiving the requirements described in subsection 
     (a).
       ``(D) Training course curriculum lesson plans and 
     performance objectives to be used by instructors.
       ``(E) Written training bulletins to reinforce course 
     lessons and provide necessary progressive updates to 
     instructors.
       ``(3) Recurrent training.--Each air carrier shall provide 
     the training under the program every 6 months after the 
     completion of the initial training.
       ``(4) Initial training.--Air carriers shall provide the 
     initial training under the program within 24 months of the 
     date of enactment of the Arming Pilots Against Terrorism and 
     Cabin Defense Act of 2002.
       ``(5) Communication devices.--The requirements described in 
     subsection (a) shall include a provision mandating that air 
     carriers provide flight and cabin crew with a discreet, 
     hands-free, wireless method of communicating with the flight 
     deck.
       ``(6) Real-time video monitoring.--The requirements 
     described in subsection (a) shall include a program to 
     provide flight deck crews with real-time video surveillance 
     of the cabins of commercial airline flights. In developing 
     this program, the Under Secretary shall consider--
       ``(A) maximizing the security of the flight deck;
       ``(B) enhancing the safety of the flight deck crew;
       ``(C) protecting the safety of the passengers and crew;
       ``(D) preventing acts of criminal violence or air piracy;
       ``(E) the cost of the program;
       ``(F) privacy concerns; and
       ``(G) the feasibility of installing such a device in the 
     flight deck.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(f) Rulemaking Authority.--Notwithstanding subsection (j) 
     (relating to authority to arm flight deck crew with less 
     than-lethal weapons) of section 44903, of this title, within 
     180 days after the date of enactment of the Arming Pilots 
     Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002, the Under 
     Secretary of Transportation for Security, in consultation 
     with persons described in subsection (a)(1), shall prescribe 
     regulations requiring air carriers to--
       ``(1) provide adequate training in the proper conduct of a 
     cabin search and allow adequate duty time to perform such a 
     search; and
       ``(2) conduct a preflight security briefing with flight 
     deck and cabin crew and, when available, Federal air marshals 
     or other authorized law enforcement officials.
       ``(g) Limitation on Liability.--
       ``(1) Air carriers.--An air carrier shall not be liable for 
     damages in any action brought in a Federal or State court 
     arising out of the acts or omissions of the air carrier's 
     training instructors or cabin crew using reasonable and 
     necessary force in defending an aircraft of the air carrier 
     against acts of criminal violence or air piracy.
       ``(2) Training instructors and cabin crew.--An air 
     carrier's training instructors

[[Page 16178]]

     or cabin crew shall not be liable for damages in any action 
     brought in a Federal or State court arising out of an act or 
     omission of a training instructor or a member of the cabin 
     crew regarding the defense of an aircraft against acts of 
     criminal violence or air piracy unless the crew member is 
     guilty of gross negligence or willful misconduct.''.
       (c) Nonlethal Weapons for Flight Attendants.--
       (1) Study.--The Under Secretary of Transportation for 
     Security shall conduct a study to determine whether 
     possession of a nonlethal weapon by a member of an air 
     carrier's cabin crew would aid the flight deck crew in 
     combating air piracy and criminal violence on commercial 
     airlines.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation 
     for Security shall prepare and submit to Congress a report on 
     the study conducted under paragraph (1).
       The provisions of this amendment shall take effect one day 
     after date of enactment.

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for the benefit of Members, I know Senator 
Reid has been working hard to move things along. We have reached 
agreement on modifying our amendment, making sure that the pilot 
training is strengthened. I think we have done that with the help of 
Senator Feinstein. I am very pleased that she was over here earlier to 
assist us with this amendment. I think she would be pleased with what 
we have done.
  Basically, it is the amendment that Senator Smith wrote in the form 
of a bill, and I was very glad to come on board after we wrote a few 
more bits and pieces about putting video cameras in the cockpits, and 
some other small items.
  I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for his vision and tenacity 
in making sure that what happened on September 11 will not happen 
again.
  Now we say, is there any one thing we can do can to ensure this will 
never happen? Of course not. Life is too complicated for that. As 
someone who has been a leader in the effort for sensible gun control 
laws, what we are doing in this amendment is very carefully thought 
out. It is backed by the Air Line Pilots Association International, and 
it is backed by the flight attendants.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter I just received from the Air 
Line Pilots Association be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                      Air Line Pilots Association,


                                                International,

                                Washington, DC, September 5, 2002.
     Hon. Barbara Boxer,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Boxer: On behalf of the 67,000 members of the 
     Air Line Pilots Association, International, I want to offer 
     our thanks and support for your amendment to the pending 
     homeland security legislation. The Boxer-Smith amendment 
     creates a program allowing volunteer pilots who meet strict 
     federal qualification standards to receive training to become 
     federal flight deck officers, authorized to defend the 
     cockpit against acts of criminal violence and air piracy.
       Our nation has suffered greatly as a result of the events 
     of September 11. More than 3,000 people were murdered, 
     billions of dollars of property damage was incurred, the 
     nation's economy was rocked, thousands of people were laid 
     off and life in America will never be the same again--all 
     because terrorists were able to kill eight pilots and take 
     over the cockpits of their airliners on that day.
       This must never happen again. Providing more armed federal 
     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. As an absolute last line of defense our government 
     has authorized U.S. jet fighters to shoot down an airliner if 
     hijackers gain control of it. To authorize such an action, 
     without empowering pilots to defend the cockpit against 
     hijackers, is both illogical and unacceptable.
       We are confident that the program, created by your 
     legislation, would not only add a genuine security 
     enhancement in the very near term, but also give passengers 
     and crews the added confidence that their government had 
     provided all possible resources needed to defend against a 
     terrorist hijacking.
       The scrutiny and training our members undergo during their 
     preparation for a career as professional airline pilots, we 
     believe, provides a ready-made pool of individuals who would 
     be well-equipped to participate in such a voluntary program: 
     highly educated, physically and mentally fit men and women 
     who are conditioned to react calmly and deliberately in a 
     crisis.
       In this period of attempting to find money for security 
     initiatives that will have the most immediate and direct 
     impact on preventing another terrorist attack, we believe 
     that this legislation provides the most practical program for 
     cockpit defense.
       Thank you again for all your efforts on this important 
     issue of safety and security.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Duane E. Woerth,
     President.
                                  ____

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I think this letter from the pilots comes 
from the heart. When we think back to that terrible day, we know 
exactly what happened. The flight attendants were trained never to 
interfere if someone wanted to hijack a plane. The pilots were trained 
to go along. Do you know, according to the flight attendants that 
Senator Smith and Senator Burns and I met with today, they haven't had 
one bit of new training since 9/11, almost a year ago?
  They are desperate for this legislation, which includes very 
important training for the flight attendants, to be repeated every 6 
months at no new costs. As one flight attendant said, ``I don't need 
more training in how to make a napkin look better on a tray; I want to 
know how to defend myself in the cabin.''
  In this bill, no one is authorized to carry a gun. It doesn't do 
that. All it says is that if a pilot feels that he or she wants to get 
this very extensive training--and we have strengthened it with the 
Feinstein language--and be qualified to defend the plane, as a last 
resort, if someone does break through the doors, under this amendment, 
they will have video cameras in the cockpit, which is what I wanted so 
much. That is kind of a rear-view mirror. And Senator Smith put in 
wireless communication so that the flight attendants can talk to the 
pilots in an unobtrusive fashion.
  This is a package that will make our skies safer. I am not going to 
talk long because I know Senator Smith, who started the ball rolling on 
this, is anxious to speak, Senator Hollings has some remarks, and 
people want to vote. So in the next 4, 5 minutes, I will lay out the 
rest of my argument.
  Why do we need this bill, which will have this voluntary program of 
arming pilots who would have to go through a rigorous course and get 
qualified repeatedly and have the psychological profiles and everything 
else that we would expect to have happen?
  Why do we need that? Why do we need to have the flight attendants' 
training? Mr. President, if I could stand before you and assure you 
that I believe the skies are safe, I would not be here supporting this 
bill, but I cannot tell you that, sadly. I join with my chairman. He 
has been a leader in safety, and we well know what has happened.
  Just yesterday we learned that reporters from a New York newspaper 
went through screening processes in 11 airports with box cutters, razor 
blades, knives, and pepper spray. What happened? Each and every one got 
past security at those 11 airports, even airports from which planes 
involved in the disaster of 9/11 originated.
  On July 1, we found out that the TSA, the Transportation Security 
Administration, itself conducted a random test, and they found that in 
many airports there was a 40-percent failure rate of finding the 
contraband, finding the weapons. Sadly for me, two of those airports 
that did the worst were in my State, Sacramento and Los Angeles.
  Add to this we do not have enough air marshals. I cannot say how many 
we have. That is a classified item. But the American people need to 
know that we wrote the bill, and with the help of my chairman and his 
ranking member, we wrote the part of the bill that deals with putting 
air marshals on all the high-risk flights, the long-haul flights. I am 
here to say today unequivocally that we are way behind.
  On some of the airlines--very few--they have not strengthened the 
doors. Guess what, Mr. President. As my chairman has repeatedly said, 
they are open during the flight. I am on flights constantly, all across 
the country and in between, and I see the pilot come

[[Page 16179]]

out of that door. Guess what they do. Sometimes they have a cart in 
front of the door to protect against the cockpit being taken over--a 
cart as a defense. Sometimes they will just have one or two flight 
attendants. Sometimes they will not even do anything; they just ask the 
passengers to stay away from the door.
  To sum up, failure is what happens at those screening points. The 
same weapons that caused the tragedy of 9/11 are getting through. We do 
not have enough air marshals. The flight attendants have not had one 
bit of new training on what to do. The pilots want to have something at 
their disposal to save the aircraft. And on top of that, the U.S. 
military has issued orders to shoot down a commercial aircraft that is 
under the control of hijackers. Imagine that. Imagine if that happened 
and we knew we had not taken action at least to give our pilots a 
chance.
  When I cosponsored this bill, people were really surprised because 
they said: Barbara Boxer is a leading advocate of gun control laws and 
making sure guns stay out of the hands of criminals; she is strong; she 
is on the floor. This is not about guns in the hands of criminals. This 
is about a trained pilot who volunteers, most of whom have training in 
the military, and they will have rigorous training under this bill.
  I do not know how we can, in the name of the victims of 9/11, not 
pass this bill today. I trust that we will do it.
  Today, one of the flight attendants I met is the mother of Mark 
Bingham, who was one of the passengers on flight 93 who fought so hard 
against the hijackers.
  God knows what they saw before they went into that cockpit. God knows 
what was done to the flight attendants who were told in their training 
to do nothing. God knows what they did to the pilots. God knows. 
Believe me, this wonderful woman talked today, and she could only 
speculate what it was like for her son and the others. When the son 
called, he would not go into any detail because, she said, he wanted to 
spare her that.
  Today we have a chance. This is the homeland security bill. What 
better way than to make a statement today that we are going to do 
everything in our power to ensure that at least the flight attendants 
are trained in self-defense, that the pilots have the tools they need, 
including a video camera, the training they need, wireless 
communications with the aircraft. If we do this, we will be doing a 
very good thing for the people of this country, for the traveling 
public of this country.
  I would like, at this time, to give an opportunity to Senator Smith 
to speak. I see he is away from the floor. I am going to yield the 
floor and say about Senator Smith's effort that he has really been the 
hero of this bill. He has worked hard with me to modify it in such a 
way so that I am proud to be on it. He has kept the coalition together. 
He has worked across the aisle and within his own party, and I think he 
and I are going to have a victory today. I certainly hope we will.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, Senator Smith had to leave the floor for a 
moment, so if I may speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I believe this is an important amendment, 
one I find great support for in the country. I believe it makes sense 
to arm qualified airline pilots, to add another layer of protection to 
our existing aviation security system. That is what we are seeking to 
do.
  We have had increased security, of course--increased screening 
requirements, fortified cockpit doors, increased numbers of sky 
marshals--since September 11. We must continue to do more and do all 
that we can.
  I recently wrote an op-ed in the Denver Post, as well as in a Wyoming 
paper, that indicated some 80 percent of American people, according to 
the polling, support this idea. This amendment mirrors the legislation 
introduced in both Houses of Congress and now passed by an overwhelming 
majority in the House to allow, but not require, carefully screened, 
properly trained and equipped airline pilots to be commissioned as 
Federal law enforcement officers and to carry firearms on the flight 
deck for defense.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation, which has had a change of 
position, proposed a limited arms pilot program, but the Smith 
amendment would be even stronger. The Smith amendment would prevent 
airlines from opting out of the program to avoid a situation where 
misguided liability concerns block pilots from volunteering.
  The Smith amendment would prevent airlines from discriminating 
against pilots who choose to participate.
  The Smith amendment would provide liability protection both for the 
airlines and for lawful actions of armed pilots preventing a terrorism 
tragedy turning into a feeding frenzy for the trial bar.
  Unfortunately, opponents of arming the pilots have fostered misplaced 
fears of the issue. Here are some of the facts.
  Pilots would use firearms only in the defense of aircraft after 
hijackers breached the cockpit door. No manmade door is impenetrable to 
determined attackers, of course.
  According to the May 2 House subcommittee testimony from Boeing's 
director of aviation safety, commercial planes are extremely unlikely 
to suffer catastrophic failure due to firearms on board. Aircraft are 
designed with sufficient strength, redundancy, and damage resistance 
that even single or multiple handgun bullets would not create holes 
that would result in the loss of the aircraft.
  Even the worst possible mishap that could be brought about by an 
armed pilot is certainly not comparable to the alternatives. A plane 
destroyed by a missile fired from a U.S. fighter plane or that crashes 
into a ground target is simply not an acceptable outcome when there is 
a chance of preventing it by allowing federally commissioned, trained, 
screened, and volunteer pilots the means of mounting a last-ditch 
effort against terrorists and hijackers.
  I certainly hope we can support this important amendment and make our 
skies even safer for Americans to travel. I urge my friends to vote yes 
on the Smith amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. While we are awaiting the arrival of Senator Smith, I 
thought I would give some more details about the bill.
  I see Senator Smith is in the Chamber, so at this point I am very 
happy he has come back. I know he had to attend a quick meeting. I say 
to Senator Smith, if we can get a vote this afternoon, it will be good 
for us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. While the Senator from California is 
still in the Chamber, let me thank her in a big way for the wonderful 
cooperation she has given us as we have worked together to bring this 
amendment to the floor, but also, more importantly, to bring the flight 
attendants and the pilots together in this effort and to have 
legislation that is going to help them as we get through this terrible 
ordeal.
  This has been a long, arduous effort since 9/11. I know the Senator 
has worked with various groups, as I have. Right after 9/11 we started 
to meet with pilots and flight attendants to hear from them as to what 
it was they believed they needed.
  It became very clear, as the Senator from California has said, that 
the flight attendants were not properly trained and believed they 
needed that training. They were the first to die, we believe, in those 
aircraft. Not only that, the pilots themselves had absolutely no 
defense against these terrorist attacks.
  In listening to the families, the flight attendants, and the pilots, 
we were able to piece together, work through, and develop legislation 
which I hope the Senate will pass this afternoon.
  This amendment will train and arm commercial pilots with a firearm to 
defend the cockpit of our Nation's commercial aircraft from acts of 
terrorism.

[[Page 16180]]

It also provides for increased training for flight attendants and 
communications devices for pilots and flight attendants to have the 
latest communications and video monitoring devices.
  It is a terrible comment on our times that this kind of effort has to 
be put forth, but that is the world we live in, where people who are 
determined to kill us have no qualms about killing themselves. What 
happens, as we all know, is that these aircraft become weapons of mass 
destruction. They become bombs, in essence.
  As the Senator from California said, the option of not having guns in 
the cockpits or trained crews is having guns in the cockpits or, as a 
last line of defense, F-16s which will shoot down commercial aircraft 
with Americans on board, a terrible scenario to have happen, basically 
making the decision to take fewer lives to avoid killing more people 
because of what might happen on the ground. It is a terrible scenario 
we do not want to see happen.
  I am not sure we can guarantee 100 percent it will never happen, but 
we can cut the odds with this legislation. That is why I am so excited 
about its passage. Hopefully, when it goes to conference with the 
House--the House bill is very similar but not quite where we need it to 
be--we can conference this and the President will sign it.
  I was astonished to hear the flight attendants this morning in the 
press conference. They were very emotional and very articulate, I might 
add, in talking about the training they did not have, and they have not 
had any additional training since the 9/11 incident. I believe we have 
to give our Nation's pilots and flight attendants a fighting chance 
against these terrorists before our Government has to resort to 
shooting down an airplane and by all odds keeping the terrorists from 
getting into that cockpit. The cabin would be the first place the 
terrorists would be. At least with trained flight attendants, they can 
perhaps incapacitate the person or at least slow the person down. If 
that person gets to the cockpit with a lethal weapon, a properly 
trained pilot will stop that person before that person gets into the 
cockpit and causes the plane to lose control.
  We have met some wonderful people. I was taken aback this morning in 
the meeting with Alice Hogan. She is the mother of Mark Bingaman who 
lost his life on flight 93, one of the many heroes on that aircraft. It 
is very emotional to see these people coming to Washington and talking 
with us and asking us to help. They should not have to ask, but they 
are here, they are articulate, and they are emotional. They want help. 
They deserve help. We do not want any more flight 93s or flight 175s.
  A few weeks ago, I met Ellen Saracini whose husband Vic was the pilot 
of the aircraft that went into Tower 2. Ironically, she told us, she 
had had a conversation with her husband not too long before September 
11 in which he indicated to her he wished they had better security on 
the aircraft, better training for flight attendants, maybe guns in the 
cockpit, some lethal way to stop a potential terrorist; that they did 
not feel comfortable with this philosophy of being a pacifist when it 
happens, do not make any waves and everything will be fine; the 
terrorist will land the aircraft somewhere.
  That world is gone. We are not there anymore. I remember a reporter 
asking Ellen, ``Do you think your husband would have survived this 
incident if he had had a gun in the cockpit or a trained crew?'' And 
she said, ``I do not know how it could have been any worse than what 
happened.'' I certainly concur with that.
  There are a lot of things we can say. I want to speak from the heart 
about this. We hear a lot about cost: How much is it going to cost to 
train the flight attendants? How much is it going to cost to train the 
pilots? How do you even estimate the cost of human life that happened 
in New York or at the Pentagon? We cannot put a cost on that.
  This is an emotional time for all of us. We are on the eve of the 
anniversary of 9/11, and what a great tribute it would be to pass this 
legislation now so we can try to see it does not happen again. The cost 
is not that bad, frankly. If an air marshal had to be put on every 
single flight in America--I do not know what it is, 30,000 flights a 
day or whatever it is--the costs would be prohibitive. So this way, the 
pilots are armed and the flight attendants are trained. The odds are 
dramatically reduced.
  Down the road perhaps, with better reinforced cockpits, maybe things 
will improve. Right now, we need this legislation, and we need it 
badly. I hope the Senate will pass it this afternoon and that it will 
go to the President's desk very shortly.
  One other thing I want to mention, because it has been talked about: 
I have not heard anything official, but there has been some rumor there 
may be an effort to go with a test program, or a pilot program--no pun 
intended--where guns would be put in the cockpit on 2 or 3 percent of 
the planes, maybe train the flight attendants, maybe not. We need those 
flight attendants trained. This is not where we need to be. This is not 
going to get the job done.
  If someone is a passenger on an airplane, they might want to know 
whether this is one of the 2 or 3 percent where the pilots are armed. I 
know I would want to ask. Ninety-seven percent of the planes are not 
going to have these so-called test provisions.
  I am thinking, what are we testing for? It is not a good idea. The 
House started out with this, and they left it a long time ago and moved 
our way on the legislation. What is so ludicrous about this is, let's 
say we implement a test program for 5 years. Three percent of the 
aircraft have trained pilots and are carrying arms, and nothing happens 
for 5 years--and we would hope it would not--what does that mean? We 
are going to wait until something happens with the other 97 percent? 
And when something happens, we will increase it to 15 or 20 percent? It 
is illogical. We need this bill to pass now. Armed pilots. The pilots 
want it. The flight attendants want it. The American people want it. I 
hope the majority of the Senate wants it, as the majority of the House.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. Senator Smith has been eloquent and his leadership has 
been stalwart.
  I very much worry that some kind of test program is going to be put 
forward by the administration, as opposed to what we are doing. I ask 
my friend if he does not agree. We already know there are huge failure 
rates at the screening points. TSA said in some airports it was 40 
percent; in some it was 30 percent; and in some it was 20 percent.
  That means when the New York Daily News sent out reporters, and they 
came back after Labor Day and said they snuck on box cutters, pepper 
spray, knives, razor blades, all without detection, we already know, 
God forbid, we could theoretically and practically have another 
incident.
  Since we already know about that failure rate, and since we already 
know the military will shoot down commercial aircraft they decide is 
under control of hijackers, and since we know that the doors are not 
yet secure, and that in many cases they are open and the pilots come 
out or the flight attendants go in and they are guarded by a cart, 
don't we have enough information to move forward with this bill right 
now with this amendment?
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. I absolutely agree with the Senator. We 
do; we have more than enough information. I certainly do not think it 
is worth having a test program to wait and hope that something else 
does not happen again. We need to cut the odds dramatically. I don't 
know if it can be 100 percent, but we certainly can cut the odds 
dramatically. We need to restore the confidence of the American people 
to fly again.
  The stories just related are incredible--.357 magnums getting on 
aircraft. Another thing which has not been focused on, terrorists do 
not necessarily have to have something we can determine as a weapon; 
they have bare hands. They have been trained to murder. They have gone 
through the Bin

[[Page 16181]]

Laden terrorist camps. They are experts in martial arts. They can kill 
with their hands. Some small weapon could be helpful to a terrorist, 
but they could kill with their bare hands.
  They have to be stopped. The best way, of course, is to keep them off 
the planes. In the event they get on the plane, this is the last line 
of deterrence and defense. I am hopeful the Senate will realize this. I 
know it has been a long process. The House has had hearings. They 
marked a bill, 310 to 113, on July 10. Today we are considering 
essentially similar legislation--not exactly the same.
  The Allied Pilots Association, the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance, 
Airline Pilots Association, Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, 
Southwest Airlines Pilots Association, Association of Flight 
Attendants: all of these groups have not only supported this amendment 
but have worked very hard and talked to Members of Congress in a very 
informative, instructive, positive way, pleading with Congress to help 
them defend the people on those aircraft and the people on the ground.
  I have several items to print, including one from the pilots to 
President Bush, an editorial by Richard Cohen, and an editorial by 
George Will, and I ask unanimous consent these documents be printed in 
the Record.

                                                    April 3, 2002.
     Hon. George W. Bush,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As representatives of the largest 
     airline pilot organizations in this country, we would like 
     your assistance in the immediate development and 
     implementation of a program to defend the American traveling 
     public with voluntarily armed pilots.
       Public opinion polls and those within our own pilot groups 
     indicate overwhelming support for arming flight deck 
     crewmembers with lethal weapons. Nothing short of lethal 
     force can stop lethal intent to hijack and destroy our 
     aircraft and murder all on board. Yet the volunteer pilot 
     arming provisions of the Aviation and Transportation Security 
     Act of 2001 that you signed into law on November 19, 2001, 
     are being ignored.
       To remedy this situation, we ask for your assistance in 
     implementing a flight deck protection program that has the 
     following characteristics: All volunteer pilots must be 
     carefully screened, successfully trained and subsequently 
     designated by a federal law enforcement agency such as the 
     FBI or TSA; pilots so selected, screened and trained should 
     be deputized or have the same indemnification and protections 
     afforded other law enforcement officers in the employ of the 
     U.S. government; pilots must be certificated in weapons 
     handling, use of lethal force, carriage policy and procedure, 
     rules of engagement in all environments, recurrent training, 
     tort law, and other subjects deemed necessary by the 
     governing authority; choice of weapons and ammunition will be 
     mandated by the responsible federal agency; and certified 
     pilots will draw their weapons only for use in direct defense 
     of the flight deck in accordance with program ``use of 
     force'' rules.
       If the unthinkable happens again, there must be a means 
     provided for our flight crews to defeat any hijacker who 
     breaches the flight deck with a weapon and attempts to 
     destroy the aircraft. Otherwise, a U.S. fighter may be 
     ordered to shoot down a commercial airliner full of innocent 
     passengers. America's pilots must have lethal weapons as a 
     last line of defense against well-coordinated, highly trained 
     teams of terrorists.
       Each of our pilot groups has independently assessed and 
     recommended the best way to implement a plan to arm our 
     flight crews. Each has drawn similar conclusions closely 
     paralleling a proposed training program developed by the FBI 
     at the request of the Department of Justice. We have 
     forwarded our specific recommendations through the comment 
     process requested by the Federal Aviation Administration, and 
     stand ready to immediately assist your administration in the 
     establishment of such a program.
           Sincerely,
     Captain Duane Woerth,
       President, Air Line Pilots Association.
     Captain Tracy Price,
       President, Airline Pilot Security Alliance.
     Captain Jon Weaks,
       President, Southwest Airlines Pilots' Association.
     Captin John E. Darrah,
       President, Allied Pilots Association.
     Captain Bob Miller,
       President, Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, June 4, 2002]

                               Guns . . .

                           (By Richard Cohen)

       Careful readers of this column will remember when, some 
     years back, I was burglarized. It was the middle of the 
     night, sometime around 3 a.m., when I heard a noise--the back 
     door being forced open. I awoke with a start, tried to quiet 
     my thumping heart, rushed to the head of the stairs and heard 
     someone running around the floor below. At that moment, what 
     I wanted more than anything in the world was a gun.
       What I wanted at that moment--and only that moment, I 
     hasten to add--was denied last month to airline pilots who 
     just might have to deal with a terrorist somehow getting into 
     the cockpit. That this decision was made by the pro-gun Bush 
     administration only deepens the mystery. If I were a pilot, I 
     would want a gun in the cockpit. And in every survey, most 
     pilots say they do.
       The gun I would want would not be carried on my person. It 
     would not be on me when I went to the bathroom or left the 
     cockpit for any reason. It would be in a secure location, 
     accessible only to someone who knew a code, and while it 
     might be loaded with bullets that could stop a man but not 
     penetrate the fuselage, even conventional ammo does not 
     present an unacceptable risk. Planes don't deflate like 
     balloons from one or two bullet holes. And, anyway, air 
     marshals and other law enforcement officers already fly not 
     only armed but with conventional ammo.
       This gun would be used only as a last resort to stop a 
     terrorist from gaining control of the plane. It's probably 
     not too much to say that if pilots had had weapons on Sept. 
     11, the attacks might have been averted. A man with a box 
     cutter is no match for a man with a gun.
       The union that represents the pilots, the 62,000-member Air 
     Line Pilots Association, favors having a weapon in the 
     cockpit. Not all pilots agree, of course. Some of them feel 
     that arming pilots would distract from the real job at hand--
     making the cockpit as secure as possible as quickly as 
     possible. This includes, among other things, bulletproof 
     cockpit doors that can't be broken down. It also includes 
     beefing up the air marshal program. After all, El Al Israel's 
     national airline, does not arm its pilots and has not had a 
     hijacking since 1968. It uses sky marshals.
       But El Al has only 34 airplanes. The United States has more 
     20,000 flights a day. It will be a long time, if ever, before 
     there's a sky marshal on every flight. That cannot, of 
     course, be said for pilots. Every flight has at least one.
       Back in 1995, when he was governor of Texas, George W. Bush 
     signed a bill giving Texans the right to carry a concealed 
     weapon. The bill insisted only that the gun-toters be at 
     least 21, pass a criminal background check and have no 
     history of mental illness. I can only hope that pilots 
     already meet those criteria.
       If that's the case, then why is it somehow logical to allow 
     every Tom, Dick and Harry to pack some heat but to forbid 
     that same right to airline pilots, who, I may point out, 
     often are ex-military people? Regardless, they would all be 
     trained in the use of the gun, and their first duty, always, 
     would be to fly the plane--no matter what. Only if a 
     terrorist somehow managed to gain access to the cockpit would 
     the pilot use the weapon. Could even a stray shot be worse 
     than a commandeered plane on a terrorist mission?
       I am, like all reasonable people, in favor of the tightest 
     restrictions on guns. I fear the things, since they are 
     easily concealed and lethal. The more there are, the more 
     chances they will fall into the wrong hands. That is 
     precisely what I feared the night I was burglarized--not that 
     the burglar had a knife (I had scissors), but a gun.
       But even in my most anti-NRA moods, I want the cops to be 
     armed, since, among other things, just by being so, they 
     deter crime. Armed pilots would also be a deterrent. A 
     terrorist would not be dealing with the chance that an air 
     marshal is aboard but the certainty that, in the cockpit, it 
     is gun and a person--cool enough to be an airline pilot--who 
     is cool enough to use it. Just one night in my life, I wanted 
     a gun. On just one flight, a pilot might feel the same way.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, June 6, 2002]

                          Armed (and Trusted)

                          (By George F. Will)

       The next perpetrators of terrorism in America probably are 
     already here, perhaps planning more hijackings. Post Sept. 11 
     airport security measures may have made hijackings slightly 
     more difficult, but the fact that these are America's most 
     visible anti-terrorist measures vastly increases the 
     terrorists' payoff in proving the measures incapable of 
     keeping terrorists off airplanes.
       Recently this column presented, without endorsement, the 
     views of three commercial airline pilots who oppose guns in 
     cockpits. Today's column presents, and endorses, the views of 
     three other commercial airline pilots--two trained as fighter 
     pilots, one civilian-trained--who refute the other pilots' 
     principal contentions, which were:
       Proper policy regarding suicidal, hijackers is to land as 
     quickly as possible, which can be as quick as 10 minutes. So 
     priority should be given to making cockpits impenetrable. 
     Armed pilots might be tempted to imprudent bravery--
     particularly ``renegade'' pilots with fighter-pilot 
     mentalities, who would leave the cockpit to battle terrorists 
     in the main

[[Page 16182]]

     cabin. And arming pilots serves the pilots' union objective 
     of requiring a third pilot in each cockpit.
       The three pilots who favor allowing pilots to choose 
     whether to carry guns respond:
       Passengers already entrust their lives to pilot's 
     judgments. Landing a hijacked plan is indeed the first 
     priority, but pilots need to be alive to do that. A cockpit 
     impenetrably sealed from terrorists is an impossibility, in 
     part because planes cannot be landed as quickly as the other 
     three pilots say. An ignoble fear--of lawyers, of liability--
     explains why the airlines oppose arming pilots. But 
     legislation could immunize airlines from liability resulting 
     from harms suffered by passengers as a result of pilots' 
     resisting terrorists.
       Landing a plane from 30,000 feet requires at least 20 
     minutes, never just 10. A training flight, simulating a fire 
     emergency on a flight just 4,000 feet up and 15 miles from 
     Philadelphia's airport, takes about 12 minutes to land when 
     done perfectly. Transatlantic flights can be three hours from 
     a suitable airport. Such airports are not abundant west of 
     Iowa. Which means on most flights, terrorists would have time 
     to penetrate the cockpit.
       Bulletproof doors are not the answer: the Sept. 11 
     terrorists had no bullets. Well trained terrorists can blow 
     even a much-reinforced cockpit door off its hinges using a 
     thin thread of malleable explosive that can pass undetected 
     through passenger screening procedures when carried on a 
     person rather than in luggage. Here is what else can be 
     undetected by security screeners busy confiscating, 
     grandmothers' knitting needles:
       The knife with the six-inch serrated blade that a passenger 
     found, in a post-Sept. 11 flight, secreted under her seat. 
     Two semiautomatic pistols that recently passed unnoticed 
     through metal detectors and were discovered only when the 
     owner's bags were selected for a random search at the gate. A 
     mostly plastic 22-caliber gun that looks like a cell phone. 
     An entirely plastic and razor-sharp knife. A 
     ``bloodsucker''--it looks like a fountain pen but has a 
     cylindrical blade that can inflict a neck wound that will not 
     stop bleeding.
       The idea that arming pilots is a means of justifying a 
     third pilot is derisory: Reengineering cockpits for that 
     would be impossibly complex. Equally implausible is the idea 
     that a Taser (electric stun gun) is a satisfactory aid when 
     locked in a plane, seven miles up, with a team of trained 
     terrorists.
       A pilot's gun would never leave the cockpit because the 
     pilot never would. And shooting a terrorist standing in the 
     cockpit door frame would not require a sniper's skill. The 
     powerful pressurization controls, as well as the location and 
     redundancy of aircraft electronic, hydraulic and other 
     systems, vastly reduce the probability that even multiple 
     wayward gun shots--even of bullets that are not frangible--
     would cripple an aircraft.
       About fear of ``fighter pilot mentality'': The military 
     assiduously schools and screens pilot candidates to eliminate 
     unstable or undisciplined candidates. Airlines, too, 
     administer severe selection procedures for pilots, who are 
     constantly scrutinized. Captains have two physical 
     examinations a year (first officers, one) with psychological 
     components. Everything said in the cockpit is recorded.
       Besides, many passengers fly armed--county sheriffs, FBI 
     and Secret Service agents, postal inspectors, foreign body-
     guards of foreign dignitaries. Why, then, must the people on 
     whom all passengers' lives depend--pilots--be unarmed? 
     Especially considering that the prudent law enforcement 
     doctrine is that lethal force is warranted when menaced by 
     more than one trained and armed opponent.
       To thicken the layers of deterrence and security, in the 
     air as well as on the ground, Congress should promptly enact 
     legislation to empower pilots to choose to carry guns. Time 
     flies. So do hijackers. And the next ones probably are 
     already among us.
                                  ____

  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I reiterate:
  This amendment trains and arms commercial pilots with a firearm to 
defend the cockpit of our Nation's commercial aircraft from acts of 
terrorism. The amendment also provides for increased training for 
flight attendants and communications devices for pilots and flight 
attendants to have the latest communications and video monitoring 
devices.
  Today, there are no defensive capabilities our Nation's pilots. No 
firearms.
  Only Federal air marshals, on a very small percentage of commercial 
flights, are armed to defend against terrorism.
  When all else has failed to defend a commercial aircraft, the only 
option for the defense of the public from the use of a commercial 
aircraft as an instrument of mass terror is for the United States 
military to shoot down that commercial aircraft.
  I firmly believe that we should give our Nation's pilots & flight 
attendants a fighting chance against terrorists before our Government 
resorts to shooting commercial aircraft out of the sky.
  I am proud to have joined a bipartisan coalition including Senator 
Zell Miller, Senator Conrad Burns, Senator Frank Murkowski, and Senator 
Barbara Boxer in introducing our bill, S. 2554, the ``Arming Pilots 
Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002.''
  On July 21, 2001, the FAA limited the carriage of weapons of aircraft 
to certain law enforcement officers.
  September 11, 2001--the worst terrorist attack in U.S. History. That 
attack could have been prevented if pilots were armed.
  I was convinced of this fact by a wonderful and brave woman--Ellen 
Saracini of Pennsylvania.
  Over one month ago, I spoke at a press conference with Ellen 
Saracini.
  Ellen is the wife of the late Captain Vic Saracini.
  Captain Victor Saracini was the pilot of United Flight 175 on its way 
from Boston to Los Angeles when it was commandeered on September 11 and 
crashed into the World Trade Center Tower 2.
  Vic supported armed pilots before September 11th and Ellen has 
continued that support.
  Our nation has suffered a great loss with the loss of the pilots, 
flight attendants and thousands of victims of September 11th.
  I never ever want to see an event like September 11th happen again 
and I firmly believe that armed pilots will be an effective tool to 
prevent any future contemplated acts of terrorism.
  What we learned from September 11th is that a military jet shooting 
down a commercial aircraft is not only possible, it is now commonly 
considered as a part of airline security.
  We also recently learned that the military contemplated ramming 
commercial jets with military aircraft if they were hijacked weapons of 
mass destruction. On September 11th, I understand that the shooting 
down of commercial aircraft may have been necessary at the time. Today, 
there is no excuse not to arm pilots before we allow our military to 
shoot down commercial aircraft.
  At the time it was the right decision, because the despicable acts of 
September 11th were unthinkable--not anymore.
  Since September 11th, there have been some advancements in commercial 
airline security, yet, the most common sense legislation to train and 
arm commercial airline pilots, has yet to be implemented.
  The Aviation and Transportation Security Act was approved and signed 
into law. This act authorizes air carrier pilots to carry a firearm in 
the cockpit if: (1) the Undersecretary for TSA approves; (2) the air 
carrier approves; (3) the firearm is approved; and, (4) the pilot has 
received proper training.
  This law was passed as a result of my amendment in the Senate and a 
provision passed by the House. I was unhappy with the language, but I 
had the hope that the Department of Transportation would give adequate 
consideration to the issue of armed pilots.
  The FAA published a request for comments on whether pilots should be 
allowed to be armed on December 31, 2001. By March 15, 2002, the FAA 
had received over 7,500 comments and according to the FAA's analysis, 
more than 96% of the comments favored armed pilots. As a result of the 
open comment period, the TSA decided to agree with the 4% of 
respondents who disapproved of armed pilots and ignored the comments of 
96% of respondents.
  This is a critical point in the debate today. Today, the 
Transportation Security Administration is authorized to start training 
pilots in the proper use of a firearm to defend the cockpit. One pilot 
said that the current inaction on the part of TSA and the Department of 
Transportation is a criminal act of negligence. Maybe this inaction is 
a political act of negligence that needs to be addressed by the Senate 
today.
  On May 21, 2002, the former Under Secretary for Transportation 
Security, John Magaw, testified that he would not approve the arming of 
commercial pilots.

[[Page 16183]]

  The House passed a strong armed pilots bill by an overwhelming 
margin--today the Senate finally considers an amendment to train and 
arm pilots.
  The bottom line is that armed pilots are the first line of deterrence 
and last line of defense to terrorism.
  First line of deterrence, because terrorists will never target 
American commercial aircraft again, if terrorists know that an armed 
pilot will end an attempted hijacking with deadly force.
  Last line of defense, because an armed pilot is the last line of 
defense before an F-16 or other military aircraft shoots down a 
hijacked aircraft full of innocent civilians. It really is that simple.
  Nonlethal weapons are a great supplement to a firearm--but it is not 
an alternative.
  Our nation's air marshals are armed with a firearm. Maybe they should 
also be given a stun gun or a tazer, but nobody in this chamber would 
argue that our nation's air marshals should only have a stun gun. 
Tazers and stun guns are good to disable one or two terrorists, but a 
firearm is the best alternative to defend against a September 11th 
style attack.
  The pilots and the flight attendants want safer travel. My 
understanding is that the Department of Transportation initially 
opposed arming pilots because of liability issues. Our amendment grants 
the airlines a limited liability shield to protect from aggressive 
trial lawyers. Our amendment will ensure that the pilots and airlines 
are not held liable for actions taken to protect the lives of the crew 
and passengers from terrorist attack.
  A commercial aircraft is not going to crash as a result of the 
discharge of a firearm on a commercial aircraft. On May 2, 2002, Ron 
Hinderberger of the Boeing Company testified before the House Committee 
on Transportation. Hinderberger said: ``The risk of loss of an aircraft 
due to a stray round from a hand gun is very slight.''
  The cost of this program is not going to be too much to bear. The 
cost that I never want this nation to pay again--is another September 
11 style attack on the United States of America. I am willing to work 
with the good members of the Senate to keep the cost of this program to 
a minimum. My office has consulted some private training facilities 
including Gunsight in Arizona and Blackwater Lodge in North Carolina. 
Both have assured my office that the cost would be minimal. Gunsight 
quotes the cost at about $2000 per pilot for initial training and about 
$700 per pilot for recurrent training.
  The amendment contains findings that we inserted at the request of 
Senator Barbara Boxer that a Federal air marshall should be on all high 
risk flights.
  The amendment creates a Federal Flight Deck Officer Program to train 
and arm pilots.
  Ninety days after the bill is passed the Undersecretary for 
Transportation shall establish a program to deputize qualified pilots 
who volunteer for the armed pilots program.
  The bill grants pilots the authority to use force and provides a 
liability protection for pilots acting in scope of their duties as 
Federal Flight Deck Officers.
  The amendment establishes the Aviation Crewmember Self-Defense 
Division within the TSA to train flight attendants to prepare them for 
terrorist and criminal threats.
  Another provisions states that the air carriers shall provide flight 
and cabin crew with a discreet, hands free wireless method of 
communicating. The purpose of this device is to provide a method for 
the pilot to communicate with the flight attendant to understand if 
there is a threat to a commercial aircraft.
  Also, another provision was added at the request of Senator Boxer to 
provide a real time and cost effective video monitoring device for the 
pilot to monitor the activities in the passenger's cabin. This gives a 
pilot a view of any possible threat to the pilot's cockpit without 
having to open the cockpit door.
  Today it is an honor to be fighting on behalf of the pilots, flight 
attendants, commercial airline passengers, and the American people who 
support the idea of armed pilots and trained flight attendants on the 
floor of the United States Senate.
  If my state of New Hampshire is any barometer of the popularity of 
Armed Pilots--the Congress would pass this amendment by Unanimous 
Consent right now.
  The House of Representatives conducted hearings, marked up and passed 
an armed pilots bill by a margin of 310-113 on July 10th.
  Today, the Senate is considering a similar armed pilots amendment and 
it is my hope and prayer that this amendment is passed by the 
anniversary of September 11th. One year is long enough for the American 
people to wait for this common sense and reasonable amendment to arm 
pilots and train flight attendants.
  Also, I want to thank the Allied Pilots Association, the Airline 
Pilots' Security Alliance, the Air Lines Pilots Association, the 
Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations, the Southwest Airlines 
Pilots' Association and the Association of Flight Attendants for the 
leadership and hard work these groups have completed to help the 
Congress draft and pass an armed pilots and trained flight attendant's 
bill.
  Yesterday, we learned that many different reporters investigating 
airport security were able to smuggle small knives and pepper spray 
through the checkpoints of 11 airports over Labor Day weekend.
  These airports included Newark International, Logan Airport in 
Boston, Dulles Airport, O'Hare, LaGuardia and Kennedy, among others.
  These are our largest and busiest airports, where security should be 
the tightest.
  And this report is certainly not the only instance where weapons have 
passed through security without detection.
  But we have to assume that occasionally mistakes happen, even at our 
biggest and busiest airports.
  Some sort of weapon could be smuggled aboard an airplane.
  All it took on September 11th was a few box-cutter knives.
  This recent example of screening insecurity is just another reason 
why airline pilots need to be armed.
  Because they will provide the first line of deterrence and the last 
line of defense.
  In other words, if terrorists know that the pilots have firearms, 
then they will be less likely to attempt a takeover.
  But if the unthinkable happens and a terrorist gets through security 
with some sort of weapon and then tries to take over a plane, the plan 
is to start descending to land the plane immediately, and to use the 
firearm if the terrorists try to get into the cockpit.
  The terrorists will not be able to get into the cockpit with armed 
pilots.
  And the lives of passengers and the crew, as well as perhaps 
thousands of Americans on the ground, will be saved.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from New 
Hampshire is right. Pilots do work hard. I have commented to that 
effect on other occasions, and on other measures. Our problem is, 
looking at the Senate floor, we have two Senators, maybe three at the 
most. What really occurs is that we are addressing a ``fixed'' jury.
  In other words, 35 years ago when I came to the Senate, we did not 
have the luxury of television. So if you wanted to know what was going 
on, you had to come over on the floor. Invariably, there were always 20 
to 30 Republican Senators in their cloakroom, and 20 to 30 Democrats in 
their cloakroom. If an issue was raised, you could make a point and 
come right out on the floor. Or if you agreed with a particular 
Senator, you could thank him for his observation. In a sense, we would 
learn from each other.
  We now have the TV everywhere. Incidentally, if you are watching it 
in your office and you find you want to raise a point, you come to the 
floor quickly; then you find out someone else has been waiting an hour, 
another Senator has been waiting a half hour, so your opportunity is 
totally missed.

[[Page 16184]]

But the real point is, we do not listen to each other.
  The pilots have worked--he is dead right, they have worked this bill. 
And to my surprise, it has come up this afternoon.
  I have tried my very best to improve airline security since the 
terrorist attacks. As the chairman of the Commerce Committee, I got the 
best possible witnesses together, and we immediately passed out of the 
committee a bipartisan, unanimous airline security measure. We passed 
it out of the Senate 100 to 0.
  While we had the view in the Senate that airline security should be 
within the Justice Department in order to compromise and get things 
done, we went along with the House and kept it in the Transportation 
Department which proved to be, of course, a mistake in that we wasted 
now 6 or 7 months in confirming the man who took over, but was replaced 
in the particular role as head of transportation security. Without much 
debate and without a report we just put his nomination up on the floor 
and we voted to have him confirmed so he could get off to a running 
start.
  In any event, we made a mistake. I realize we were behind the curve, 
and we had a some unnecessary requirements with respect to airline 
security and they were going in the wrong direction in some instances.
  Let me say categorically, I am pleased Admiral Loy, the Commandant of 
the Coast Guard--we had the Coast Guard authorization in our particular 
committee, so we worked closely with Admiral Loy on Coast Guard and 
seaport security. We had field hearings together, as well as within the 
Senate. He is very realistic, very attune, an expert, very 
professional, very much experienced on security. He had not taken over 
for very long before the August break. I did not demand that he respond 
to questions for his nomination, but I gave him our questions in a 2-
page letter and said: Work over August and we will have a hearing on 
this security measure, the guns.
  I am constantly asked by the press about this issue, and we would be 
delighted to vote on guns in the cockpit, we would be delighted to vote 
in the committee.
  We had this hearing scheduled. I talked to Admiral Loy only 
yesterday. He has answered our letter, and he is ready to go next 
Tuesday.
  He has been doing just the right kind of work, getting around and 
conferring with the airport managers and getting everybody working 
together. Not unlike the former occupant of this desk who greatly 
impressed me, Senator Robert Kennedy. He had never been in the 
courtroom, but when he was selected as the Attorney General of the 
United States, he was the first Attorney General to go around and shake 
hands with the 32,000 in the Justice Department at that time.
  You have to get your team working together. Admiral Loy has done 
that. But I say it is a fixed jury because the pilots, as the Senator 
from New Hampshire has pointed out, have been working this issue. We 
all have many responsibilities. I just have not had the opportunity to 
bring up the facts and test what we already have. The Senator from 
California said: ``And since we know this, and since we know that,'' 
why have any further tests? I could not agree with the distinguished 
Senator from California any more. We do know. How do we know? We know 
from the best of the best.
  There is one airline that is under the gun. That is the Israeli 
airline, El Al. In fact, they have been so successful in preventing 
hijacking that they do not even have attempted hijackings, as far as we 
know. They just go after the ticket counter itself, as they did in Los 
Angeles, and shoot it up and kill those people there.
  But knowing El Al is the most under-the-gun airline, we had the 
privilege of talking to a gentleman, the chief pilot of El Al, in 
September of last year. It was just about a year ago, slightly less 
than a year.
  He said: ``Senator, what you want to do is get a secure door to the 
cockpit. That is the last line of defense. Not a gun--the last line of 
defense is that secure door. And that door is never, ever to be opened 
in flight.'' Once the door is secure and if there is any disturbance 
whatsoever in the cabin, they go immediately to the ground and law 
enforcement meets them there.
  The chief pilot of El Al emphasized--I will never forget it--he said: 
``Senator, they can be assaulting my wife in the cabin. I do not open 
that door.''
  And for 30 years they have not had a hijacking.
  We have a test, and that is why I am on the floor of the Senate 
trying to make sense out of this bad mistake that is about to be made 
because there is one thing you do not want to do, and that is put 
weaponry on the plane itself. In fact, the marshals pointing their guns 
recently on that Delta flight going into Philadelphia--wrong. You don't 
point your gun, and law enforcement and gun safety dictate that, unless 
you intend to use it. Anybody should know that.
  So even our marshals need better training already. But be that as it 
may, for 30 years now they have not had a hijacking on El Al Airlines. 
We have had a test and we know it.
  The trouble is, this has been worked politically. I know how the 
system works. I look around and I look for the measures and speakers 
who will talk in support of it. I find out that Senators who first were 
inclined to vote with me and listen and understand the problem, they 
have gone. I know the White House position is they should not have 
them. It has been announced and reaffirmed that they do not want pilots 
to carry guns in the cockpit. But you don't see anybody out here 
defending President Bush and the policy of this administration.
  More to the point, I could talk all day long, or talk into next week 
and just hold the floor. I hope we can work out a compromise with 
respect to keeping the door closed. But let me read a letter, which is 
new to me. It was less than an hour ago when I had an appointment with 
Mr. Leo Mullin, the chief executive officer of Delta Airlines down in 
Atlanta, down in my backyard. Mr. Mullin was there and mentions the 
discussion we had about the economic travails of air transport in 
America. He said:

       By the way, I want to thank you for your leadership on 
     this.

  I haven't led anybody. I can't find anybody behind me. I am not a 
leader unless they let my staff vote. I think they would go along with 
me. But I haven't been able to find a Senator to go with me, and we 
have called the White House.
  You can rest for a while. Don't worry about it because I am going to 
take a little time and give you all some rest. I know I am doing the 
Lord's work.
  This letter is dated today.

       Dear Senator Hollings: With the safety of our passengers 
     and crewmembers as our number one priority, we are writing to 
     convey our serious concerns regarding S. 2554 that would 
     permit the use of firearms by pilots aboard commercial 
     aircraft. As discussions continue on the merits of this 
     subject, we stand ready to work with Congress and the 
     Administration in an effort to reach a prudent consensus 
     position. It must be noted, however, that while we are 
     spending literally billions of dollars to keep dangerous 
     weapons off of aircraft, the idea of intentionally 
     introducing thousands of deadly weapons into the system 
     appears to be dangerously counter-productive.

  Divert right here. I ask unanimous consent the letter in its entirety 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                         Air Transport Association


                                             of America, Inc.,

                                Washington, DC, September 5, 2002.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: With the safety of our passengers 
     and crewmembers as our number one priority, we are writing to 
     convey our serious concerns regarding S. 2554 that would 
     permit the use of firearms by pilots aboard commercial 
     aircraft. As discussions continue on the merits of this 
     subject, we stand ready to work with Congress and the 
     Administration in an effort to reach a prudent consensus 
     position. It must be noted, however, that while we are 
     spending literally billions of dollars to keep dangerous 
     weapons off of aircraft, the idea of intentionally 
     introducing thousands of deadly weapons into the system 
     appears to be dangerously counter-productive.

[[Page 16185]]

       In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, we 
     understand the rationale for providing crewmembers with means 
     to defend themselves and their aircraft. However, we believe 
     that allowing guns aboard every aircraft is ill-advised.
       A variety of serious safety, technical and training issues 
     have been raised that require answers prior to moving forward 
     with any proposal to even consider the use of firearms by 
     cockpit crews. To ensure the safety and security of our 
     customers and employees, we have a duty and obligation to ask 
     these tough questions and to have a clear understanding of 
     the answers. Otherwise, innocent passengers and crewmembers 
     will be killed or injured through accidental firings of 
     weapons, or worse, there being used against crews and 
     passengers.
       We believe that the public must know what studies or 
     testing have been conducted to determine the effects of an 
     accidental weapon discharge in a pressurized aircraft at 
     altitude, or discharge into a sophisticated instrument panel? 
     How will the firearm be stowed, maintained and protected from 
     misuse between flights, particularly when the aircraft is 
     parked overnight or deployed in international operations? 
     What is the process to measure the ability of armed pilots to 
     handle a firearm in the close confines of the cockpit? Will 
     the training program disrupt the airline's ability to operate 
     their schedules? How often are firearms utilized by trained 
     law enforcement officers lost, misplaced, stolen, fired 
     accidentally or used against the officer carrying the 
     weapons.
       The Transportation Security Administration has testified 
     that the cost to the government for the program is 
     approximately $860 million. In light of programs already 
     completed and underway to secure cockpit doors, we seriously 
     question the cost effectiveness of a program mandated in S. 
     2554 that would impose a further burden on scarce TSA 
     resources. Indeed, with secure cockpit doors now being 
     further upgraded with even higher protective capabilities, 
     the advisability of introducing dangerous and unnecessary 
     weapons in the cockpit environment must be carefully 
     considered.
       Until such time as validated answers to these and other 
     questions are available, we believe that a decision to deploy 
     firearms aboard commercial aircraft raises a serious and 
     unnecessary risk for both passengers and crewmembers. Just as 
     we would not introduce an aircraft into service without 
     thorough testing, training of crewmembers and evaluating all 
     safety measures, no one should place deadly weapons in the 
     hands of flight crews without a thorough evaluation.
       In view of these concerns, we urge you to reject calls for 
     the introduction of thousands of deadly weapons into the 
     cockpits of our aircraft.
           Sincerely,
         ATA Board of Directors: Carl D. Donaway, Chairman & CEO, 
           Airborne, Express; John F. Kelly, Chairman, Alaska 
           Airlines; Glenn R. Zander, President & CEO, Aloha 
           Airlines; W. Douglas Parker, Chairman, President & CEO, 
           America West Airlines; Donald J. Carty, Chairman & CEO, 
           American Airlines; J. George Mikelsons, Chairman, 
           President & CEO, American Trans Air; Richard H. 
           Shuyler, Chief Executive Officer, Atlas Air; Gordon 
           Bethune, Chairman & CEO, Continental Airlines; Leo F. 
           Mullin, Chairman & CEO, Delta Air Lines; Vicki 
           Bretthauer, Acting Chief Executive Officer, DHL 
           Airways; Jerry Trimarco, Chief Executive Officer, Emery 
           Worldwide; Anthony E. Bauckham, President, Evergreen 
           International Airlines; Frederick W. Smith, Chairman & 
           CEO, FedEx Corporation; John W. Adams, Chairman, 
           President & CEO, Hawaiian Airlines; David Neeleman, 
           Chief Executive Officer, JetBlue Airways; Timothy E. 
           Hoeksema, Chairman, President & CEO, Midwest Express 
           Airlines; Richard H. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, 
           Northwest Airlines; Herbert D. Kelleher, Chairman, 
           Southwest Airlines; Glenn Tilton, Chairman, President & 
           CEO, United Airlines; David N. Siegel, President & CEO, 
           US Airways; Thomas H. Weidemeyer, President, United 
           Parcel Service Airlines

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I think there are 101,249 commercial airline pilots 
with active pilot certificates. So we could have 100,000 running around 
here with pistols. And, incidentally, possibly getting pistols on board 
for the hijackers because you have to understand that hijacking has 
changed now.
  You don't just have an individual coming on board because he wants to 
fly to Cuba. You don't have somebody escaping criminal justice because 
he wants to get out of the country. We know and we have been put on 
notice, they have five-man teams, professional suicidal terrorists. Try 
that on, Senator Smith. Try that on as a pilot. You are a big man. I 
think Senator Smith could take care of two of them. I think he could 
take care of two of them and, with a pistol, maybe take care of three. 
But while he has already killed three, unloading, quick, the pistol, 
they still have two more that are going to knock him down and take over 
the other pilot.
  You crack that door and you are a goner. You are not going to stop 
professional teams of suicidal attackers. I don't care how good a pilot 
or how much training you have had, it is not going to happen. That 
plane is going to be taken over.
  Think about the situation where there is some disruption and I have a 
pistol and some fellow is coming after me and I can defend myself. That 
is not the problem. The problem here is to prevent, if you please, 
Senator, an airline in the United States, a commercial airline, from 
ever being used as a weapon of mass destruction. You don't want to save 
people from getting hurt or whatever else, but you save it, with all 
that fuel aboard, from ever being run into the Chrysler Building, the 
Empire State Building, the Sears Building, the Coca-Cola Building down 
there in Atlanta--wherever they want to run it. They can make a mark if 
they wiped out the Coca-Cola Building in Atlanta, I can tell you that. 
And that is the whole idea. It is not necessarily how many, but to get 
it on national news.
  So it is that they commercially trade. They stay in country for at 
least 2 years. They are disciplined. You never know they are here. They 
train at the gym every day, they are physically fit, and they go on-
board planes not with pistols but with box cutters, or whatever else 
they have on them. But they know how to break in any ordinary cracked 
door and take over that plane. So you can't crack the door. They should 
never be opened in flight--and we would have a 30-year record of no 
hijacks and never have this occur again.
  There is one way I know of that I can guarantee the American public 
the best security I can--if anybody can give that guarantee--is to take 
the El Al procedure and protocol and follow it to the letter T. They 
have a 30-year track record of success.
  I will go ahead and read because they have something about testing. I 
am not worried about cost. I am not worried about testing. I am not 
worried about the professionalism in the trade. I am worried about this 
never, ever happening again--no 9/11.
  I am able, if I can get a majority of this body to go along with me 
and go along with the administration, to give the public that kind of 
assurance--that they can get on a plane; immediately the plane will 
take off. You won't have the plane flying around above you, ``Hey, they 
are ready to shoot you down,'' because you have secured the cockpit 
door and there is not going to be any need to shoot down a plane. The 
plane itself is not going down because it was forced. You don't have to 
worry about it because it is going by a big building or a nuclear power 
plant. You don't have to worry about, 30 minutes after takeoff and 30 
minutes before landing, keeping your seat, because you are not going to 
have to worry about that kind of activity, and that is a silly rule, if 
I have ever heard one. It is one that we ought to be able to get rid 
of. You don't have to worry about taking off from Reagan National and 
running into the White House. You don't have to worry about that 
because as they take off, the door is secure. If they start storming 
the door, they will land at Dulles with law enforcement to meet them. 
That hijacking team knows they are going off to the jail. I have given 
them the guarantee.
  But if, in turn, you want to support these pistols in the cockpit and 
if you are going to guarantee that weaponry is there, we hope they can 
use it. Getting it on the plane and keeping it in the cockpit--a secure 
little safe, or whatever it is--it is just a bad idea to arm a plane.
  Let me read further, since the entire letter is one of particular 
interest.
  I quote from the letter from the Air Transport Association:

       In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, we 
     understand the rationale for providing crewmembers with means 
     to defend themselves and their aircraft. However, we believe 
     that allowing guns aboard every aircraft in the absence of 
     comprehensive research and testing and without a full 
     evaluation of the potential consequences, is ill-advised.

[[Page 16186]]

       A variety of serious safety, technical and training issues 
     have been raised that require answers prior to moving forward 
     with any proposal to allow the use of firearms by cockpit 
     crews. To ensure the safety and security of our customers and 
     employees, we have a duty and obligation to ask these tough 
     questions and to have a clear understanding of the answers. 
     Otherwise, innocent passengers and crewmembers could be 
     killed or injured--through accidental firings of weapons or, 
     worse, their being used against crews and passengers.
       For example, what studies or testing have been conducted to 
     determine the effects of an accidental weapon discharge in a 
     pressurized aircraft at altitude, or discharge into a 
     sophisticated instrument panel? How will the firearm be 
     stowed, maintained and protected from misuse between flights, 
     particularly when the aircraft is parked overnight or 
     deployed in international operations?

  Let me divert. There is a law in a lot of these countries that you 
can't have a weapon. There is not going to be a weapon in a cockpit if 
you land in downtown Heathrow. We know that. You have all kinds of 
considerations that come into this.
  Let me further read from the letter:

       What is the process to measure the ability of armed pilots 
     to handle a firearm in the close confines of the cockpit? 
     Will the training program disrupt the airline's ability to 
     operate their schedules?

  How often are firearms utilized by trained law enforcement officers? 
Will they be lost, or misplaced? Will they be fired accidentally, or 
used against the officer carrying the weapon?
  I have the figures on that. In some years, over 10 percent of law 
enforcement officers are killed when their own weapons are used against 
them. I have all kinds of criminal statistics from the FBI.
  I read further:

       The Transportation Security Administration has testified 
     that the cost to the government for the program is 
     approximately $850 million.

  I agree with the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire. I am not 
worried about the cost. Some should be worried about costs. As of 
yesterday at 11 o'clock, the deficit was $394 billion, and by the end 
of the month it will exceed $400 billion. But you can see what they are 
doing now. They are trying to offload expenditures into the next fiscal 
year because they are worried about the campaign a couple of months 
from this time in November. And they have come from a $5.6 trillion 
surplus. They already have created a $400 billion deficit. Nobody wants 
to talk about it. We asked corporate America for a certificate under 
oath that we have gotten corporate America away from corruption--
certified by the CEO. Get the CEO of the U.S. Government to certify his 
figure. No way, Jose.
  I will go back. I read that sentence again in this letter.

       The Transportation Security Administration has testified 
     that the cost to the government for the program is 
     approximately $850 million. In light of programs already 
     completed and underway to secure cockpit doors, we seriously 
     question the cost effectiveness of a program mandated in S. 
     2554 that would impose a further burden on scarce TSA 
     resources.

  Therein I divert to join the Senator from New Hampshire and the 
Senator from California. I am not worried about the cost. I think they 
are right. When we are trying to prevent a 9/11, let us not start 
talking money around here. When somebody is against something, they all 
want to start talking money. But when I get up and try to get it paid 
for, I can't find anybody who wants to pay.
  Talking about Social Security, we have been using that as a piggy 
bank, and not a lockbox. Come on. We know it.

       Indeed, with secure cockpit doors now being further 
     upgraded with even higher protective capabilities, the 
     advisability of introducing dangerous and unnecessary weapons 
     in the cockpit environment must be carefully considered.
       Until such time as validated answers to these and other 
     questions are available, we believe that a decision to deploy 
     firearms aboard commercial aircraft raises a serious and 
     unnecessary risk for both passengers and crewmembers. Just as 
     we would not introduce an aircraft into service without 
     thorough testing, training of crewmembers and evaluating all 
     safety measures, no one should place deadly weapons in the 
     hands of flight crews without a thorough evaluation.
       In view of these concerns, we urge you to reject calls for 
     the introduction of thousands of deadly weapons into the 
     cockpits of our aircraft.

  I say to the Senator from California, you had a nice letter and 
thousands of pilots. Here are the people who are running the airlines, 
the ATA board of directors: Carl D. Donaway, chairman and CEO of 
Airborne Express; John F. Kelly, chairman of Alaska Airlines; Glenn R. 
Zander, president and CEO of Aloha Airlines; W. Douglas Parker, 
chairman, president, and CEO of American West Airlines; Donald J. 
Carty, chairman and CEO of American Airlines; J. George Mikelsons, 
chairman, president, and CEO of American Trans Air; Richard H. Shuyler, 
chief executive officer of Atlas Air; Gordon Bethune, chairman and CEO 
of Continental Airlines; Leo F. Mullin, chairman and CEO of Senator 
Miller's airline, Delta Air Lines; Vicki Bretthauer, acting chief 
executive officer of DHL Airways; Jerry Trimarco, chief executive 
officer, Emery Worldwide; Anthony E. Bauckham, president of Evergreen 
International Airlines; Frederick W. Smith, chairman and CEO of FedEx 
Corporation; John W. Adams, chairman, president, and CEO of Hawaiian 
Airlines; David Neeleman, chief executive officer of JetBlue Airways; 
Timothy E. Hoeksema, chairman, president, and CEO of Midwest Express 
Airlines; Richard H. Anderson, chief executive officer of Northwest 
Airlines; Herbert D. Kelleher, chairman of Southwest Airlines; Glenn 
Tilton, chairman, president, and CEO of United Airlines; David N. 
Siegel, president and CEO of US Airways; Thomas H. Weidemeyer, 
president of United Parcel Service Airlines. I think----
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. For a question, yes, ma'am, I am glad to yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator. The Senator always makes a great 
argument for his position, but I have to say, these are the very same 
airlines who have not given the flight attendants one new bit of 
training.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I will agree with the Senator 100 percent. We have to 
get the flight attendants.
  Mrs. BOXER. Good.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. They are on the front lines. We call them in a war, the 
MLR, the main line of resistance. With my door secure, it is the flight 
attendants who are going to have to defends themselves while getting 
the plane down to the ground.
  Mrs. BOXER. I know the Senator is with us on that. I want to make the 
point, though, as you name the names of folks who are good folks and 
good business-people--some better business-people than others--they 
have not embraced a lot of things that you and I embrace. In this case 
you agree with them, But they are not in the planes. They fly around in 
their own corporate jets.
  I say to my friend, it is the flight attendants, the pilots, and the 
passengers in the planes. I honestly think if you want to look to who 
the leaders are on safety, I would rather look to the pilots and the 
flight attendants.
  But I know my friend feels very strongly about the cockpit doors, and 
I so agree with him. I just want to pose this question to him. He will 
have the floor as long as he wants, although I hope we can reach some 
agreement on the doors so we can end this lengthy debate.
  The Kevlar doors, which have been put into some of the JetBlue 
planes, to me, are a tremendous answer because you cannot penetrate 
that Kevlar door if it is kept shut.
  So I want to know if my friend had seen a demonstration of that 
Kevlar. And as we work together on the committee, I want to work with 
you on those doors. But I hope we can accommodate you in this bill and 
that we can bring this to a vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Right. Well, I don't know about agreeing to the vote. I 
want to hear some more. I might be persuaded by the Senator from 
Georgia or the Senator from New Hampshire. I am sure they are going to 
have more to say.
  But, yes, one, on the flight attendants, absolutely we have to. And 
we have that hearing next week. And we finally have someone in charge 
of airline security. You know it. I think you

[[Page 16187]]

like Admiral Loy. I like Admiral Loy. He is the bipartisan choice of 
the committee.
  Mrs. BOXER. Right.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. So, working with him, we are going to find out his 
steps, and when, and get realistic drop-dead dates, and so forth, 
especially airports--that they can't be rebuilt--and get this equipment 
in and everything else.
  I remember the distinguished Senator said: Look, they make them out 
in my backyard, and they are only making seven a month. They can make 
50 a month if they have the orders.
  This was last year.
  Mrs. BOXER. Right.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. They were not ordering all the things. They were 
wondering about the curtains in the office and the logo. Do you not 
remember?
  Mrs. BOXER. Right.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. So we are together on that. I will agree with you on 
the flight attendants and anything else we can possibly get done to 
increase safety, and more than anything else, get the airline business 
back up and going.
  I am very much disturbed that we could adopt the Smith-Boxer 
amendment, and you could have a plane being used as a weapon of mass 
destruction. There isn't any question about it. It is not going to be 
one fellow, and one fellow defending himself in the cockpit. I can see 
it now, with the flight attendant outside saying, ``He's killing me''--
whatever it is--``Open the door.'' Once that door is slightly cracked, 
they have their team, and they will have practiced how to take over 
that plane.
  They will take the shots, the first two or something like that, but 
the other three will get in and have that plane. And they will have 
control and they will have pistols. They will take that pistol away. I 
can tell you that here and now.
  So you have really weaponized the aircraft, which El Al says do not 
ever do that. I can tell you that right now. Don't weaponize. They do 
not have weapons in the cockpit.
  With that having been said, that is why I feel as strongly as I do. 
We have had the tests. I agree with the distinguished colleagues. We 
are not worried about cost in this instance. We have already spent $15 
billion to keep people economically going. To save one life, I would 
spend another $15 billion. So it is not the cost; it is not the 
training; this is a tested and true program of never having had a 
hijacking in 30 years.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. MILLER. Madam President, I believe that my timing could have been 
a little better.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, will the Senator from Georgia yield for a 
question?
  Mr. MILLER. Yes.
  Mr. REID. I have heard a lot of the debate--not all of the debate--
and I have had a number of Senators from both sides who are interested 
in knowing when they could leave. I was trying to figure out a better 
way to say that. I wonder if there is any idea now from the Senators 
involved--Senators Boxer, Smith, and Hollings--as to how much longer is 
needed to debate this before we have a vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Not quite yet.
  Mrs. BOXER. If I might just answer the question this way: I would 
say, in all honesty, the ball is in the court of my chairman, Chairman 
Hollings. We have a couple of people who want to talk, but they are not 
asking for a lot of time. They have brief comments. But as soon as the 
Senator from South Carolina believes he is ready, we are ready. We do 
not have anything else we have to add. So we are working with him. We 
are trying to work with him on the issue of cockpit doors. We are 
hoping that it will occur to him to perhaps support us or at least 
allow us to have a vote. We just have to wait and see.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate very much the Senator from 
Georgia yielding. I just say this: I can remember when the Senator 
offered his amendment, which was adopted overwhelmingly, on the energy 
bill that pickups would not be subject to SUV guidelines. And I had a 
conversation with the Senator from Georgia at that time that I thought 
it should be a requirement that all pickups sold in the United States 
should come out with gun racks. Do you remember that, Senator?
  Mr. MILLER. I would be happy not to make any remarks and we vote 
right now. I am not anxious to follow Senator Hollings in this debate. 
But if we are not going to have a vote right now, then I think I will 
make some remarks.
  Mr. REID. I think you should proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. MILLER. Madam President, as I started to say, my timing could be 
somewhat better than following my good friend from South Carolina.
  No one in this body or outside of this body has more respect, more 
admiration, and more downright affection for someone than I do for the 
Senator from South Carolina. His record as Lieutenant Governor, as 
Governor, and as Senator for 35 years is stuff of which legends are 
made. On this issue, unfortunately, I disagree with him, because I rise 
today in support of this amendment.
  Our airline pilots are among the most highly trained professionals in 
all of the American workforce. Every day millions of Americans put 
their lives in the hands of airline pilots, and we have great reason to 
give them our trust.
  Thanks to literally thousands and thousands of hours of training, 
commercial airline pilots have made aviation our Nation's safest form 
of public transportation. But since September 11, our Nation's pilots 
are faced with a grave new danger: Homicidal fanatics who think nothing 
of using our airplanes to kill themselves and as many Americans as they 
can.
  With these new threats, the American public has uniformly called for 
giving the pilots every measure of protection possible in order to make 
our skies safer.
  But there are some folks who are leery of putting their trust in our 
Nation's pilots. I cannot understand the logic that says we can trust 
someone with a Boeing 747 in bad weather, but we cannot trust that same 
person with a Glock 9 millimeter.
  The folks who oppose arming pilots say we should put our trust 
elsewhere. We have heard about making the doors stronger. We have heard 
about security screeners. The Senator from California talked about the 
recent examples in the airports in New York where so many went through 
with things that they should not have had in their luggage. We all know 
how that is. We travel. We see it. Deep down we know it is a screening 
process that our Nation's Transportation Security Administration's own 
studies show fails one out of every four times. So let's face it, if 
our pilots were failing one out of every four landings, America would 
not be putting our trust in them to keep us safe.
  Our Nation's air safety plan has multiple levels, from little steps 
such as banning nail clippers, all the way up to authorizing military 
fighter aircraft to shoot down a commercial jetliner filled with 
innocent passengers.
  Why is there not--somewhere between banning nail clippers and 
shooting down the plane, somewhere between those two extremes--some 
room for allowing a trained pilot to use a handgun to defend the 
cockpit?
  Some critics have worried what might happen if terrorists got hold of 
the gun, to which I would answer: Nothing worse than if terrorists got 
control of the aircraft. Others wonder what happens if a bullet goes 
astray in the fight with a terrorist. Could it damage the aircraft? I 
would answer: Yes, but not nearly as much as a missile that would be 
fired at the aircraft if terrorists took control.
  If you have any doubts about how the American public feels about this 
subject, ask them this question: If you had to choose between flying on 
an airline with pilots who were armed to protect the cockpit and an 
airline whose pilots were unarmed, which would you choose? I am 
convinced they would overwhelmingly choose to fly with armed pilots, 
and I am just as convinced that terrorists would prefer to fly with 
defenseless pilots.
  That is why I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan amendment to train 
and

[[Page 16188]]

arm our Nation's airline pilots. I, for one, trust our Nation's pilots 
to keep me safe when I fly. But I want to give them more than just my 
trust. I want to give them the training and the tools they need to keep 
all Americans safe in the air.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I have recently--in fact, today--
received a copy of a letter that was addressed to me as well as 
primarily to Senator Hollings, chairman of the Commerce Committee. I 
think it is an important letter.
  The views of the administration should be considered, as is always 
the case or should always be the case when we are dealing with issues. 
This one, of course, is very emotional and, frankly, an issue which has 
been polarizing in some respects.
  I would like to read this letter that was delivered today. I hope my 
colleagues will pay attention to some of the concerns raised here and 
perhaps understand that there are some difficult issues that need to be 
addressed. Among them are training, cockpit modifications, coordination 
with other nations and international airlines--for example, landing in 
a country that has stricter gun control laws--and complying with State 
and local gun control laws. As we know, there are different laws in 
different States, the issue of legal liability, support organization, 
and the cost. So I would like to read this letter that was sent by 
Admiral Loy to Senator Hollings with a copy to me:

       Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letter to me of 
     August 1, 2002. I wanted to answer your question on my views 
     about whether and how to arm flight deck crews operating 
     commercial aircraft. The balance of the questions in your 
     letter will be addressed by separate correspondence, which I 
     will send you later this week.

  This letter is from Admiral Loy, the new acting Under Secretary for 
the Transportation Security Administration.
  He goes on to say:

       After I began work as the Acting Under Secretary at the 
     Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and following 
     the vote in July by the House of Representatives supporting a 
     program to arm pilots with lethal weapons, Secretary Mineta 
     asked me to review the range of issues associated with a 
     voluntary deployment of guns in the cockpit. His concern and 
     mine is, above all, to ensure the safety of airline 
     passengers and crew. I have finished my review and wanted to 
     share my conclusions and concerns with you while the 
     discussion continues in the Congress.
       Our review included significant outreach in which we sought 
     counsel from airlines, pilots, airports, the FAA and numerous 
     federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, Secret 
     Service and ATF. The study team evaluated a range of 
     deployment and training options and numerous associated 
     policy and budget issues. The review was intended to reach 
     general conclusions and also to outline the elements of the 
     general protocols to be followed if a decision was made to 
     arm pilots. A core assumption of pending legislation, and 
     also of our review, was that any program would be carried out 
     by volunteer pilots who would receive training consistent 
     with the designation as armed Federal Flight Deck Officers.
       We concluded that if legislation is passed authorizing a 
     program to arm pilots with lethal weapons, it would be 
     preferable if pilots were individually issued lockboxes that 
     would be used to transport their weapons to and from the 
     aircraft. They would be trained on weapon use and their 
     responsibilities under the program, and subject to periodic 
     evaluation. The pilots would be responsible for maintenance 
     and proper care of the weapon. We determined that the 
     alternative program design--having general use weapons stored 
     aboard an aircraft and maintained by a cadre of airline 
     employees--poses greater security risks, operational 
     complexity and cost.
       Many of the federal law enforcement experts we consulted 
     continue to have significant concerns about arming pilots 
     with either lethal or non-lethal weapons. The airline 
     industry shares these concerns. The Board of Directors of the 
     Air Transport Association has sent Secretary Mineta a letter 
     signed by twenty-one airline chief executive officers urging 
     a cautious approach to arming pilots and outling their 
     concerns (attached).

  I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the board of directors 
of the Air Transport Association, sent to Secretary Mineta, be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    Air Transport Association,

                                Washington, DC, September 2, 2002.
     Hon. Norman Y. Mineta,
     Secretary, Department of Transportation,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Secretary: With the safety of our passengers and 
     crewmembers as our number one priority, we are writing to 
     convey our thoughts regarding S. 2554 that would permit the 
     use of firearms by pilots aboard commercial aircraft. As 
     discussions continue on the merits of this subject, we stand 
     ready to work with Congress and the Administration in an 
     effort to reach a prudent consensus position.
       In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, we 
     understand the rationale for providing crewmembers with means 
     to defend themselves and their aircraft. However, we believe 
     that allowing guns aboard every aircraft in the absence of 
     comprehensive research and testing and without a full 
     evaluation of the potential consequences, is ill-advised.
       A variety of serious safety, technical and training issues 
     have been raised that require answers prior to moving forward 
     with any proposal to allow the use of firearms by cockpit 
     crews. To ensure the safety and security of our customers and 
     employees, we have a duty and obligation to ask these tough 
     questions and to have a clear understanding of the answers. 
     Otherwise, innocent passengers and crewmembers could be 
     killed or injured.
       For example, what studies or testing have been conducted to 
     determine the effects of an accidental weapon discharge in a 
     pressurized aircraft at altitude, or discharge into a 
     sophisticated instrument panel? How will the firearm be 
     stowed, maintained and protected from misuse between flights, 
     particularly when the aircraft is parked overnight or 
     deployed in international operations? What is the process to 
     measure the ability of armed pilots to handle a firearm in 
     the close confines of the cockpit? Will the training program 
     disrupt the airline's ability to operate their schedules?
       The Transportation Security Administration has testified 
     that the cost to the government for the program is 
     approximately $850 million. In light of programs already 
     completed and underway to secure cockpit doors, we seriously 
     question the cost effectiveness of a program mandated in S. 
     2554 that would impose a further burden on scarce TSA 
     resources. Indeed, with secure cockpit doors now being 
     further upgraded with even higher protective capabilities, 
     the advisability of introducing dangerous and unnecessary 
     weapons in the cockpit environment must be carefully 
     considered.
       Until such time as validated answers to these and other 
     questions are available, we believe that a decision to deploy 
     firearms aboard commercial aircraft raises a serious and 
     unnecessary risk for both passengers and crewmembers. Just as 
     we would not introduce an aircraft into service without 
     thorough testing, training of crewmembers and evaluating all 
     safety measures, no one should place deadly weapons in the 
     hands of flight crews without a thorough evaluation.
       In view of these concerns, we urge you to consider a more 
     pragmatic, thoughtful approach that does not interject 
     excessive risks and consequences for the traveling public and 
     our employees. Moving forward, you can rest assured we will 
     continue to take all necessary steps to ensure that air 
     travel remains the world's safest form of transportation.
           Sincerely,
         ATA Board of Directors: Carl D. Donaway, Chairman & CEO, 
           Airborne Express; John F. Kelly, Chairman, Alaska 
           Airlines; Glenn R. Zander, President & CEO, Aloha 
           Airlines; W. Douglas Parker, Chairman, President & CEO, 
           America West Airlines; Donald J. Carty, Chairman & CEO, 
           American Airlines; J. George Mikelsons, Chairman, 
           President & CEO, American Trans Air; Richard H. 
           Shuyler, Chief Executive Officer, Atlas Air; Gordon 
           Bethune, Chairman & CEO, Continental Airlines; Leo F. 
           Mullin, Chairman & CEO, Delta Air Lines; Vicky 
           Bretthauer, Acting Chief Executive Officer, DHL 
           Airways.
         Jerry Trimarco, Chief Executive Officer, Emery Worldwide; 
           Anthony E. Bauckham, President, Evergreen International 
           Airlines; Frederick W. Smith, Chairman & CEO, FedEx 
           Corporation; John W. Adams, Chairman, President & CEO, 
           Hawaiian Airlines; David Neeleman, Chief Executive 
           Officer, JetBlue Airways; Timothy E. Hoeksema, 
           Chairman, President & CEO, Midwest Express Airlines; 
           Richard H. Anderson, Chief Executive Officer, Northwest 
           Airlines; Herbert D. Kelleher, Chairman, Southwest 
           Airlines; John W. Creighton, Jr., Chairman & CEO, 
           United Airlines; Thomas H. Weidemeyer, President, 
           United Parcel Service Airlines; David N. Siegel, 
           President & CEO, US Airways.
  Mr. McCAIN. Continuing from Admiral Loy's letter to Chairman 
Hollings:

       We agree that there are literally dozens of issues that 
     would need to be resolved as part

[[Page 16189]]

     of a program involving lethal weapons. Let me mention a few 
     such issues or questions.

  The next topic that he brings up is entitled ``Training curricula and 
program design.''

       We estimate that some 85,000 pilots may be eligible for the 
     program authorized by the House. In order to avoid 
     significant safety and security risk, a detailed, effective 
     training program must be designed from scratch and tested. 
     This must include firearms training and safety instruction. 
     It would include classroom training on numerous issues, such 
     as airport security procedures that would be established for 
     airline employees to carry weapons through airports, and the 
     legal liability and responsibilities of employees and 
     airlines when a weapon is carried on duty and off duty. It 
     must include specific training about the circumstances under 
     which the weapon may be used onboard the aircraft and outside 
     the aircraft at airports and within the community at large. 
     It must establish protocols and communications tools to 
     coordinate a pilot's responsibilities with those of Federal 
     Air Marshals and other law enforcement officers authorized to 
     travel armed. It is possible that special training facilities 
     would be needed for high-volume training, so that the program 
     could incorporate at least some practice in a simulated 
     aircraft environment, such as is provided to our Federal Air 
     Marshals.
       Cockpit modifications. In order to allow ready access to 
     the weapon in the cockpit while securing it appropriately, it 
     would be necessary to install special sleeves for the weapons 
     in each cockpit. Obviously each different aircraft will raise 
     different design and installation considerations. It would be 
     necessary for TSA, the airlines and aircraft manufacturers to 
     assess these issues in more detail.
       Coordination with other nations and international airlines. 
     There are numerous thorny issues that must be resolved with 
     foreign nations and foreign airlines. For example, pilots 
     flying international routes for a U.S. carrier must comply 
     with gun control laws abroad. In order to avoid conflict, 
     TSA, with the support of other federal agencies, would need 
     to undertake extensive coordination with countries around the 
     globe to clarify rights and responsibilities of airline 
     employees traveling armed. Would we authorize the employees 
     of foreign air carriers to participate in this program? Would 
     we provide reciprocal access to the U.S. if other nations 
     design similar programs to arm pilots? What type of 
     background investigation would be possible and necessary? Who 
     would pay?
       Complying with state and local gun control laws. We have 
     only begun to assess the issues associated with complying 
     with state and local gun control laws. Our review suggests 
     that some meaningful legal work and coordination would be an 
     early task for the program.
       Legal liability. There are numerous and complex issues of 
     legal liability that need careful, thorough review. These 
     relate to the pilots, flight crews, other airline employees, 
     the airlines, airports, vendors supporting the program and 
     individuals who provide training to the pilots participating 
     in the program.
       A large support organization. A worldwide program of this 
     size would require sizable staff and support. Existing TSA 
     headquarters functions would be considerably stretched in 
     order to manage the program, track the inventory of federal 
     weapons and investigate accidental weapon discharges, program 
     operation and public complaints.
       Cost. Our preliminary estimate is that a program involving 
     all commercial pilots could cost up to $900 million for the 
     start-up and some $250 million annually thereafter. Of course 
     these estimates must be refined to reflect details of an 
     actual program, including the possibility that fewer than all 
     commercial pilots will participate. These estimates do not 
     include any projections for necessary cockpit modifications 
     to accommodate ready access to the firearms. The total 
     program costs may vary widely according to program design 
     decisions, but any program open to all pilots would be very 
     expensive. TSA's current budget does not allow for further 
     work in this area, which raises the question of who will bear 
     the cost of this potentially expensive program.
       I am convinced that if there is to be responsible 
     legislation establishing a program to allow guns in the 
     cockpit, it must address the numerous safety, security, cost 
     and operational issues raised by TSA's review, and should 
     enable us to implement the program in a methodical, careful, 
     and pragmatic manner.
       I remain committed to working with the Senate and the House 
     of Representatives on this important issue. I have provided 
     an identical copy of this letter to Senator McCain. Thank you 
     for your interest and leadership in this matter and I look 
     forward to our hearing next Tuesday.
           Very Respectfully,
                                                     James M. Loy,
                                           Acting Under Secretary.

  The reason I read this letter is that I think it is important for us 
to understand there are a lot of complexities involved with 
implementing a program of this nature. I know there are certain foreign 
countries where no one is allowed to carry or possess a weapon under 
any circumstances--certainly not a hand weapon, if it is not for 
hunting purposes. I know there are different laws in different States 
as far as weapons control is concerned.
  I wonder who is going to pay the $900 million for startup and some 
$250 million annually thereafter. I think that issue should be 
addressed here. I visited with the CEO of a major airline this morning 
who made a compelling case that the major airlines in the United States 
are in deep and serious trouble. One major airline just declared 
bankruptcy. Others are convinced that another major airline will be 
declaring bankruptcy soon.
  Who is going to pay for this program? Are we going to lay it on the 
airlines, or are we going to lay it on the taxpayers of America?
  Legal liability is always a question whenever we embark on a program 
that involves the use of weapons. The support organization at TSA, I 
think, is a legitimate question. Right now, we are facing a deadline of 
the end of the year for installation of devices that would check all 
luggage. We all know that isn't going to happen. We are undergoing the 
transition from private companies to Federal employees at our airports.
  So what I am asking is that the sponsors of the legislation, who 
obviously feel very strongly on this issue, make sure that, as we enact 
this legislation--and I am convinced there will be a significant vote 
in support of this amendment--these issues are adequately addressed. I 
think these issues warrant our concern and our attention. There are 
very small airplanes--for example, commuter aircraft--that carry a 
sizable number of passengers. How are we going to put those weapons in 
those very small cockpits? I am sure there is a way, but I want to 
impress upon my colleagues that there is a lot of complexity associated 
with this issue as outlined by Admiral Loy, and there are other 
concerns that I think we deserve to know at least some of the solutions 
for as we address this amendment and this issue, which has already been 
passed by the other body and, I am confident, would be passed by a 
large vote here.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to support this amendment, 
which would enable those we already entrust with our lives on 
airplanes--namely, pilots and flight attendants--to have the tools and 
the training they need to disable terrorists in the air.
  Since September 11th, we have taken many steps to make it safer to 
fly. For all the agency's troubles, the creation of the Transportation 
Safety Administration has been a step forward. Airlines themselves have 
beefed up their security. Airports like Bradley International Airport 
in Windsor Locks, Connecticut--which I toured last month--have made 
very visible progress. And so much of this progress has resulted from 
better collaboration and cooperation, which bodes well for the creation 
of a Department of Homeland Security.
  But we still have a long way to go and a short time to get there. I 
was disturbed by an investigative report in yesterday's New York Daily 
News. Let me read you the opening:

       Carry-on bags concealing potentially deadly weapons. Six 
     major airlines. Eleven airports. Fourteen flights. And not 
     once did anyone catch on.
       To test the supposedly more stringent security imposed at 
     the nation's airports after the Sept. 11 attacks, Daily News 
     reporters boarded flights over the Labor Day weekend carrying 
     contraband--including box cutters, razor knives and pepper 
     spray.
       Not a single airport security checkpoint spotted or 
     confiscated any of the dangerous items, all of which have 
     been banned from airports and planes by federal authorities.

  Obviously we must fix these lapses without further delay. But at the 
same time, we have to realize no matter what security procedures we put 
in place on the ground, they won't be failsafe. We need a security 
network that's flexible enough to protect passengers from danger even 
if one link in the chain breaks down.
  The reality is, if a dangerous person has managed to get on a plane 
with a weapon or an explosive device, there is

[[Page 16190]]

one last line of defense: the people on the plane. We need to make sure 
that last line of defense is a strong line of defense.
  Having our flight crew carry weapons has been carefully considered in 
both houses of Congress. We've thought through stun guns as an 
alternative, but it turns out they are unreliable, and the cockpit is 
too small to use them effectively. While potential concerns and 
complications about equipping pilots with firearms have been raised, in 
the end, this idea just makes sense.
  It is also important to note that this amendment provides much-needed 
training and communications capability for the cabin crew. These 
provisions will prepare flight attendants, who are often the first to 
encounter potential hijackers on a flight, to handle such threats. 
Flight attendants will also have improved communications with the 
cockpit in the event of an emergency.
  Besides the fact that firearms can actually give our flight crews a 
practical advantage over terrorists in the air--if it comes down to 
that--sending the message that the good guys will be armed gives us an 
important psychological advantage as well. The mere fact that a pilot 
or co-pilot could have a lethal weapon should be a powerful deterrent 
to would-be terrorists.
  We will never forget the heroism of the men and women on Flight 93 
who resisted the highjackers and brought down that plane, which may 
well have been headed in our direction. It is in their spirit that this 
amendment should be considered. The flight crew isn't a passive target. 
It is an active force that can fight back against anyone who seeks to 
hijack a plane or use it as a weapon ever again.
  Of course we need to secure the cockpit door. Of course we need to 
make sure that the passengers are screened effectively for weapons. Of 
course we need to have high-quality, well-trained air marshals on our 
flights. But we should also take this sane, sensible step of training 
and equipping our flight crews, who we already entrust with our lives, 
with the tools they need to protect us.
  I strongly support this amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I am unable to support the amendment by 
my colleagues Senator Smith and Senator Boxer to arm pilots on 
commercial flights because I am concerned that such a proposal would 
invite gun fights in the cockpit.
  I believe that federal air marshals are the individuals best suited 
to handle any terrorist situation which might arise on a flight, and am 
fully supportive of providing the financial resources necessary to hire 
additional air marshals. Although this amendment would provide 
significant training for pilots to handle firearms, I remain concerned 
that in an emergency situation their concentration should be focused on 
flying the plane, not dealing with attackers in the passenger cabin.
  I do strongly support the provision in the amendment which would 
provide self-defense training for flight attendants, however I simply 
do not believe it is worth the risk to have the availability of guns in 
the cockpit which could fall into terrorist hands.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
offered by my friend and colleague, Senator Bob Smith, the Arming 
Pilots Against Terrorism and Cabin Defense Act of 2002. This amendment 
sends a strong message to would-be terrorists and acts as a significant 
deterrent against the hijacking of America's planes.
  As a last line of defense in potential terrorist attacks, I believe 
that pilots who want to should have the ability to carry firearms in 
order to defend the cockpit. This is a policy that makes sense. An 
overwhelming majority of the American public supports arming pilots. 
Counterterrorism experts believe that firearms are the best deterrent 
when it comes to cockpit security.
  I have heard from large numbers of pilots and constituents from my 
home state of Utah who advocate for the ability of pilots to carry guns 
to protect the cockpit. It is my hope that this amendment will help 
ensure that all who travel on airlines feel safe, including pilots, 
flight attendants, and most importantly, the public. While I support 
the right of pilots to carry weapons on-board aircraft, at the same 
time, it is important for them to receive the proper training to be 
able to discharge a firearm in the cockpit safely and effectively.
  I also support the language in this amendment that exempts the 
airlines and pilots from liability as they attempt to defend our 
airplanes. This is an industry that has been struggling, even before 
the tragic events of September 11th. We must not further burden these 
companies with what could eventually be frivolous lawsuits that would 
endanger the domestic airline industries very existence. I am 
encouraged to see that this important issue is addressed in Senator 
Smith's amendment.
  I must add that, while there are many worthy aspects to this 
amendment, portions of it give me pause. The foremost issue is who 
bears the burden of its cost. At a time when Congress has critically-
important decisions to make as we face our responsibility to improve 
our national aviation and homeland security procedures, we must balance 
those responsibilities with our commitment that many of us made to our 
constituents to spend within our means and avoid increased deficit 
spending.
  This amendment could have serious unintended consequences. As part of 
our nation's aviation and homeland security policy, the Federal 
Government is already paying for Federal air marshals, the 
federalization of the baggage screening process, and reinforced cockpit 
doors. These are important safety measures that I strongly support. The 
Transportation Security Administration estimates this amendment will 
initially cost approximately $884 million, of which the majority, $865 
million, will go to pay for training, requalification, equipment, 
background checks, program management, and direct course costs for 
85,000 pilots over a period of two years. And at least $264 million of 
the $885 million will be recurring costs. Furthermore, an additional 
$16.5 million will need to be allocated for the purchase and 
installation of gun storage boxes on airplanes. That being said, I 
don't think that the airline industry can afford to pay these training 
costs either.
  Serious questions must be raised about having the Federal Government 
shouldering the costs of training. The amendment not only allows for 
pilots to be trained, but flight attendants as well. I strongly support 
the ability of these individuals to carry weapons onboard planes after 
they have received proper training, I am concerned about the Federal 
Government picking up the tab.
  While I have reservations over a few of the provisions of this bill, 
on the other hand, it can readily be argued that no legislation 
allowing pilots to be armed if they wish might compromise the safety of 
our skies. This is not a perfect piece of legislation, but on balance, 
I think it is a needed one. I will vote for this amendment in order to 
take an additional step to help ensure the safety of our airlines and 
urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. THURMOND. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 
amendment to establish a program to permit pilots to defend their 
aircraft against acts of criminal violence or air piracy. This 
legislation will provide a critical last line of defense to secure 
commercial aircraft, allowing qualified pilots to carry firearms.
  The legislation requires the Under Secretary of Transportation for 
Security to establish a program not later than 90 days after the date 
of enactment to deputize qualified volunteer pilots as Federal law 
enforcement officers to defend the cockpits of commercial aircraft in 
flight against acts of criminal violence or air piracy. Pilots who are 
deputized will be known as ``Federal Flight Deck Officers'' and will be 
authorized to carry a firearm and use force--including deadly force--
against an individual in defense of an aircraft.
  I was disappointed that the Department of Transportation initially 
opposed this effort. Recently the Department has indicated its support 
for a

[[Page 16191]]

limited pilot program. While important steps to improve the security of 
our airports and protect the flying public have been taken, the tragic 
events of last September 11th demonstrated our enemies will stop at 
nothing to inflict harm on Americans and destroy our way of life. Our 
response must be equally as determined and resolute. We must not take 
half measures or engage in wishful thinking. We must not refrain from 
utilizing every tool we possess. We must enable those who pilot 
commercial passenger aircraft to defend against any threat and protect 
the safety of their aircraft and passengers. And finally, we must do so 
without further delay. This amendment properly addresses those concerns 
and I strongly support its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. We are very close to having a vote on this amendment. 
Senators Boxer and Smith worked out the problem with the Commerce 
Committee. I am grateful for that. The only speaker I know of is 
Senator Murkowski, who wishes to speak for about 5 minutes on this 
issue.
  I ask unanimous consent that as soon as he completes his statement, 
the Senator from California be recognized to modify her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I also ask unanimous consent that the Senate then vote with 
respect to the Reid for Boxer-Smith amendment No. 4492; that upon 
disposition of that amendment, the Smith amendment No. 4491, as 
amended, if amended, be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid 
upon the table, without further intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. So Members should be advised that at approximately 4:55 
there will be a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I didn't hear the time of the vote.
  Mr. REID. As soon as the Senator has finished.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I am proud to join Senator Smith, 
Senator Boxer, and others. I was one of the original Members joining 
Senator Smith in this effort, which allows commercial pilots the right 
to carry firearms in defense of their aircraft.
  We have heard the explanation given time and again, if indeed an 
aircraft is hijacked and you happen to be on that plane, that there is 
the authority to take that airplane down with a military jet, an F-l6, 
or whatever. I think any Member, if asked would they support having the 
pilot in command of the aircraft having a weapon of some kind, a 
handgun, as a last line of defense, that virtually every Member of this 
body would say absolutely, anything other than the alternative, which 
would be to take the aircraft down.
  I have listened to the debate here off and on today, and I would like 
to comment a little bit. The Senator from South Carolina is interested 
in the secure doors.
  Some of the airlines are putting secure doors on their aircraft. They 
are doing it currently at their own expense. I just took a flight 
across the country, and the cockpit door was opened six times by either 
the pilot or copilot on a 5\1/2\ hour flight. At least two times it was 
opened to provide food access into the cockpit. So that cockpit door 
was opened eight times during that flight.
  That is the harsh reality. We do not have the capability to feed nor 
to provide restroom facilities for the crew. We are certainly not going 
to retrofit all the aircraft in the skies immediately with those 
capabilities in the cockpit. So we are going to have the potential 
risk.
  While those who perhaps commute short distances feel secure because 
of a closed cockpit, we do not have that on a cross-country flight. 
That is the harsh reality.
  It is also apparent, as the Senator from Arizona pointed out, that 
there is some difficulty in implementing the program. The idea of 
secure doors and the question of who pays for it, obviously, are 
concerns of the airline industry. How the guns are managed, if you 
will, is a concern of the airlines. Their business, obviously, is 
reducing the amount of administrative authority they can, but our job 
is protecting the public.
  If, indeed, history proves itself, as it appears to have done in a 
couple of instances, one occurred on a FedEx cargo plane. During 
takeoff, the crew was overpowered by an individual who was a crew 
member who happened to be deadheading on the flight, and he attacked 
them with a hammer. There was a tremendous fight in the cockpit. This 
aircraft was fully loaded with fuel and freight, but the crew managed 
to subdue this individual with the weapon they were able to take away 
from the individual who initiated the attack and land that aircraft 
safely. It was a hammer. It was very bloody. Nevertheless, it proved 
that the crew was willing to do whatever they could to stop that 
aircraft from crashing. I gather it was to crash into some of the FedEx 
facilities.
  If we look at the concerns expressed in the general discussion about 
secure doors, we cannot secure the door; it is going to be opened from 
time to time. There is talk about changing the air pressure of the 
aircraft by puncturing the hull. An air marshal is obviously trained. 
If there is an altercation of some nature, there is as much chance of 
penetrating the hull by him. Evidence has shown there is not an 
explosion, there is a decompression, and a decompression is manageable 
by the cockpit crew.
  As we look at the alternatives, it is clear that the airlines oppose 
this because they are not in the business of managing guns. Their 
bottom line is transporting passengers. It does create problems. But if 
we look at how we are implementing the security program in this 
country, it was not very well thought out. I am not suggesting that as 
an example. Nevertheless, we are looking at a first rather I should say 
last line of defense which is probably more correct.
  We have debated this back and forth. We as legislators, and certainly 
as passengers, have to recognize we trust the flight crew with our very 
safety and security, and we should give them all the tools to complete 
that task. That is the reason I am standing with my friend, Senator 
Smith, on this legislation. It is first and foremost an attempt to 
increase the level of safety aboard our commercial airliners.
  My State of Alaska has many small planes. There are firearms 
available for various reasons: If the plane goes down or if a passenger 
attempts to overcome the crew. As we look at the question of guns in 
the cockpit, there is a great inconsistency. One is the inconsistency 
associated with sky marshals, and the other is associated with the 
realization that we would simply be arming pilots who are highly 
trained.
  I do not think there is any question about the substance of this 
amendment. It provides a greater level of safety. I think most of the 
pilots would agree they, too, want to have this capability and are 
prepared to use it in an appropriate manner.
  I do not take this legislation lightly. This amendment does not 
cavalierly attempt to hand out guns to flight crews, and wish them the 
best.
  Because of September 11, 2001, and the tactics used by the hijackers 
that day, we must change the way aircraft and passengers are protected. 
The amendment is an important part of that effort.
  As many in this body are aware, there is a large percentage of pilots 
who have served in the military and law enforcement. In fact, many also 
serve as reservists in the different branches of the military. These 
pilots have been trained in the use of weaponry. Why not utilize the 
trained personnel already on hand?
  The Airline Pilots Association supports this concept and has written 
to the F.B.I. requesting a program to train cockpit personnel. I have 
heard from many pilots in Alaska and around the country that support 
it. So why not further enhance the chances of passenger and aircraft 
survival?
  I applaud the administration and this Congress for moving quickly to 
secure

[[Page 16192]]

cockpit cabins, adding needed Sky Marshals, improving airport perimeter 
security, training screening personnel, and increasing flight deck 
security.
  But we must also afford passengers the utmost in security after the 
plane has cleared the runway. Arming pilots is not the only solution, 
but it is an important component.
  The pilots know they need it. The passengers will support it. And 
this Congress should pass it. I encourage my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to 
add Senators Tim Hutchinson, Craig Thomas, and Strom Thurmond as 
original cosponsors, and I thank my colleague from South Carolina for 
his cooperation. I appreciate it very much. I again thank my colleague, 
Senator Boxer, for her leadership, and I thank Senator Reid for his 
cooperation as well.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California.


                Amendment No. 4492, as further modified

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are about to vote in 2 minutes. I am 
going to wrap up in 2 minutes. I send a modification of my amendment to 
the desk. I want to explain to my colleagues that this is a 
modification that has been written by Senator Hollings. It will result 
in the cockpit door remaining closed during the flight except for 
mechanical emergencies or physiological emergencies.
  This is an issue on which Senator Hollings has been a very strong and 
sometimes lone voice. We are very proud to accommodate him, and we 
hope, therefore, he will be with us on this vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is further 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 4492), as further modified, is as follows:

       At the end of the amendment add the following:

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON OPENING COCKPIT DOORS IN FLIGHT.

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

     SEC. 44917. PROHIBITION ON OPENING COCKPIT DOORS IN FLIGHT

       ``(a) In General.--The door to the flight deck of any 
     aircraft engaged in passenger air transportation or 
     interstate air transportation that is required to have a door 
     between the passenger and pilot compartment under title 14, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, shall remain closed and locked 
     at all times during flight except for mechanical or 
     physiological emergencies.
       ``(b) Mantrap Door Exception.--It shall not be a violation 
     of subsection (a) for an authorized person to enter or leave 
     the flight deck during flight of any aircraft described in 
     subsection (a) that is equipped with double doors between the 
     flight deck and the passenger compartment that are designed 
     so that--
       ``(1) any person entering or leaving the flight deck is 
     required to lock the first door through which that person 
     passes before the second door can be opened; and
       ``(2) the flight crew is able to monitor by remote camera 
     the area between the 2 doors and prevent the door to the 
     flight deck from being unlocked from that area.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     449 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 44916 the following:
       ``44917. Prohibition on opening cockpit doors in flight.''

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in closing this debate, I thank everyone, 
particularly Senator Smith for his amazing work.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Baucus be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I say to the flight attendants and the 
pilots who worked so hard to help us get this to a vote today: Your 
work will be rewarded. You are, in many cases, the last line of defense 
with the fact that our security checkpoints are failing, unfortunately. 
They are doing better, but they are not where they should be, and 
contraband is getting on to the planes, coupled with the fact that our 
military has orders to shoot down a plane that has been taken over by 
hijackers. Let's give this program a chance. Let's give people a chance 
to save their lives and the lives of the crew, the passengers and, 
frankly, the people on the ground.
  This is important for homeland security, to make sure we are doing 
everything to avoid another 9/11. I ask for an aye vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before we vote--and the vote will occur 
momentarily--I have spoken to the majority leader, and this will be the 
last vote tonight. I will also indicate the majority leader has 
indicated we will come in on Monday at 12 o'clock. We will have an hour 
of morning business, and at 1 o'clock we will vote on a judicial 
nomination, or if we do not work something out on the cloture motion 
that was filed today, we will vote on that on Monday. We will have a 
pro forma session in the morning, and that would ripen on Monday.
  We are going to have to vote on Monday at 1 o'clock either on a 
judicial nomination or cloture on drought assistance.
  I appreciate everyone's cooperation today. We have been able to move 
forward two very important amendments on this very important 
legislation. I have spoken with Senator Thompson. We have not cleared 
this with Senator Byrd and others. We want to make sure Senator 
Thompson has the first amendment when we come back on Monday, and 
following that, Senator Byrd will have the next amendment.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4492, as further 
modified. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka), the 
Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), 
and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Torricelli), are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), 
the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), and the Senator from North 
Carolina (Mr. Helms) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from 
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), would vote ``yea''
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 6, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 210 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--6

     Chafee
     Corzine
     Jeffords
     Kennedy
     Reed
     Specter

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bunning
     Ensign
     Harkin
     Helms
     Torricelli
  The amendment (No. 4492), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. 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.

[[Page 16193]]




                     Amendment No. 4491, As Amended

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 4491, 
as amended, is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
  The amendment (No. 4491), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. LEAHY. 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. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Bayh in 
offering an amendment to the homeland security bill.
  It is a straighforward amendment designed to improve and strengthen 
the protection of our Department of Defense installations which contain 
the storage and destruction facilities for our Nation's chemical agent 
and munitions stockpile.
  Prior to September 11, no temporary flight restrictions existed for 
any of our Nation's chemical weapons stockpile sites. Secretary 
Rumsfeld took quick action after September 11 to establish temporary 
flight restrictions at each of these sites, but numerous violations of 
these flight restrictions have occurred.
  In the case of the Anniston Chemical Destruction Facility and storage 
site, 22 violations have occurred since flight restrictions were 
implemented by the Department of Defense. The latest was just today 
when a Lear-type jet flew over the incineration facility at less than 
1000 feet. Another violation that caused great concern was a night time 
over-flight which included 3 passes by an unidentified aircraft.
  These incursions are serious matters. Current law provides for stiff 
penalties to be levied against those who violate restricted air space. 
In the case of our chemical weapons storage sites and weapons 
destruction facilities, we must be ever vigilant. That is what this 
amendment seeks to do by:
  First, requiring the Secretary of Defense to review the current 
temporary flight restrictions to determine if they are sufficient to 
provide maximum protection to these facilities from potential airborne 
threats and to report his findings to Congress.
  Second, the amendment would require the FAA to issue a report on each 
violation of the temporary flight restrictions which apply to these 
sites. Mr. President, as I have stated, very serious penalties already 
exist for those who violate these restrictions. Given the tremendous 
danger to the workers and local citizens associated with any 
unintentional crash or intentional act at any one of these storage 
sites, I believe this amendment is both reasonable and prudent in 
requiring the FAA to report on actions taken in response to a confirmed 
and properly investigated restricted airspace violation.
  Lastly, in the amendment we ask the Secretary of Defense to assess 
the use of periodic air patrols and military flight training exercises 
in terms of their effectiveness as a deterrent to airspace violations 
or other potential airborne threats to these facilities.
  While little, if anything, could be done to stop someone intent on 
attacking one of these storage sites from the air, we should take every 
step to make sure that these flight restrictions are respected and 
violators are punished. This amendment is about safety, enforcement of 
the law, and, ultimately, protection of our citizens who live in close 
proximity to these chemical weapons facilities.

                          ____________________