Conrad Burns

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, some time has passed since the tragic events that took place in New York, Washington, DC, and Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, I want to reflect upon the events of that day and draw attention to the tremendous good that has evolved in the face of evil. Since that time, it has become evident that the American public is the most patriotic and resilient group the world will ever see. Those who may have been strangers are now confidants, those who were acquaintances are now considered family. During this trying time, I want both to express my heartfelt condolences to all those directly involved in this tragedy, and to commend and honor those who have devoted their soul to working to restore tranquility and normalcy to the Nation. From firehouses to schoolhouses, from New York City to San Francisco and everywhere in between, Americans have repeatedly demonstrated their capacity for compassion. I want to begin by addressing the families of those who lost their lives on United flight 93. I cannot begin to comfort them in their grief, but I must say that they have every reason to be extremely proud of the bravery shown by those on Flight 93. Their efforts are commended by all who stand here in Congress. As Americans, we all recognize, that we owe your family a debt that cannot be repaid. Montanans have been deeply affected by this tragedy; they have contacted me with their grief, their hope for victory, and their desire to aid in the relief effort. Tragically, Adam Larson of Choteau, MT, was an employee of Aon Corp., located on what was the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center. In the midst of the attacks, he phoned his wife Patti and told her the building was being evacuated and he was on his way to safety. He was last seen by his co-workers following them down the stairs to exit the building, a building he never escaped. Adam Larson was 37 years old, and senior vice president for Aon. Many think that because of his outwardly giving personality, he may have stopped to help someone in need. I, along with Montanans everywhere grieve with the Larson family, pray for hope, and express our sincere support in enduring a set of circumstances that is difficult to comprehend. In addition to grief, Montanans have also displayed the characteristic resolve that has defined us since our statehood. From Libby to Great Falls to Alzada, Montana has joined together to show patriotism and support for the American effort. Blood drives are going on at Malmstrom Air Force base in Great Falls, MT, as I speak today. Percentages of all sales in the town of Conrad, MT, are being designated for the relief effort. I also want to point out the efforts of Burlington Elementary School in Billings. The motivation of one 3rd grade cub scout named Jim Rubich to raise pennies for the recovery of the WTC and the Pentagon has spun into a full scale effort on the part of many Montana elementary schools. Jim, in true Montana spirit, marched up to his teacher's desk with a bag full of pennies and demanded that an effort be enacted to raise pennies for the victims of this terrible attack. His message was heard loud and clear, and now what began as a penny drive, started by the innocent and unwavering patriotism of one little boy, is on pace to raise $18,000. This is the next generation of American workers, soldiers, carriers of freedom, and already in their young life they are strong contributors. I think the promise that is displayed here speaks for itself. We must protect these young people so that they may pick up the torch when it is their time. We cannot and will not fail them. I pledge to Jimmy Rubich that 20 years from now, his great Nation, the United States of America, will still be the beacon of freedom that it is today.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, multiple, confusing and inconsistent State tax rules impose an incredible burden on interstate commerce and the economy, and therefore it is imperative that the Senate move quickly to extend the moratorium on Internet access taxes and to continue protecting electronic commerce from multiple and discriminatory taxation. As a result of the U.S. Senate's failure to extend the moratorium before it lapsed on October 21, 2001, it is now possible for the more than 7,600 State and local taxing jurisdictions to impose multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce and taxes on internet access. On October 16, the House adopted H.R. 1552 under expedited floor procedures. This bipartisan legislation would extend the current moratorium created by the Internet Tax Freedom Act for 2 years. H.R. 1552 is supported strongly by a wide range of groups, including the entire high-tech business community, the National Conference of State Legislatures, State and local municipal groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and many other business and retail groups that have put aside their differences in support of a clean, 2-year extension of the moratorium. Given recent events and the current economy, this is the wrong time to saddle consumers with Internet access taxes or with multiple and discriminatory State taxes on electronic commerce. Enacting H.R. 1552 now would provide us with additional time to continue to work together to try to reach consensus on clear and simple tax rules for a borderless marketplace. We should not be focusing on how to make our tax codes less cumbersome for the purposes of Interstate sales tax collection, especially at this late hour. That is why I ask that my colleagues table this amendment. section 5(a)(8)

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, there are some of us who did not and will not sign the conference report. I will make my statement this evening, but we have not seen the bill and will not see it until the morning. I think it is asking a little bit of those of us who have a responsibility to the aviation industry and the security of this country to not see that legislation before it passes. We understand there are some dogs and cats in there and some things to which we cannot agree. So I want to put myself on record that I will oppose this piece of legislation, but I will not hold it up. I thank the leader.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BURNS. We know there are areas of responsibility. Who best can have access and be a model for us, without expending a lot of money or building a new bureaucracy? We know we have to have passenger lists and we need intelligence. Who best to do that other than the Department of Justice? We need security at the check-in area and also the gate area. Who best, other than the Justice Department, knows how to secure Federal buildings, Federal courts, moving Federal prisoners--all of these things they already do? Some they do themselves and some they contract out to companies that have a very good reputation with them. I think the conference ought to get underway right away. I am supportive of the Senator's views on that and say we ought to be in the business of protecting the American public as best we know how, instead of writing a law and putting it into the hands of the administrative rule writers, who sometimes write rules for their own benefit and not for the protection of the people.

Mr. BURNS. I ask the Senator, we passed the airport security law in this body and we changed the authority--moving the authority from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Justice. That was my amendment. I contended at that time that we really don't have a problem with the laws; we have trouble with enforcing the law. I would be interested in seeing what the Senator's thoughts are on keeping the bright line of authority to the Attorney General rather than leaving it with the Department of Transportation.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, in responding to the Democratic whip's remarks, I brought this to his attention this afternoon as it was brought to my attention. Section 316 of the Senate bill that was included in the conference agreement with a slight modification says as to prohibition of oil and gas drilling in the Finger Lakes National Forest of New York: no Federal permit or lease shall be issued for oil or gas drilling in Finger Lakes National Forest of New York during fiscal year 2002. Basically, that is legislating on an appropriations bill. It was put into a managers' package and, of course, with the jurisdiction being over in Interior appropriations, if any action was taken at all. Now, this rider blocks, without further consideration, oil and gas permits within that national forest. It looks like not only a jurisdictional issue, and I respect the desire of the Senators from New York to work on issues in their State, but in this time of an economic downturn and trying to make some sense of an energy policy in this country, it seems ludicrous to me that a nongermane amendment would be allowed on this legislation, especially in a time when we are trying to find energy for this country and wean us off this foreign dependence on oil. It is especially questionable to allow a rider at this time when New York is searching for economic opportunities, asking the Congress to provide thousands and millions and billions of dollars in their time of need, and yet take away from the State an economic base, a base from which to grow. It makes no sense to me at all, especially when there is the potential for jobs and economic growth and then that is taken away sort of in a dark-of-the-night rider. I do not presume to change Medicare policy in an Interior bill. I do not attempt to change the nuclear storage policy on an Interior bill because the jurisdiction lies elsewhere. From my position on the Interior Subcommittee, I would like to consult with the leadership of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, the Bureau of Reclamation or the Department of Energy on issues where we have overlapping jurisdiction. And we do. We exchange that information freely. Now I realize it is too late to change this in this conference report, and I want to pass this conference report with basically the chairman of that subcommittee on the Appropriations Committee. The chairman and the ranking member have done a great job of putting together this bill. I support it wholeheartedly. I thank them for all they put into this, especially those relating to the State of Montana. The inclusion of section 316 is an exception rather than the rule. I expect in the future we will have closer consultation on the matters that cross subcommittee jurisdiction. I also believe the fate of 316 may change as soon as we have better information as to its actual impact on oil and gas operations. I would think the Senators contemplating their economic base in their State would know this is ill-advised at this time. Again, I applaud the managers of this legislation and wholeheartedly support it, with the exception of this. I yield back the remainder of my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I concur with the statement of Senator Byrd.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, would the Chairman agree that the conference sought to address an issue dealing with the exceptional and unique circumstances which led to the enactment of Sec. 819 of P.L. 106-568 with regard to land taken into Federal trust status prior to 1988 for the Lytton Rancheria of California?

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I join my friend from West Virginia in asking the Senate to support the Interior and related agencies conference report. This has been sort of a labor of love. It has been 3 months of putting this piece of legislation together and many hours of off-the-floor negotiations not only between my chairman and everybody who serves on this subcommittee but also in the conference with the House. This conference agreement fits within the broader fiscal limitations with which the Congress and the President have agreed. To remain within these limits, we had to reduce many projects and programs below levels provided by the Senate bill. Likewise, many priorities established in the House were reduced so the conference agreement would conform to the subcommittee's conference allocation. The final product does not contain 100 percent of what everybody wanted; nor does it have 100 percent for one individual. I assure my colleagues Senator Byrd has included me and my staff in all negotiations and that the Senate's interests have been treated fairly. There are two specific items I will address before proceeding. I am pleased that the conference report provided a $10 million increase in payments in lieu of taxes, PILT. These funds are a vital source of funding for schools and other basic Government services in rural communities that have large public land acreage. While I hoped we would preserve the entire increase provided in the Senate bill, the amount provided in the conference agreement is a significant step forward and moves us closer reaching the authorizing funding level of the PILT program. With regard to the funds for the wildland firefighting and related programs, the conference agreement contains just over $2.23 billion. The year before last and last year were terrible years for fires, as was this past summer, although it was not as devastating as the year before. Congress has still made a commitment to the national fire plan. We were unable to fully fund all the needs of the national fire plan, but nonetheless the commitment is there. We had to make extremely tough choices, balancing the need for rehabilitation and restoration of lands already burned and the need to prevent and suppress future fires. We have also taken the opportunity to direct the Department of Agriculture and the Interior to work more closely together in implementing the national fire plan, while giving us a better understanding of the land's long-term funding and what it needs. I believe this will move us much closer toward having a fire plan that can be fully implemented. Finally, I thank Senator Byrd for his courtesy shown throughout the process. There are 3 C's in committee work: cooperation, courtesy, and consideration. Usually we get our work done pretty expeditiously. It has been a difficult year on many fronts, but from the Senate transition to the events of last month, Senator Byrd and I have worked well together to produce a final bill that deserves the Senate support. I thank his staff and my own. Ryan Thomas and Bruce Evans have done yeoman's work on this bill as it has moved its way not only through the Senate but also through the conference. It is strange indeed to have an Interior and related agencies bill to be the first appropriations bill to be sent to the President. I can remember when this bill was unbelievably contentious. It is the off- the-floor agreements and negotiations made that help bring a product to the floor. It just about has the approval of the total Senate. That is a testament to Senator Byrd's leadership as chairman of this subcommittee. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this conference agreement.

Mr. BURNS

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

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I have an amendment and I send it to the desk and ask for its consideration.

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

Mr. BURNS. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS. I thank the leadership for their courtesy and their staffs who worked with my staff closely in passing this amendment. It does enhance the legislation. We hope what we have done gives a bright line of accountability. I appreciate the leadership of the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the ranking member, and their staffs.

Mr. BURNS. It was a great amendment. Americans want to participate. They want to do their share. Knowing we are in a crisis in this country, this is a way to help. The operations we have going on are very expensive. This is a way we ask Americans to help us get the job done, help this President who has dedicated himself to getting this job done. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS. I thank my good friend, the Senator from Kentucky. I also thank him for his legislation issuing war bonds to pay for this operation, this antiterrorism effort, and to bring fugitives to justice and to fulfill this operation. Since he introduced that legislation--and I was a cosponsor of it--I have been getting mail from all over the State of Montana wanting to know where to buy a war bond because they want to participate in the security of this country. Since September 11, we as a society have changed a lot of our priorities and agenda.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, the bill we are discussing today would help to ensure the safety of flying for passengers on the planes as well as innocent civilians on the ground. However, I am concerned that the bill will broadly expand the law enforcement authority of the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration. I believe we should let experienced law enforcers set the standards to protect the safety of commercial air operations. The mission of the DOT is to: serve the United States by ensuring a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation system that meets our vital national interests and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today and into the future. The mission of the U.S. Marshall Service under the oversight of the Attorney General is to: enforce federal laws and provide support to virtually all elements of the federal justice system by providing for the security of federal court facilities and the safety of judges and other court personnel; apprehending criminals; exercising custody of federal prisoners and providing for their security and transportation to correctional facilities; executing federal court orders; seizing assets gained by illegal means and providing for the custody, management and disposal of forfeited assets; assuring the safety of endangered government witnesses and their families; and collecting and disbursing funds. The key phrase is to ``enforce Federal laws.'' The Justice Department is a law enforcement body. That agency is tasked to protect the American people through the enforcement of laws set by Congress. Prior to 9/11, the primary responsibility for aviation security was shared by the FAA, airports and the carriers. The FAA set the standards and regulations that were followed by the airports and carriers. The FAA was responsible to provide threat information obtained from the intelligence community to the security apparatus protecting our airports and carriers. The Air Marshall program, although active, was relatively non- existent as there were fewer than 50 security personnel enlisted to secure our passenger airplanes. Airports remain responsible for the physical security of airport facilities, law enforcement and security personnel. In Montana, our Governor has temporarily deployed the Montana National Guard to protect our airports while a threat remains significant. I have discussed airport security with Montana's airport managers and they have informed me of their current practices. Airlines and cargo carriers are responsible for implementing those security activities that directly affect the flow of passengers, baggage and cargo aboard aircraft. Since 9/11 we have entered a new era. The last hijacking of a U.S. airline using a weapon was in 1989, when a passenger used a starter pistol and two folding knives to hijack an American Airlines plane. Prior to that, a Pacific Southwest Airline jet crashed in 1987 after a former ticket agent for the airline smuggled a gun aboard and broke into the cockpit, killing the flight crew. All 43 people aboard were killed. But is was the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 on Dec. 21, 1988 over Lockerbie, Scotland that turned the attention of security officials from guns to bombs, which can be relatively small and made of plastic. While we have upgraded our equipment to detect bombs, we have not addressed concerns about uniform standards used to detect potential human threats in a plane. At airport security checkpoints, walk-through metal detectors currently screen passengers. If the detector alarms, screeners use metal-detecting hand wands. Nonmetallic objects, including plastic and ceramic weapons, will generally not be found by either procedure. At the same checkpoints, carry-on bags are screened by equipment that displays an x-ray image of bag contents. An operator who sees a suspicious object in the image, or whose view is blocked by a concealing object, may hand search a bag as a backup procedure. Nonmetallic objects may be visible in the checkpoint x-ray image, but less clearly than metal items, and operator training has, up to now, been focused on identifying metal items. The checkpoint screeners who work for these private security companies have rapid turnover, more than 100 percent per year at many airports. The pay is low and is largely attributed to this high rate of turnover. Until directed otherwise by the Secretary of Transportation on September 12, 2001, many small knives, such as pocketknives, were permitted on board aircraft, even if detected by security personnel. I have concerns about unsecured access to the plane. There were several reports about finding box cutters and other potential weapons on planes that had landed on 9/11/01. These findings could lead one to believe there were other planned attacks during that fateful day. Prior to 9/11, several people had access to an aircraft and could, perhaps, leave a weapon in a hidden location for use by someone else. These people include the flight crew, maintenance personnel, cleaners, caterers, and baggage handlers. The DOT Inspector General reported his office was able to gain unauthorized access to secure areas of airports 68% of the time in tests during 1998 and 1999 and has found in audits that background checks of airport personnel are ineffective and are frequently not conducted as required. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. We need to establish a national standard that protects American citizens. I believe the Justice Department is the proper authority to set that standard. I thank the chairman, and I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1855, Withdrawn

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Madam President, I cannot find the words I want for Mike Mansfield--their meaning--and put them together like our good friend from West Virginia. He knew Michael almost as long as I did. But Mike has moved on. His work here on Earth is done. His legacy will live as it will be placed among the archives as majority leader of the Senate, as a Member of the House of Representatives, and as an Ambassador to Japan. As a nation, we have been graced and blessed by great leaders who rose to uncommon levels in times of national crises. We, the Members of this Senate, are the benefactors of his stewardship. A thankful nation is the benefactor of his wisdom. I now occupy the seat once held by Mike. Thirteen years ago, I came to this body, and for 13 years Mike and I had breakfast every Wednesday morning the Senate was in session. He seldom missed. Those conversations were wonderful, and they were also very insightful. They were full of wisdom, information, and insight. Senator Byrd described him as a nonpartisan. That is 95 percent correct. But one cannot work in this system and not have some partisan leanings. No person in Washington, DC, was kinder or more helpful to a newly elected Member of the Senate than Mike Mansfield--even being on the other side of the aisle. I shall never be able to thank him enough or forget what he did for me. Senator, Ambassador, Mike Mansfield, whichever you prefer--he was a good and faithful servant of the Nation and of the people of Montana whom he represented. His long lifespan was some 98 years. That gave him a perspective on life and history that very few of us will ever understand or attain. His wise eyes had seen and experienced so much of this country's history. In his lifetime, a nation--think about this-- went from horseback to the Moon. Think of it. He was an honest man. He lied a little about his age to get into World War I. He came home and worked in the mines of Butte and Anaconda. One has to read the history of Montana to know that was not easy work, and very dangerous. His beloved wife Maureen, who preceded him in death just a year ago, pushed him for education to better himself and to lift himself from the mines. He experienced the rigors of the worst depression in the history of the United States--what lessons that taught many of us--and the experience of World War II. If that weren't enough, the era of Korea, Vietnam, and the cold war, when two powers looked each other in the eye until one blinked. During tumultuous times, the United States has been blessed with common men and women who rose to uncommon levels of leadership when they were tested and asked to do so--men and women with a hidden character of steel, vision, compassion, and integrity. Mike Mansfield was one who, when called, responded to that level demanded by the day. Looking back at those conversations, they were mostly events and happenings of the Senate. He loved to tell stories of the giants of their day. That gave me great insight of this body, and his advice was seldom, if ever, wrong. The Mike I knew will be with me as long as I shall breathe. I thank God every day that our Nation's demands were answered by men and women such as Mike Mansfield. The best advice that was ever given to me by Senator Mansfield was short and very pointed. By the way, I used to work in the press corps in Montana when Michael was a Member of this body. The producer of the news show would say: Go out and interview Senator Mansfield. We need about a 15-minute interview. That meant you had better have about 40 questions, because the answers were very short. Yes, noble--little possible doubt. He didn't embellish much. But the best advice he ever gave me was short and very pointed. He said one time--and I will never forget it--``At the end of the day, it will be courage and vision that will sustain this Republic for generations to come.'' Courage and vision to sustain this Republic for the generations to come. This Nation has not only been blessed by great topography, but with a great climate and great natural resources from the mountains in the East, across the Ohio, the Missouri, and Mississippi valleys to the mountains of the West, to the high prairies and the Deep South. It has always produced men and women who, when tested, showed the steel of character and vision. Thank God he was a Member of this body. And might all of us live for the day when we can even stand in measure with him. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, we have been talking about aviation security. While the chairman of the Commerce Committee is still in the Chamber, I want to get a few things straight. The amendment that is hanging out there for this piece of legislation has nothing to do with airport security--nothing. In all other parts of the debate, we are so close to agreement it is unbelievable. And those areas can be ironed out. I am one, as the chairman knows, who has an amendment that would put the authority of airport security under the Justice Department. There is a very good reason for that. The model is already in front of us. The Attorney General can either have the Marshals Service or the FBI, whichever, put them in charge of airport security, and then give them the leeway if they wanted to contract using their standards and their clearance, making sure, I would imagine, that the people who work as screeners or baggage handlers or with the cargo could stand the scrutiny of a security clearance. The chairman of the Commerce Committee, and rightly so, invited members of El Al's security team in to visit with us. We sat there and listened to them. I was impressed with what they did. I think the Senator would have to admit that. But they only have 31 airplanes. They have 7,000 employees, and 1,500 of them are security people. They do nothing but security. There is a bright line between those people who fly them, those people who load them, those people who refuel them, those people in checkout areas, or check-in areas, and baggage areas--they know what they are supposed to do--but there is a bright line on their security. One person is in charge of security. Those areas the Senator mentioned a while ago--passenger lists and intelligence, the airport, the periphery outside, the check-in area, the departure gate, cargo, the aircraft--you get down to the little bottom part of it that says: Aircraft. Above that is where it parks. We know those areas. And they can be supervised by people who understand restricted areas, restricted cargo, the movement of contraband, and understand passenger lists and intelligence. And that is Justice. That is where it is at. So we can agree on that, I am sure, before it is all over. But that is what we have to do. This debate is right on target, I say to the Senator. And I do not know what the House wants. I have no idea. They have not told anybody. I do not know what they want or what they do not want. But I think it is incumbent on us and the chairman of the Commerce Committee, through his leadership, that we get a bill out of this Senate this week and also probably an antiterrorism bill, too. We can agree on those things. But make no mistake about it; what is continuing this debate, which I doubt continues past tomorrow, is an amendment that is hanging out there that has nothing to do with airport security. What we have to be very careful about--and I think there are a couple others, but those areas can be worked out. We can negotiate those out. I am satisfied with them because nobody understands justice any better than our chairman. He chairs the appropriations subcommittee that gives them their money. He understands that. And I am willing to work with my chairman to make sure that we make this as suitable as possible. But what I think I want to do, I want to make a bright line of authority, accountability, and responsibility because we are in war. Why am I adamant about this? It is very simple. Approximately 6,000 people died September 11. That is an astounding figure to me, astounding. And the system we were using had a soft point. It did not work. So what I am saying is this: Give authority where there is accountability and responsibility and also a presence that is trusted by the American people so they feel confident, safe, and secure when they fly.

Mr. BURNS. I certainly will.

Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his time and appreciate that we quit monkeying around and that we get it done. But in those areas that really concern us about airport security, we are pretty close. We can agree on that. So I think we ought to keep our eyes on the ball, why we are here, what the legislation is supposed to do, and then let other issues come up as they shall. But I think the American people expect this piece of legislation. Again, I cannot believe that people would venture into areas that have nothing to do with security when basically we are at war. Nobody understands that in this body today as well as the man who is the Presiding Officer, his losing friends, family--maybe not family but friends. Six thousand people died on that day. It is time to quit monkeying around. It is time to get on with our business. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURNS

Mr. BURNS. I thank my good friend from South Carolina. I didn't think he had to be invigorated or stimulated to make a great speech. I was going to stay out of this, but the Senator is correct; nothing will stimulate travel more than a strong sense of security. It has to be visible. People have to see the measures that are being taken to make it viable and to give them a sense of security whenever they fly. We know we are in a different kind of a confrontation now. Some have termed it a war. It really is. But it is different from anything this Nation has ever faced. Whenever we start talking about our own security, providing security for our people in this country and abroad, we only have to look--I was interested, as was the chairman of the Commerce Committee, that when we talk to the representatives of El Al, the national airline of Israel, we talked to the people who are in charge of security. If the Senator remembers, there are 7,000 employees of El Al, both domestic and international; 1,500 of that 7,000 are in security. And there is a bright line between their security people and everybody else--the pilots, the people who operate their airports, the people who operate their reservation systems, the people who operate their ground operations and their in-flight operations. There is a bright line of authority between those people who are the security people. They know how to exercise that authority. They are accountable and responsible for that. But most importantly, they are accountable to their airline and to their country. We have crafted this legislation without a hearing--we never had a markup--but it is as close, and I think with a couple of amendments we can perfect it, as we can come to some understanding on that bright line of accountability and responsibility for security. I congratulate the Senator for his leadership. He understands where we have to go and how to get there in order to provide the safety and security the American people demand. I thank the Senator.