John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield to the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are now engaged in so-called postcloture debate of 30 hours. I have not paid total attention to what is going on on the floor of the Senate, but clearly there has been no debate on postcloture on the Aviation Security Act. This is rapidly turning into a farce. We need to act. We need to act on aviation security. If there are differences of opinion, such as those held by the Senator from Idaho about federalization, let's have debates and votes. If there is consideration of nongermane amendments, then let's have those debated and voted on as well. The chairman of the committee, Senator Hollings, and I have agreed to oppose all nongermane amendments. But for us to sit here for 30 hours in so-called postcloture debate--yesterday there was a near tragedy because of a deranged individual who broke into a cockpit of an airplane nearly causing another catastrophe. Part of this legislation, S. 1477, requires the Department of Transportation to take steps to strengthen cockpit doors. There is another case in my own home State where some individual obviously smuggled in a weapon which caused the shutdown of the Phoenix airport for some 10 hours. The list goes on. I don't agree with the statement that was made by the administration that there was a 100 percent chance of retaliation because of our military actions in Afghanistan. I don't agree with that statement, although I will admit that I don't have the knowledge of the members of the administration who made that statement. But here we are now going into our second week without addressing the issue of aviation security. No, I don't agree with the Senator from Idaho that an energy bill is of the same emergency as the Aviation Security Act right now. No rational observer that I know of would agree with that statement. The fact is we need to act. We don't have to wait until 4:57 this afternoon. We should be debating, amending, and passing this legislation before we go out of session this weekend. I am embarrassed that both sides of the aisle for reasons less than national security are not agreeing to take up and pass this legislation. I don't think the American people, who have been very pleased with our performance up until now, are very pleased. In fact, they are very displeased with our failure to take up this legislation in a normal parliamentary fashion--debate, vote, and give the American people what they don't have today; that is, the sense that a lot of Americans don't have today, that they can get on an airliner with comparative safety and security. I urge my colleagues to stop what we have been doing for the last 2 weeks, get on with moving this legislation, and perform our duties for the American people, for the men and women right now who are in harm's way performing their duties for the American people. It seems to me it wouldn't be a great deal to ask us to move on this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield to the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. I think so. It is obvious. I understand the day before yesterday on Wall Street there was a meeting between the Speaker of the House, the Democrat leader in the House, 20 business and economic and labor leaders, and Alan Greenspan. Their message was, pass the aviation security bill so confidence will be restored on the part of the American people so we can have an economic recovery. On other side of the Capitol, they refuse to take up the issue. On this side of the Capitol, for nearly 2 weeks we have failed to have one moment of debate on this issue, and no amendment has been proposed. I just find that, frankly, incomprehensible. I am not really renowned for my patience, but I believe I have shown a lot of patience. I believe that Senator Hollings, the distinguished chairman of the committee, has also gone through these machinations trying to work out agreements. I must have had 100 meetings on this issue. We had the idea of taking up the antiterrorism bill first and then moving to this legislation. We thought everybody had an agreement. Then there was one Member on the other side who insisted on amendments. We thought we could get it up with perhaps an agreement that all Members would vote against nongermane amendments. That doesn't seem to have worked. I have literally exhausted almost every option. Our meetings with the White House have been fruitless. I have not been around here--in fact, the Senator from Nevada and I have been around here the same number of years. I have never had the White House cancel two meetings in 1 day with the chairman and ranking member of the committees--two in 1 day. Here we are telling the American people that we are working together and we are dedicated to the proposition that we will take whatever measures are necessary in a bipartisan fashion to assure their security and safety, both home and overseas. There is no expert who doesn't believe we need to act on the issue of airport and airline security. Here we are nearing the end of our second week mired in such a situation on which we have made no progress.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. In fact, it may be even likely. I am very concerned about this unanimous consent agreement. Because I think what we will do is have an immediate presentation of the Carnahan amendment which will tie up the Senate to prevent us from further consideration of amendments and final consideration of the aviation security bill, I object.

Mr. McCAIN. May I continue to ask the majority leader, suppose we just had a scenario, for example, out of my imagination, that immediately a so-called Carnahan amendment is proposed which would then occasion a filibuster or a cloture motion. Then we might be in that scenario almost immediately. Is that possible, I ask the majority leader?

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, I ask the majority leader, in light of the fact it is very unusual in a unanimous consent agreement to say after consultation between both leaders and managers, then they move to the antiterrorism bill, why not just have a unanimous consent agreement to go to third reading and final passage of the bill, and then go to the antiterrorism bill?

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If there is no one on the floor to engage in postcloture debate?

Mr. McCAIN. How much time remains on the 30 hours of postcloture debate of which there has been none that I have seen?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, can you tell me the parliamentary situation as it exists presently?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I note the Senator from Oklahoma is not in the Chamber, so I will withhold until he reaches the floor. What I intend to do when he does reach the floor is ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the remaining hours on postcloture and proceed to immediate consideration of S. 1447. Today there was an ABC news poll that showed 42 percent of the American people are still concerned about flying on an airliner. The day before yesterday there was a meeting in New York City between the Speaker of the House, the Democrat leaders, Representative Gephardt, and 20 business and labor leaders, as well as Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve. According to published media reports, there were strong recommendations by all these individuals to move on airport security so the confidence of the American people could be restored and the economy would have a chance to recover. For 2 weeks we have been trying to get this bill considered. Meanwhile, we have American men and women who are in combat, putting their lives on the line for the safety of American citizens and we cannot even act on an airport security bill. I don't feel like running through the litany of all the things that have happened, all the meetings the Senator from Texas and I have had, and not had, the scheduled meetings and the unscheduled meetings, the canceled meetings, and the negotiations. This legislation is being held up for reasons that have nothing to do with airport security. There are legitimate differences of opinion on this issue. I respect those differences. The Senator from Oklahoma was going to state when he objects that he is afraid a nongermane amendment or nonrelevant amendment may be added to the bill. I oppose, as does the distinguished chairman, Senator Hollings, nonrelevant and nongermane amendments, but, at the same time, that is not reason to block the legislation from being considered. Because there are objections that are related or nonrelated to this legislation, we are blocking the legislation because of certain select interests or concerns. That is not the way we should do business. The way we should do business is to take up bills, vote on them, have debate, have amendments, and vote on them. That is the way the process is supposed to work. Is this an issue that is a minor policy disagreement? Is this an issue that has to do with only a small number of Americans, maybe the State of Arizona or just the State of Texas? No. This is an issue of compelling requirements. Very few Americans, if any, will ever forget the sight of those airliners flying into the World Trade Center. All of us will remember it as long as we live. Every time they see it, they will want to know that their Government, working with the elected representatives, not by Executive order but by working with their elected officials, has taken every measure possible to ensure the safety of the flying public, which is a large number of Americans. Supposedly at 4:57, as a result of my parliamentary inquiry before lunch, we will be going to the bill, but the reason I propose a unanimous consent request now is by the time there are opening statements tonight, we will have killed another day. Perhaps we may even use all of tomorrow. Usually we don't do a lot of work around here on Friday. And we would then have expended another week before we could get on this legislation. I thank the Senator from Texas for all of her hard work on this issue. I know the Senator from Oklahoma will object and give his well- thought-out reasons for doing so. I know the Senator from Texas will make her comments. The time for backroom negotiations and conversations and proposals and counterproposals is over. We have a bill. We had hearings in the Commerce Committee on airport and airline security. This legislation is a direct result of those hearings. This is not something made up in the backroom. This legislation was produced through thoughtful consultation with the best minds in America that we could find. We think it is vital we move forward with this legislation. At this time, I ask unanimous consent we vitiate the remaining hours in postcloture and move directly to the consideration of S. 1447, the Aviation Security Act.

Mr. McCAIN. In response to the Senator from Oklahoma, that would be a highly unusual request, as he knows, because the normal procedure in the Senate is to take up legislation. If there is a concern about nongermane or nonrelevant amendments, then a cloture motion is filed, as has already been filed in one case. So, no, I do not agree to modify my request for that because I think it would be depriving Members, at least temporarily, of their voice and their concerns and their amendments that they might want to propose. I promise the Senator from Oklahoma I will object and vote against and argue against, as the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee stated, any nonrelevant and nongermane amendment. I hope that satisfies his concerns.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If we could withhold for 30 seconds to describe the amendment of Senator Ensign, it allows retired law enforcement officers or retired armed forces personnel to serve as Federal air marshals if the individual meets the background and fitness qualifications. I think this is a good amendment that will provide some highly qualified, trained and experienced individuals. I urge its adoption.

Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending Carnahan amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Snowe of Maine and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope that in about an hour we will be moving to the Airport Security Act since those 30 hours will then be close to expiration. I want to clarify a statement that I made on the floor earlier. I do oppose nongermane, nonrelevant amendments. I announced that when this bill was first--we thought it was going to be considered. But I want to point out that I have been in negotiations and discussions with various Members who are concerned about those individuals who have been directly impacted by Federal action, closing down the airways and the airports, including Reagan National Airport which just recently reopened. I think if we can reach an agreement, scale back dramatically the original proposals, that we could come to some agreement and attach that to this bill. But it would have to be acceptable to a large majority of the Members of the Senate. Although I oppose nongermane amendments, I also think we need to act on the issue of those who are directly affected by Federal action as a result of the shutdown of the airlines across this country. I wanted to make that clear. I continue to hold discussions on both sides of the aisle to see if there is a way we can come to agreement and thereby have it as a part of this legislation, particularly since the administration has not made a commitment at this time to have it on any pending vehicle. I wanted to clarify my position on the issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rail Safety and Security Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Gordon Smith, the ranking Republican of the Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee. This legislation would authorize funding to improve rail passenger safety and security, while assuring accountability and oversight of all associated expenditures. It would also amend current law and allow for rail police officers to enforce laws on the properties of other railroads and would establish criminal sanctions for attacks against our Nation's rail system. And, it would also require a comprehensive assessment of the security risks surrounding rail transportation in order for the Congress to then take appropriate action based on the conclusions of the assessment. I believe this legislation is a much needed step in protecting our rail transportation system against security threats and vulnerabilities. During the past four weeks, we have been working in a bipartisan manner to address the nation's most pressing needs in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. We have worked with the administration to provide necessary emergency funding to aid in the aftermath of the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon. Part of that effort has focused on the survival of the aviation industry, and rightly so. Our Nation, our citizens, and our economy cannot afford further deterioration of this critical segment of the transportation industry. It is equally important that we approve aviation security legislation and send it to the President. Transportation systems are the target of 40 percent of terrorist attacks worldwide. That is why it is necessary for the government to play a key role in assessing potential security threats in our Nation's transportation system. We must ensure that we have taken every precaution to safeguard critical infrastructure and that procedures are in place to protect people and property in the event of actual terrorist attacks. In that effort, the Senate Commerce Committee has been conducting a series of hearings to gain the information we need to help us evaluate potential security risks and determine how best to respond to those potential risks. In addition to aviation security legislation, the Commerce Committee has approved legislation to address security at our Nation's ports. I am hopeful the full Senate will have the opportunity to consider that bill in the near future. Given the hundreds of thousands of miles of rail track, highways, and pipelines, hundreds of ports and terminals throughout the U.S., and the ease of access to public transportation, it is impossible to fully secure our transportation system against all deliberate acts of destruction. Efforts to reduce vulnerability, however, are essential and each industry has a responsibility to assess and respond to identified problems. Federal, State, and local governments also play an important role in this effort. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to address the safety and security of our Nation's rail transportation network, both passenger and freight. Unlike other passenger rail funding proposals that have been suggested, this legislation would only fund legitimate safety and security initiatives. It would also assure the highest degree of accountability of all expenditures. I note my proposal would not provide a handout directly to Amtrak to fund long-planned capacity projects that it has been unable to accomplish. Therefore, some will likely object to my approach from the outset. But, I hope members interested in addressing legitimate rail safety and security concerns will join me in supporting this alternative approach. Last week, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on Rail and Maritime security. We learned from that hearing that certain actions that can be taken immediately to address security vulnerabilities. Therefore, this legislation is designed to address the needs we currently know exist and, at the same time, provide for an assessment of rail security that would enable us to act on matters identified through a more comprehensive review than has yet occurred. First, the bill would authorize funding for security upgrades for rail transportation provided by Amtrak. However, the funding would be made available to Amtrak only after the Secretary establishes appropriate funding procedure safeguards and after approving a system wide security plan submitted by Amtrak. Second, the bill would authorize funding for the Tunnel Life Safety projects in New York, Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. The DOT Inspector General has confirmed the need to bring existing systems up to par with modern safety standards, including the replacement of narrow, winding spiral staircases, the installation of modern ventilation fans, and the rehabilitation of benchwalls. The IG further has expressed concerns that an extended schedule of repairs as would occur without federal assistance places the public at prolonged and unnecessary risk. Based on the findings of the DOT-IG, this legislation includes provisions to fully fund these projects in order to reduce the risk to public safety. It would fund these projects, however, only after the Secretary approves engineering and financial plans submitted by Amtrak and conditions the release of funding by entering into proper funding procedures. In other words, the funding will not just be handed to Amtrak with no questions asked. It ensures proper federal oversight of the federal assistance. Furthermore, the legislation would direct the DOT Inspector General to review the obligation and expenditure of funds provided under this legislation to ensure that the funds are used solely for the purposes intended by Congress. Third, the bill would permit rail police officers to enforce laws on the properties of other railroads. Current law only permits officers to enforce laws on the properties of the rail carrier that employs the police officer. This provision would allow for flexibility and the sharing of enforcement resources among all rail carriers as may be necessary to address safety and security threats directed at a particular carrier. Fourth, this legislation includes provisions to address potential security threats to our nation's rail transportation system. While the vulnerabilities of air travel may be most prevalent in our memory, our rail system has been and continues to be vulnerable to security threats. Five years ago, Arizonans and citizens throughout the country were saddened to learn of an Amtrak derailment near Hyder, AZ, which claimed the life of one individual and injured seventy-eight others. Shortly after the accident, the sadness turned to shock as we learned that the derailment may have been caused by someone who intentionally sabotaged the track. The Arizona accident is not unique. There have been other examples of acts against railroads. Following that occurrence, the Senate passed legislation requested by the previous Administration addressing some of these vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, we failed to reach an agreement with the House during conference deliberations on the multi-year highway funding legislation. Therefore, I am including those provisions as part of this bill today. Now, more than ever, these provisions are essential. The legislation would establish criminal sanctions for violent attacks against railroads, railroad employees and railroad passengers similar to sanctions currently afforded for attacks against airlines, vessels on the high seas, motor carriers, and pipelines. I strongly believe the rail industry and its employees and customers deserve the same protections afforded the other methods. Finally, the legislation would direct the Secretary to assess the security risks associated with rail transportation and to develop recommendations for target hardening those areas identified as posing significant risk to public safety. As I previously mentioned, there has not yet been a comprehensive analysis of the security risks of the rail industry. This provision would direct that such an assessment be carried out and at the conclusion of the assessment, it would provide us with the information Congress needs in order to make future decisions on how to further address rail security matters. I believe this legislation is a credible proposal that could do a great deal to improve the safety and security of our rail network. I stand ready to work with my colleagues, the Administration, industry, and public safety advocates in an effort to address the safety and security of our nation's rail system. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rail Safety and Security Act. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by Senator Gordon Smith, the ranking Republican of the Commerce Committee's Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee. This legislation would authorize funding to improve rail passenger safety and security, while assuring accountability and oversight of all associated expenditures. It would also amend current law and allow for rail police officers to enforce laws on the properties of other railroads and would establish criminal sanctions for attacks against our Nation's rail system. And, it would also require a comprehensive assessment of the security risks surrounding rail transportation in order for the Congress to then take appropriate action based on the conclusions of the assessment. I believe this legislation is a much needed step in protecting our rail transportation system against security threats and vulnerabilities. During the past four weeks, we have been working in a bipartisan manner to address the nation's most pressing needs in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. We have worked with the administration to provide necessary emergency funding to aid in the aftermath of the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon. Part of that effort has focused on the survival of the aviation industry, and rightly so. Our Nation, our citizens, and our economy cannot afford further deterioration of this critical segment of the transportation industry. It is equally important that we approve aviation security legislation and send it to the President. Transportation systems are the target of 40 percent of terrorist attacks worldwide. That is why it is necessary for the government to play a key role in assessing potential security threats in our Nation's transportation system. We must ensure that we have taken every precaution to safeguard critical infrastructure and that procedures are in place to protect people and property in the event of actual terrorist attacks. In that effort, the Senate Commerce Committee has been conducting a series of hearings to gain the information we need to help us evaluate potential security risks and determine how best to respond to those potential risks. In addition to aviation security legislation, the Commerce Committee has approved legislation to address security at our Nation's ports. I am hopeful the full Senate will have the opportunity to consider that bill in the near future. Given the hundreds of thousands of miles of rail track, highways, and pipelines, hundreds of ports and terminals throughout the U.S., and the ease of access to public transportation, it is impossible to fully secure our transportation system against all deliberate acts of destruction. Efforts to reduce vulnerability, however, are essential and each industry has a responsibility to assess and respond to identified problems. Federal, State, and local governments also play an important role in this effort. The legislation I am introducing today is designed to address the safety and security of our Nation's rail transportation network, both passenger and freight. Unlike other passenger rail funding proposals that have been suggested, this legislation would only fund legitimate safety and security initiatives. It would also assure the highest degree of accountability of all expenditures. I note my proposal would not provide a handout directly to Amtrak to fund long-planned capacity projects that it has been unable to accomplish. Therefore, some will likely object to my approach from the outset. But, I hope members interested in addressing legitimate rail safety and security concerns will join me in supporting this alternative approach. Last week, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on Rail and Maritime security. We learned from that hearing that certain actions that can be taken immediately to address security vulnerabilities. Therefore, this legislation is designed to address the needs we currently know exist and, at the same time, provide for an assessment of rail security that would enable us to act on matters identified through a more comprehensive review than has yet occurred. First, the bill would authorize funding for security upgrades for rail transportation provided by Amtrak. However, the funding would be made available to Amtrak only after the Secretary establishes appropriate funding procedure safeguards and after approving a system wide security plan submitted by Amtrak. Second, the bill would authorize funding for the Tunnel Life Safety projects in New York, Baltimore, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. The DOT Inspector General has confirmed the need to bring existing systems up to par with modern safety standards, including the replacement of narrow, winding spiral staircases, the installation of modern ventilation fans, and the rehabilitation of benchwalls. The IG further has expressed concerns that an extended schedule of repairs as would occur without federal assistance places the public at prolonged and unnecessary risk. Based on the findings of the DOT-IG, this legislation includes provisions to fully fund these projects in order to reduce the risk to public safety. It would fund these projects, however, only after the Secretary approves engineering and financial plans submitted by Amtrak and conditions the release of funding by entering into proper funding procedures. In other words, the funding will not just be handed to Amtrak with no questions asked. It ensures proper federal oversight of the federal assistance. Furthermore, the legislation would direct the DOT Inspector General to review the obligation and expenditure of funds provided under this legislation to ensure that the funds are used solely for the purposes intended by Congress. Third, the bill would permit rail police officers to enforce laws on the properties of other railroads. Current law only permits officers to enforce laws on the properties of the rail carrier that employs the police officer. This provision would allow for flexibility and the sharing of enforcement resources among all rail carriers as may be necessary to address safety and security threats directed at a particular carrier. Fourth, this legislation includes provisions to address potential security threats to our nation's rail transportation system. While the vulnerabilities of air travel may be most prevalent in our memory, our rail system has been and continues to be vulnerable to security threats. Five years ago, Arizonans and citizens throughout the country were saddened to learn of an Amtrak derailment near Hyder, AZ, which claimed the life of one individual and injured seventy-eight others. Shortly after the accident, the sadness turned to shock as we learned that the derailment may have been caused by someone who intentionally sabotaged the track. The Arizona accident is not unique. There have been other examples of acts against railroads. Following that occurrence, the Senate passed legislation requested by the previous Administration addressing some of these vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, we failed to reach an agreement with the House during conference deliberations on the multi-year highway funding legislation. Therefore, I am including those provisions as part of this bill today. Now, more than ever, these provisions are essential. The legislation would establish criminal sanctions for violent attacks against railroads, railroad employees and railroad passengers similar to sanctions currently afforded for attacks against airlines, vessels on the high seas, motor carriers, and pipelines. I strongly believe the rail industry and its employees and customers deserve the same protections afforded the other methods. Finally, the legislation would direct the Secretary to assess the security risks associated with rail transportation and to develop recommendations for target hardening those areas identified as posing significant risk to public safety. As I previously mentioned, there has not yet been a comprehensive analysis of the security risks of the rail industry. This provision would direct that such an assessment be carried out and at the conclusion of the assessment, it would provide us with the information Congress needs in order to make future decisions on how to further address rail security matters. I believe this legislation is a credible proposal that could do a great deal to improve the safety and security of our rail network. I stand ready to work with my colleagues, the Administration, industry, and public safety advocates in an effort to address the safety and security of our nation's rail system. I urge my colleagues to support this measure.