The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“RESOLVING DIFFERENCES” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the Senate section on pages S10280-S10282 on Oct. 4, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
RESOLVING DIFFERENCES
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this afternoon I want to speak to the issue that many of my colleagues have spoken about. For the first time since September 11, I have heard an interesting word used by the majority leader of the Senate, the word ``obstruction.''
I am disappointed Senator Daschle has decided that is a word he needs to use to express his concern about where we are in the Senate at this moment.
What I will say this afternoon to the majority leader is there is an awful lot about trying to get the work product we are going to offer to the American people next week right correct, well done, before we bring it to the floor. For example, if Senator Daschle had suggested we bring the antiterrorism package to the floor yesterday, we would not have had a completed product. Somebody would have had to stand up and object and say, wait a moment, Tom, somehow you have the cart before the horse.
If we spend another 24 hours on it, maybe we can resolve our differences. You know what happened in that 24-hour period? Differences were resolved. The Senate stood in a bipartisan way last night and crafted an antiterrorism package, and the House voted out of committee unanimously in a bipartisan way to resolve it.
There is not a great deal of difference between that and the airport safety package that came to the floor without clear instructions and a bipartisan unity that would have led us to resolve it in the correct fashion. Many of our colleagues were lining up, and rightfully so, to offer a variety of amendments that could have taken us well into next week, substantially changed the character of an airport safety package, and sent a very confusing message to the American public. The public has a right to be concerned at this moment because current airport safety failed us on September 11. They want to make darn sure that whatever we do this time we get it right.
In getting it right, my guess is the first question you would ask is, Are you going to use the old model that failed us on September 11 and throw more money at it and throw more people at it, or are you going to think differently? Are you going to step out of that box and look at something new that really is an awful lot about law enforcement and a lot less about hiring the cheapest kind of personnel you can get to fill what is required by the FAA? That really is the debate that is going on behind the closed doors that the majority leader has not been willing to expose to the American people this afternoon. He has simply stood on this floor, wrung his hands, and used the word
``obstruction.''
Let me say what is going on in the back rooms at this moment: The White House, the Secretary of Transportation, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, and a good many others are trying to craft a final product that is a hybrid, that is out of the box, that is different, that is unique, that we can bring to the floor next Tuesday and show to the American people we can get it right and they will, from that day forward, as this new product gets implemented, have the kind of airport security they want, demand, and are going to require of their government.
Is it more of a model of law enforcement, maybe like the U.S. Marshals Service that has a cadre of professionals that allows contracting out but does so with very strict parameters? The White House has said they do not want to federalize all of it. They recognize you cannot make all of these people Federal employees and expect the best product, but if you do, then you have to change the character of the way you hire a Federal employee, and you have to allow hiring and you have to allow firing. You have to be able to proscribe and demand and inspect and make sure the end product, the inability to penetrate security at all of our Nation's airports, is absolute.
I suggest to the majority leader the reason we are not debating this issue on the floor this afternoon is not a matter of obstruction; it is a matter of getting it right before it is brought to the floor. It is an awful lot more about airport security in the long term because we only have one more bite at this apple. If we get it wrong this time, shame on us.
We heard the Senator from New Jersey talk about a very important issue: rebuilding the infrastructure of the rail delivery system of the east coast. Should it be a part of airport security or should it be a part of an infrastructure bill that has long been needed that addresses the refurbishing of a very antiquated rail system? How much money is it going to cost? Should we rush to judgment and spend a few billion dollars more when we are on the verge of spending beyond what we now have available to spend?
September 11 awakened us to a great many needs, but it does not mean we do them all overnight or we spend hundreds of billions of dollars into deficit to accommodate it. It says, though, that we have some immediate needs. One of the most immediate is airport security.
While Americans are beginning to return to our airports because they know security has been substantially heightened, what we are going to offer them in the package that is brought to the floor next week is a new model that creates a new paradigm of thinking, that clearly allows the American people to see on an annual basis, as we review it, as it is implemented by this administration, an airport security system that has the integrity not to allow the penetration, not to allow a September 11 to ever happen again in this country, and to say to them, as I should as a policymaker in a legitimate way, we have offered the best product available to guarantee security and a sense of well-being when one steps on an airliner at any airport in this country.
So should we be rushing now to get it out or should we be trying to do it right?
Our President spoke about being calm, about missiles or bombs not flying the day after September 11, about going out and finding out where the enemy is, building coalitions and doing it in a progressive, constructive way that forever would rid this world of terrorism. He preached calmness and he asked us to unite. The kind of divisive word,
``obstruction,'' that I heard this afternoon does not serve this body well. It does not bring us together. It divides us. It divides Members along a line that says: there is somebody for something and somebody against something.
I suggest there isn't anything that we can all be unanimously for at this moment because there are very legitimate questions about the integrity of the proposal and how it will work and who will manage it--
FAA? Department of Transportation? Department of Justice? Is it a transportation issue? Is it a law enforcement issue? They are reasonable questions to be asked, not after the fact but before the fact, before you get to the floor, before you have a final product, so we can stand united, together, as the American people are expecting in this time of national crisis, and not to divide along party lines.
As a result of that need that I think is critical and that my leader thinks is critical, we had to say: Wait a moment; back off for just a little bit. Let's finish that product and let the chairman of the committee, who has worked hard and had a good idea, and the ranking member and the White House, and others, come together.
It is true there was a bill and the bill they tried to present and bring forward yesterday afternoon had not been before the committee, had not had hearings, had not worked the process. I understand that. We all understand that. It is a time of urgency. But in that urgency, in the very critical character of what we do, we cannot do it wrong. We cannot rush to judgment and load it down with everything else, including social agendas, unemployment agendas, a whole infrastructure, transportation system for Amtrak. That is for another day and another issue. Darned important, yes. We need time to debate it on the floor. Let the committee work its will.
I am not going to suggest I understand exactly how any of these systems ought to work. I understand when we take our time and involve all of our colleagues and use the process appropriately, we produce better public policy.
Clearly, the White House engaged us yesterday in a much more direct way with some examples of things they believed were necessary that were not in the bill, that the leader was trying to bring to the floor, that he now accuses us of having obstructed. Mr. Leader, of course you speak out as you wish, but I will suggest that come next Tuesday or Wednesday we will have a better product. We will be more united. We will stand together as the American people ask. We will craft out of a box, out of the old failed paradigm, a new product, and we will be able to turn to the American people and say, in the collective best thinking of the U.S. Congress, the President of the United States, the Secretary of Transportation, and all of the experts we could assemble, we are creating an airport security system in this Nation that will work.
Following that, I hope we can move to antiterrorism and the kind of package that was crafted in an unhurried but aggressive environment which the House voted out unanimously last night from their committee, and Senators came around yesterday evening in final draft to say that is a product that will work, that will give the FBI, that will give other law enforcement agencies in our country the kind of seamless web and communications system that allows them to know what the right hand is doing for the left hand, and vice versa, and the ability to track in a modern, electronic way those who might be brewing ill will for our Nation and our Nation's citizens.
Let us stand together in this Nation's time of need. ``Obstruction'' is not a constructive word. It is not the glue we need. My guess is, getting it right is what we are about and what the American people expect.
For tomorrow, for Saturday, and for Monday, our work is all about getting an airport security bill right. When we do, then we can turn to the American people and say we are putting in place a security system second to none. And from that, we can suggest the skies of America and America's air carriers are safer than they have ever been. That is our goal. It is our charge. Frankly, it is our responsibility. We are up to it in a bipartisan fashion with the whole Senate speaking as one voice. Next week we will be prepared to do that.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Jeffords). Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________
