[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 76 (Thursday, June 16, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1994

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the pending business.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1491) to amend the Airport and Airway 
     Improvement Act of 1982 and authorize appropriations, and for 
     other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. FORD. 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. FORD. 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the quorum call be rescinded.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. FORD. Mr. President, may I take a few moments, because a number 
of my colleagues have raised questions regarding the concerns that 
airport operators have raised about title V of the bill, the impact on 
airport bonds and the possible imposition of civil penalties on airport 
sponsors for violations of the law.
  Mr. President, after months and months and months of tedious and 
torturous negotiations--and I underscore both those words--a compromise 
was reached with the two airport associations and the airlines. Let me 
repeat that. A compromise was reached with the two airport associations 
and the airlines. At the time of the final negotiations, I committed to 
the airport association to continue to work on these two issues, to 
clarify the language if necessary. I also committed to address and 
eliminate problems that are not intended by this legislation. I am 
aware that there are serious concerns about the effect this legislation 
may have on new fees, or fee increases that are committed in the future 
for bonds or financing agreements for airport capital improvements.
  I do not want to weaken airport bond financing capabilities, or 
ratings, nor do I want to inadvertently cause airport financing costs 
to increase. Such a result is in no one's best interests.
  I strongly believe that setting out a procedure for airport fee 
disputes will be a plus for the bond market, as they are always seeking 
certainty. Also, the elimination of the possibility of airport funds 
bleeding off the airport to fund local government services, should also 
send a strong, positive message to Wall Street and preserve the 
integrity of the airport funding system.
  I plan to work with the airports, the financial community, and other 
experts to make modification in the conference as necessary to prevent 
any adverse effects on airport financing. And I am not sure there will 
be much modification because of the long, long period of negotiations 
for the final agreement between the two airport associations and the 
airlines.
  Mr. President, with respect to the civil penalties provision, it is 
intended to inform local government officials and airport sponsors that 
revenue diversion will not be allowed. This provision should also 
strengthen DOT's ability to enforce the law. Mr. President, I believe 
this provision is needed, in that a prohibition on revenue diversion 
has been the law since 1982 and airports continue to divert revenue. 
One of the biggest problems with airport fees has been the lack of 
enforcement at the Department of Transportation. My interest--my 
interest alone in including a civil penalties provision is not in 
assessing penalties but to create a strong disincentive for those who 
may be tempted to seek to divert airport revenues and to ensure that 
violations are corrected and that any funds that are diverted illegally 
are restored to the airport.
  I want to make certain that the Department of Transportation and the 
FAA, should they find a violation, will provide a reasonable period of 
time to make corrective action to restore the funds or otherwise come 
into compliance before a penalty is assessed. As I stated in my opening 
remarks several days ago to S. 1491--in fact it was last Thursday--the 
Secretary of Transportation has wide latitude to mitigate or compromise 
the penalty, and that authority should be used. I hope the Secretary 
would not impose civil penalties for inadvertent diversion, but, 
instead, seek to recoup those funds in a timely fashion, worked out 
with the airport sponsors. Mr. President, I hope the provisions of this 
compromise never have to be used.
  I want to continue to encourage airports and airlines to work out 
their differences at the local level. The few occasions when a dispute 
has reached the level where the parties are unable to reach an 
agreement has proved the need for legislative guidelines and a swift 
policy at the Department of Transportation to resolve the dispute.
  I have included language in the compromise that ensures the 
compromise will not affect the fees and arrangements that are a part of 
a written agreement between an airport and the airlines.
  The language also makes clear that in enacting this legislation, the 
Congress does not intend to affect fees that are not in dispute or are 
required under financing agreements or bond covenants entered into 
prior to the bill's enactment.
  So, Mr. President, I hope this brief explanation will alleviate many 
of the concerns some of my colleagues have raised with me as chairman 
of the Aviation Subcommittee of the Committee of Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.


              misapplication of revenue diversion policies

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's efforts to 
prevent revenue diversion by airports. However, I would like to engage 
the chairman in a brief colloquy that expresses strong concern about 
the misapplication of revenue diversion policies to a situation 
affecting the Des Moines International Airport and its rental of 
facilities to the Des Moines Independent Community School District.
  The school district is one of only three in the country to train high 
school students to become aviation maintenance technicians. It's 
graduates, with the training and the experience that can only be gained 
from learning at an operating airport, are working all over the 
Midwest, ensuring that the Nation's aircraft are safely maintained.
  In 1993, the Department of Transportation inspector general conducted 
an audit to airport revenues across the country. Its goal was to shed 
some light on the very serious issue of airport revenue diversion, and 
to determine which airports were engaged in unauthorized revenue 
diversion.
  I understand that the IG found Des Moines to be a fully self-
sustaining airport, and generally found its procedures and accounting 
satisfactory. However, I am told that the IG concluded that the airport 
was not in full compliance with its grant assurances because it was not 
charging full market value for use of airport land on which a public 
school facility has been built, which is considered to be a form of 
revenue diversion.
  I am greatly troubled by the IG's finding with regard to Des Moines. 
The use of this facility as a training school for aviation maintenance 
technicians is a situation wholly distinct from the classic cases of 
airport revenue diversion, where moneys generated by the airport are 
spent on off-airport service that do not benefit thie airport or 
airport users, and deprive the airport of needed revenue.
  This school is not only a governmental entity, operated by the school 
district. Most importantly, it provides critical services to the 
airport community. it must be located at an airport in order to fulfill 
its mission. And it provides a means of offering our Nation's young 
people an opportunity to develop needed aviation skills that can only 
be learned in an operating aviation environment. To insist on charging 
market value for a facility lease under the circumstances in this case, 
particularly when the airport is already self-sustaining, would in my 
view, be a serious distortion of the rules preventing airport revenue 
diversion.
  A Blue-Ribbon Panel study commissioned in 1993 predicts an impending 
shortage of maintenance technicians who have the training necessary to 
operate in tomorrow's complex aerospace system. The school district and 
the airport are working together to supply a much needed commodity in 
aeronautics--skilled technicians who have the qualifications to provide 
services necessary to ensure the safety to air travelers.
  I am concerned that the IG may have found this to be in violation of 
the airport's sponsor agreement and the Airport and Airway Improvement 
Act 1982. I do not believe that we had in mind requiring nonprofit 
governmental entities, such as this school, which fulfill an important 
aviation need--one without which airports cannot exist--to pay full 
market value for rental of airport property when the airport is already 
self-sustaining.
  Mr. FORD. I appreciate the Senator's thoughtful address on this 
issue. Airport revenue diversion is arguably a very serious matter. Our 
intention at the time the Airport and Airway Improvement Act was 
enacted was and remains that an airport be as self-sustaining as is 
feasible, and that the revenues generated by an airport should be used 
by the airport and should not be sent downtown for other purposes.
  I agree with the Senator from Iowa that the rental to the school 
district for the maintenance technician school should be considered an 
appropriate and aviation-related use, and not subject to the strict 
imposition of the requirement that full market value be paid for the 
facility, particularly insofar as the airport is self-sustaining. The 
school needs to be on the airport. It is not a commercial enterprise. 
It is not generating a profit from which to pay for a full market value 
lease, and the work it performs on the airport directly benefits the 
airport and its users.
  I would also reiterate, however, that this body remains strongly 
opposed to diversion of airport revenue. The Airport and Airway 
Improvement Act of 1982 clearly prohibits such diversions, and rightly 
so. We must ensure that our Airport Improvement Program dollars are 
maximized at our Nation's airports. These funds are not meant to 
augment a local government's accounts, enabling it to use airport 
revenues to fund projects unrelated to an airport, no matter how worthy 
those projects might be.


                           Section 503(a)(2)

  Mr. SARBANES. I would like to engage the chairman and floor manager 
in a colloquy concerning section 503(a)(2) of the bill.
  Since 1970, the State of Maryland has maintained a Consolidated 
Transportation trust fund under which all transportation revenue, 
including that generated by airport and port facilities, transit fares, 
motor vehicle registration fees and other fees is deposited. Revenues 
generated by the Maryland-owned and operated Baltimore/Washington 
International Airport--BWI--are included in this trust fund. These 
comingled revenues are then, in turn, disbursed to pay the expenses of 
the Department's programs. This mechanism has helped ensure that 
Maryland has an integrated, intermodal transportation system and has 
provided the Maryland Department of Transportation with the flexibility 
necessary to meet local needs and changing conditions on a timely 
basis.
  I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Secretary of 
Maryland's Department of Transportation which describes this 
arrangement and the use of trust fund money be printed in the Record 
immediately following my statement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SARBANES. In section 511(a)(12) of the Airport and Airway 
Improvement Act of 1982, the Congress specifically allowed various 
airports, under certain conditions, to be exempted from the requirement 
that all airport revenues be used only for airport purposes. In short, 
airports whose funding mechanisms were established prior to the 1982 
act which have similar consolidated trust funds or similar funding 
mechanisms could continue to be eligible for Federal AIP Program 
funding even though airport revenues were used for other purposes. 
Given that BWI is owned and operated by the Maryland Aviation 
Administration, which in turn is part of the Maryland Department of 
Transportation whose funding mechanisms were created in 1970, it is 
evident that BWI qualifies under the grandfather provision of the 1982 
act.
  I want to clarify the committee's intent with respect to section 
503(a)(2) and to ensure that nothing in this section would disrupt 
BWI's status as a fully qualified section 511(a)(12) airport.
  Mr. FORD. The Senator from Maryland is correct. Let me assure my 
colleague that it is not the intent of section 503(a)(2) to disrupt 
BWI's status as a fully qualified section 511(a)(12) airport.
  Mr. SARBANES. I thank the chairman for these assurances. I also want 
to underscore an important point raised in the letter from Maryland's 
Secretary of Transportation and I quote: ``Regardless of the effect of 
the grandfather provision, as a practical matter, BWI should not be 
characterized as a so-called revenue diverting airport, inasmuch as, 
since 1972, the MDOT Transportation trust fund expenditures for BWI 
have been in excess of $167 million more than the amount of revenue 
generated by BWI which has been credited to the same fund. In sum, the 
State of Maryland is more appropriately characterized as a revenue 
infuser when it comes to its proprietorship of BWI.''

                               Exhibit 1

                                               Maryland Department


                                            of Transportation,

                                                     June 9, 1994.
     Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Office Building, Washington DC.
       Dear Senator Paul Sarbanes: I am writing concerning the 
     status of State of Maryland owned and operated Baltimore/
     Washington International Airport (BWI) vis-a-vis the issue of 
     ``revenue diversion'' and Section 503 (a)(2) of S. 1491, the 
     ``Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994'' 
     which would re-authorize the Federal aid-to-airports program.
       We firmly believe that BWI is a fully qualified airport for 
     purposes of receiving federal aid, pursuant to Section 511 
     (a)(12) of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as 
     amended. That section states:
       ``all revenues generated by the airport, if it is a public 
     airport, . . . , will be expended for the capital or 
     operating costs of the airport, the local airport system, or 
     other local facilities which are owned or operated by the 
     owner or operator of the airport and directly and 
     substantially related to the actual air transportation of 
     passengers or property; except that if covenants or 
     assurances in debt obligations issued before September 3, 
     1982, by the owner or operator of the airport, or provisions 
     enacted before September 3, 1982, in the governing statutes 
     controlling the owner or operator's financing, provide for 
     the use of the revenues from . . . the airport, to support 
     not only the airport but also the airport owner or operator's 
     general debt obligations or other facilities, then this 
     limitation on the use of all other revenues generated by the 
     airport . . . shall not apply;'' (emphasis added)
       Legislation passed in 1970 (Chapter 526 of the laws of 
     Maryland of 1970) created the financing mechanisms for the 
     Maryland Department of Transportation. All revenues of the 
     department are credited to the consolidated Maryland 
     Transportation Trust Fund. All state owned transportation 
     facilities and programs, including those of the Maryland 
     Aviation Administration, which was created in 1972, are 
     operated and financed through this consolidated fund. Thus 
     revenues generated at the MAA owned and operated Baltimore/
     Washington International Airport are co-mingled with other 
     departmental revenues, and are used to pay the expenses of 
     the department and its ongoing operations and capital 
     programs.
       The Maryland Aviation Administration, as operator of BWI, 
     has executed and abided by all relevant Federal Aviation 
     Administration grant assurances since the Administration's 
     inception in 1972. The Administration is therefore acting in 
     compliance with applicable Federal law when all BWI revenues 
     are remitted to the department's trust fund and commingled 
     with other sources of departmental revenue.
       Since creation of the Maryland Department of 
     Transportation, the Maryland Aviation Administration and the 
     state's Transportation Trust Fund all occurred prior to the 
     September 3, 1982 ``grandfather'' date set forth in Section 
     511 (a)(12) and reaffirmed by Section 503(a)(2) of the 
     pending re-authorization, BWI is fully qualified airport 
     within the meaning of these provisions.
       Regardless of the effect of the grandfather provision, as a 
     practical matter, BWI should not be characterized as a so-
     called ``revenue diverting airport,'' inasmuch as, since 
     1972, the MDOT Transportation Trust Fund expenditures for BWI 
     have been in excess of $167 million more than the amount of 
     revenue generated by BWI which has been credited to the same 
     fund. In sum, the State of Maryland is more appropriately 
     characterized as a ``revenue infuser'' when it comes to its 
     proprietorship of BWI.
       Thank you for your continuing interest and support, and 
     your commitment to ensuring that the travelling and shipping 
     public continue to be well served through Maryland's domestic 
     and international gateway airport, BWI.
           Sincerely,
                                              O. James Lighthizer,
     Secretary.
                                  ____

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. First and foremost, I would like to thank the manager 
of this bill, the Senator from Kentucky, for his patience, his 
diligence, and his cooperation on this bill. Since last year, this bill 
has faced one hurdle after another, but Senator Ford and his staff have 
addressed each hurdle, and recognizing the importance of this bill to 
the Nation's airports, have moved this bill toward final passage. I for 
one appreciate his effort. The Senator has also engaged me in three 
colloquies to clarify issues of concern--on the issues of regional 
planning districts, the escrow account and how it affects Los Angeles 
International Airport, and the safety requirements on intrastate 
trucking--and for that I am appreciative.
  The Senator from Kentucky, a little over a month ago now, helped 
craft a temporary authorization bill that began the funds flowing from 
the Airport Improvement Program, but provided airlines and airports the 
opportunity to return to the negotiating table to address an ongoing 
dispute on the issue of rates charges. Previous to the passage of the 
short-term bill, I expressed, as did a number of my colleagues, great 
concern over proposed legislation that was circulating with regard to 
the establishment of rates and charges and how they affect the 
airports, the airlines, and the traveling public. Senator Ford heard 
that concern and brought the parties back to the negotiating table to 
avoid passing a bill that placed too much of a burden on one side or 
the other.
  The dispute over rates and charges, which I will discuss in a few 
moments, has attracted a great deal of attention and consumed a great 
amount of time. But, the bill contains much more than just this 
provision.
  The most fundamentally important aspect of this bill is that it 
authorizes over $2 billion a year in airport grants for fiscal year 
1994 thru fiscal year 1996. Grants from this program are vital, 
particularly for small airports, and are used to do such things as 
improve runways, install navigational equipment, conduct master plans, 
soundproof residences, that are near airports, acquire firefighting 
vehicles, among others.
  These funds are critical to the ongoing development of our Nation's 
infrastructure and their delivery can be delayed no longer.


                           rates and charges

  Let me return to the issue of rates and charges. The bill language 
that we have before us today is much better than what we were about to 
consider 6 weeks ago when we adopted the short-term bill in order to 
resolve some of these matters, and is as close to a genuine compromise 
as we are likely to get. Most importantly, in my opinion, we have 
preserved the right of an airport to establish rates and charges 
according to a compensatory or residual methodology, and have 
maintained the Secretary's discretion to determine what is and is not a 
reasonable rate.
  Both sides have given ground on this language, and I appreciate the 
efforts of the chairman and his staff to keep the parties at the 
negotiating table. Both airport trade associations, the American 
Association of Airport Executives and the Airports Council 
International--though ACI did so with some hesitation--have agreed to 
support this bill.
  What makes this issue so tremendously difficult, is the fact that no 
two airports are alike. Airports accommodate different airlines, 
establish different fees, and enter into an infinite variety of 
agreements. Instead of being able to establish one simply policy, the 
policy must remain broad enough, and the Secretary must maintain 
adequate discretion, so the entire spectrum of airports and airport 
issues can be accommodated. Are all the airports happy? No. Are all of 
the airlines happy? No. But the bill we have before us today is a great 
deal better than the crash course we were on 6 weeks ago.
  I would like to briefly discuss some items that remain in the bill, 
yet need continued consideration.


                            civil penalties

  This legislation imposes civil penalties on an airport sponsor should 
the sponsor violate an airport grant assurance and divert revenue off 
the airport. As a result of the proposed language, civil monetary 
policies could be unlimited in amount, and each violation of each 
individual grant assurance would be considered a separate violation. A 
grantee could be liable for millions of dollars in civil penalties.
  Let me make a few more points. Civil penalties are paid out of public 
funds and will ultimately be paid by the taxpayer. To my knowledge this 
is the first time that any grant program would impose penalties for 
violating a grant assurance. The National League of Cities is strongly 
opposed to this part of the bill, and feels that it will set a 
dangerous precedent for other grant-in-aid programs. I will submit a 
letter from the National League of Cities for the Record. Finally, the 
legislation would deny an airport sponsor future grant funds in light 
of a violation, and I think that this is sufficient without imposing 
additional penalties.

  I would rather not see civil penalties in the bill, but if it 
remains, at a bare minimum, there should be a period where the airport 
sponsor has the opportunity to correct the violation.


                                 escrow

  This bill provides that should a dispute arise over fees, the 
disputed increase in fees will be paid into an escrow account until the 
matter is settled. This places an airport at a tremendous disadvantage 
in any negotiation over a landing fee. If an airport raises a fee, and 
the increase is thrown into an escrow account for up to the 6 months it 
could take to resolve a dispute, an airport could face tremendous 
financial strain by not receiving these funds. An airline, knowing that 
an airport faces financial trouble, gains significant leverage in an 
attempt to reach an agreement.
  I would like to thank the manager of this bill for ensuring that 
nothing in this bill is retroactive in terms of affecting the interim 
settlement agreement between LAX and the airlines that was reached last 
November. The provision that the committee included in this bill 
specifically exempts from the requirement for escrow the fees currently 
in dispute at LAX. Without this provision, the financial situation at 
LAX could quickly become grave, and I appreciate the chairman's 
including this provision in the bill.


                                 bonds

  Concerns remain that language in this bill will affect the ability of 
airports to finance airport capital projects. It is my understanding 
that the bill, as drafted, would require a bond issued to be signed off 
on by every airline at an airport. This would increase costs and cause 
unnecessary delay in needed improvements as well as create roadblocks 
to beginning new projects. In difficult financial times, it would be 
counterproductive to pass legislation that will increase the cost of 
capital projects at Los Angeles International Airport, San Jose 
International Airport, Oakland and San Francisco International 
Airports, or any other airport in California or in the Nation.
  I am also concerned that this provision on bonds will, in effect, 
give the airlines veto power over airport capital projects. The real 
issue is who will have ultimate control at an airport. While I would 
clearly prefer cooperative arrangements between airports and airlines, 
if that is not possible, the final say must be with the municipal 
sponsors. The cities remain while air carriers come and go.
  The chairman recognizes this concern and intends for this bill, in no 
way to interfere with an airports' bond financing, capability. In this 
vein I urge the chairman and his staff to consult closely with bond 
rating agencies, bond and underwriters counsel, airport financial 
officers, and others to ensure, before this bill is passed, that the 
cost of capital financing is not increased as a result of this 
legislation.


                            revenue sharing

  The final issue I would like to address, to some extent, is the 
entire reason we are dealing with the issue of rates and charges. That 
is diversion of revenue from an airport for non airport-related use. 
The bill, as drafted, strengthens the penalties against those airports 
that divert revenue illegally.
  It is my strong belief that one can create a partnership interest 
between air carries and airport owners to maximize concession revenue, 
reduce airline costs, and control operating expenses. I believe 
agreements can be reached between airports and air carriers that would 
allow for concession revenue to offset landing fee costs for the 
carriers, while serving as an important source of revenue for the 
airport owner to use for community purposes such as police or fire 
protection.
  Currently, airport owners lack any incentive to reduce costs or 
generate revenues at an airport. At the same time, the airlines are 
occupied with the idea that airports' costs must be as low as possible, 
but do not see revenue potential as helping them achieve that goal. 
This adversarial position has not allowed for a partnership which can 
mutually benefit the airport owners and airlines.
  Let me share with you my history and experience in dealing with one 
major airport in this country--San Francisco International Airport 
[SFO]. SFO is the fifth busiest airport in the Nation, and the seventh 
busiest in the world.
  In the late 1970's and early 1980's San Francisco was having a major 
problem with crime. The crime rate had soared. A year earlier, 
proposition 13 which limited the ability of all California cities and 
counties to raise revenue was passed. It became very clear that local 
government had to begin to operate those departments which could be run 
like a business as a business in order to produce a bottom line profit.
  In California and across the Nation, the big cities cannot raise the 
revenues needed to provide the level of police protection that is 
necessary to keep the city safe and attractive for its citizens and 
visitors. I think every mayor of every big city would agree with me on 
this point.
  This is the situation that Los Angeles finds itself in today.
  Cities run airports, make no mistake. In some cases it is States or 
counties, but in most instances, cities run airports.
  This legislation clearly recognizes the city's ultimate 
responsibility by in fact making the city liable, in the form of civil 
penalties, for any violation of grant assurances. It does not hold 
concessionaires, rental car agencies, taxi services, or air carriers 
responsible for the long-term maintenance and operation of the airport. 
The bottom line is that the burden falls on the city.
  Work began on SFO in 1927 when it was originally Mills Field. For the 
next 40 years, the people of San Francisco passed and supported the 
bonds, at great risk, to enable the building of the airport. They put 
up their full faith and credit that regardless of whether the airport 
was a success or failure, those bonds would be repaid.
  At SFO, 32 million annual passengers travel through the airport. 
During the days of the early 1980's SFO was not an impressive airport. 
Its concessions were poor, its restrooms were not as clean as they 
should be, its personnel for many not as friendly, the garage was a 
mess, ingress and egress was extremely difficult, and complaints 
abounded.
  Airlines also had their grievances. The cost of operating at SFO was 
increasing, arguments between the airport operator and the airlines 
were chronic. The airlines felt that they had little say in management.
  In 1981, the airport commission, the city attorney, and I began an 
effort to try to turn around SFO. We recognized that airports are one 
of those departments that could produce a bottom line for the city 
which we would use to put police on the street, to lower the crime 
rate, which would therefore make it better for visiting conventions, 
tourists, and also for airlines because San Francisco would grow as a 
destination city with a low crime rate.
  I, as mayor, pressed our case verbally with the air carriers and 
legally in the courts. Several months of extraordinary, and, it is fair 
to say, difficult negotiation took place with the final negotiations 
being handled by myself, in my office. Thanks to United Airlines and 21 
other airlines, a unique agreement was put into place.


                               AGREEMENT

  This agreement has been of great benefit to the air carriers, the 
airport, and the traveling public. I believe it presents a model for 
other large airports in a similar situation. Under the agreement, the 
city of San Francisco receives an annual service payment which last 
year equaled approximately $15 million.
  In 1981, when the agreement was established, the air carriers assumed 
51 percent of the costs of operating San Francisco International. They 
now only assume 27 percent of the costs of operating San Francisco 
International. So the costs to the airlines as a percentage of airport 
operating costs have decreased over the years.
  Since the agreement at SFO was established in 1981, the city has 
received payments in excess of $19 million. You should also know that 
during the years I was mayor, much of that money went for additional 
police and over those years the crime rate in San Francisco went down 
by 27 percent.
  While the airlines have experienced savings as a result of lower 
landing fees in excess of $329 million.
  The incentive to run a good airport under this agreement is 
tremendous. As a point of comparison, during the fiscal year ending in 
June 1993, Los Angeles International Airport [LAX] generated only $8.5 
million more in concession revenue than SFO--109.2 million to $100.7 
million--even though LAX served nearly 15 million more passengers than 
SFO--32 million to 47 million.
  Today, SFO is one of the outstanding airports in the Nation and the 
world. It is visitor friendly, the staff are courteous, air carriers 
have a new relationship with management which is a cooperative rather 
than antagonistic one. Carrier costs of operation are down, and San 
Francisco is receiving a steady stream of revenue based on the fact 
that there is now an incentive to merchandise and market concessions.
  I believe that such an arrangement as exists at SFO or one similar 
can exist at Los Angeles International Airport and other airports. I 
believed there can be a dramatically changed atmosphere, with reduced 
costs for both the airport operator and the airlines.
  Times have changed since the SFO agreement was reached, and in 
today's climate, and at other airports, this specific type of an 
agreement may not work, but others might.
  The bottom line is this: Airports and air carriers should have the 
flexibility to enter into agreements that will work to the benefit of 
both airlines, airports, and airport owners. They do not currently have 
that flexibility and I want to change that. Since the 60-day temporary 
airport bill was introduced and passed, I have met with representatives 
of the airports, the airlines, I have had conversations with the 
Chairman, and I have had numerous conversations with Mayor Richard 
Riordan of Los Angeles.
  Representatives from Los Angeles International Airport have been in 
constant discussion with air carriers with regard to establishing 
agreements that would be mutually beneficial. I would like to provide 
Mayor Riordan and LAX, as well as other cities and their airports, the 
flexibility to pursue such agreements should be possible.
  I recognize that the chairman and I do not agree on this issue, but 
it is one that I believe in, and one that I strongly believe would be 
beneficial to the Nation's airlines, airports, and traveling public. 
There are still a lot of questions to be answered and I hope that we 
can continue to discuss these issues in the months ahead.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to me dated 
June 7, 1994, from the National League of Cities be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                    National League of Cities,

                                     Washington, DC, June 7, 1994.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing on behalf of the 
     elected leaders of the nation's cities and towns to urge 
     rejection of proposed language in the airport reauthorization 
     bill, S. 1491, to impose civil penalties on grant recipients 
     for violations of assurances entered into when securing such 
     grants. We are concerned that this proposal would set an 
     extraordinary precedent, not just for the public financing of 
     essential public air transportation facilities, but also for 
     other grant-in-aid programs to state and local governments.
       The proposed legislation would impose civil penalties on 
     governmental grant recipients for the violation of assurances 
     entered into when securing airport grants. Under current law, 
     it is well understood that the breach of a grant assurance 
     could result in the termination of the grant and 
     disqualification from further grants of that type. However, 
     it is unprecedented that the breach of a grant assurance 
     would, in addition, give rise to liability for substantial 
     monetary penalties. No other grant program provides civil 
     penalties for breach of a grant assurance by governmental 
     recipients. Under the proposed language, civil monetary 
     penalties could be unlimited in amount. Each day of violation 
     of each individual grant assurance would be a separate 
     violation. A grantee could be liable for millions of dollars 
     in civil penalties. Issues of liability and the amount of 
     fines would be entirely under the control of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration, not the federal courts.
       The threat of such charges has immediate implications for 
     borrowing costs to finance construction and safety 
     improvements at public airports, potentially significantly 
     increasing interest rates on municipal bonds necessary to 
     finance capital improvements. We are aware of no evidence 
     that existing remedies are insufficient to deter breaches; 
     whereas, just the threat of this penalty is likely to impose 
     immediate costs on taxpayers and passengers. Current remedies 
     include suspension, and potential termination, of the grant 
     and disqualification from further grants.
       We ask you to oppose any version of S. 1491 that includes 
     any provision with respect to civil penalties. The imposition 
     of civil penalties--in any form--against municipalities and 
     state is an inappropriate mechanism for enforcing general 
     grant provisions.
       We would appreciate your support.
       Sincerely,
                                                     Sharpe James,
                                       President, Mayor of Newark.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I see no other Senator to make any 
statement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank Senator Ford for his willingness to 
entertain, as part of the Committee substitute, a provision which deals 
with a very specific concern of the city of Los Angeles. I would like 
to describe to the Senate the nature of the Los Angeles concern and the 
manner in which this concern is resolved in the committee substitute.
  The city of Los Angeles has always stated that disputes between air 
carriers and airport owners and operators should be resolved by the 
Secretary of Transportation if the parties cannot resolve the dispute 
themselves. As currently drafted, if an air carrier files a complaint 
with the Secretary challenging the reasonableness of a fee imposed upon 
an air carrier by an airport, the lawfulness of that fee can be 
challenged through a complaint filed with the Secretary. During the 
120-day period while that complaint is pending before the Secretary the 
air carriers must pay the amount of the fee into an escrow account and 
upon the determination of the complaint by the Secretary the amount in 
the escrow account is either paid to the airport, if the fee is found 
to be lawful, or it is paid back to the air carriers if the fee is 
found to be unlawful. While I disagree with the requirement that a 
disputed fee be paid into escrow instead of being paid to the airline 
during the pendency of the complaint, it was my understanding that the 
committee substitute does include an escrow provision. Given that 
provision, I stated to Senator Ford that I believed that it would not 
be appropriate for the proposed escrow provision to apply to the 
current dispute between the city of Los Angeles and the air carriers at 
LAX.
  Through the active involvement and assistance of Secretary Pena, the 
city of Los Angeles and the airlines at LAX entered into an interim 
settlement agreement on December 1, 1993 which provided that airlines 
would pay the increased fees at LAX while at the same time preserving 
the right of the air carriers to challenge the lawfulness of those 
increased fees either through proceedings in the Federal courts or in a 
complaint before the Secretary of Transportation. My concern was that 
nothing in this bill would affect in any way the interim settlement 
agreement that was entered into between the city of Los Angeles and the 
airlines and specifically that no escrow would apply to any complaint 
with respect to increased fees that was the subject of that agreement. 
As matters currently stand, the airlines have filed a lawsuit in 
Federal district court challenging the fee increases, which lawsuit was 
dismissed by the district court on the grounds that the matter is more 
appropriately heard by the Secretary. The airlines have appealed that 
decision. Whether they win on appeal or lose, the airlines should be 
permitted to continue their challenge either in the Federal courts or 
before the Secretary. However, if they are required to go to the 
Secretary, we wish to make certain that the escrow provision would not 
apply.
  As a result, the committee has agreed to an amendment I proposed to 
section 536(d)(1) which would specifically exempt from the requirement 
for escrow the fees currently in dispute at LAX. While the airlines 
would be permitted to file a 120-day administrative proceeding with 
respect to such fees, under the interim settlement agreement they must 
continue to pay the fees to the city of Los Angeles while their 
complaint is pending before the Secretary. While this provision would 
apply to the existing controversy, in the event of any subsequent rate 
increases, after the enactment of this statute, disputes concerning 
those fees would be handled in precisely the same manner as any other 
fee dispute subject to section 536.
  I very much appreciate the assistance of Senator Ford and other 
members of the Aviation Committee in securing this amendment, which was 
of substantial concern to me and to the city of Los Angeles, and I 
appreciate the opportunity to provide the Senate with an explanation of 
this provision which has now been incorporated into the committee 
substitute.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator from California for her very complete 
and accurate explanation of the amendment that was made to section 
635(d)(1). I certainly concur that it was not our intent that the 
escrow apply to the existing controversy between the city of Los 
Angeles and the airlines operating at LAX. I appreciate the Senator 
providing an explanation of the background of this provision and I 
appreciate her assistance in securing an amendment satisfactory to the 
city of Los Angeles in this matter.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I respectfully request the chairman's 
reconsideration of a specific provision which has been incorporated 
into this important legislation.
  Section 117 of the bill imposes two new conditions on the recipients 
of integrated airport system planning grants. First, that major airport 
operators be given a seat on the governing board of a recipient 
planning agency, even when the municipality or county which owns the 
airport already is represented on the governing board. Second, that 
major airport operators be a coapplicant for future integrated airport 
system planning grants. My understanding is that these provisions have 
not been included in the House version of aviation reauthorization 
which will serve as the bases for conference committee discussions.
  In terms of the first condition regarding a seat on the governing 
board: In many cases, the municipal owners of these airports are 
already represented on various planning agency boards. To require 
additional representation could cause a serious imbalance to voting 
equity for those jurisdictions without a major airport.
  The second proposed condition, requiring major airport operators to 
be coapplicants for future planning grants, would give major airports 
the opportunity to veto grant applications by withholding their 
cosponsorship from any element in a planning program with which they 
disagree. This condition would seriously undermine the integrity and 
independence of the regional airport planning process.
  With these concerns in mind, I would urge the chairman not to oppose 
efforts by House conferees to delete these provisions. I appreciate the 
chairman's consideration of California's perspective. I will also 
request that two letters--one from the Southern California Association 
of Governments and one from the Metropolitan Transportation 
Commission--be submitted for the Record.
  Mr. FORD. I would like to thank the Senator for her views on this 
issue. She is not the only Senator that has brought this issue to my 
attention, and I will keep her concerns, and the concerns of our House 
colleagues clearly in mind as this bill goes to conference.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent the letters be printed in the 
Record.
                                               Southern California


                                   Association of Governments,

                                    Los Angeles, CA, June 1, 1994.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dianne Feinstein: I am writing to advise you 
     that the Southern California Association of Governments 
     (SCAG) opposes the following new provisions of Section C 
     related to Integrated Airport System Planning Grants in the 
     Airport Improvement Plan ``Long Bill'':
       1) additional member on the Metropolitan Planning 
     Organization's (MPO) Governing Board representing airport 
     interests (see subparagraph C of Section 508(d)(4) of 49 App. 
     U.S.C. 2207(d)(4));
       2) requirement for a hub airport to be a co-applicant for 
     any planning grant. (see subparagraph B of Section 508(d)(4) 
     of 49 App. U.S.C. 2207(d)(4)).
       SCAG is the MPO for the region and currently has an 
     effective means of receiving from input and advice from 
     airport/aviation interests. Our Aviation Technical Advisory 
     Committee (ATAC) consists of 44 members, including the United 
     States Arms Services which is concerned with military 
     facilities and base reuse plans. Further, ATAC membership is 
     represented on a county-by-county basis so that all airports 
     within the six county region have a voice on the committee. 
     Please refer to the attached roster for a complete membership 
     list.
       ATAC establishes the policy direction and makes the 
     technical decisions pertaining to aviation systems planning 
     for the SCAG region. This committee was created specifically 
     to ensure that the special and unique aviation planning 
     issues would have a focused forum and strong link to the 
     Governing Board. ATAC's recommendations and actions are 
     reported directly to the MPO's policy committee and Governing 
     Board (SCAG's Transportation and Communications Policy 
     Committee and Regional Council respectively).
       Once again, we oppose the proposed language discussed above 
     because it will dilute the airport/aviation community's 
     valuable and direct contribution to our regional planning 
     process and will prohibit our ability to secure planning 
     grants.
       If you have any questions, please call Nona Edelen, SCAG 
     Principal Government Affairs Officer, at 213/236-1870.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Mark Pisano,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                                      Metropolitan


                                    Transportation Commission,

                                        Oakland, CA, June 3, 1994.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

     S. 1491, Aviation reauthorization

       Dear Senator Feinstein: It is our understanding that 
     Senator Wendell Ford may seek Senate floor action as early as 
     June 8 on S. 1491, a multi-year reauthorization of the 
     Airport Improvement Program. While MTC generally is 
     supportive of the legislation, we seek your assistance in 
     deleting one provision in the bill which would adversely 
     affect airport system planning activities in the Bay Area and 
     throughout the nation.
       Section 118 of the bill entitled ``Intermodal System 
     Planning'' imposes two new conditions on recipients of 
     integrated airport system planning grants: (1) that major 
     airport operators be given a seat on the governing board of 
     the recipient planning agency, even when the municipality or 
     county which owns the airport already is represented on the 
     governing board; and (2) that major airport operators be a 
     co-applicant for future integrated airport system planning 
     grants.
       With respect to the first proposed condition, the 
     composition of the MTC governing board is specifically 
     established by state law and any change to our membership 
     would require a separate action by the state Legislature. 
     Moreover, we do not believe it is necessary to expand the 
     membership of our board to represent the interests of our 
     three major airport operators (San Francisco, Oakland, and 
     San Jose), since the municipal owners of these airports 
     already are represented on the commission. Finally, our 
     commission is fairly small with 16 voting members; the 
     addition of three airport seats would substantially dilute 
     the voting strength of our existing commissioners who 
     represent the 100 cities and nine counties of the region.
       The second proposed condition essentially would give major 
     airports the opportunity to veto grant applications by 
     withholding their co-sponsorship from any element in our 
     planning program with which they disagree. We believe this 
     condition would seriously undermine the integrity and 
     independence of the regional airport planning process.
       We respectfully request that you offer an amendment to S. 
     1491 to delete Section 118 from the bill. Our Washington 
     representative, Thomas J. Bulger, will contact your office 
     shortly to follow up our request.
       Thank you very much for your time and attention to our 
     concerns.
           Sincerely,
                                               Lawrence D. Dahrns,
                                               Executive Director.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       intermodal system planning

  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I understand the need to have airport 
representation on planning boards which will be applicants for Federal 
airport improvement funds as provided under section 117, Intermodal 
System Planning, of the bill.
  However, I believe that the airports already are well represented by 
officials from the local cities and counties which for the most part 
own these facilities. Section 117 would impose new conditions on 
recipients of integrated airport system planning grants.
  For example, the Southern California Association of Governments 
[SCAG] has a 70-member regional council, and it has also established an 
Aviation Technical Advisory Committee [ATAC] of 44 members on a county-
by-county basis, giving voice to all airports in its 6-county region. 
The ATAC's recommendations are reported directly to the MPO's policy 
committee and the regional council.
  The Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission also has raised 
concern that its 16-member board would have to be expanded to 19 if 
this provision becomes law, diluting the votes of board members who 
represent more than one interest in transportation planning.
  I urge the Senate conferees to drop this provision in conference.


                    augusta airport report language

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I would like to ask the chairman of the 
aviation subcommittee if he could help clarify the provision of S. 1491 
pertaining to the Augusta State Airport in Augusta, ME.
  Mr. FORD. I will be glad to provide whatever clarification I can.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the chairman. I understand that section 21 
directs the FAA to provide weather observation services, including 
direct radio contact between weather observers and pilots, at Augusta 
State Airport; makes the FAA responsible for the operation and 
maintenance of the necessary equipment, and authorizes the FAA to enter 
into a reimbursable agreement with the Maine Department of 
Transportation [MDOT] for such services.
  Mr. FORD. That is correct.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Is it further the chairman's understanding that the 
committee finds it desirable for the FAA to use its authority to enter 
into a reimbursable agreement with the MDOT to provide weather 
observation services at Augusta Airport?
  Mr. FORD. Yes, clearly it was the committee's goal to encourage the 
FAA to use its authority to enter into a reimbursable agreement with 
the MDOT to provide weather observation services at Augusta Airport. In 
drafting the Augusta Airport provision, it was the committee's view 
that such an arrangement ideally should provide the most flexible 
method of enhancing weather services with direct radio contacts between 
observers and pilots.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the chairman for his comments.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to raise a point with regard to the 
potential impact of section 211 of S. 1491 on trucking activities in 
the State of Hawaii.
  As an isolated island State, the State of Hawaii faces unique 
transportation problems. Hawaii currently operates under a special 
exemption from the Federal preemption provisions of the Interstate 
Commerce Commission Act which allows the State of Hawaii to regulate 
certain cargo transportation within the State of Hawaii. Hawaii is the 
only State with a condified exemption.
  I am continuing to study this matter, and wish to preserve the 
opportunity to seek the inclusion of bill and/or report language during 
the conference to address Hawaii's unique situation. I understand that 
my friend and colleague from Kentucky is open to considering language 
which may be appropriate.
  Mr. FORD. That is correct. I am aware of the State of Hawaii's unique 
situation and will be pleased to continue discussions on this matter 
and consider the inclusion of appropriate bill and/or report language 
during the conference on this measure.


            federal aviation administration reauthorization

  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I wish to thank Senators Ford and Pressler 
for including in the committee substitute my amendment which will 
ensure that the traveling public is protected from safety risks arising 
from smoke in the cockpit.
  It has been alleged that in the last 20 years, there have been at 
least a dozen accidents in commercial aircraft in which dense, 
continuous smoke in the cockpit may have been a factor. While the 
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] has promulgated regulations 
sufficient to address dense, continuous smoke in the cockpit and air 
carriers indicate they have established procedures to comply with these 
regulations, there may be some concern as to whether the FAA is, in 
fact, adequately enforcing existing regulations.
  My amendment merely requires the FAA to enforce existing regulations 
relating to pilot vision and smoke emergencies caused by smoke in the 
cockpit on current and future aircraft. In addition, my amendment 
requires the FAA to report to the Congress within 1 year of enactment 
on its efforts to ensure compliance with these regulations. I wish to 
emphasize that my amendment does not mandate the use of any specific 
technology to ensure pilot vision during smoke emergencies. Further, my 
amendment does not mandate the promulgation of new regulations.
  The importance of ensuring pilot vision during a smoke emergency is 
obvious. There is no disagreement on this point. The traveling public 
must have assurances that the FAA is enforcing regulations so that 
pilots on existing as well as future aircraft can safely land an 
airplane or follow other established procedures when faced with smoke 
in the cockpit.
  The provision included in the committee substitute will accomplish 
this important safety goal.
  Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for 
allowing me to clarify a matter of significant importance to Wisconsin, 
and especially to Pierce County and St. Croix County. I understand that 
the bill we are presently considering includes language offered by 
Senator Dorgan to address the issue of new airport construction. 
Specifically, this amendment would require the Federal Aviation 
Administration to submit a report to Congress, at least 90 days prior 
to the approval of a project grant application for construction of a 
new major hub airport, analyzing the anticipated impact of the proposed 
new airport on, among other things, the effect on air service in the 
region and the availability and cost of providing air service to the 
rural areas in the geographic region of the proposed new airport. Is 
that correct?
  Mr. FORD. That is correct.
  Mr. KOHL. I thank the chairman. This amendment is important to 
Wisconsin, because the effect, availability, and cost of air service is 
decided by more than the number of flights that land and take off at an 
airport; rather these things incorporate a number of factors. For 
instance, there are a number of costs to providing air service, 
including the costs of roads and bridges to get to an airport, the 
changes in local business revenues due to additional visitor traffic in 
the region, the possible environmental impact on the surrounding area, 
and simply the day-to-day burden of hearing airplanes flying overhead. 
In short, there are many things which must be considered in determining 
the effect of air service on a region and the availability and cost of 
providing service. And when a State decides to build a new airport, the 
entire surrounding community bears a significant portion of these added 
costs.
  As the chairman probably knows, a commission has been established to 
research and choose between proposals to build a new airport in 
Hastings, MN, or augment the existing facility presently servicing the 
Minneapolis/St. Paul area. If the Minnesota Metropolitan Airport 
Commission decides to build a new facility in Hastings, WI, will be 
significantly impacted. And yet, Wisconsin representatives have no 
voting privileges. In addition, the Metropolitan Airport Commission's 
planning maps simply stop at the Minnesota/Wisconsin border--4 miles 
from the planned airport runway. It is clear that, at this time, the 
planning commission is not taking into account the impact any proposal 
would have on Wisconsin.
  This is obviously an issue of grave concern to Wisconsinites, and 
particularly those in the Western portion of our State. I have become 
involved in this issue thanks to Wisconsin State Senator Alice Clausing 
and State Representative Sheila Harsdorf, both of whom have been very 
involved in this issue for some time. Recently, these two local 
officials were joined by two of their colleagues--Representatives 
Harvey Stower and Al Baldus--in asking our State attorney general to 
file an injunction retraining the Minnesota Metropolitan Airport 
Commission for continuing its planning process until Wisconsin is 
granted a vote in the process. I, for one, believe that Wisconsin must 
have a voice in the decisionmaking process.

  In light of the requirements this amendment places on the FAA, and 
given the situation communities like those in western Wisconsin could 
face, I want to clarify that this amendment would require the FAA to 
consider such things as whether or not the input of all interested 
parties is taken into consideration during the application process for 
a new airport when they analyze the anticipated impact of a proposed 
new airport. It is my concern that communities like ours in western 
Wisconsin have fair input into projects which will obviously have 
significant impacts on the effect of air service in the surrounding 
region and the availability and cost of that air service.
  Mr. FORD. I want to assure the Senator that his understanding of this 
amendment is correct. The FAA should take such matters into account 
when analyzing an airport proposal for their report to Congress.
  Mr. KOHL. Again, I thank my dear friend from Kentucky not only of the 
taking the time to clarify this issue, but also for his tireless work 
on this legislation.


                      existing written agreements

  Mr. HOLLINGS Mr. President, I would like to take a brief moment to 
clarify a specific provision of the so-called rates and charges 
language of S. 1491, as amended by the substitute, with the chairman of 
the Aviation Subcommittee. Section 504 of the substitute amends the 
Airport and Airway Improvement Act by adding a new section 536 which 
addresses airport-air carrier disputes over airport rates and charges. 
New section 536(f) specifies that the rates and charges provisions of 
new section 536 do not apply to any existing written agreement between 
an air carrier and the owner or operator of an airport. I interpret 
this language to mean that an existing written agreement is a written 
agreement in existence at the time a new airport rate or charge is 
established or an existing rate or charge is increased. In other words, 
this provision goes beyond merely grandfathering written agreements in 
effect when the legislation is enacted, but would include an agreement 
reached in the future. Is my interpretation of the language consistent 
with your intentions?
  Mr. FORD. The Senator's understanding is correct. The term ``existing 
written agreement'' covers both agreements between airlines and 
airports that are currently in place, as well as those agreements 
reached subsequent to enactment of the AIP bill.


                          ormond beach airport

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask if the distinguished chairman of the 
Aviation Subcommittee would be willing to turn his attention to the 
subject of the Ormond Beach Airport.
  Mr. FORD. I would be pleased to do so.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the chairman. As the chairman knows, I have 
contacted him previously regarding the interest of the airport in 
Ormond Beach, FL, in converting its current Vortac airport navigational 
system to a more sophisticated Doppler Vortac system.
  In recent years, construction and related environmental changes have 
resulted in roughness and interference in Ormond Beach Airport's 
current Vortac signal, which provides navigational aid to incoming 
aircraft. Vortac radials 151 to 166 are unusable under certain 
conditions. This situation has resulted in delays in FAA consideration 
of upgrading the Ormond Beach Airport from general utility to a 
reliever status.
  These delays, in turn, have led to postponement of plans by Ormond 
Beach to add a business park adjacent to the airport, an important 
economic development initiative for the community. The conversion to 
Doppler Vortac would correct these deficiencies and enable the business 
park's establishment.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator from Florida for contacting me on this 
matter, and the subcommittee looked into it pursuant to his request. 
The expansion envisioned by the Ormond Beach Airport would indeed 
require an upgrade to Doppler Vortac, and my understanding is that lack 
of funding is the only reason the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] 
does not expect to proceed with this project in fiscal year 1995.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I appreciate the subcommittee's work on my behalf and 
want to note that the airport would very much like to undertake the 
Doppler Vortac conversion in 1995. I am hopeful that the FAA will move 
ahead with the project in fiscal year 1995 should the funds become 
available from within fiscal year 1995 appropriations. If the project 
cannot be completed in 1995, I hope the FAA will make it a budget 
priority in the fiscal year 1996 budget cycle. Based on the information 
he has gathered on this matter, would the chairman agree that these are 
appropriate actions for the FAA to take?
  Mr. FORD. That seems entirely within reason. I am pleased that the 
Senator from Florida has brought this issue to my attention and want to 
assure him of my support for the airport's conversion to Doppler 
Vortac.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the distinguished chairman for his indulgence 
today and for his attention to this matter of concern to Ormond Beach.


                 THE FEDERAL AVIATION AUTHORIZATION ACT

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today, the Senate continues its 
consideration of S. 1491, the Federal Aviation Authorization Act. As 
many of my colleagues know, this bill was originally reported by the 
Commerce Committee last November, and the committee was ready to pass 
the bill and discuss it with the House last year. Unfortunately, one 
obstacle after another prevented passage of S. 1491.
  S. 1491, as originally reported, provided a relatively simple 1-year 
authorization for fiscal year 1994 for the FAA's Airport Improvement 
Program [AIP]. The administration initially had requested a 1-year bill 
so that it could take a hard look at the program and make 
recommendations for fiscal year 1995 and beyond. Because of various 
delays, the Department of Transportation [DOT] was able to provide us 
its analysis this past January regarding a long-term bill. The 
amendment before the Senate incorporates many of the DOT's concerns and 
provides a 3-year authorization for the program.
  The AIP Program provides funds to build our Nation's airports. It is 
a vital program and benefits all of our constituents. As we all know, 
airports serve as the gateway to our cities and States, and are 
essential to the development of our communities. The AIP Program 
provides funds to make the airports more efficient and safer.
  In South Carolina, I know that there are many projects awaiting 
funding. For example, the Rock Hill-York County Airport is in need of 
funds for terminal work, part of an instrument landing system, and 
money for a control cab. The Williamsburg County Airport seeks to fix 
its runway. The Greenville-Spartansburg Airport also has a project in 
mind. While I do not want to leave any communities out, I assure all of 
them that I will continue in my efforts to make sure South Carolina's 
airport needs are met. I am sure many of my colleagues have similar 
issues, and that is why this bill should be passed.
  The bill also includes a section to address the airport rates and 
charges issue. A great deal of time and effort has been devoted to this 
issue. The Senate must be aware that airport grants are an integral 
part of the funding mechanism to build airports, and we must safeguard 
the system's integrity. Unreasonable fees, revenue diversion, and 
unnecessary surpluses all must be carefully reviewed by the DOT.
  In addition, before providing Federal funding the DOT should know as 
much about a particular airport's finances as possible--whether it is 
surpluses, concession fees, or any other form of revenue--before 
providing grants or allowing a future passenger facility charge. 
Clearly, an airport cannot and should not be permitted to divert 
revenues illegally for use by local municipalities.
  I urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment, which will 
make sure that airport funding continues.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from Ohio has an 
amendment or two or three. We would like to move along.
  The minority side will have a caucus at 1 o'clock, I understand. We 
will try to maybe have a vote just before that, or sometime right after 
that.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum].


                           Amendment No. 1796

  (Purpose: To make certain requirements relating to the provision of 
             sanitary facilities by domestic air carriers)

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1796.

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

       At the end of the substitute, as modified, add the 
     following:

     SEC.   . SANITARY FACILITIES ABOARD DOMESTIC AIRCRAFT 
                   FLIGHTS.

       (a) Requirement of Facilities.--(1) Except as provided in 
     paragraph (2), an air carrier may not provide scheduled 
     passenger service in the United States in an aircraft that 
     carries 10 or more passengers unless there is abroad the 
     aircraft a toilet and other appropriate sanitary facilities 
     (as determined by the secretary of Transportation) for the 
     use of such passengers.
       (2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to an aircraft for which 
     a type certificate was issued by the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration before the effective date of 
     this subsection.
       (3) The provisions of this subsection shall take effect on 
     the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (b) Requirement of Passenger Notification of Facilities.--
     (1) An air carrier may not provide scheduled passenger 
     service in the United States in an aircraft having no toilet 
     or other sanitary facilities (as determined by the Secretary) 
     unless the air carrier (or the agent of the air carrier)--
       (A) notifies each passenger at the time the passenger 
     reserves a seat or purchases a ticket for the service that 
     the aircraft will have no toilet or other sanitary 
     facilities; and
       (B) identifies upon the request of the passenger the type 
     of aircraft providing the service.
       (2)(A) To the maximum extent practicable, an air carrier 
     shall take actions to notify passengers of a change in the 
     type of aircraft providing scheduled passenger service in the 
     United States if as a result of that change a toilet and 
     sanitary facilities will not be provided on the aircraft 
     providing the service.
       (B) An air carrier shall not have to take the actions 
     referred to in subparagraph (A) if the change in type of 
     aircraft occurs less than 24 hours before the commencement of 
     the service referred to in that subparagraph.
       (3) The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall apply to 
     scheduled passenger service referred to in such paragraphs 
     that commences on or after the date that is 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, this amendment is pretty elementary, 
pretty simple. It balances the economic needs of commercial airlines 
with the long ignored needs of the flying public. The amendment 
requires that within 90 days, airlines and travel agents tell 
passengers whether or not the aircraft in which they will fly has a 
restroom. This information must be provided upon purchase of a ticket 
or upon making a reservation.
  If the airline changes an aircraft scheduled for a particular flight, 
an effort must be made to advise passengers if the new aircraft has no 
facilities. The amendment also requires that within 1 year, any new 
aircraft with 10 seats or more must have a restroom in order to be 
certified for commercial service; that is, to carry passengers for fee.
  This amendment will protect the thousands of air travelers who take 
short-haul flights every day, commuter flights, interstate flights, or 
even longer flights on major airlines which happen to be using small 
airplanes.
  The amendment is a fair way to address a real problem and provides a 
grace period in order that no new planes be put into service. It does 
not affect the planes that are presently flying.
  I think the amendment is acceptable to the manager of the bill, and I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Ohio that we do have 
a little problem right now with the acceptance on both sides. My 
colleague is not here just yet. I am not in a position to accept the 
amendment.
  If you would like to set it aside and go to your others, I will be 
glad to do that, or if you want to wait and see how this one turns 
out--I will be glad to do whatever the Senator wishes.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I appreciate the courtesy and cooperation of the 
manager of the bill. I think I would prefer to wait and see how we move 
forward on this amendment.
  Mr. FORD. 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. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have been here now waiting for a Senator 
to come to the floor to object to this amendment, or at least to be 
opposed to it, or have an amendment to that amendment. And we are 
perceived out there, now that we are on television and everybody 
watching us, that we are in a quorum call and we are not doing 
anything, and that is right.
  We have a piece of legislation up. It started last Thursday. We could 
not get on it because we had Whitewater amendments day after day after 
day, and now we are back on the bill. We have amendments, and I would 
like to get them completed. This is a jobs bill. It gives us an 
opportunity to contract with local airports for tens of millions of 
dollars that should go out to them. We are going to lose a construction 
season. Every day that it slips we have that much more trouble.
  I encourage my colleagues to come to the Senate floor and let us get 
a time agreement, let us find out what amendments are available and 
move on with the orderly process of legislation.
  My friend, the ranking member of the committee, is working, even made 
a trip to try to find some Senators to put together so we could come in 
the Chamber and go to work. I would be very hopeful that those Senators 
who are listening, or staff that is listening would say to their 
Senators time is available in the Chamber; there are amendments up; you 
can bring your amendment if it is necessary. Senator Metzenbaum is 
here. He has offered his amendment. It is now before the Senate. I do 
not see anybody objecting to it. If nobody objects to it, we might just 
go ahead and accept it and regret that other Senators were not here to 
have some sort of objection or offer an amendment or speak in favor or 
against the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. PRESSLER. I commend my colleague. We are trying everything we can 
to get Senators to the floor. I am ready to go. At some point we will 
have to propose a time agreement or propose some way so that we can get 
going. I am ready to go. We are searching for one Senator who has an 
objection to this. That is what we are doing.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Ohio 
[Mr. Metzenbaum].
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I wish to commend the manager of the 
bill and ranking member of the committee. They are here. They are ready 
to move forward. One Member has indicated he has some opposition to the 
amendment the Senator from Ohio has offered. But I do not believe this 
is the way to run the Senate. We are sent here to work. We are supposed 
to legislate.
  Now, we have been involved for several days on some ancillary matter 
having to do with Whitewater which maybe is behind us. I hope it is 
behind us now. Now we are trying to pass a piece of legislation the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky is managing. He is chairman of the 
committee having to do with the aviation industry as a whole. There is 
a chance to do something about the airports of this country if we pass 
this legislation and pass it promptly, but instead of that we are 
waiting because some Senator has decided he is not ready to come to the 
floor.
  So, Mr. President, I say to the manager and ranking member, I think 
we ought to wait another 5, no more than 10 minutes. And if someone in 
opposition to this amendment does not show up in the Chamber, I hope we 
could just go forward and either debate it and vote on it or accept it, 
whatever be the case. But I think sitting here and twiddling our thumbs 
is an embarrassment to the Senate and the people of this country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum is noted. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________