[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 141 (Monday, October 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]


                              {time}  1520
 
                 AIRLINER CABIN AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1994

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4495) to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 to prohibit 
smoking on all scheduled airline flight segments in air transportation 
or intrastate air transportation as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4495

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Airliner Cabin Air Quality 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS AGAINST SMOKING ON SCHEDULED FLIGHTS.

       (A) In General.--Section 41706 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 41706. Prohibitions against smoking on scheduled 
       flights.

       ``(a) Smoking Prohibition in Intrastate and Interstate Air 
     Transportation.--An individual may not smoke in an aircraft 
     on a scheduled airline flight segment in interstate air 
     transportation or intrastate air transportation.
       ``(b) Smoking Prohibition in Foreign Air Transportation.--
     The Secretary of Transportation shall require all air 
     carriers and foreign air carriers to prohibit, on and after 
     the 120th day following the date of the enactment of the 
     Airliner Cabin Air Quality Act of 1994, smoking in any 
     aircraft on a scheduled airline flight segment within the 
     United States or between a place in the United States and a 
     place outside the United States.
       ``(c) Limitation on Applicability.--The smoking 
     prohibitions contained in subsection (a) and (b) shall apply 
     only to the passenger cabin and lavatory of an aircraft 
     operated by a foreign air carrier.
       ``(d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe 
     regulations necessary to carry out this section.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on the 60th day following the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of California). Pursuant to the 
rule, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] will be recognized 
for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] will 
be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4495 would provide smoke-free flights on all U.S. 
domestic flights and ban smoking on U.S. and foreign carriers on the 
last leg to and the first leg from foreign points. As promised during 
discussion in full committee markup on this bill, H.R. 4495 also bans 
smoking in the cockpits of U.S. carriers.
  In 1990 Congress banned smoking on all domestic flights of 6 hours or 
less except those to Alaska or Hawaii. Smoking is still permitted on 
international flights. H.R. 4495 would clear the air, to speak, on 
domestic flights and on many international flights as well.
  The Subcommittee on Aviation held a hearing on airliner cabin air 
quality last May 18. At that hearing, nonsmoking flight attendants 
testified to suffering from lung diseases common to smokers including 
lung cancer, respiratory ailments, chronic bronchitis, sinus diseases, 
dizziness, headaches. Why should flight attendants not enjoy the smoke-
free workplace that employees do in many office buildings, in Federal 
agencies, in this very Capitol Building, in all other House office 
buildings?
  Flight attendants in their workplace cannot simply step outside for a 
breath of fresh air. They cannot do that 5 miles or 6 miles in the air. 
They cannot open a window and let the air in. They are stuck in smoke-
filled galleys.
  Equally awful is the fate of passengers. The flight attendants 
described the suffering of their passengers. Smoke penetrates the cabin 
even if smoking is confined to a few rows in the back. People seated 
near that section simply cannot escape the smoke surging forward from 
the smoking section. It is almost too distant in the memory of those of 
us who travel on domestic flights what it was like when smoking started 
up in the rear of the aircraft and surged forward. Well, that happens 
still on international flights.
  Passengers allergic to smoke suffer wherever they are seated in the 
aircraft. Most pitiful of all are the children seated with smoking 
parents in the smoking section.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an afterthought. Its sponsors have plenty of 
company in seeking smoke-free skies. Many countries have banned smoking 
on their domestic flights, and a goodly number of our competitors in 
aviation have banned smoking on international flights on their carriers 
as well.
  Three of domestic carriers offer or will shortly offer smoke-free 
flights overseas. Northwest Airlines the first domestic carrier to go 
smoke-free, this week announced a new nonsmoking route to go with its 
first-class nonsmoking flights worldwide. As of last Saturday, American 
Airlines has added new nonsmoking service abroad. Delta will go 
nonsmoking on its transatlantic, intra-Europe, and New York to Mexico 
City flights as of next January 1, 1995.
  The international civil aviation, ICAO, in 1992 approved a resolution 
urging member nations to ``take necessary measures as soon as possible 
to restrict smoking progressively on all international passenger 
flights, with the objective of implementing smoking bans by July 1, 
1996.
  The emphasis on ``as soon as possible.'' July 1, 1996, is the outside 
date, not the only date, not just the most desirable date. But it is as 
far out as the participant nations in ICAO said nations should allow 
aircraft to go smoking. That resolution would provide relief to flight 
attendants and passengers as of the date envisioned in the ICAO bill. 
Out bill would provide relief for flight attendants, passengers, 
cockpit crews within 120 days of enactment, not 2 years from now, but 
as soon as possible.
  We ought not to wait for another 2 years.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation will provide a level playing field for 
our carriers and foreign carriers by imposing the same regulations on 
foreign carriers serving the United States as I have already described 
on the last point of departure from or first point of arrival at the 
foreign countries.
  So we take a significant step forward, not a complete action that is 
needed to improve the quality of air for the airliners. We will do that 
in the next Congress. The subcommittee will continue its inquiry to 
review all aspects of the quality of air aboard aircraft. With the 
continued participation and splendid support of my colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the subcommittee will 
continue to pursue the broader issues of quality of air on aircraft.
  I want to thank the gentleman for his participation as always, for 
his thoughtful suggestions in crafting an effective and far-reaching 
and important piece of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, as the subcommittee chairman has already 
described, H.R. 4495 would prohibit smoking on all commercial passenger 
flights that serve a U.S. airport. This includes foreign air carriers 
flying into or out of the United States. The legislation would protect 
nonsmoking passengers and flight crews from the effects of secondhand 
smoke which the chairman has already described.
  Large commercial aircraft recirculate a portion of the cabin air. 
Depending on the model of the airplane and the pilot's use of 
recirculation equipment, the amount of recirculated air can vary, but 
the point is that smokers in the back of the cabin can easily pollute 
the entire cabin environment, however subtle. And in some cases smoking 
is permitted on one side of the aircraft and not on the other, and I 
think that makes an even worse situation.
  Current law prohibits smoking on all flights within the 48 States and 
on flights traveling to or from Alaska and Hawaii which are less than 6 
hours' duration. There are no smoking restrictions presently on 
international flights, although several carriers are beginning, as 
Chairman Oberstar said, to voluntarily impose smoking bans on some 
international flights. I think it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that this is 
the trend of the future. I think more and more airlines are recognizing 
that this is something that is in their best interest, and as a 
marketing tool, frankly, to provide a cleaner atmosphere in their 
cabins.
  So I support H.R. 4495. The bill was reported by unanimous voice vote 
during consideration before our committee.
  The aircraft carrier industry has no objection to the bill, as I 
understand, since the smoking ban would apply equally to domestic and 
foreign carriers and thus nobody would either receive a benefit or be 
disadvantaged by the legislation. Most importantly, most important, 
flight attendants and a silent majority of, I think, millions of 
airline passengers very strongly favor enactment of the legislation. 
Flight attendants working international flights today are one of the 
few segments in our workforce who must continue to endure exposure to 
secondhand smoke. As the chairman has said, they simply cannot step 
outside if somebody is smoking in the cabin.
  Given the long flight times common to international travel, sometimes 
14 or 16 hours, attendants could be exposed to cigarette smoke for 
long, long periods of time.
  So I would encourage all Members to support the bill. It does 
represent the wave of the future. It is something that we need to be 
doing. We can accelerate the issue of cabin air quality which has come 
under very great scrutiny lately. One of the easiest and most effective 
steps we can take to improve cabin air is to ban smoking on all flights 
serving U.S. airports.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Oberstar in particular for 
his diligence in pursuing this issue.

                              {time}  1530

  He has been a champion of this issue for some time and brings it to 
the floor today. I think it represents the fruition of his very long 
and effective labor on this behalf.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta] who has been a long, hard and 
effective advocate of clean air aboard aircraft and who has been a 
spokesman for it all along.
  (Mr. MINETA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MINETA. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Congressman Oberstar, as 
chair of our Subcommittee on Aviation, and Congressman Clinger, for 
their leadership not only on this issue but on the numerous important 
issues the subcommittee addressed this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to express my support for H.R. 4495, the 
``Airliner Cabin Air Quality Act of 1994.'' This bill would improve the 
air quality on board commercial aircraft by expanding the current 
prohibition on smoking on most flight segments in the United States, to 
prohibit smoking on international segments that operate into or out of 
the United States.
  As the adverse effects of secondhand smoke have become more well 
documented, Congressional pressure has increased on both the public and 
private sectors to protect the nonsmoking public. The effects of 
secondhand smoke are very pronounced on board commercial aircraft, 
where passengers are in a very confined space. While smoking on 
domestic flights of less than 6 hours has been prohibited for several 
years, smoking is permitted on longer domestic flights and 
international flights. This distinction does not make sense. It 
presumes passengers will be less affected or bothered by secondhand 
smoke on long flights than on short ones; clearly an erroneous 
assumption.
  Any nonsmoker will attest that merely sitting in the nonsmoking 
section of an aircraft in no way assures passengers of a smoke free 
environment. Smoke drifts throughout the aircraft cabin without regard 
for the distinctions designated by the airline.
  In addition to passenger discomfort, the cabin crew is presently 
forced to work in a smoke filled environment. This would clearly be an 
unacceptable work environment in almost any other profession. At recent 
hearings before the Subcommittee on Aviation, witnesses testified to 
the significant adverse health effects they suffered as a result of 
years of working in a smoke filled environment. The flight attendant 
work force in this country deserves some mesaure of protection against 
long term exposure to secondhand smoke. This bill affords them that 
protection.
  Finally, this bill would assume that U.S. carriers are not 
disadvantaged with respect to foreign air carriers. All commercial air 
carriers that operate within or to the United States will be required 
to prohibit smoking on flight segments within, into or out of the 
United States. This will not place U.S. carriers at a competitive 
disadvantage with their foreign counterparts. I consider this to be an 
important component of this legislation.
  For all of the reasons I have articulated, I urge my colleagues to 
support H.R. 4495, and expand the smoking ban to improve the air 
quality in aircraft serving the United States.
  Again, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
4495, the Airliner Cabin Air Quality Act of 1994, which would prohibit 
smoking on all international airline flights to and from the United 
States, as well as on any airline flight between two points in the 
United States, including Hawaii.
  This legislation would expand the present smoking ban on domestic 
flights to include Hawaii and Alaska, which are exempted from the 1989 
airline smoking ban law (Public Law 101-164). This 1989 law banned 
smoking on all foreign and domestic airline flights between any two 
points in the United States, except for flights to or from Hawaii and 
Alaska that last for 6 hours or more. Indeed, this is a major health 
concern for tourists and Hawaii residents, and the airline's flight 
crew, traveling more than 6 hours to and from my State for leisure or 
business from such distant points as Washington, DC, New York, or 
Chicago.
  The serious health implications of smoke being recirculated--even 
with the use of filters--in these long haul, transoceanic flights are 
of tremendous concern to me and many other frequent travelers to 
Hawaii. The exposure to cancer-causing agents, both primary and 
secondhand smoke in the airplane, have resulted in many respiratory 
ailments. There have been many medical and scientific studies which 
have concluded this fact.
  Recently, the Centers for Disease Control [CDC] announced that 
secondhand smoke kills an estimated 3,000 adult nonsmokers through lung 
cancer, and causes other respiratory problems like severe coughing and 
chest discomfort, and reduced lung functions. Moreover, it is reported 
that of the 4,000 chemicals present in tobacco smoke, at least 43 are 
known to cause cancer in humans or animals.
  In addition, I support the legislation's smoking ban on international 
flights for both U.S. and foreign airline carriers traveling to and 
from Hawaii. This bill would certainly complement the International 
Civil Aviation Organization's [ICAO] proposal to completely end smoking 
on all airline flights by July 1, 1996. While I am concerned about the 
economic impact of H.R. 4495's ban on smoking on flights to and from 
Hawaii from countries like Asia--especially Japan and China--and 
Europe, the bill in no way impedes the global competitiveness of our 
United States airline industry. As drafted, H.R. 4495 will apply to all 
domestic and foreign carriers. There are no exceptions to this rule.
  I am also alarmed by the frequent in-flight spraying of toxic 
pesticides on international flights with air passengers and crew 
aboard. This common practice by foreign carriers has caused serious 
health problems for flight attendants exposed to pesticide spray often 
used on these international flights.
  I was recently informed by a constituent, a former flight attendant 
of a major carrier, that as a result of pesticide spraying on these 
routes she suffered a debilitating illness called multiple chemical 
sensitivity [MCS] that forced her to retire early from the airline 
industry. She is now totally disabled and almost confined to her home 
due to the inhalation, for several years, of active chemicals in the 
pesticides during her years of service in the airline's international 
route.
  Finally, I applaud Transportation Secretary Pena's aggressive efforts 
to inform other countries of the serious health risks posed by in-
flight pesticide spraying and to suggest other alternative practices. 
However, this may not be enough to curb this practice. In light of 
this, I encourage my colleagues to support initiatives to eradicate 
pesticide use and smoking on all international flights.
  I respectfully urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4495, the Airliner 
Cabin Air Quality Act of 1994, to prohibit smoking on domestic and 
international flights to and from the United States.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4495, Mr. 
Oberstar's bill to expand the domestic airline smoking ban to 
international flights flown to and from the United States. H.R. 4495 
essentially codifies a resolution adopted by the International Civil 
Aviation Organization [ICAO] and agreed to by the United States, which 
calls on ICAO's member nations to disallow smoking on all airline 
flights by July 1996. By applying equally to domestic and foreign 
carriers, the measure will level the playing field by eliminating any 
putative advantage now enjoyed by some foreign carriers as a 
consequence of the voluntary smoke-free international flights already 
established by some forward-thinking U.S. airlines.
  Most importantly, this measure will safeguard the health of millions 
of air travelers and workers. I concur in the judgment of the Nation's 
flight attendants unions, including the Association of Flight 
Attendants, which represents 35,000 American flight attendants at 22 
airlines, and the American Cancer Society and numerous other health and 
civic organizations who believe that workers and passengers on 
international flights must be protected against lung disease, asthma, 
and other health problems caused by forced inhalation of environmental 
tobacco smoke. These groups, representing millions of Americans, have 
toiled long and hard in support of this needed and sensible proposal, 
and I commend them for their ongoing commitment.
  The message that people have a right to live, breathe, and work in 
smoke-free environs is finally being heard on Capitol Hill. I would 
observe that it is a good sign for the health of our citizens and our 
neighbors abroad that, in contrast with the fight over the domestic 
airline smoking ban measure adopted by Congress 4 years ago, the 
current measure virtually sailed through the Committee on Public Works 
and Transportation and its Aviation Subcommittee.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of H.R. 4495, both to usher 
in a new day of smoke-free skies worldwide and to reaffirm America's 
role as a leader in promoting a healthier and safer world.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4495, 
the Airliner Cabin Air Quality Act of 1994. This bill would ban smoking 
on any flight to or from the United States.
  I am continually dismayed and shocked by my colleagues willingness to 
trample all over the First Amendment. That is what this bill is about--
freedom of choice--nothing more, and nothing less.
  Our forefathers drafted the First Amendment to prevent the tyranny of 
government from intruding into the personal freedoms of the individual.
  For Congress to attempt to restrict the personal choice of any 
American to engage in the commerce or use of a legal product is a 
complete abrogation of the Constitution.
  I am outraged, and my constituents are outraged. The 67,000 hard-
working family farmers in Kentucky are outraged that many in Congress 
have launched an all-out assault to drive them out of business.
  My constituents believe in the right of the individual over the right 
of the government. And, many are outraged that Congress continues to 
try to dictate their personal choices.
  The issue here today is not whether or not you choose to smoke, or 
whether you agree with those who choose to smoke. This issue, is 
simple--should one group of individuals be able to restrict the rights 
of another group just because they disagree. The answer should be no. 
Sadly, today, this Congress has said yes, and sanctioned discrimination 
against hundreds of thousand of law-abiding citizens.
  Today, it is tobacco. Who knows who will be next.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I, too, have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of California). The question is 
on the motion offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] 
that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4495, as 
amended.
  The question was taken.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5, rule I, and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________