[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 128 (Tuesday, September 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10662-S10681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 539, S. 1994, the FAA 
reauthorization bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1994) to amend title 49, United States Code, to 
     reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, 
     and for other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I rise in support of S. 1994, the 
Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1996. Today, I am offering a 
manager's amendment to the bill as originally considered by the 
Commerce Committee which includes a variety of critically needed 
improvements to address important safety and security issues affecting 
airports, airlines, and the travelling public.
  This legislation is a comprehensive effort to deal with virtually all 
aspects of our Nation's air transportation system including: funding 
issues, security, the replacement of aging air traffic control 
equipment, and infrastructure development.
  Mr. President, first and foremost, we must act to reauthorize the 
programs of the FAA before we leave this year or the FAA will be 
prohibited from issuing grants to airports for needed security and 
safety projects. In light of recent air transportation tragedies, we 
must act now to ensure this vital revenue stream remains available.
  As I have indicated, there are dozens of important provisions in this 
legislation, but Mr. President, I would like to focus my remarks on 
three main areas.
  First, aviation safety. Air transportation in this country is safe 
and remains the safest form of travel, however, we can and we must do 
more. This legislation facilitates the replacement of outdated air 
traffic control equipment. Importantly, it also puts in place a 
mechanism to evaluate long-term funding needs at the FAA. Much work has 
been done by Senator McCain, Hollings, Ford, Stevens, and others, as 
well as the administration, and I want to congratulate them and thank 
them for their efforts in this regard. This effort is critically 
important given the projected growth in air travel over the next 
several years. Ensuring adequate funding in a time of increasing 
passenger traffic and diminishing Federal resources is a difficult 
issue and this legislation takes important steps forward.
  A second area I want to highlight is aviation security. This 
legislation contains numerous provisions designed to improve security 
at our Nation's airlines and airports. Here again, I would like to 
thank a bipartisan group of Senators for their efforts to develop 
comprehensive recommendations for the bill. Senators Hutchinson and 
Lautenberg deserve special thanks for their tireless work in this area 
over the past several months. The measure before us today incorporates 
many of the suggestions from the House-passed antiterrorism bill, as 
well as new recommendations from the Gore Commission of which I am a 
member. Passage of this bill will improve aviation security by: 
spending deployment of the latest explosive detection systems; 
enhancing passenger screening processes; requiring criminal history 
record checks on screeners; requiring regular joint threat assessments 
and testing baggage match procedures.
  The third and final area I wish to highlight Mr. President, is how 
this legislation will help small community air service and small 
airports, such as those in my State of South Dakota. The legislation 
before us today reauthorizes the Essential Air Service Program at the 
level of $50 million. This program is vital to States such as South 
Dakota and others. The bill also directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to conduct a comprehensive study on rural air service 
and fares. For too long, small communities have been forced to endure 
higher fares as a result of inadequate competition and the Department 
of Transportation will now look into this issue as a result of this 
bill. This follows on the important work that I instructed the General 
Accounting Office to initiate last year. And finally, in this 
legislation, we have taken steps to protect smaller airports in the 
event of funding downturns in the appropriations process.
  The legislation guarantees that if airport funding were to be 
significantly reduced, smaller airports would not be disadvantaged 
disappropriately. As my colleagues know, larger facilities have a 
number of funding options available to them, including access to the 
bond communities, PFC, rates, and charges and the like. Smaller 
airports do not have the same options. I am pleased that we have 
developed a safeguard for smaller airports without significant 
modifications to the existing allocation formulas, while protecting 
existing letters of intent for multiyear funding projects at larger 
airports.
  In summary, Mr. President, this legislation represents the 
culmination of over a year's work by the Commerce Committee and other 
interested Senators. It addresses our most pressing aviation needs--
safety, security, and funding.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support passage of S. 1994. We cannot 
adjourn for the year without taking final action on this important 
legislation. If we fail to act, the FAA's hands will be tied and they 
will be unable to address needed security and safety issues in every 
State in the Nation.

[[Page S10663]]

  I should pay special tribute to the chairman and ranking member of 
the Aviation Subcommittee, Senators McCain and Ford, who have done so 
much fine work on this.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a longer statement I will give in a 
minute, but I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, Senator Pressler, who made possible this legislation through 
his leadership, through the efforts of his staff, whose names will be 
mentioned later.
  I say to Senator Pressler, I do not believe this legislation would be 
before us today without your leadership. We look forward to your active 
participation and assistance as we move this legislation through to its 
completion, hopefully by tomorrow. I extend my deepest appreciation to 
Senator Pressler.
  Although we have not completed this legislation yet, and I will save 
my remarks about my friend from Kentucky, with whom, for 10 years now, 
I have had the opportunity of working, the Senator from Kentucky has 
proven again that the only way you achieve legislative successes are 
through bipartisan efforts, not only working together on both sides of 
the aisle but with the administration. There are many people, including 
the Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Pena, and the FAA Administrator, 
and especially the Deputy Administrator, Linda Daschle, and their hard 
working staff.
  I ask my friend from Kentucky if he would like to proceed with our 
opening statements, or would he like to go directly to the amendments 
that are pending?
  Mr. FORD. I would say to my friend that I will have a very short 
opening statement. I think we can encourage our colleagues, if they 
have any amendments that have not been taken care of in the managers' 
amendment. I think many of those have already been taken care of. They 
will be in the managers' amendment. So, for all practical purposes, I 
would be more than pleased to see if any of my colleagues have any 
amendments they would like to put on, because, at some point tonight, I 
think the chairman of the subcommittee will want to get a finite list 
of any amendments that are not taken care of in the managers' 
amendment, or are agreed to or voted on tonight.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would say to the Senator from Kentucky, I believe it is 
the wishes of the majority leader and the Democratic leader to get a 
finite list, unanimous-consent agreement on that, and have whatever 
votes are necessary sometime tomorrow morning. So I, like the Senator 
from Kentucky, urge my colleagues who have additional amendments to 
those that we already have to come over to propose those, propound 
those amendments, and let us act on them.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, S. 1994 authorizes the programs of the FAA 
for 1 year. The bill must pass because it is an authorization bill. The 
FAA cannot issue any airport grants unless this bill is passed. Under 
S. 1994, the FAA would spend approximately $35 million more on small 
airports for fiscal year 1997 than was spent in fiscal year 1996. I 
believe the chairman of the committee, Senator Pressler, noted that was 
one of the things he felt was so important in S. 1994.
  The House has passed its FAA reauthorization bill. That is H.R. 3539. 
They did that last week. So it is incumbent upon us to get our bill out 
so we can go to conference and have the bill back to be presented to 
both the House and the Senate as soon as possible.
  S. 1994 also contains a title that addresses FAA reform, the long-
term issues relating to how much money FAA needs, and how to raise the 
funds. A task force will review these issues and work with the 
Secretary of Transportation on developing legislation that will be 
submitted to Congress for review. We have no expedited procedures here, 
so what we are saying is that this task force will get it together with 
the advice and counsel of the Secretary of Transportation, and that 
package is to be submitted to Congress for our review or support or 
whatever it might be. So I think it is real important--very important 
that we get this out.
  The structure of the FAA would change slightly--and I underscore 
``slightly''--making it more independent of oversight by the Secretary 
of Transportation in the safety regulatory arena.
  Finally, the bill includes a title concerning aviation security and 
covers many of the issues that Senator Pressler said, as a member of 
the Gore Commission, that they recommended. These items are generally 
consistent with the Gore Commission's recommendation.
  The bill also authorizes the collection of up to $100 million in 
overflight fees, fees charged to foreign air carriers flying through 
our air traffic control system. Some of this money could help pay for 
the essential air service programs that are so important to less 
populated areas.
  Mr. President, I might say, one of the reasons this is put in here is 
that other countries charge us overflight fees. We have never done 
that. So I do not think there could be any retribution of any kind if 
we add those fees, because we will be doing the same thing they are 
doing. They are using our system, they are flying over this country in 
a safe manner, and therefore we charge them a fee for our services.
  So I hope my colleagues are listening. I hope if my colleagues have 
any amendments that they want us to consider as they relate to S. 1994, 
that they come forward and we be able to put those on the list. Those 
Senators who might be concerned if their amendment has been included in 
the managers' amendments or not, we will be more than pleased to visit 
with them right away so we can assure our colleagues that their 
amendment has been taken care of.
  So, Mr. President, I look forward to moving this legislation forward. 
I look forward to cooperating with my friend from Arizona, Senator 
McCain, and that we will pass a piece of legislation that will be 
acceptable and that we will be proud of in the final results.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this collaborative work has resulted in 
legislation that will benefit everyone who uses this country's air 
transportation system, including air travelers, airports of all sizes, 
pilots and other airline and airport employees, the Federal Aviation 
Administration, major, regional, and short-haul air carriers, general 
aviation pilots and manufacturers, and all others in the aviation 
industry. This bill will do the following:
  Ensure that the FAA and our Nation's airports will be adequately 
funded by reauthorizing key FAA programs, including AIP, for fiscal 
year 1997;
  Ensure that the FAA has the resources it needs to improve airport and 
airline security in the near term;
  Direct the National Transportation Safety Board to establish a 
program to provide for adequate notification of and advocacy services 
for the families of victims of aircraft accidents;
  Enhance airline and air travelers' safety by requiring airlines to 
share employment and performance records before hiring new pilots;
  Strengthen existing laws prohibiting airport revenue diversion, and 
provide DOT and the FAA with the tools they need to enforce Federal 
laws prohibiting revenue diversion;
  Make needed changes relating to MWAA, which is Metropolitan 
Washington Airport Authority; and, most important, provide for thorough 
reform, including long-term funding reform, of the FAA.
  Each of the elements of S. 1994 is essential to fulfilling Congress' 
responsibility to improving our country's air transportation system. 
Clearly, Congress, the White House, DOT, the FAA, and others throughout 
the aviation industry have been under close scrutiny regarding the 
state of the U.S. air transportation system. The traveling public has 
told us they are worried about the safety and security of U.S. airports 
and airlines, and the ability of the Government to alleviate these 
concerns. Recent tragic events suggest that this apprehension is 
justified, and we have been strongly encouraged to correct the problems 
in one air transportation system. I believe that the legislation we are 
considering today will go a long way toward making the system safer and 
better in every way.

[[Page S10664]]

  I would like to discuss briefly the importance of addressing and 
resolving the FAA's funding problems. I have long been a strong 
supporter of comprehensive FAA reform, which includes helping to create 
a more autonomous and accountable FAA, giving the FAA flexibility in 
personnel, procurement, and regulatory matters, and ensuring that the 
FAA has a long-term, user fee based funding system that considers the 
FAA's costs of providing services, increases the efficiency with which 
the FAA provides its services, and enhances the safety of the U.S. air 
transportation system.
  Although S. 1994 includes an FAA reform package that I fully support 
and that encompasses several elements that the FAA needs to resolve its 
problems, the legislation does not mandate a user fee based on long-
term funding system for the FAA. I still believe that a user fee system 
would be the most equitable and efficient funding system for the FAA. 
Yet, after working and consulting with many others in Congress, the 
administration, and the aviation industry, this legislation instead 
sets up a task force, which will study and recommend to Congress the 
best funding system for the agency. I am pleased that we are taking 
this critical step today toward achieving long-needed, comprehensive 
FAA reform.
  I would also like to address the safety and security provisions in 
this bill. We all know that the traveling public is worried about their 
safety when they fly. Provisions in this legislation were developed to 
respond quickly and precisely to concerns we have heard in first-hand 
conversations with those who use our Nation's airports and airlines.
  In specific, to assure air travelers and other users of our air 
transportation system that safety is paramount, this bill requires the 
FAA to study and report to Congress on whether certain air carrier 
security responsibilities should be transferred to or shared with 
airports or the Federal Government; requires the NTSB to develop a 
program to provide family advocacy services following commercial 
aircraft accidents; requires NTSB and the FAA to work together to 
develop a system to classify aircraft accident and safety data 
maintained by the NTSB, and report to Congress on the effects of 
publishing such data; ensures that the FAA gives high priority to 
implement a fully enhanced safety performance analysis system, 
including automated surveillance; requires the FAA to conduct a study 
on weapons and explosive detection technology. And by the way, Mr. 
President, I believe that technology is out there and, with the proper 
funding in research and development, we can develop it, I have no doubt 
about that. Improves standards for airport security passenger, baggage, 
and property screeners, including requiring criminal history records 
checks; requires the FAA to facilitate quick deployment of commercially 
available explosive detection equipment; contains a sense of the Senate 
on the development of effective passenger profiling programs; 
authorizes airports to use project grant money and PFC's for airport 
security programs; establishes aviation security liaisons at key 
Federal agencies; requires the FAA and FBI to carry out joint threat 
and vulnerability assessments every 3 years; directs the FAA to set up 
a pilot program to determine whether baggage match requirements would 
enhance safety and security; requires all air carriers and airports to 
conduct periodic vulnerability assessments of security systems; and 
facilitates the transfer of pilot employment records between employing 
airlines so that passenger safety is not compromised.

  This legislation addresses two other critical aviation issues. First, 
it contains provisions intended to reverse the disturbing trend of 
illegal diversion of airport revenues. To ensure that airport revenues 
are used only for airport purposes, this legislation would expand the 
prohibition on revenue diversion to cover more instances of diversion. 
It also would establish clear penalties and stronger mechanisms to 
enforce Federal laws prohibiting revenue diversion. In addition, the 
bill would impose additional reporting requirements so that illegal 
revenue diversion is easily identified and verified.
  Finally, Mr. President, this legislation makes certain changes to the 
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority required following recent 
Federal court rulings. In specific, the bill abolishes the MWAA Board 
of Review, and increases the number of Presidentially-appointed members 
of the MWAA Board of Directors. It also conveys the sense of the Senate 
that the MWAA should not provide free, reserved parking areas at either 
Washington National Airport or Washington Dulles International Airport 
for Members of Congress and other Government officials, or diplomats.
  Mr. President, the recent horrible aircraft accidents, and continuing 
reports of power outages and equipment failures in our air traffic 
control centers, have raised questions about the safety of our Nation's 
air transportation system and the effectiveness of the Federal 
Government in safeguarding the traveling public. We must do our part to 
reassure the traveling public that we have the world's safest air 
transportation system. This comprehensive legislation will go a long 
way in reassuring the public that the system is safe, and ensure the 
FAA will have a stable, predictable, and sufficient funding stream for 
the long term.
  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. REID. 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. REID. Mr. President, at an appropriate time during the 
proceedings of this legislation, I will offer an amendment.
  We live in a world that is increasingly unstable and more dangerous 
each day. Unfortunately, the origins of most of this danger are the 
nations around the world that export its violence and its terrorism.
  This world is full of various cultures. Many diametrically differ 
from each other, but no clash of ideals and societies justifies state-
sponsored terrorism and aggression.
  The resolution unequivocally notifies the world that the United 
States will not tolerate state criminal activity against American 
citizens and their property. The amendment that I will offer will 
outline this in some detail.
  Mr. President, those of us who serve in this body fly all the time, 
so perhaps because of that we recognize every time there is a TWA 
flight 800 or Pan-American, we cannot only see ourselves, but our 
families, in these aircraft that are so treacherously destroyed.
  The resolution that I will offer warns the world that the United 
States will not accept in the slightest degree any assault on its 
citizens by another nation. The resolution that I will offer will 
convey a sense of the U.S. Senate that any state-sponsored condoned 
hostilities toward Americans will in fact be an act of war and that we 
should strongly consider that an act of war.
  Mr. President, this principle applies to any act of hostility, 
including but not limited to airplanes that are hijacked or destroyed 
in the skies, to the hostage taking of American citizens living 
overseas and to the destruction of buildings in which Americans reside, 
either on American soil or otherwise.
  The United States does not go to war against common criminals, but if 
a nation is going to plan and organize the aggression, assist in the 
execution of terrorism or condone the hostility by hiding the 
terrorists, then there will be a consideration of a state of war 
between America and that nation.
  Mr. President, it is a responsible response to an aggressive act by a 
foreign state. The existence of these acts is itself, I believe, a 
declaration that they have no concern for human safety, of life, and 
that we should strongly consider this to be an act of war.
  I hope that it will be a deterrent to continued terrorist activity, 
bringing down on a hostile government many numerous negative 
consequences, such as economic warfare, that is, affecting the ability 
of the country to obtain loans. No government in the world today can 
afford to have their credit cut off or their borrowing power removed.
  Second, causing neutral nations to quit trading or doing business in 
a terrorist country is something we should consider would exist. If 
there is risk to

[[Page S10665]]

trading with a country who exports violence and upon whom there has 
been or is considered a declaration of war, then neutral nations will 
cease trading with these venues of violence.
  Increasing insurance rates for the terrorist-sponsored government. 
Any nation that sponsors terrorism itself is at risk of violent 
retaliation, and consequently will see their insurance rates, which 
countries depend on in this modern world, as a detriment to their doing 
these acts of violence.
  What is a state of war? Among other things, the first response that 
comes to mind, of course, is a military response, such as the one that 
President Reagan initiated against Libya. The military power of the 
United States is well known and respected throughout the world, and is 
a principal option we would have.
  Additionally, of course, naval blockades are an option, though less 
dramatic and violent than a full military response. Mr. President, 
naval blockades have been used in recent times, particularly in Cuba, 
and in other nations whose reliance on ports and waterways are 
fundamental to their economy and their way of life.

  A third form of response could be an economic response, in effect, 
economic warfare that engages a variety of sanctions against that 
nation's economy. This could range from a total embargo, to dramatic 
tariffs, to a removal of the most favored nation status. This response 
could vary with the resistance of the nation concerned.
  I discuss these options of retaliation to clarify that this sense-of-
the-Senate resolution is not necessarily saying, as we did during the 
Vietnam conflict, that we will, in effect, try to bomb them back to the 
Stone Age--nothing to that effect. Rather, we will take the 
responsible, firm actions necessary in a state of war to respond to 
state-sponsored terrorism.
  To declare a state of war under such circumstances is well within the 
norm of international war and even historical precedent. The War of 
1812 started because American sailors were being taken and impressed 
into the British Navy. The British Government declared war against the 
Barbary pirates who terrorized the American coastline. Of course, there 
was the threat of war by Theodore Roosevelt against the Moroccan 
Government over the kidnapping of an American family.
  But even if it were not preceded in history, by the examples I have 
given, we must recognize the changing world in which terrorists are 
government supported, and that fanatical leaders of nations are willing 
to terrorize the lives of innocent people.
  So, Mr. President, this resolution that I will offer at some 
subsequent time in these proceedings would send a clear, unequivocal 
message, both abroad and to our own communities and States, by saying 
that the American Government will protect its citizens when other 
nations sanction the assault, killing, and terrorizing of our citizens, 
that we will retaliate.
  At the appropriate time, Mr. President, I will urge my colleagues to 
support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution that would articulate 
clearly the gravity with which we consider the terrorism that has been 
exported and is being exported by foreign nations.
  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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Allegheny County Airport Privatization

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I met recently with County Commissioners 
Larry Dunn and Bob Cranmer, who are very interested in the economic 
development that could be generated from privatizing Allegheny County 
Airport, a general aviation airport which has not had commercial 
passenger service since 1956. During my visit to the airport on 
September 9, 1996, I again heard of the strong local interest in 
privatization, which the county has estimated could generate as much as 
$20 million in business growth in the Monongahela River Valley, an area 
hurt in recent years by severe unemployment.
  I am advised that Federal law and regulations are the principal 
obstacles to privatization of airports. The House FAA reauthorization 
bill contains a provision allowing for the sale or long-term lease, 
with the approval of the FAA, of up to six airports, of which one must 
be a general aviation airport or similar airport not in commercial 
service, such as Allegheny County Airport. The Senate bill we are 
considering today does not contain language authorizing such a pilot 
program, but does provide for a report to the Secretary by an 
independent task force that will consider innovative financing 
mechanisms.
  Upon this state of the record, and as a member of the Transportation 
Appropriations Subcommittee, I believe that for Allegheny County 
Airport to realize its fullest potential, private investment is 
crucial. I would ask my distinguished colleagues, the chairmen of the 
Aviation Subcommittee and the full Commerce Committee, whether the 
Allegheny County Airport is the type of airport in which privatization 
should be facilitated by Congress?
  Mr. McCAIN. As my good friend, the senior Senator from Pennsylvania 
knows, I have been reluctant to support legislation in this bill 
directing the agency to establish a pilot program on airport 
privatization, particularly because of the revenue diversion issue. 
However, if there is a legislative effort to facilitate privatization, 
either as a result of an independent task force recommendation, as 
provided for in section 674, or as a result of subsequent conference 
negotiations on general aviation privatization with the House of 
Representatives, I could support privatization as long as no such 
legislation permits the egregious activity of revenue diversion and as 
long as it continues to meet the airport users' needs. Allegheny County 
Airport appears to meet the criteria of the Federal Aviation 
Administration for inclusion in a privatization test program.
  Mr. PRESSLER. In response to the concerns raised by the senior 
Senator from Pennsylvania, I would note that I made my point in our 
recent correspondence that it is important to be openminded and 
innovative in thinking about airport funding at a time of declining 
Federal resources. Undoubtedly, the privatization issue will be taken 
up by the conference and I look forward to working with my colleagues 
to address the needs of general aviation airports, such as Allegheny 
County Airport. If the conferees determine that a privatization pilot 
program is appropriate for general aviation airports, I am sure that we 
will accord Allegheny County Airport all due consideration for 
inclusion in any such program and would hope that the agency would do 
likewise.
  Mr. FORD. I want to add my voice to this discussion. I know that the 
House has included a privatization provision, which I cannot accept. I 
want to let my colleagues know of my grave concerns about this matter. 
I know others share my concerns. If Senator Specter's concern is over 
one general aviation report, I suspect we all can appropriately address 
that matter.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, for his agreement to a colloquy, and we 
will make sure that every consideration is given to his commitment to 
the Allegheny County Airport.
  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. BROWN. 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. BROWN. Mr. President, I will be offering an amendment later this 
evening that is designed to give transparency to some of the bidding 
process with regard to large construction contracts.
  I was surprised, in reviewing the records of the Denver Airport, to 
find that it was difficult to ascertain why people had not been awarded 
the contract even though they were the lowest qualified bidder. I had 
just assumed that, when you put a project out to bid and you had 
narrowed the field of people who bid on that contract, you were obliged 
to take the lowest bid. Certainly, that would be in the best interest 
of the taxpayers if you could get

[[Page S10666]]

the work done by someone who you yourself said was qualified. It came 
as a surprise to me that, at times, the lowest bidder did not get the 
work, even though deemed qualified.
  What was of more concern was the fact that it was very difficult to 
identify when this had happened and how much it had cost the taxpayers. 
Literally, in working with the GAO audit at the Denver Airport, we were 
advised that it was going to be next to impossible for them to identify 
which contracts had not taken the lowest bid and how much was lost to 
the taxpayers or how much cost was increased because of that.
  Mr. President, I am well aware of the problems of overregulating this 
area. I want to commend the committee for their efforts in the past to 
try to loosen up this area, to give more flexibility to the levels of 
government that work in this area. My understanding is that the 
advancements in that area have been made and that a general guideline 
indicating an effective contracting procedure should be set forth but 
that the Transportation Department has the ability to move away from 
the very restrictive legislation in this area which has existed in the 
past and still, for example, exists with the Pentagon.

  So it is not my purpose to reregulate this area. But it is my 
purpose--and I think it would serve an advantage--if, when the lowest 
qualified bidder is not selected, that at least the information is 
available as to why the lowest qualified bidder wasn't selected and how 
much difference there was in the bids on the contract. I believe that, 
if there is something wrong--and I don't mean to suggest there is 
always something wrong if you don't take the lowest bidder. I suspect 
that there are circumstances where that is explainable and 
understandable. But I believe if you have to at least present the 
information and make it public and available, the free press in our 
free system will do a great deal to police the situation. Transparency, 
exposure of the facts, will help guarantee that the taxpayers get the 
best contract for their dollar and get the best performance.
  Mr. President, I think it would be a mistake to continue a practice 
which allows people to literally hide from the public the fact that 
they haven't taken the best bid from qualified bidders in these 
circumstances. Mindful of the costs of imposing this burden, we have 
suggested a $1 million threshold, and maybe it should be even higher. 
The Defense Department has a $25,000 threshold for their requirement 
for the competitive bidding. So I don't suggest doing anything like 
what the Defense Department has done, but I think at least with the 
disclosure of the $1 million threshold--we will eliminate the small 
contracts--we will make it available. Literally, when you don't take 
the best bid, you at least ought to make an explanation and the facts 
available to the public.
  Mr. FORD. If the Senator will yield for a question, without his 
losing the right to the floor. The Senator is asking for kind of a 
public notice of taking a bid when it is not the lowest bid, but we 
always put the lowest and best. So if you want us to say that we don't 
think the contractor is qualified and so, therefore, we put out openly 
that the reason we turned down the lowest bid is we didn't think the 
contractor was qualified, then you would open the airport board up--or 
whoever it is--to a lawsuit saying that this contractor is not 
qualified and, therefore, we are throwing out his bid. That gets to be 
a little bit tough, I imagine, when there is a bid of any significance.
  I am trying to prevent lawsuits on my airport board.
  Mr. BROWN. I appreciate the interest of the distinguished Senator 
from Kentucky. I know he is very knowledgeable in this area. You will 
be relieved to know that is not the way the amendment is drafted. My 
sense was that, in a circumstance where the airport authority, or 
others, have deemed the bidders qualified, among the bidders that they 
deemed qualified, if they don't take the best bid, they would be then 
obliged to give some indication of the reason they had not taken the 
best bid, but it would only be among those who were qualified. They 
would be the determinants of those qualified.
  Mr. FORD. Sometimes, I say to my friend from Colorado, when you have 
to publicize the bid, it is in the local paper, and you can go by and 
pick up blueprints for $25 or $100, or whatever it is, and you take it 
and work up your estimate. When the bid date comes, you make your bid. 
When do they determine that contractor is qualified or not qualified?
  Mr. BROWN. Obviously, the procedure followed will depend on the 
entity and, of course, we are dealing with a nationwide effort. The 
Department of Transportation, for the contracts that they let 
themselves, follows a different procedure than, perhaps, local airport 
boards would.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will my colleague yield and allow me to make a statement 
on behalf of the leader?
  Mr. BROWN. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous-consent, with the Senator 
from Colorado not losing his right to the floor, to make a statement on 
behalf of the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the majority leader has asked me to 
announce that we are seeking a finite list of amendments, with the 
intention of propounding a unanimous-consent agreement at the 
appropriate time, and that it be a limited number of amendments, to be 
tentatively voted on--those that require votes--at 11 o'clock tomorrow 
morning.
  The majority leader asked me to announce that there will be no 
further votes this evening. I urge my colleagues to come over with 
their amendments so we can compile a complete list of amendments, which 
we hope to follow with a unanimous-consent agreement limiting the bill 
to those amendments in further consideration of the bill.
  I yield the floor back to the Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I haven't seen the 
amendment, so it is hypothetical. You made a statement that left an 
inference here on what we were supposed to do, and so I will wait and 
get a copy of your amendment. I think your intent is good, but I am not 
sure that the end result will get what you are looking for. I would 
like to see the amendment.
  Mr. BROWN. Let me say that I appreciate my friend's interest and, 
particularly, his expertise in this area. We will get him a copy of the 
amendment and would, obviously, appreciate any suggestions the Senator 
has. It is not my purpose to restrict, in any way, airport authority, 
or anybody, from making determinations as to who is qualified to bid, 
nor would it be to require an investigation. It is my intention that 
when you come down to several parties being deemed qualified and the 
contract not going to the one who is qualified and the lowest, then I 
think the public is entitled to at least an explanation.
  That is the intention of the amendment we will be offering. I will 
file it at the desk.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am disturbed by this amendment. This 
amendment is the total Department of Transportation. It has nothing to 
do directly with aviation. This is an aviation bill. This indicates to 
me that, if you do not like the winner, this gives you the ability to 
get rid of him. It is page after page of what a contractor has to do, 
what the Secretary of Transportation has to do, and all of these 
things. This is the total Department of Transportation. We are here 
today to talk about airports. I thought it was referring to airports, 
and about airport authority. This says the Secretary of Transportation 
or the Administrator to award a contract in an amount greater or equal 
to $1 million.
  So the Senator from Colorado is going to have to do a lot of work on 
this one before this Senator agrees to it, and he will have to present 
it and have a vote in the Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWN. Will the Senator yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chair.
  Let me say it is my understanding that the amendment does not give 
anyone a chance to open up bids. All it does is merely ask for 
disclosure. It suggests that there ought to be a bidding process. I 
want to assure my

[[Page S10667]]

friend from Kentucky that I will be happy to work with him on his 
concerns. We will try to see if we can't develop what he wants.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, one of the mistakes that has been made here 
tonight is, I guess, saying no more votes. When it is said ``no more 
votes,'' they scatter like a covey of quail. So we will be looking for 
amendments as best we can.
  We have a managers' package that will take care of many of the 
Senators who have offered amendments. We are, I think, fairly close--
down to maybe six or eight amendments that will be the finite list. But 
we never know.
  The thing I want my colleagues to understand is that the majority 
leader has told the Senator from Arizona that he wants to get a 
unanimous-consent agreement tonight on a finite list of amendments and 
start voting on it at 11 o'clock tomorrow. All I can do is try to 
protect my colleagues as best as I can to a point.
  So I hope at least those on my side, if you have an amendment, will 
please come and let me have it so that it can be on the list. If not, I 
think you may get left out.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to echo the sentiments of my 
friend from Kentucky. I hope that the relevant amendments will be 
brought over. We are in the process of compiling that list. It is my 
understanding that the intention of the majority leader and the 
Democratic leader is to complete this bill tonight with the relevant 
votes held over until tomorrow at 11.
  So I again urge my colleagues to come over.
  Mr. STEVENS. I am pleased that this bill has made its way to the 
floor. Included in this important legislation is a provision I helped 
to craft which mandates an extensive review of the Federal Aviation 
Administration's financing needs. A private industry commission is 
established under this bill that will make recommendations on whether 
the FAA's financing system needs to be modified.
  I know that we all agree that the aviation industry and the traveling 
public need to have a fully funded, efficient, Federal Aviation 
Administration.
  What we disagree on, and what the industry disagrees on, is how to 
reach that goal.
  There is a bill on the calendar which mandates the implementation of 
user fees to fund the Agency. That bill has drawn so much opposition 
that it is stalled.
  The so-called big seven air carriers have visited many of our offices 
with a different user fee proposal--that concept also has not been 
adopted.
  An alliance has been formed of air carriers, general aviation, 
manufacturers, and others to block all user fee proposals.
  Rather than settling on a funding mechanism, the industry is battling 
amongst itself. Some players are urging a long-term reinstitution of 
the ticket tax. Others say they will fight to the death if the tax is 
extended beyond the end of this year.
  And meanwhile, uncertainty mounts about how the FAA will meet the 
challenges of the 21st century.
  Last year, when S. 1239 came before the Commerce Committee, I offered 
substitute legislation to remove the mandated user fee system 
contemplated by that legislation.
  My concept was that Congress needed more facts to cut through the 
issues raised by both sides--and frankly, I was concerned that S. 1239 
preordained user fees as the only way to meet the FAA's needs.
  My belief then, and now, is that an independent authority must review 
the FAA's budgetary projections and determine whether they are sound. 
All of us must agree on the needs, before we mandate the solutions.
  The compromise before us today does that. An independent assessment 
of the FAA's financial requirements is conducted, and then an 
independent panel takes the financial information and proposes to us, 
and the administration, specific recommendations on how to fund the 
agency, and how to get the most efficient system for the dollars spent.
  I will be blunt. I believe the flat-tax concept of the excise taxes 
has worked. It is not perfect, but I fear there is no perfect funding 
mechanism in this area.
  But we will let the independent task force work its will--and we will 
act on the proposals it promulgates.
  I want to thank Senators McCain, Ford, Hollings, and Pressler for 
their hard work and leadership on this bill. We all care about the FAA 
and want to see it work efficiently and effectively. Many good people 
work at the FAA, and the agency is absolutely essential in my State 
where more than three-quarters of our communities are accessible only 
by air.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for 
the work that he has done on the aviation security issue and the 
aviation funding issue. He has worked on that for a long time. It is 
something that we share as an issue.
  Having been a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, I 
have looked at aviation safety for a long time. I think that the United 
States and the FAA have done a very good job with the job at hand. The 
issue used to be hijacking. That is what we were worried about. That is 
when passenger screening came into being--when we worried about the 
possibility of someone with a firearm coming in and taking the plane 
away to hijack it and the passengers.
  But now we have a different threat. Now we must meet a different 
test. And that threat, of course, is terrorism. We must do everything 
we can to protect the traveling public against the people in this 
country that would kill and maim innocent people in the name of a 
cause; people who would go in and blow up a building, or blow up an 
airplane, or any other kind of heinous crime not even knowing the 
victims, not even knowing their families. And, yet, because they 
believe in some cause that they want to get publicity for they would do 
these terrible acts.
  It is hard to deal with something like that, but we must try. And we 
can do a lot just by having in place strong security measures that 
would protect the traveling public and let would-be terrorists know we 
are going to meet them at every point that they would try.
  I think Senator McCain's bill is a good one because it does put in 
place studies where we are not sure what the ramifications would be, 
and regulations to be made by the FAA where we know that we can do 
certain things that will make it better.
  I think baggage checks, which is something that is done on 
international flights, is something that we ought to look at on 
domestic flights. It is not easy. I know that the airlines are very 
concerned about not only passenger security but, of course, the ease of 
travel and the ability to keep time. It is an issue for them. I 
understand that. But I think we have to try. I think we have to see how 
we can make it work.
  Technology is changing every day. It is getting better. I went to the 
airport yesterday morning, and they put my ticket through a screening 
device and brought out the boarding pass. Clearly, they are now being 
able to check whether a ticket is valid. That is good. I was pleased to 
have that little, tiny delay because I knew that it made me safer in 
the air.
  So I think with the technology we have, that probably we can work out 
something with baggage checks that would not be onerous for the 
airlines. Certainly, background checks for baggage handlers and 
passenger screeners is going to be something we would like to have 
looked at.
  We want to make sure that we are able to screen people who are going 
to have access to the tarmac. I think these are prudent measures and 
something that we need to know all the ramifications of. We need to 
know what the costs are. We need cost-benefit analyses. That is common 
sense. But I think, in the end, this can be done with a cost-benefit 
analysis that does make sense.

[[Page S10668]]

  I am very pleased we are going to look at passenger facility charges 
and Airport Improvement Programs for the funding of these security 
measures. The Senator from Arizona is making it possible in this bill, 
in the managers' amendment, to have access to those funding mechanisms 
for more of the security screening systems that are a higher and better 
technology than those being used at most airports today.
  We have a number of things that will improve our airport security in 
this bill. I do think it is important that we take every step we can, 
that we work with the FAA, that we bring the FBI in to an even greater 
extent. They are working now with the FAA, but I think they could do 
even more. I think it very important that we bring all of this together 
with the mandates and the studies to make sure we do everything 
possible to make the traveling public safe and to let them know we are 
taking these steps to make them safe and also to let the potential 
terrorists know we are taking these steps to counter the threats that 
they might make on our traveling public.
  So I am very pleased to have worked with Senator McCain on this bill, 
to bring what I learned in my days at the National Transportation 
Safety Board to bear on this, although I must say, when I was on the 
National Transportation Safety Board terrorism was not the threat. That 
was in the old days when we were worried about other safety issues, and 
I think now we do have the safest aviation system in the world, and we 
are just going to take the next step to make it safer.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Kentucky for 
their work on this bill. We must pass it, and we will.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I wish to take a moment to thank the 
Senator from Texas. She brings a degree of experience and expertise to 
the Commerce Committee on aviation issues that no other Member of the 
Senate has, due to her long involvement with aviation safety as a 
member of the National Transportation Safety Board. She worked on a 
special task force on antiterrorism after the TWA 800 tragedy. She has 
advised the Senator from Kentucky and me, but, more importantly, she 
has been responsible for specific recommendations that are part of this 
bill which I think will help us achieve the goal which we all seek, and 
that is a reduction in the threat to the safety of those American 
citizens and others who make use of airlines not only in the United 
States but throughout the world.
  So I extend my deep appreciation to the Senator from Texas. The bill 
would not be, I believe, as encompassing as it otherwise is without her 
assistance, and I thank the Senator from Texas.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown). The Senator from North Dakota is 
recognized.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wanted to come to the floor to speak 
about a couple of provisions in this legislation which includes a 
number of very important provisions that are very important to all 
parts of America, but especially to rural America. I wanted to make 
note of a couple of them.
  Before I do, I wish to talk generally about what persuaded me to 
advance an amendment in this legislation dealing with essential air 
service. This bill contains an amendment I offered in the Commerce 
Committee dealing with the essential air service program.
  I want to go back, as boring as it might be for some, to revisit the 
decision on deregulating the airlines. We have people here in Congress 
who still think deregulation was a wonderful thing to do. If they could 
get pompoms, they would do jumping jacks and wave pompoms, saying 
airline deregulation was a wonderful thing for our country. Well, it 
was for some Americans.

  If you live in Chicago, I guarantee you grin from ear to ear about 
deregulation because if you happen to be traveling to Los Angeles, you 
can go to O'Hare Airport, find many carriers flying to Los Angeles, 
competing aggressively against each other, providing competitively 
lower prices. You will find a heck of a bargain if you want to travel 
from Chicago to Los Angeles. If you want to travel from Chicago to New 
York, the same deal--a lot of carriers competing aggressively, 
competing by lowering prices. You get a heck of a deal.
  What about people who do not live in the largest cities? What about 
someone who lives, for example, in a State like North Dakota? Before 
deregulation, there several major airlines that flew jets in North 
Dakota: Western Airlines, Frontier Airlines, Republic, formerly North 
Central Airlines, Delta Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Continental 
Airlines. Do you know who flies jets in North Dakota today? Northwest 
Airlines--a good carrier. One jet service carrier servicing our State. 
It is a good carrier, good company, but our people deserve some 
competition.
  The result of all of this is that in rural parts of the country when 
you have less service, fewer companies and less competition? Higher 
prices and less service.
  I'll give you an example which I have used before in the Commerce 
Committee. Let us assume that a Senator from Colorado desired to fly 
from Washington, DC, to go to Disneyland and see Mickey Mouse and all 
of the merriment at Disneyland, traveling all the way across the 
country. And the Senator from Colorado called a travel agent and said, 
``I want to go see Disneyland in California. What is it going to cost 
me?'' And they would give him a price for a ticket, maybe a 2-week 
advance, to fly all the way across the country. And then I convinced 
him you ought not go to Disneyland; you ought to go see the world's 
biggest cow on a hill overlooking New Salem, ND--Salem Sue, a giant 
plastic dairy cow that sits on a hill. So he decides he will fly from 
Washington, DC, to Bismarck; he would be going to see Salem Sue instead 
of Mickey Mouse. So he calls the same travel agent and says, ``Well, 
you charge $300 for me to fly from Washington, DC, to Disneyland. How 
much will it cost me to go half as far to see the world's largest cow 
on a hill outside New Salem, ND?''
  Answer, twice as much.
  Fly half as far, pay twice as much. Or, said another way, fly twice 
as far, pay half as much.
  What kind of a pricing system is that? Would that be a bureaucratic 
pricing system? Would that be a function of some bureaucrat in 
Government who decided let me see if I can mess up our pricing system 
so we can charge people higher prices to fly fewer miles? No, that is 
not what this is about. It is about airline deregulation and the lack 
of competition, which means that rural areas, people who live in 
smaller States with less population, end up paying higher prices for 
fewer choices. That is where deregulation has left us.
  Some people think that does not mean very much. We still get all this 
robust competition in the major cities, and that is a good thing for 
the major cities. Yes, it sure is. It is a good thing for the major 
cities. But it has been devastating for rural areas of the country.
  I could go on at some length but I shall not do that, except to say 
that, because of our experience, in which deregulation of the airlines 
has made the rural areas an impoverished area with respect to that part 
of transportation service we used to expect--some kind of competition 
with jet service going to some hubs--because of that we have to rely 
more and more on other kinds of devices. We have become very strong 
supporters of the Essential Airline Service Program, called EAS. That 
was a program--when deregulation was enacted--that was advertised as a 
means to continue to provide some support and help to the smaller 
areas. That program used to be funded at $80 million a year. Then it 
went to $40 million a year, then $30 million, then $25 million. Slowly 
but surely it has been diminishing and many have tried to kill it.
  What I did in this bill was offer an amendment that is now part of 
this legislation that provides a permanence to the Essential Air 
Service Program by funding it with a fee which this country should 
attach to foreign carriers overflying America. Every other country 
assesses this fee. Our country never has. This bill will assess a fee 
for foreign overflights of our country, just as other countries do, and 
part of the proceeds of that fee will be used to provide for an 
Essential Air Service Program that is more robust than the current 
program is.

[[Page S10669]]

  Under my amendment, the Essential Air Service will be administered by 
the FAA; no longer the DOT, as is currently the case. It will be 
authorized at $50 million a year. This bill passed the Commerce 
Committee with broad, wide, bipartisan support. I appreciate very much 
that it is on the floor and likely will pass through the Senate. We 
expect to keep this in conference and, once and for all, solve this 
problem. This is a good piece of legislation that addresses a problem 
that we are stuck with as a result of deregulation in rural areas of 
the country.
  My friend from Arizona is a particularly articulate supporter of 
deregulation. I understand why, and I do not contest his view of why it 
has been beneficial to some areas of the country. Nor would I expect he 
would contest my view that some areas of the country have been hit 
very, very hard by a theory that says we will create, in our 
transportation system, networks in which, if you get a decent income 
stream that supports a service, fine; if not, service is unavailable 
and unimportant to you.
  We have always, in transportation and communications and certain 
other areas, said let us try to provide broad networks of opportunity. 
That should be true in air travel. It is true in communications, 
telephone service, and other areas as well. But deregulation has 
changed that. We have had an opportunity, now, to sample the bitter 
fruit of what deregulation does for us in some areas, and do not like 
it very much. That is why the Essential Air Service Program is 
increasingly important to us.
  I would like to move from that just for a moment to one other item. 
This piece of legislation is critically important. I commend the 
Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Kentucky and all others who 
had a role in bringing it to the floor of the Senate, because this 
legislation must be enacted by this Congress. We must reauthorize the 
FAA, provide for some continuity, and we must recognize its new and 
expanded role in dealing with all of the issues we deal with all 
throughout the year on air service issues in the Commerce Committee.

  But something has happened here that causes me great concern. Let me 
explain to the Senator from Arizona. I know he is aware of this and he 
probably feels the same way I do about this, but it causes me great 
concern. We have funded most of the FAA through the aviation trust 
fund, financed, in part, with a 10-percent ticket tax on airline 
tickets in this country. What happened is that this 104th Congress we 
got into a wrestling match about a whole range of issues and the ticket 
tax expired. All those many months the ticket tax has expired the $500 
million a month that should have been going into the trust fund to help 
fund the programs in the FAA, depleting the trust fund.
  Then the 10-percent ticket tax was reinstated, but it was not 
reinstated for the purpose of funding the FAA. It was reinstated for 
the purpose of paying for a small business tax program that was 
attached to the minimum wage bill.
  I know about double entry bookkeeping, and this truly stretches 
double entry. Either the 10-percent ticket tax is designed to help fund 
the functions of the FAA, or it is designed to help pay, as a revenue 
source, for a range of tax breaks--many of which I supported, many of 
which I thought were meritorious--tax breaks for small business. But it 
cannot do both. And the more egregious approach here is that, on 
December 31, the 10-percent ticket tax will expire again and, on 
January 1 and 2, there will be no 10-percent ticket tax. The Congress 
will not be in session. The Congress will come back into session the 
first week for a day, for swearing in. Then its committees will 
organize. And, as all of us know, there is not going to be a 
reattachment of a ticket tax in January; unlikely in February; and we 
are right back into the same problem that all of us should have learned 
about in recent months.
  This is not being critical of one side or the other. It is saying 
this is an awful way to do business. I have supported the ticket tax 
because I think it is an appropriate way to raise the revenue to help 
pay for the functions of the FAA. We lost $500 million a month, have 
substantially depleted the trust fund, we reattached the 10-percent 
ticket tax, not for the purpose of refunding the FAA, but for the 
purpose of allowing another bill to pass that provides tax cuts for 
small businesses, some tax help for small businesses, and then attached 
it only until December 31 when it is certain to expire again and all of 
us know it.
  There is something fundamentally wrong with that happening. The 
responsibility for us to address that is ours, all of ours, on both 
sides of this political aisle. We ought to run this place the right 
way, and the 10-percent ticket tax, if that is the choice to largely 
fund the FAA functions, let us put it in place and keep it in place and 
not play games with it. One of the reasons I believe it is extended 
only by the Finance Committee through December 31 is because I think 
there is a belief by some that they can use it for the small business 
tax breaks now, which they have done, and then they can come back on 
January 1 and use it again because it will be new money. It will not be 
a tax that exists. It will be a new tax and they can use it for other 
purposes in January. It is a budget game and everyone in this Chamber 
knows it.
  More important, it is playing a game with the wrong entity. The FAA, 
for all of the controversy that it seems to receive every time there is 
a major problem, the FAA is an institution that has an enormous 
responsibility. I, like my colleagues, have flown in various parts of 
the world. I tell you, at least with respect to the FAA--and I know we 
are talking vacuum tubes and all kinds of other issues here--with 
respect to the FAA, I feel more safe flying in this country than I do 
anywhere else in the world. Is the FAA perfect? Have we had problems? 
No, it is not perfect. Yes, we have had problems. But is this the kind 
of organization that deserves to have this kind of plug-in and pull-out 
circumstance on the 10-percent ticket tax? I do not think so. It is not 
a good way to do business. I think my colleague from Arizona would 
agree with that.

  I am not standing here lacing criticism at one person or one 
committee or one party. I am just saying this is not the way for the 
Senate to do business and we ought to change it. If we are going to be 
here a week or two more, the Finance Committee ought to report 
something out that does this in the right way, and that would be to 
permanently attach that ticket tax so it does not expire on January 1 
and attach it as a permanent funding source to the FAA, as it has been 
previously. That is what I would expect of this Congress. That is what 
I think most of the American people would expect of this Congress.
  So, that is therapy. I got that off my chest. I have been complaining 
about that for some while to no avail. You talk to some who say, ``this 
committee has jurisdiction,'' ``this happened,'' ``there are 
circumstances we cannot always control,'' ``I wish it were 
different''--the fact is, we can make it different. We run things, all 
of us together. We in Congress can make our own decisions about what is 
right or what is wrong and it is fundamentally wrong that we are going 
to leave here and on January 1 have no ticket tax that is funding the 
manner the FAA runs, the way you and I and everybody expects it to 
operate.
  Mr. President, I know others may want to speak on this. Having 
complained now for a bit about this, I do want to come back to say that 
I appreciate a lot of work that the Senator from Arizona and the 
Senator from Kentucky have done to bring this to this point. I know 
there have been a number of fences to climb and a number of fences to 
get under, even, to get here. I do not expect they will all be recited 
on the floor of the Senate, but this is the right subject. We need to 
reauthorize this bill, and the work that these two have done, I think, 
may allow us to accomplish that in a way that will be helpful to this 
country. If we will add to it a piece that solves the ticket tax issue 
in the way that people would expect it to be solved, then I think we 
will have done something more for this country. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. First of all, I associate myself with the remarks of the 
Senator from North Dakota concerning the ticket tax. If, last year at 
this time, the Senator from North Dakota and I had been told that the 
ticket tax would

[[Page S10670]]

have been jerked around in this fashion, I would have just said it is 
not possible. I mean, aviation in America is too important. We have to 
have these funds. We know what method of transportation more and more 
Americans take, and the importance of modernization. We all know the 
problems with the air traffic control system. We all know the issues 
that face us. Yet the ticket tax was allowed to lapse for what, 10 
months, I ask my colleague from North Dakota? It staggers the 
imagination. For us to only, as the Senator from North Dakota says, 
extend that ticket tax to December 31 is really unfair. It is unfair to 
aviation safety, it is unfair to modernization, it is unfair to the 
towns and communities that the Senator from North Dakota talked about 
which have lost air service as a result of deregulation.

  I just would like to say now, especially since my friend from 
Kentucky is here, maybe if the three of us and like-minded Senators got 
together and just said, ``Look, we're not going out of session until we 
do resolve this ticket tax issue,'' remembering that in this bill, it 
does call for at some point a commission report to the Commerce 
Committee, to the Finance Committee, and then to the floor of the 
Senate, so we can fundamentally restructure the way the financing is 
done.
  But until there is that kind of agreement, we are stuck with a ticket 
tax. I don't think it is the fairest kind of tax, I will tell my friend 
from North Dakota, and I don't think he does either. I think people who 
use the system are the ones who should be paying. Right now, for 
example, business jets pay about one-tenth into the system that they 
use. That is wrong. That is not fair. In all due respect to my friends 
in the corporate world, they can afford it.
  There are significant inequities associated with the ticket tax, but 
for us to allow the aviation trust fund to become depleted to the point 
where we can't carry out our fundamental obligations, in my view, is--
the kind of description I would use is inappropriate.
  I wonder if the Senator from Kentucky wants to add a comment on that 
before I also respond on the issue of essential air service, which I 
think the Senator from North Dakota and I have been debating going on 7 
years, and I have no illusion of changing his views tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me thank my friend from North Dakota, 
Senator Dorgan. You never know when you get up on the floor and make a 
statement about the way you feel--the response from the Senator from 
Arizona, chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, is that he agrees with 
you. I agree with you. So now we have three. So when you start out, 
maybe you thought you were by yourself, but you are not.
  One item I would like to add to what we expect from FAA is that we 
put responsibility on those who are operating FAA to do all these great 
things, and then we don't give them the wherewithal to do it. Think 
about that. We demand the safest airline service in the world, but yet 
we say we're going to play Mickey Mouse with your money.
  We went 10 months at $19 million a day lost, and now on January 1, we 
will start losing a similar amount until we wake up and try to fund it. 
Sure, we have in this bill a study on other ways to finance, but we 
don't have it yet. That study has to be sent to us for review by the 
Secretary of Transportation.
  What do we do between now and then? We are going to hear some folks, 
``Where's my money for my airport?'' Well, you didn't pay for it. 
``Where is my help on essential air service?'' The Senator from North 
Dakota made his point.
  In the managers' amendment that will be agreed to shortly, the 
amendment of the Senator from North Dakota, as it relates to small 
airports, essential air service, all those things will be in this bill. 
He has made a great contribution.

  I say to my friend from Arizona, I know his toughness, I know his 
ability, and I will be glad to follow his lead in trying to work out 
something before we leave here to extend the ticket tax until such time 
as a report comes back under this bill. That would at least give us 
something to go on.
  But I understand the turf around here. I understand we have 
jurisdictions in our committee. I understand the smoke and mirrors that 
are being played with the ticket tax. It ought to go to airlines. It 
ought to go to FAA. It ought to go to safety. It ought to go to small 
airports. But, no, we play Mickey Mouse, and we then turn around and 
say, ``Where's all our help?'' You just can't do it.
  So I agree with my friend from Arizona, and, in particular, my friend 
from North Dakota. I thank him for his statement tonight. I believe if 
those Senators who didn't hear his statement--their staffs hopefully 
did--they will have an opportunity to read the Record in the morning to 
see what the Senator said, and he makes sense. There wasn't anything 
partisan about his statement. There is nothing partisan about the 
statement of the Senator from North Dakota. He was just spelling out 
the facts, and when you listen to the facts and you don't respond, as 
eloquently as he laid them out, then I think we have something more 
than trying to serve our constituency back home permeating this 
Chamber.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am about to send to the desk a managers' 
amendment to the bill. These modifications concern sections concerning 
maintenance program; maximum percentage of amount made available by 
grants to certain primary airports; discretionary fund; designating 
current and former military airports; State block grant program; access 
to airports by intercity buses; report including proposed legislation 
on funding for airport security; family advocacy; accident and safety 
data classification; report on effects of publication and automated 
surveillance targeting system; weapons and explosive detection study; 
requirement for criminal history records check; interim deployment of 
commercially available explosive detection equipment; audit of 
performance of background checks for certain personnel; sense of the 
Senate on passenger profiling; authority to use certain funds for 
airport security programs and activities; development of aviation 
security liaison agreement; regular joint threat assessments; baggage 
match report; enhanced security programs; report on air cargo; 
acquisition of housing units; protection of voluntarily submitted 
information; application of FAA regulations; sense of the Senate 
regarding funding the Federal Aviation Administration; authorization 
for State-specific safety measures; sense of the Senate regarding the 
air ambulance exemption from certain Federal excise taxes; FAA safety 
mission; carriage of candidates in State and local elections; train 
whistle requirements; limitation on authority of States to regulate 
gambling devices on vessels; commercial space launch and other germane 
amendments.


                           Amendment No. 5360

    (Purpose: To amend title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize 
    programs of the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other 
                               purposes)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send the managers' amendment to the desk 
on behalf of Senator Pressler, myself, Senator Hollings, Senator Ford, 
and others.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Pressler, 
     for himself, Mr. McCain, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Ford, and Mr. 
     Stevens, proposes an amendment numbered 5360.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as original text for purpose of further amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Can we get this accepted first and then return to the 
Senator from North Dakota?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's request with regard to original

[[Page S10671]]

text is approved by the Senate. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. We seek adoption of the managers' amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to adoption of the 
managers' amendment under the conditions that have been stated? Without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5360) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, let me finish with a very brief statement. 
I do not want people to misunderstand what we are discussing here. This 
is not myself or others suggesting that we like a 10-percent ticket tax 
because it has the word ``tax'' in it. Let me explain exactly what this 
is.
  For some many years we have had a 10-percent tax added to the price 
of airline tickets for the purpose of funding a wide range of 
activities in the Federal Aviation Administration, the construction of 
airports, the purchase of equipment dealing with airline safety, a 
whole range of things dealing with FAA control towers. We have always 
funded that with this 10-percent tax on tickets.
  To decide that there shall not be a 10-percent tax on tickets means 
that there is no funding, or at least the major funding for the FAA is 
not going to be available. That is why I say it does not make much 
sense for us to worry about and talk about the FAA and its functions, 
the critical functions it performs for passengers in our country, and 
then to allow the disconnection of the major revenue source to fund the 
FAA.
  Not too long ago I asked to tour the FAA control tower at the 
Minneapolis-Saint Paul Airport. I have been in towers before, but I 
have not been in very large towers. I have flown an airplane myself and 
called the tower on approach, so I know a little about the system. But 
I went up into the tower at Minneapolis-Saint Paul because I was 
curious how they work on approach control with airplanes coming in and 
going out, on the ground, in the air, dealing with thunderstorms, and 
it was really quite remarkable to watch.
  The one thing that was interesting to me is they had a very large 
scope in the middle of this dark room, a very large round scope. When 
they pushed a button on that scope, which covered a map of the United 
States and part of Canada on that scope, it would light up with about 
4,500 white dots, each of which represented an airplane at that moment 
aloft being tracked by our system in the FAA.
  You could point to any one of these dots on that giant screen with a 
computer and you could find out instantly what airplane that was, what 
its call signal was, what kind of plane it was, what direction it was 
heading, how fast it was going, what altitude it was--every single 
plane on that screen.
  Then they had men and women up and down the row--and many of you have 
seen this in a control tower--in the dark room with the flow of 
incoming traffic and the flow of outgoing traffic dealing with that. 
Then you had the folks up on top who were dealing with the visual 
aspects of landings and takeoffs and people on the ground. I will tell 
you, I watched these people for some while. I was enormously impressed. 
These are skilled, trained, tough professionals who know what they are 
doing. I came away from that not thinking that this is a system with a 
lot of worry about it; I came away enormously impressed by the men and 
women who were running that system at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul 
Airport. I do not know about all Senators, but I know what I saw that 
day enormously impressed me. These are very capable people.
  Can the system be improved? Yeah, probably.
  Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator yield just for one additional comment I 
would like to make?
  Mr. DORGAN. Certainly.
  Mr. McCAIN. Now that the managers' amendment has been accepted, we 
continue to seek any additional amendments that our colleagues may 
have. The Senator from Rhode Island has, after the Senator from North 
Dakota is finished with his remarks, an amendment. We will be awaiting 
or anticipating any additional amendments, again, reminding my 
colleagues that we will be seeking a unanimous consent agreement 
tonight to close out further amendments so that we will be able to have 
votes on pending amendments and final passage at 11 o'clock tomorrow, 
which is the direction of the leaders on both sides.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor back to the Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. I will finish in 1 minute.
  Let me say this. The men and women in that tower in Minneapolis and 
Saint Paul who tonight are working that air traffic control system, and 
doing it with great skill, deserve a Congress that does right by them. 
That means reconnecting the revenue source that is going to fund the 
FAA functions in this country.
  Senator McCain invited that maybe some of us ought to decide this 
Congress ought not adjourn until it resolves that issue. Well, sign me 
up, count me in. Count me in for maximum trouble and minimum time. I 
want to find any way possible to deny us from going home and not doing 
right by the people who are running that FAA system who are in those 
control towers tonight.
  We have an obligation. We have a job to do. All of us understand what 
it is. We ought to do it. The American people ought to expect that we 
do it. I am pleased with the support by the Senator from Arizona and 
the support from the Senator from Kentucky on these issues. I hope in 
the coming couple of days the three of us, conspiring in a thoughtful 
and interesting way, can find a way to solve this problem. Mr. 
President, I yield the floor.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise in support of the managers' 
amendment, and to express my appreciation to the chairman of the 
Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, for working with me to ensure 
that this bill addresses an important issue facing the Federal Aviation 
Administration [FAA]--the issue of safety.
  My language in the managers' amendment responds to the request made 
by the Secretary of Transportation on June 18, when he called on 
Congress to: ``* * * change the FAA charter to give it a single primary 
mission: safety and only safety.''
  In light of the many safety concerns that have become public as a 
result of the tragic crash of ValuJet flight 592 and TWA flight 800, it 
is important to restate the commitment of Congress and the FAA to 
ensuring the safety of air travel in this country. By addressing the 
issue of the dual and dueling missions of safety and air carrier 
promotion, as one reporter so accurately put it, there will be no room 
for doubt in the minds of the traveling public--or the FAA--that safety 
is its job--first, last and always.
  The underlying bill includes the Wyden-Ford amendment, which I 
supported in committee, that took an important step in the direction 
requested by the Secretary. That amendment added the word ``safety'' to 
the statute outlining the FAA's mission on air commerce promotion, and 
I agree that it is important to reemphasize safety in this area. This 
still leaves us with a dual mandate, however.
  The Snowe language requires the Management Advisory Council [MAC], 
created under the bill to provide oversight for management and policy 
matters to the FAA Administrator, and to review the overall condition 
of aviation safety and the extent to which the dual mission of the FAA 
undermines the safety mission. The MAC has 180 days to report back to 
Congress, in conjunction with the FAA, with its recommendations for 
necessary changes in the mission.
  I would have preferred to simply eliminate the mandate, as I did in 
the Snowe-Pressler freestanding bill on this issue, S. 1960. But I 
understand the concern that development and safety issues are closely 
linked in some cases, and a review is necessary in order to determine 
the most appropriate distribution of functions between the FAA and 
other agencies within the Department of Transportation. I believe that 
this language provides for a process that will allow Congress to put to 
rest concerns that the FAA is not focused on safety.
  We cannot expect the FAA to regain the trust of the traveling public 
while it maintains its dual mission of both ensuring their safety while 
at the same time continuing to promote the growth

[[Page S10672]]

of the carriers. The current mission of the FAA places it in the 
untenable position of being both the chief enforcer and the best friend 
of the airlines--no one should be asked to perform both roles, and no 
one can be expected to do both well.
  The dual mandate places the FAA in the position of conflict between 
the American consumer and the airlines. It has raised questions about 
the FAA's actions with regard to moving forward in a timely fashion on 
the safety recommendations made by the National Transportation Safety 
Board; and most importantly, it has raised questions about whose side 
the FAA is really on.
  As James Burnett, Jr., former Chairman of the National Transportation 
Safety Board, said ``It's as if the FAA acts to protect the airline 
rather than the consumer until they just can't maintain that position 
any longer.''
  I believe that a review of FAA functions by the MAC, as required 
under my language, and subsequent action by Congress on the MAC's 
specific recommendations for changes necessary to ensure that safety 
remains the focal point of the FAA's mission, will enable us to 
reassure the American public that the FAA is looking out for their 
safety at all times.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I am pleased that included in the 
amendment offered by the managers is a provision regarding 
discretionary Airport Improvement Program [AIP] grants to reliever 
airports. This language would clarify one of the factors that the 
Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] considers in determining grants 
from the discretionary fund.
  The AIP provides grants to airports which help insure the safety of 
air travel in this Country. Seventy-five percent of the money 
distributed annually from the AIP is allocated to primary and reliever 
airports from the discretionary grant fund. In determining whether to 
make a grant to improve an airport, the Secretary of Transportation 
considers three criteria: First, the capacity of the national air 
transportation system; second, the costs and benefits of a project; and 
third, the financial commitment to be made from sources other than the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. President, language included in the amendment offered by the 
managers clarifies the second criteria, the costs-benefit analysis. 
Currently, the FAA does not consider the cost savings to the primary 
airport in its analysis of improvements to the reliever airport even 
though they might be cheaper than expenditures to upgrade the primary 
airport. In other words, a small investment could be made to upgrade 
capacity at a reliever airport that would result in very large cost 
savings at the primary airport. However, this does not qualify as a 
positive cost-to-benefit comparison under the FAA interpretation.
  Mr. President, the Rock Hill-York County Airport, a small facility 
that serves the north central part of South Carolina, is experiencing 
difficulties with their grant application due to this interpretation. 
The Rock Hill Airport is a designated reliever airport to the growing 
Charlotte/Douglas International Airport. In 1991, the FAA published a 
Capacity Enhancement Plan for the Charlotte Airport that recommended 
upgrading the capabilities at the reliever airports serving Charlotte. 
It was estimated that if the Rock Hill Airport were equipped to handle 
general and corporate aviation during bad weather, the Charlotte 
Airport would save $5.6 million per year.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter from 
Mr. T. J. Orr, Aviation Director of the Charlotte Airport, that 
outlines this situation be inserted in the Congressional Record at the 
conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. THURMOND. Pursuant to this report, the Rock Hill-York County 
Airport applied to the FAA for a $350,000 airport improvement grant to 
install an instrument landing system [ILS]. However, the FAA will not 
consider the cost savings to Charlotte in the application submitted by 
Rock Hill. Further, they base their decision solely on the number of 
flight operations currently at Rock Hill.
  Mr. President, this puts Rock Hill in dilemma. They cannot 
demonstrate the required number of operations to satisfy the FAA 
because they do not have an ILS and they cannot get the required number 
of operations without the ILS. While I believe the FAA is wrong, it 
appears that legislation is needed to correct this problem. I thank the 
managers for including language in their amendment that will force the 
FAA to examine this situation.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                 Charlotte/Douglas


                                        International Airport,

                                  Charlotte, NC, October 10, 1995.
     Ms. Carolyn Blum,
     Regional Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, 
         Southern Region, College Park, GA.
       Dear Ms. Blum: The Federal Aviation Administration, airport 
     operators, and the users of the national air transportation 
     system a few years ago initiated Airport Capacity Design 
     Teams to identify, develop and evaluate means of reducing 
     delays at high activity airports, such as Charlotte. 
     Ancillary benefits based upon implementation of a number of 
     these recommendations have resulted in increased air traffic 
     control system safety and efficiency.
       In April of 1991, the Charlotte/Douglas International 
     Airport Capacity Enhancement Plan, completed by the Charlotte 
     Capacity Design Team, was published by the Federal Aviation 
     Administration. This plan was the result of a two year 
     collaborative effort by a design team which included 
     representatives from: the FAA System Capacity and 
     Requirements Office; the FAA Technical Center, Aviation 
     Capacity Branch; the FAA Southern Region Air Traffic 
     Division, Airway Facilities Division, Airport District 
     Office, and the Charlotte Tower; USAir, Air Transport 
     Association; Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; and the 
     City of Charlotte's Aviation Department.
       One of the key recommendations of this plan was the upgrade 
     of capabilities and services offered by the reliever airports 
     serving the Charlotte area. In fact, an estimated savings of 
     $5.6 million per year in 1991 dollars was forecast as a 
     result of reducing demand at the Charlotte/Douglas 
     International Airport generated by general aviation, business 
     and corporate aviation demand. Much of this demand at the 
     Charlotte/Douglas International Airport occurs during 
     critical periods of instrument meteorological conditions when 
     reliever airports are simply not equipped to serve aircraft 
     in these weather conditions. The resultant involuntary 
     movement of general aviation, business and corporate aircraft 
     from a reliever airport to a major commercial service airport 
     hub could not come at a worse time or under worse conditions.
       In recognition of these critical capacity, efficiency and 
     safety issues, the Rock Hill-York County Airport, an FAA 
     designated reliever airport to the Charlotte/Douglas 
     International Airport, has applied to the FAA Southern Region 
     for approval and funding of an AIP project to upgrade its 
     Runway 02 Localizer to a full Runway 02 ILS by the addition 
     of a glideslope and related improvements. The benefits of 
     lowering the approach minima to Rock Hill Airport, as a 
     result of these improvements, will accrue a substantial 
     benefit to the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport as 
     promised in the Charlotte/Douglas International Airport 
     Capacity Enhancement Plan.
       Because of Rock Hill's willingness to fund a major portion 
     of this project's capital, design and maintenance costs from 
     non-FAA funding sources, it appears this is a project of 
     excellent value if the FAA considers its overall 
     infrastructure benefits. I strongly endorse this initiative 
     by Rock Hill and would appreciate your help in assisting Rock 
     Hill in obtaining the necessary project approval and funding 
     on a priority basis.
       Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter.
           Best personal regards,
                                                         T.J. Orr,
                                                Aviation Director.

  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           Amendment No. 5361

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

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee], for himself and 
     Mr. Baucus, proposes an amendment numbered 5361.

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

       On page 78, line 12, strike ``and aircraft engine 
     emissions,''.
       On page 78, line 19 through 24, strike all of paragraph (C) 
     and insert the following:
       (C) The Administrator, as the Administrator deems 
     appropriate, shall provide for the participation of a 
     representative of the Environmental Protection Agency on such 
     advisory committees or associated working

[[Page S10673]]

     groups that advise the Administrator on matters related to 
     the environmental effects of aircraft and aircraft engines.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of 
myself and Senator Baucus. Mr. President, what does this amendment do? 
This amendment would remove a provision in the bill which gives the 
Federal Aviation Administration, which sometimes is referred to as the 
FAA, removes the authority given to the FAA under this legislation to 
regulate air pollution emissions from aircraft engines.
  This new authority--this is not authority that they currently have; 
this is brand new authority to the FAA. It would duplicate authority 
which is already assigned to the Environmental Protection Agency under 
the Clean Air Act. The amendment that Senator Baucus has joined me on 
would encourage greater cooperation between EPA and FAA in this area, 
but it would preclude the confusion and waste that would result from 
two Federal agencies charged to do the same job. That is what this 
legislation does; it sets up one more agency to do exactly the same 
thing that the EPA does now.
  Mr. President, we object to giving the FAA this authority for three 
reasons. First, there is no need to duplicate the authority that the 
EPA already has. There is no evidence, Mr. President--no evidence--that 
EPA has abused this authority or that it has overregulated aircraft 
engines. The last time EPA issued regulations for aircraft engines was 
in 1982. Mr. President, that was 14 years ago. So that is hardly a case 
of overregulation.
  As a practical matter, Mr. President, the way this system works is 
that the world's three major aircraft engine manufacturers--there are 
three in the world, Pratt & Whitney, General Electric, and Rolls 
Royce--comply with emissions standards that are set by an international 
body, sometimes referred to as ICAO. That international body's 
regulations cover more pollutants and are more stringent than EPA 
regulations.
  So, Mr. President, to instruct two separate Federal agencies to issue 
regulations on the same subject is to set the stage for confusion and 
conflict and wasted resources, both public and private.
  Second, the FAA is in no position to regulate aircraft engine 
emissions as provided in this legislation. The FAA does not have the 
expertise to know which air pollutants adversely affect human health or 
the environment. The FAA does not know how emissions from aircraft 
engines fit into the bigger picture on air quality problems.
  In fact, Mr. President, the Commerce Committee has received a letter, 
dated just 5 days ago, from Secretary Pena of the Department of 
Transportation asking that this provision, the provision I am referring 
to, giving the same powers that the EPA has, giving those to the FAA in 
this bill--Secretary Pena has written asking that this provision be 
removed from the bill because the FAA does not have that expertise.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from Secretary 
Pena be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I will read a portion of this letter 
addressed to the Honorable Larry Pressler, chairman of the Committee on 
Commerce, dated September 12, 1996. Page 2 reads:

       In consideration of the very significant budget constraints 
     faced by the FAA, I urge the deletion of the new 
     responsibilities that section 631(a)(1) of S. 1994 entitled, 
     ``Aircraft Engine Standards'' would impose on the agency. If 
     adopted, this section would vest responsibility to set 
     aircraft engine emission standards with the FAA. Such 
     responsibility would not only duplicate the responsibility 
     and authority already vested with the Environmental 
     Protection Agency [EPA] under the Clean Air Act, but would 
     also require the expenditure of substantial resources to 
     develop a level of expertise requisite to environmental 
     rulemaking that already exists at EPA.

  What is the third reason that this provision should be stricken? If 
the provision in the bill has the effect of forestalling any EPA 
regulation of aircraft engines--which probably is the effort here, to 
get EPA out of this--the result will not be less regulation or less 
costly regulation. It will merely mean, and this is important, more 
regulation for other sources like small businesses and automobile 
owners and manufacturing facilities.
  Airplanes emit hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen into the 
atmosphere where they combine with the air pollutants admitted by 
thousands of other sources to form what is known as smog. The way the 
Clean Air Act works, States must adopt regulations reducing pollution 
from targeted sources until a safety level for smog pollution is 
attained. In other words, the States have this responsibility. If 
aircraft engines, the airlines, and air transport companies are not 
required to reduce their pollution, then somebody else has to do it. It 
might be the dry cleaner, it might be a small manufacturing company, it 
might be a bakery. Somebody has to reduce its, his, or her, emissions, 
and will probably have to do more and do it at a higher cost than if an 
overall look could be taken and seen where it can be done most 
economically. That might in certain instances pertain to aircraft 
engines.
  This provision does not reduce regulation. It just shifts the burden 
to somebody else, somebody else who is not represented by a high-
powered lobbyist that can send letters saying, ``Take EPA out of 
this.''
  Mr. President, for these reasons, Senator Baucus and I are offering 
this amendment to remove the provisions creating duplicative regulatory 
authority and encouraging more cooperation. What our amendment does is 
say, yes, there should be more cooperation between the FAA and EPA. The 
EPA should consult with FAA on these matters.
  Now, Mr. President, let me just say the following: I am deeply 
disturbed by the trend that is taking place in connection with what I 
believe to be ill-advised efforts to cut back on environmental 
regulation. Here is one industry attempting to be exempted, then 
another, then another. We have a bill over in the House of 
Representatives dealing with immigration. What does it say? You can 
build a fence to keep out immigrants and you do not have to pay any 
attention to the Endangered Species Act. But that is not enough. They 
then go on to say pay no attention to the Endangered Species Act and, 
indeed, pay no attention to what is known as the National Environmental 
Policy Act. In other words, forgo all environmental regulations while 
you are building this fence. Build this fence in California between 
Mexico and the United States--oh, no, to build any fence anywhere in 
the United States, dealing with immigration, pay no attention to the 
National Environmental Policy Act.

  Mr. President, this Nation was blessed in the early 1970's by a 
series of great Senators, and we know who they are. They are Ed Muskie, 
Jennings Randolph, Howard Baker, Bob Stafford, who in a bipartisan 
fashion brought forward in this Nation tremendous environmental 
protection laws, and whether you are talking the Clean Air Act or the 
Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the creation of the 
Environmental Protection Agency or the National Environmental 
Protection Act, whatever it is, those were the bills that were brought 
forward. They were brought forward because there was a need for them.
  When the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire, it caught the 
attention of the people in the United States--something is wrong with 
the waters of this Nation. So we embarked on a $60 billion program over 
the course of the years to clean up discharges from municipalities, and 
the industries, likewise, complied, because we had regulations. Now we 
have clean waters. At that time, one-third of the waters of the United 
States' lakes, rivers and streams were fishable and swimmable. Now two-
thirds of the lakes, rivers and streams in the United States of America 
are fishable and swimmable, and every year that percentage increases. 
So we have been blessed by these laws.
  I, Mr. President, find it discouraging and disappointing that 
constantly there is an effort to nibble away at those statutes. Here in 
this one, to remove the aircraft engine and the Air Transport 
Association's aircraft from the restrictions that have been applied, 
wisely, by the EPA over many years, and give it to another agency where 
they think they will find a much more sympathetic home.

[[Page S10674]]

  Therefore, Mr. President, I hope we do not turn our backs on those 
magnificent achievements that were made in the early 1970's and 
continued since then, whether it is the control of toxic waste and the 
manner in which we dispose of them, whether it is what we did in the 
Clean Air Act in 1991, all of these statutes have been for better 
health and a better America. I, Mr. President, just hope we will not 
nip, nip, nip away at cutting back on these statutes that have meant so 
much to our Nation and the health of our people.

                               Exhibit 1


                              The Secretary of Transportation,

                               Washington, DC, September 12, 1996.
     Hon. Larry Pressler,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I have appreciated your past support for 
     the important work that the Federal Aviation Administration 
     (FAA) does to provide the American traveling public with safe 
     and efficient air travel. I know you agree that a strong, 
     effective FAA is absolutely essential for aviation safety in 
     this country. The safety and security of our air 
     transportation system have always enjoyed bipartisan support 
     in Congress.
       It is because of this shared vision that I urge you to 
     enact--before Congress adjourns--the comprehensive FAA reform 
     and reauthorization legislation contained in S. 1994. Without 
     the timely enactment of this legislation, it will be 
     considerably more difficult for the FAA to meet the safety 
     demands of the traveling public.
       This legislation will reauthorize funding for critical FAA 
     safety, security, air traffic modernization, and research 
     programs. It will also reauthorize the airport development 
     grant program. In the absence of an extension of the airport 
     grant program, FAA's ability to fund many important airport 
     projects involving capacity, safety, and security will end 
     October 1.
       S. 1994 also contains critical provisions to help ensure a 
     better way to finance the FAA. These provisions will help to 
     ensure FAA has adequate resources in the future, but are also 
     designed to provide appropriate incentives to users of the 
     air traffic control system and ensure that the air traffic 
     control system is used in the most cost-effective manner. A 
     bill that does not contain the foundation for meaningful 
     financial reform for the agency will undermine the FAA's 
     ability to meet the safety and security needs of the 
     traveling public, and lessen public confidence in our air 
     transportation system.
       Congress has already taken critical steps in the past year 
     to provide FAA with needed acquisitions and personnel reform. 
     It is imperative that Congress stay the course on these 
     reforms and not tie FAA up once again with unnecessary red 
     tape that will impact the efficiency of the air traffic 
     control system and delay air traffic modernization efforts. 
     The most significant step is to pass meaningful financial 
     reform since these reforms will be limited without sufficient 
     resources and budget flexibility for the agency. The lapse of 
     the Airport and Airway Trust Fund taxes this year underscores 
     the need to find a long-term, new funding solution for the 
     FAA.
       In consideration of the very significant budget constraints 
     faced by the FAA, I urge the deletion of the new 
     responsibilities that section 631(a)(1) of S. 1994, entitled 
     ``Aircraft Engine Standards,'' would impose on the agency. If 
     adopted, this section would vest responsibility to set 
     aircraft engine emission standards with the FAA. Such 
     responsibility would not only duplicate the responsibility 
     and authority already vested with the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act, but would 
     also require the expenditure of substantial resources to 
     develop the level of expertise requisite to environmental 
     rulemaking that already exists at EPA. It is our 
     understanding that the Senate will exempt military aircraft 
     from the overflight user fee proposed in section 673, and we 
     do not object to that change.
       I urge you to move the legislation to the floor and through 
     conference expeditiously so that we can assure that FAA has 
     the tools and resources necessary to meet its vital 
     responsibilities to the American public. We look forward to 
     working with you on this important effort, and thank you for 
     your continued support of aviation safety and security 
     programs.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Federico Pena.

  Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding, Mr. President, that there will be 
set aside tomorrow before we vote, 15 minutes, of which Senator Baucus 
would have 10 minutes and I would have 5 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. If it is all right with the Senator, I think I have it 
cleared with my colleague. I ask unanimous consent this amendment by 
the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Chafee, be set aside until tomorrow, 
and that before the amendment is voted upon, there be 15 minutes of 
debate, 5 minutes for the Senator from Rhode Island and 10 minutes for 
Senator Baucus of Montana.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, that is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do I understand the Senator's request that all 
the time reserved would be for the proponents of the amendment?
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am agreeable.
  Mr. FORD. What I am trying to do is give them 15 minutes. That does 
not preclude me or anybody else from taking time because they get a 
minimum of 15 minutes tomorrow.
  If I want to oppose the amendment I will oppose it and take 30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CHAFEE. Whatever time we get, perhaps it would be best if it were 
evenly divided.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I withdraw my request.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I make the request, if I could. I think it is fair that 
the opponents get some time. I am not trying to cut anybody out of 
time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we will just set this amendment aside and 
take our best hope tomorrow and go.
  Mr. CHAFEE. And reach a time agreement tomorrow?
  Mr. FORD. That would be fine. I do not know how much time in 
opposition because I have not had much information tonight relating to 
the opposition to your amendment.
  I suspect, since you have offered the amendment to take it out of the 
bill, that there will be a lot of work going on tonight and there will 
be a few people who will want to speak against your amendment tomorrow.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Could I ask this, Mr. President: Is there a time certain 
set to vote tomorrow on this measure?
  Mr. FORD. No.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not. There is no time certain set for 
a vote tomorrow on this measure.
  Mr. CHAFEE. It is my understanding since we have not agreed on 
anything that there is no time agreement.
  Mr. FORD. That is correct. The only thing I was attempting to do 
here--if there are other amendments that come up, we will set yours 
aside. Once that amendment is taken care of, yours will come back as 
the pending business. That is what I am trying to do, because there 
will not be a vote tonight.
  Mr. CHAFEE. That is fair enough. We will work it out tomorrow.
  Mr. FORD. Sure, we will.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I am perfectly prepared, and I want to make sure that the 
opponents get whatever time they want. Thank you.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the FAA authorization 
bill. Although I recognize the necessity to authorize certain FAA 
activities, such as the Airport Improvement Program [AIP], I am 
concerned with two provisions in the bill. I appreciate the hard work 
that the managers have put in on this legislation, and I thank them for 
the opportunity to speak on this bill.
  I support the reauthorization of FAA activities, believing that the 
managers have succeeded in funding the AIP program at the appropriate 
level. It is important to many airports and travelers around the 
country that Congress finish its work in this area. For example, in my 
home State of Arizona, officials from the airports in Phoenix, 
Chandler, Glendale, Yuma, and Tucson have contacted me in support of 
the AIP program. The FAA has projected that the number of passengers in 
the domestic aviation system will reach 800 million annually. The 
American Association of Airport Executives and the Airports Council 
International-North America recently completed a comprehensive study on 
the capital needs of U.S. airports. The study concluded that the 
Nation's airports have capital needs around $10 billion annually. So I 
urge my colleagues to support the authorization of the AIP program.
  While I support parts of the bill, I must comment on two provisions 
which I believe Congress must be careful in implementing. First, there 
is a provision that would set up an independent task force to study how 
FAA activities may be funded for many years. I am concerned that the 
task force may be used to implement a user-fee system. I ask that the 
chairman and the ranking member to work with the task force to ensure 
that all areas of aviation are heard. Many in my State have expressed 
concern about

[[Page S10675]]

funding FAA activities with a user-fee system. I believe it could have 
a negative effect on such local airlines as America West and Southwest. 
Arizona is also a State with many citizens who pilot their own planes, 
and I am advised such a system could harm the general aviation 
industry. I support the current ticket-tax system and I am glad that 
Congress approved its temporary extension as part of the small business 
tax relief bill.
  My second concern is that the parts of the bill that address aviation 
security will not adequately protect us. I know that it is easy to get 
caught up in the apprehensions created in the wake of the crash of TWA 
flight 800. We all want to make aviation a safer means of 
transportation, but we must have the proper priorities. I believe that 
any changes to aviation security should focus on greater intelligence 
gathering. If the explosion on TWA flight 800 was a bombing, it was a 
terrorist attack not on a particular airline but against our whole 
country. We must take strong and concerted steps as a nation to deal 
with such heinous attacks. A strong intelligence system is the key 
here. Recently, the Air Transport Association made several 
recommendations to the White House Commission on Aviation Safety, 
chaired by Vice President Gore. I would like to make note of two of 
ATA's recommendations. First, the association told the Gore Commission 
that there must be an increase in the amount of funding available to 
develop the software necessary for automated passenger profiling--that 
is, profiling of suspects who may be traveling the airways. ATA member 
airlines, according to the association, are committed to the full 
implementation of automated passenger profiling through their 
reservations systems. Second, ATA recommended that the commission 
should establish strong, new inter-agency coordination requirements to 
ensure the timely, accurate, and comprehensive communication of 
detailed intelligence assessment information necessary to permit the 
informed participation of the aviation industry in responding to 
identified threats. Mr. President, there will be many antiterrorist 
initiatives which I believe will help thwart terrorist attacks, such as 
more advanced detection devices and bomb-sniffing dogs. However, I 
believe that our priority must be to develop ways to enhance the 
tracking of those persons already identified as a threat to the general 
public.
  I urge the chairman and ranking member to make note of my concerns, 
and I thank them for the opportunity to discuss the issues.
  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, we are nearing the witching hour of the 
unanimous-consent agreement on the amendments that will be considered 
tomorrow. I have proposed to my colleague that even those amendments 
that we have included in the managers' package be listed, in case there 
might be some wording change that might be needed. If they are not on 
the list, therefore, it would be difficult, parliamentary wise, for 
them to be accommodating. I don't want any of my colleagues not to have 
the ability to change a word or something like that tomorrow. I don't 
think we ought to get into a unanimous-consent agreement on changing. 
Then we get unanimous-consent agreements for additional amendments. Of 
course, I would like to get them cut off tonight if at all possible.
  So we will have at least one more amendment that will be offered. 
Then we are looking at around 8:15, or somewhere in that neighborhood, 
for a unanimous-consent agreement on the finite list of amendments for 
S. 1994.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order to the pending 
FAA bill, that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments, 
and following the disposition of the listed amendment, the bill be 
advanced to third reading, and the Senate immediately proceed to 
Calendar No. 588, the House companion bill, all after the enacting 
clause be stricken, and the text of the Senate bill, as amended, be 
inserted, and H.R. 3539 be immediately advanced to third reading.
  The list is as follows:
  Pressler, relevant; Lott, relevant; McCain, relevant; Inhofe, 
emergency revocation; Warner, PFC; Warner, rapidly growing airports; 
Santorum, relevant; Brown, bidding; Brown, relevant; Roth, aviation 
trust fund spending; Roth, task force; Roth, user fees; Roth, committee 
consultation; Thurmond, reliever airport criteria; D'Amato, relevant; 
Gorton, relevant; Burns, medical certificates; Domenici, three relevant 
amendments; Helms, airports; Simpson, airport safety; Jeffords, pension 
audits; Nickles/Lott, pensions; Baucus, FAA aircraft emissions 
standards, with Chafee; Breaux, relevant; Boxer, cruise ships; Bryan, 
two relevant amendments; Byrd, one relevant amendment; Conrad, two 
relevant amendments; Daschle, two relevant amendments; Dorgan, 
transportation; Exon, relevant; Ford, two relevant amendments; Graham, 
relevant; Harkin, slots; Heflin, Alabama Airport; Hollings, relevant; 
Inouye, relevant; Kerry, relevant; Moseley-Braun, train whistle, with 
Wyden; Reid, state-supported terrorism; Simon, pensions; Wyden, train 
whistle, with Moseley-Braun; Wyden, three relevant amendments.

  That completes the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object. I would like to make a point here. Many of these amendments 
are included in the managers' amendment to the bill. This is so that 
there will be no problem tomorrow with our colleagues coming in and 
saying we did not get the right language or the right words, they are 
covered under this situation. If the managers' amendments are all 
right, we will strike them off. I think you will find that about two-
thirds of these will be gone; at least two-thirds of the relevants will 
be gone. So when you get right down to how many amendments we will have 
tomorrow, it will be very few.
  I hope we can expedite the passage of this legislation. I wanted my 
colleagues to be sure that we are trying to protect them, so that they 
won't come in here tomorrow and say we have done something wrong and 
words were left out.
  I wanted to be sure that everybody understood that. And that is one 
reason that the list is so long because we have basically taken care of 
most of them.
  So I thank my friend for what he is attempting to do here. I think it 
is the right thing to do.
  Mr. President, I do not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. LAUTENBERG. 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. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise because I want to support this 
legislation to reauthorize many of the FAA programs and to do what we 
can to improve our Nation's system of aviation security, a subject I 
have had a longtime interest in. I did serve on the Pan Am 103 
Commission that reviewed what took place there and was one of the 
authors of the recommendations that were submitted in 1990.
  First, I commend my colleague, my friend from Kentucky, Senator Ford, 
and my colleague, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, for their work 
on this issue. It is not only a critical

[[Page S10676]]

issue, but the timing certainly is critical in terms of some response 
that we have to have to what has been taking place. Terrorist threats 
to our aviation system as well as our general living in this country 
certainly call for a response from this body and from our colleagues 
across the Capitol to try to do something to improve a system that is 
fundamentally pretty good. As a matter of fact, it is very good.
  I could not have faced, as I have in the State of New Jersey, people 
who lost loved ones on Pan Am 103 in 1988 nor those who lost family 
members, friends, loved ones on TWA 800--I was in Long Island shortly 
after that plane went down. I was out there a couple of weeks ago with 
the Secretary of Transportation, met with the FBI, people from the 
NTSB, people from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. I could 
not have faced any of the surviving families and said to them, be 
assured; the system is safe. The fact that they lost a son, a daughter, 
a mother, a father, a brother, a sister, a child is enough to say the 
system is not safe enough, that regardless of how efficient the system 
is, it is not efficient or sufficient as we see it in our family's 
grief and our family's emptiness.
  And so, Mr. President, it is not simply, although a critical part of 
the issue, aviation security, safety overall, a necessity to bring the 
system up to the capacity the public currently demands. The projected 
figures of growth in aviation travel are almost exponential in terms of 
the size of the base; over 500 million people a year enplane to go 
different places from within the States and from the United States to 
other airports--but to make sure that not only can they travel safely 
but efficiently, with airplanes leaving on time, with the investments 
in the system being made in a timely and businesslike fashion to make 
certain that the taxpayers' money, the travelers' taxes or fees are 
invested in a way that reflects serious interest in getting this system 
up to the capacity that is presently there and ultimately will be 
demanded.
  Mr. President, this legislation is essential to our Nation's aviation 
system. Importantly, the bill would extend the authorization for the 
Airport Improvement Program, what we affectionately refer to as the 
AIP. We will make some reference to that. Without that authorization, 
critical infrastructure funding for airports will just not be 
available. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that this 
authorization is not sufficient, as I said earlier, to keep up with our 
Nation's airport needs.
  In addition to enacting an authorization bill, the aviation trust 
fund needs to be adequately financed and the expenditures to be 
replenished, and that is going to require either an extension of the 
existing ticket tax, as we heard from our colleague from North Dakota 
some moments ago, and we heard from the two managers of the bill, or 
some other financing mechanism. Otherwise, even if the bill before us 
is enacted, the trust fund will run out of money next year.

  To some who may be listening, that would sound like an abstraction--
the trust fund runs out of money. But if it does run out of money, and 
if we are unable to make the improvements that are required, the public 
can look forward to further delays, to further inconvenience, and to 
increased costs substantially for the improvements we ultimately must 
make. We cannot let that happen. I strongly urge my colleagues, 
especially those who serve on the Finance Committee, to act before 
December 31, when the existing tax will expire, to address this 
problem.
  I would like to turn for a moment to the provisions in this 
legislation that are of particular interest to me and on which I have 
worked fairly extensively, and that is aviation security.
  This legislation does not represent a comprehensive aviation security 
plan. However, in conjunction with the ongoing efforts of the Gore 
Commission and the Aviation Security Advisory Committee, it will help 
to tighten aviation security at our airports and on our airways.
  When I say it is not a comprehensive aviation security plan, I do not 
want any misinterpretation to occur. I do not want to suggest that my 
colleagues who brought this bill to the floor have been less than 
diligent. They have been. They have surmounted enormous obstacles to 
get the bill to this point on this night. The provisions in this bill 
are needed to enhance the aviation security system, but by themselves 
they are not sufficient. They are a significant beginning.
  Two months ago today for us here, an eternity for those who lost 
family members on TWA flight 800, it hardly seems that enough has 
happened since that airliner was destroyed and fell into the waters 
just south of the Long Island seashore. Still, at this time, with the 
most diligent effort, painstaking work, having created a record number 
of dives into the sea of any Navy mission ever undertaken--over 2,000 
dives were taken to try to pick up the remnants of TWA 800 off the sea 
floor--we still have no conclusive evidence.
  But, regardless of what the cause was, we know that we have to do 
something to improve the safety of the traveling public, even though, 
as I said earlier, the system is fundamentally very safe. When my 
children or my grandchildren, the members of my family, fly, I send 
them off with full confidence that the system is working well. And, 
Lord grant us, I hope that always proves to be the case. But we can 
always make it a notch safer.
  Unfortunately, the definitive proofs may lie yet on the ocean floor. 
It still appears that terrorism is the likely cause of the disaster, 
but we dare not draw conclusions until the evidence is clearly at hand.
  The crash of TWA flight 800 reminded me of a similar tragedy almost 8 
years ago. I have exceptionally vivid memories of the downing of Pan Am 
flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. After that crash, I helped to 
create, with President Bush's encouragement and that of others here, 
the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism. I 
sponsored the Aviation Improvement Act of 1990, with others, which was 
enacted into law. There is no question that, as a result of the work 
done at that time, that security was improved. But the world has 
changed. This latest tragedy has focused renewed national attention on 
the terrorist threat to American aviation and to the American traveler. 
It is a threat that will continue to increase in scope and 
sophistication. No one here believes that we are doing all we can to 
fight the ongoing expanding threat of terrorism. It has become, for us, 
one of the most difficult situations that we as a free society and 
other free democratic countries face.
  The growth of terrorism is an enormous threat because, not only is it 
the work of madmen who, at times, are willing to give their lives or to 
recommend that their sons give their lives to be martyred in some 
fashion, but the sophistication of the weapons, bombs in containers the 
size of a watch with the impact of TNT--it is an enormous threat and it 
is a threat that we have to work ever harder to contain. No aviation 
security system is foolproof, we know that. But we also know that we 
can do much more to deter the terrorist threat.
  TWA 800, like Pan Am 103, was a wake-up call, and we need to respond 
as quickly as we can. Shortly after the TWA crash, I introduced the 
Aviation Security Act. My bill, S. 2037, would enhance security at 
domestic airports by instituting a truly comprehensive security system. 
The legislation calls for tightened security to check baggage, cargo 
and mail, and increase screening, training and job performance measures 
for security personnel at our airports. My bill also requires that 
passenger profiles be undertaken on a routine basis and that state-of-
the-art explosive detection devices be installed in those airports that 
have the greatest security risk.
  To address the needs of families of victims and survivors, the bill 
establishes an Office of Family Advocate, an office that would be 
responsible for developing standards for informing, supporting, and 
counseling the families of victims of airline disasters.
  Finally, I suggested the increased security measures be funded by a 
fee of not more than $4 per round trip ticket, a figure that was 
recommended by those responsible for aviation security working in the 
Department of Transportation. It was believed that, with that 
investment and other sources of revenue, we could do a lot more to 
preserve the safety of our airplanes and to deter the threat of a 
terrorist attack. I am pleased that many of the ideas contained in my 
legislation have already

[[Page S10677]]

been adopted by the administration and are included in recommended 
rules and regulations. Shortly after the TWA crash, President Clinton 
established the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. 
That commission, now known as the Gore Commission, worked with the 
already-established Aviation Security Advisory Committee to develop a 
plan to meet the challenges posed by the proliferation of terrorist 
groups.

  The Gore Commission issued its recommendations last week, and the 
President moved immediately to implement them. They are a good first 
step toward strengthening aviation security. The bill before us 
includes many of the commission's recommendations. I am pleased that 
the legislation was worked out in a cooperative, positive, bipartisan 
manner, and that is as it should be when it comes to something as 
important as keeping our airlines and our people safe.
  This bill directs the FAA to begin deploying state-of-the-art 
explosive detection devices, ensuring that the flying public is 
protected by the most technologically advanced system. It also requires 
that personnel who operate security screeners be subjected to 
background checks, as are most other airport security employees. It 
requires that the NTSB and the FAA begin developing a ``right to know'' 
program which would let consumers know about the airlines' accident and 
safety records. The bill also directs the FAA to continue working with 
the airlines in developing programs identifying high-risk passengers 
and high-risk destinations.
  In addition, this legislation recognizes that aviation security needs 
are constantly evolving. The best laid plans are worthless if they are 
not implemented in a timely fashion and monitored regularly. The bill 
requires that each airport and each air carrier conduct vulnerability 
assessments on their own, or comprehensive self-audits of their entire 
security systems. These assessments will enable both the airport and 
the air carriers to know their own systems and their weaknesses and 
will encourage them to make the needed changes over time.
  Because terrorists look for cracks in the security systems, the bill 
would require the FAA to stay one step ahead by finding those breaches 
first. Under the bill, the FAA could conduct periodic, unannounced, and 
sometimes anonymous tests of airport and air carriers' security 
systems. This would keep the airports and air carriers on their toes 
and provide the oversight needed.
  Both of these provisions were addressed in the bill I introduced in 
August. Other provisions of the bill require the administration to 
issue reports to Congress on their implementation of a number of the 
Gore Commission's recommendations. For example, the President ordered 
heightened security measures for air cargo, and the Gore Commission 
recommended a pilot program to ensure that checked baggage is matched 
with passengers who actually board the plane. We will need to know the 
results of these initiatives so Congress can evaluate the need to do 
more.
  One thing we do know. The Nation's aviation system is in need of 
change, in need of improvement. We have waited too long to implement 
the reforms. This legislation makes an important contribution to that 
effort.
  Mr. President, our work cannot stop there. We need to ensure that all 
promised reforms are appropriately implemented and in the spirit in 
which they were intended.
  So I express my appreciation, once again, to Senator Hollings, 
Senator Ford, Senator Pressler, Senator McCain, and Senator Hutchison 
for their cooperation on this legislation.
  I also thank the many aviation security advocates, the families of 
the victims of airline disasters, airports, air carriers and many 
others to implement sound and secure reforms.
  It is obvious, Mr. President, this legislation will not solve all of 
our problems. However, as I earlier mentioned, this is an important 
step that will make our skies safer for the public, make a meaningful 
contribution in our battle against terrorism, and will indicate to the 
public that the U.S. Government is interested in what I will call their 
plight, their concerns, their anxiety. We have to put those to rest, 
and the best way to do it is to do something about it, as we are with 
the bill before us.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey, 
Senator Lautenberg, for his work on this bill, along with Senator 
Hutchison. He is one who is very knowledgeable on aviation issues and 
has been involved for many years.
  I express the appreciation of all of us who have been involved in 
this legislation for Senator Lautenberg and the efforts he made which 
dramatically improved this legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all relevant amendments 
be filed by 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SIMON. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, just so I understand the procedure, does 
that mean we will not go through the amendments this evening 
necessarily?
  Mr. McCAIN. We will try to dispense of as many amendments as we can 
this evening. What I was going to say, after gaining a unanimous-
consent agreement, is that the majority leader and the Democratic 
leader have said that they won't spend more than an hour or so 
additional time after 11 o'clock tomorrow. If we cannot get these 
amendments resolved and taken care of within an hour or so, the bill 
will be pulled. I think that would be a terrible thing to happen, given 
the absolute urgency of this legislation, not only funding the aviation 
system but many of the issues that the Senator from New Jersey 
propounded.
  So we are trying to get the amendments disposed of as quickly as 
possible, and after 11 tomorrow, when all amendments are going to need 
to be filed, if the unanimous consent request is agreed to, we do not 
anticipate being on the bill more than an hour or so.
  Mr. SIMON. I would like to accommodate the Senator from Arizona. So 
your preference would be that I go ahead with this amendment this 
evening?
  Mr. McCAIN. That would be my preference.
  Mr. SIMON. I have no objection.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator from Illinois would show his usual 
courtesy which he is known for throughout this body, I would very much 
appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, would it be in order for the managers to 
receive the amendment of the Senator from Virginia?

  Mr. McCAIN. All amendments listed must be filed.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. I am prepared briefly to handle two 
amendments, I say to my distinguished colleague.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from Virginia, I appreciate that, 
but that would not affect this unanimous-consent agreement.
  Mr. WARNER. I did not mean to interrupt. I did not realize we had not 
achieved it.
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I regret I 
have to do this. We have a call in, in fact two of them. I will have to 
object to the unanimous-consent request at this time, and I will have 
to get on the phone to see if I can straighten this out.
  Mr. McCAIN. Very briefly, I ask my colleagues, especially the 
objections that just came in, I do not believe that it is unreasonable 
to ask the amendments be filed by 11 o'clock tomorrow. I hope that we 
can resolve those objections. It is agreed to on both sides that we 
need to get this legislation passed. I hope that the Senator from 
Kentucky can use his usual powers of persuasion and get this resolved 
so that I can propound, again, this unanimous-consent request, and we 
can get it accomplished tonight. Until such time as that, I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona

[[Page S10678]]

and the Senator from Kentucky. I will proceed with two amendments. I 
have discussed this with the managers, and we are prepared to handle 
both. Before doing so, I noted that our distinguished colleague from 
Arizona recognized the Senator from Illinois and made specific mention 
of his reputation in the Senate for courtesy. We shall dearly miss him 
when he departs because, indeed, he is an example of senatorial 
courtesy.


                           Amendment No. 5362

(Purpose: To provide for the use of passenger facility fees for a debt 
                           financing project)

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

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5362.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 8, strike lines 14 through 17 and insert the 
     following:
       paragraph (D); and
       ``(B) by striking subparagraph (F) and inserting the 
     following:
       `` `(F) for debt financing of a terminal development 
     project that, on an annual basis, has a total number of 
     enplanements that is less than or equal to 0.05 percent of 
     the total enplanements in the United States if--
       `` `(i) construction for the project commenced during the 
     period beginning on November 6, 1988, and ending on November 
     4, 1990; and
       `` `(ii) the eligible agency certifies that no other 
     eligible airport project that affects airport safety, 
     security, or capacity will be deferred as a result of the 
     debt financing.' ''.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a provision 
contained in the House-passed Federal Aviation Administration 
Reauthorization Act which would make a very narrow change, referred to 
as a PFC; that is passenger facility charge. This is a measure put in 
the House legislation by my distinguished colleague and personal 
friend, Congressman Bliley. Congressman Bliley, as we know, is chairman 
of the House Committee on Commerce. I join him in this effort.
  This provision would allow a nonhub airport in my State, 
Charlottesville--that is Albemarle--to be eligible to use its own PFC 
passenger facility charge authority for debt service associated with 
its passenger terminal project. They just completed a very fine 
modernization program.
  The FAA's PFC regulations have always allowed eligible projects to be 
refinanced with PFC dollars after--after, Mr. President--they have been 
completed, provided only that the notice to proceed with construction 
was given after November 5, 1990. These are highly technical 
provisions.
  The House bill has the Bliley provision which relates only to the 
date--and I urge my colleagues to take note of that--the date when 
construction of an otherwise eligible PFC project was begun and should 
not adversely affect any other airport in the United States.
  I have discussed this with the managers, and I rely on the judgment 
of both managers that this matter will be addressed with fairness and 
objectivity in the conference. And at the specific request of the 
managers, and to accommodate this with the understanding this will be 
addressed in conference, Mr. President, I ask at this time that the 
amendment be withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 5362) was withdrawn.


                           Amendment No. 5363

(Purpose: To provide for additional considerations for the selection of 
            projects for grants from the discretionary fund)

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send a second 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 Virginia [Mr. Warner] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5363.

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

       On page 10, line 23, strike ``(4)'' and insert ``(5)''.
       On page 11, line 4, strike ``and';''.
       On page 11, between lines 4 and 5, insert the following:
       ``(4) any increase in the number of passenger boardings in 
     the preceding 12-month period at the airport at which the 
     project will be carried out, with priority consideration to 
     be given to projects at airports at which, during that 
     period, the number of passenger boardings was 20 percent or 
     greater than the number of such boardings during the 12-month 
     period preceding that period; and;''

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I further thank my colleagues for the 
inclusion of this amendment for high-growth airports. These are the 
commercial airports which logically would be experiencing 
infrastructure and facilities problems as a result of their rapid 
growth, making the adoption of this amendment, I think, in the interest 
of all parties.
  At this time, I urge the adoption.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the managers of the bill--and I have 
discussed this with Senator Ford--have no objection and we appreciate, 
by the way, Senator Warner's agreement to withdraw his previous 
amendment, given the fact that it would have been somewhat 
controversial. I do assure him that proposal of his will be treated 
with utmost concern and scrutiny in the conference.
  We have no objection to the amendment, Mr. President, and I yield the 
floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might ask my colleague, I thank him 
very much for the first amendment. There is a second amendment pending. 
I urge its adoption. I presume it is acceptable to the managers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5363) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to engage the Senate for just 
a few more minutes with regard to a second matter.
  Mr. President, I have been involved for many years in seeking to 
devise a legislative solution to the constitutional issues that exist 
due to the decisions of the Congressional Board of Review, as that 
board has jurisdiction over Dulles and National airports.
  Mr. President, the Senate may recall that many years ago I introduced 
a bill, together with my then-colleague from Virginia, Senator Trible, 
by which these airports became subject to this particular board of 
review. It enabled these airports then to begin to proceed to get the 
needed dollars and financing to modernize both Dulles International and 
Washington National Airports.
  This amendment, S. 1994, the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 
1996, which is almost identical to S. 288, as reported out of the 
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, provides a 
necessary cure to a constitutional deficiency, as defined by the 
Federal courts, in the structure of the Airports Authority. The 
Airports Authority is involved in the operations and improvements of 
our two airports that serve the Nation's Capital and the Washington 
region, again, Washington National and Washington Dulles International.
  In April 1994, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit found that the Board of Review, made up of current and former 
Senators and Members of Congress, violated constitutional separation of 
powers principles. This was the second time the Federal courts struck 
down the Board of Review, which was designed to represent users of the 
airports and to preserve some Federal control over them.
  The Court of Appeals stayed its decision until the Supreme Court had 
time to consider the issue. The Supreme Court decided not to hear the 
case in January, and the stay expired March 31, 1995.
  At this juncture, all Congress is required to do to keep the airports 
in operation is to pass this legislation. Such continued uninterrupted 
operations are essential to the travel requirements of Members of 
Congress as well as all people in the greater metropolitan Washington 
area. It is essential to the economy of this area, Mr. President; and, 
therefore, I am pleased to submit this.

[[Page S10679]]

  We are at a point in the current and projected operations of 
Washington National Airport and Washington Dulles International Airport 
whereby if we do not act promptly, the Airports Authority board of 
directors will lose its power to take basic critical actions, 
including, most importantly, Mr. President, the ability to award 
contracts, issue more bonds--that is the financing structure--amend its 
regulations, change its master plans or adopt an annual budget. In 
other words, it really is brought to an end in its operations. And this 
is not the intention of the Congress.
  For this reason, I find it necessary to offer this amendment today, 
despite my own personal objections--I must say on behalf of myself and 
my distinguished Governor, George Allen--to the addition of two new 
Federal appointees to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to 
keep our Washington National and Dulles International operational and 
functional.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for the inclusion, and 
acceptance by the managers, of this amendment in S. 1994, the pending 
measure. Mr. President, I thank again the managers, and yield the 
floor.
  Mr. PRESSLER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments on 
this piece of legislation, the Federal Aviation Administration 
Reauthorization Act of 1996, which I introduced. I believe it 
represents a solid legislative accomplishment for this Congress and for 
air service to small cities, such as those located in my home State of 
South Dakota.
  This bill, which I commend the leadership on both sides of the aisle 
for who have worked on it, must pass the Congress before the end of 
this session. Otherwise, we will not be able to provide Airport 
Improvement Program [AIP] grants to our airports across the country.

  The bill will more than double the size of the Essential Air Service 
[EAS] program to $50 million per year. That will directly help cities, 
such as Yankton, Mitchell, and Brookings in my State. The EAS program 
was the result of an agreement when we deregulated the airline industry 
and Congress wanted to ensure our smaller cities did not lose air 
service altogether.
  It also will protect small airports and the way AIP funds are 
allocated. Let us remember that we depend heavily on our major airport 
hubs, but we also depend on a lot of smaller cities to feed passengers 
into those hubs to make our national air system work. And it is not 
just in South Dakota, it is also in California--Fresno or Sacramento--
or upstate New York.
  We must remember that small cities such as Aberdeen, South Dakota, 
which recently received a grant to repair its main runway, and others 
depend heavily on AIP funds. This bill has a fairer formula to protect 
small airports if AIP funds decline.
  Mr. President, this bill also requires a study be prepared on air 
fares to rural and small communities. The price of flying to and from 
some of these small airports are just astronomically high. For example, 
if you travel from Rapid City to Denver, and then go on to your 
destination, your flight from Rapid City to Denver may be the most 
expensive part of your trip.
  Throughout my State I hear complaints about the cost of airline 
travel. In some cases, it can cost as much to get to the hub airport as 
it does to fly from the hub to London. I believe this study will be 
very helpful in assisting Congress in its understanding of what is 
going on with the cost of air travel to and from small communities.
  This bill will also improve aviation security in our small cities 
without unfairly imposing burdens and expensive requirements on small 
airports and small airlines.
  Let me briefly address each of these benefits for small community air 
service.
  In 1978, Congress recognized that all cities would not participate 
equally in the benefits of airline deregulation. In fact, Congress 
realized some of our smallest cities might lose air service altogether. 
To address this threat, Congress wisely put in place the EAS program to 
ensure our smallest cities would continue to have air service. Without 
such service, communities such as Brookings, Mitchell, and Yankton in 
my home State, would be virtually cut off from the national air service 
network.
  It is very important to these smaller towns that they be a part of 
the national air service network. With air service as well as 
telecommunications capability, small communities can grow and be 
dynamic contributors to our national economy. In fact, with the 
advances in telecommunications, smaller cities are now on an equal 
footing with bigger cities in terms of attracting industry. Small 
hospitals can do as sophisticated procedures as big hospitals by using 
telecommunications; and smaller universities can share in research 
projects with larger universities. Telecommunications capability alone, 
however, is not enough. It is critical that small cities also have 
reliable and affordable air service. And that is what this is all 
about. Make no mistake about it, the EAS program--since it ensures air 
service to our smallest and most underserved cities--is absolutely 
critical to the economic vitality of many small communities.
  Mr. President, I am delighted that this bill, S. 1994, will more than 
double the size of the EAS program. The $50 million EAS program this 
bill would create will safeguard air service in some small communities 
and permit an expansion of flights in others. It is a solid legislative 
accomplishment for economic development in numerous small communities.
  S. 1994 also will help promote and maintain some of our smallest 
airports which are critical to adequate air service in small cities. 
The AIP program has been under significant budget pressure. The amount 
of AIP appropriations have fallen significantly since 1992, and our 
small airports have shouldered the unfair, disproportionate burden of 
these budget cuts. Since AIP funds are often the only source of funding 
for repairs and safety improvements at small airports, our small 
airports have suffered significantly as a result.

  I am pleased that this bill will correct this problem. We worked long 
and hard on this formula. The bill ensures that if AIP funding 
declines, our small airports will be protected and will continue to 
receive their historic share of AIP funds. This is good policy. It is 
fair policy. And it is very important to small city air service.
  In addition to expanding the EAS program, and protecting the AIP 
funding of our small airports, S. 1994 will require a study of air 
fares to small communities. This is very welcome news for South 
Dakotans and other small city passengers who unfairly pay exorbitant 
air fares. We need more air service competition in small city air 
markets. Hopefully, in addition to highlighting the extent of the high 
air fare problems in small communities, this study will offer new 
insights on how air service competition in small communities can be 
enhanced.
  Finally, S. 1994 resisted the temptation to impose expensive security 
measures on our small airports and small communities. In contrast, the 
House recently passed a provision based on the erroneous premise that 
one size fits all in aviation security. The Senate, however, correctly 
recognized there are thoughtful ways to ensure travelers to and from 
small cities have the same level of safety and security without 
imposing the identical, expensive security measures required for 
international airlines and major hub airports.
  A one size fits all approach to aviation security undoubtedly would 
lead to a further deterioration of small city air service. I am pleased 
S. 1994 will improve aviation security for small city travelers without 
having the unintended consequence of driving air service out of some of 
our smaller cities.
  Mr. President, let me make some additional general observations about 
air service. Somehow all this gets tied together.
  We have on the international front this past year had great struggles 
in helping our major airlines fly beyond Tokyo by ensuring the 
Government of Japan recognizes their beyond rights. Similarly, our 
major carriers continue to be blocked out of serving London's Heathrow 
Airport and points beyond the United Kingdom. We did, however, secure a 
truly historic open skies agreement with Germany which is great news 
for the United States economy and our carriers. The United

[[Page S10680]]

States/German open skies agreement will put competitive pressure on the 
United Kingdom and France and ultimately should help to force both 
countries to agree to open skies accords in the future. We must 
continue to put competitive pressure on the British and the French by 
fully utilizing our liberalized aviation agreement with Germany.
  Let me underscore my great concern with the current impasse in our 
aviation relations with Japan. The Japanese continue to wrongly block 
our carriers from serving the United States/Asia air service market via 
Japan. This continues to be a significant problem for Jerry Greenwald 
of United Airlines and Fred Smith of Federal Express. It also is a 
major problem for Northwest Airlines, the largest carrier in South 
Dakota. I have led efforts by the Commerce Committee to help correct 
this totally unacceptable situation. Along with my colleagues, we have 
sent letters to the President urging that the Administration stand firm 
in our aviation dispute with the Japanese and accept nothing less than 
fair treatment for our carriers in the area of aviation trade.
  I intend to continue pressing for fair aviation trade with the 
Japanese. The United States/Asia air service market, as well as the 
intra-Asian air service market, is far too valuable to concede to 
Japanese carriers. It is vitally important to our balance of trade that 
our airlines can use Japanese airports to serve countries throughout 
Asia such as China, Indonesia and Malaysia. Make no mistake about it, 
international aviation is an important component of U.S. trade. Our 
negotiators must continue to treat it as nothing less. It is completely 
unacceptable that our carriers, both passenger and cargo, continue to 
be blocked out of lucrative air service markets beyond Japan and the 
United Kingdom by unfair trade practices.
  Even when our large airlines are operating thousands of miles away 
from the United States, their ability to successfully compete abroad 
has an indirect impact on their financial ability to serve some 
domestic markets. In fact, large and small airlines work 
synergistically to provide air service through code-sharing agreements. 
For instance, I have had an excellent experience with Doug Voss of 
Great Lakes Aviation which is a key regional carrier in my home state 
of South Dakota. Great Lakes operates as United Express in South Dakota 
and the success of United abroad has a bearing on the service United 
Express can provide in small city air service markets such as the route 
between Sioux Falls and Rapid City in my state.
  I have had discussions with airline executives where they say, 
``Senator Pressler, as chairman of the Commerce Committee, can you help 
us gain access to Heathrow or assist us with our beyond Tokyo 
problem?'' And I say, ``Yes, I will try to help but I have problems 
between Sioux Falls and Rapid City where I would like help, and I have 
problems between Huron and Denver and problems between Yankton and 
Minneapolis,'' and so forth. The more successful our carriers are in 
lucrative international markets, the better able they are to serve less 
profitable small city air service markets. The international picture is 
tied into the local picture in our country.
  As far as the national air service picture in this country is 
concerned, we have only built one new airport since 1974--Denver 
International Airport. Even that airport is struggling to complete all 
of its planned runways. Capacity in many airports is nearly full. 
Regrettably, a lack of airport capacity is a barrier to entry for new 
airlines. There are only so many slots and so many gates at our 
airports. Chicago has tried to build a new airport but because of 
environmental concerns, neighborhood concerns, and noise concerns it 
has almost given up. Minneapolis-St. Paul thought about building a new 
airport but got so much local resistance that they have given up.

  The point is our airports are crowded. They are pressing up against 
their capacity. It is true advanced air traffic control technology will 
help move commercial airliners more efficiently from point to point. 
However, airplanes need adequate runway capacity. Also, airplanes need 
adequate access to gates. Without either, the benefit of air traffic 
control improvements will be lessened. The point is we have to make 
some decisions in our country about building infrastructure or we will 
have our airlines in a stalemate and not being able to expand. 
Significantly, newer competitive entrants will be blocked out of 
markets and consumers will be deprived of the benefits vigorous air 
service competition brings.
  Our airport capacity challenges are not going to go away. In fact, 
they clearly will escalate as more and more people fly. Currently, more 
than 1.5 million people board commercial airplanes in the United States 
each and every day. Within the next four years, the number of daily 
boardings is forecast to climb to almost 2 million. We cannot ignore 
our airport infrastructure challenges. We should meet our long-term 
transportation infrastructure challenges head-on.
  Airport capacity is but one of many challenges. Aviation is another 
critically important challenge. Our people expect the finest aviation 
safety system in the world. I am committed to working to ensure our 
travelling public receives nothing less than that. Currently, I serve 
as a representative to the Gore Commission on Aviation Safety and 
Security. As Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I have held numerous 
safety oversight hearings this Congress. In fact, we held a closed 
hearing on aviation security just this morning which included FAA 
Administrator David Hinson. In the past, on numerous occasions we have 
heard testimony from the National Transportation Safety Board, and its 
Chairman Jim Hall, who is doing an outstanding job.
  The point I am making is that all these problems of aviation --
international, national, and local--tie together. We have a very 
challenging situation to meet the aviation needs of our country both 
locally, nationally and internationally. This bill before the Senate 
which reauthorizes the FAA is a step forward. It is a good bill. It has 
been worked out carefully and in a bipartisan manner. It is a key part 
of that big picture that I covered so briefly here. I am proud to have 
worked with Senators McCain, Ford, Stevens and many others. I am glad 
to enthusiastically support this bill and urge my colleagues to do so 
as well.
  I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 5364

(Purpose: To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 
        with respect to the auditing of employee benefit plans)

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I offer an amendment on behalf of Senator 
Jeffords and myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon] for himself and Mr. 
     Jeffords proposes an amendment numbered 5364.

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

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC.   . PROVISIONS RELATING TO LIMITED SCOPE AUDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (C) of section 103(a)(3) of 
     the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 
     U.S.C. 1023(a)(3)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new clause:
       ``(ii) If an accountant is offering his opinion under this 
     section in the case of an employee pension benefit plan, the 
     accountant shall, to the extent consistent with generally 
     accepted auditing standards, rely on the work of any 
     independent public accountant of any bank or similar 
     institution or insurance carrier regulated and supervised and 
     subject to periodic investigation by a State or Federal 
     agency that holds assets or processes transactions of the 
     employee pension benefit plan.''
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 103(a)(3)(A) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1023(a)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ``subparagraph (C)'' 
     and inserting ``subparagraph (C)(i)''.
       (2) Section 103(a)(3)(C) of such Act (29 U.S.C. 
     1023(a)(3)(C)) is amended by striking ``(C) The'' and 
     inserting ``(C)(i) In the case of an employee benefit plan 
     other than an employee pension benefit plan, the''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to opinions required under section 
     103(a)(3)(A) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 
     of 1974 for plan years beginning on or after January 1 of the 
     calendar year following the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.

  Mr. SIMON. It will be a great disappointment but I will only speak

[[Page S10681]]

about 5 minutes on this amendment. I offer this amendment on behalf of 
Senator Jeffords and myself, an amendment that does not have anything 
to do with aviation, but we need a vehicle on a bill that is eminently 
sound and is really needed.
  Mr. President, we have right now $3 trillion worth of pension funds 
that are backed by ERISA. Of those $3 trillion, better than $2 billion, 
almost $2.1 billion, are adequately audited.
  The GAO and the inspector general of the Department of Labor say that 
we should do away with what is called the limited scope audit. Now, 
what is a limited scope audit? A limited scope audit permits a bank or 
an insurance company simply to sign a statement to a pension fund, 
saying we have $300 million in assets, period. This bill does away with 
that because we have $950 billion worth of taxpayer funds at risk if we 
do not modify this. That is what GAO tells us and this bill is what GAO 
has recommended.
  Let me just add, this does not require the pension fund to go in an 
audit. I assume a bank or an insurance company will have their own 
auditor. This simply says we need an audit report, not simply a one-
line statement saying that they have so many million dollars in assets.
  Let me just read one section here: ``If an accountant is offering his 
opinion under this section in the case of an employee pension benefit 
plan, the accountant shall, to the extent consistent with generally 
accepted auditing standards, rely on the work of any independent public 
accountant of any bank or similar institution or insurance carrier 
regulated and supervised and subject to periodic''--and so forth.
  So we permit those institutions to use their own audits.
  I was stunned, frankly, when I heard that we do not have adequate 
auditing on $950 billion worth of employee pension funds. That is what 
this takes care of. The accounting profession is for it. People who 
have examined this are astounded that we have not done it before. I 
understand the reluctance on the part of the Senator from Arizona to 
take an amendment that has nothing to do with aviation. But if we are 
going to protect the taxpayers on this--and I know my friend from South 
Dakota, the Presiding Officer, wants to protect the taxpayers, the 
Senator from Kentucky does, and all of us do--this is a chance to do 
it.

  I hope that this will be accepted when we vote tomorrow.
  Mr. President, unless anyone has any questions or anyone seeks the 
floor, 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. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that 
all amendments that are on the list submitted earlier under a 
unanimous-consent agreement be filed by 11 o'clock tomorrow.
  Mr. President, before you rule on that, I want to point out that that 
does not preclude extended debate. There are no time limits involved in 
that. It simply requires that the amendments on the list be filed by 
the hour of 11 a.m. tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I remind my colleagues that there 
are still a number of these amendments on the list. I believe that a 
large number of them have been taken care of in the managers' 
amendment. But both the majority leader and the Democratic leader have 
stated that we won't stay on this bill more than an hour or so in order 
to dispense with it and get final passage.
  I want to also thank, again, my dear friend from Kentucky for all of 
his help tonight, and, hopefully, he and I will be able to conclude 
this legislation tomorrow at a very early time.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am glad to cooperate with my friend in 
getting any kind of objections to his unanimous-consent agreement 
worked out. I think we are at a position where, if we just sit down and 
be reasonable tomorrow, we can move very quickly. I hope that the 
majority leader will not entertain the notion to pull this bill down if 
we can't finish it in an hour or so tomorrow. I think there is too much 
in this bill, and we have worked too hard and come too far for that 
even to be considered.
  I hope that we can go ahead and move this bill and move it 
expeditiously, and that we are not in a position where we have to do it 
in an hour or hour and a half or 2 hours. On the other hand, I think as 
amendments are offered we should attempt to try to limit each of those 
amendments by some time agreement as it relates to the amendment being 
considered at the time. Or we might work our list. We could work our 
list tomorrow and see how much time would be needed by each presenter, 
and maybe we could have a time agreement or a UC early tomorrow.
  I will attempt to look at these amendments and see if there is a time 
agreement. I am going to call some of the Senators and say, ``Your 
amendment is in the managers' amendment. There was nothing wrong with 
it, so your name gets scratched.'' So I am going to proceed on that 
basis and attempt to help my friend and see if we can't secure some 
time agreements prior to 11 o'clock tomorrow.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend. Mr. President, just to clarify, there 
is also permitted under this UC--because it is not precluded--second-
degree amendments that are relevant. So my colleagues, I hope, will not 
make use of that.

                          ____________________