[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 This legislation facilitates the replacement of outdated air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.
____________________