[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10742-S10756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              FEDERAL AVIATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                           Amendment No. 5361

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I call now for my amendment No. 5361.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. It is now the 
pending question.


                    Amendment No. 5361, As Modified

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my 
amendment, and I send that modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 5361), as modified, is as follows:

       Page 78, line 12, strike ``and aircraft engine 
     emissions,''.
       Page 78, line 19 through 24, strike all of paragraph (C) 
     and insert the following:
       (C)(1) The Environmental Protection Agency shall consult 
     with the Federal Aviation Administration on aircraft engine 
     emission standards.
       (2) The Environmental Protection Agency shall not change 
     the aircraft engine emission standards if such change would 
     significantly increase noise and adversely affect safety.
       (3) 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 groups that advise 
     the Administrator on matters related to the environmental 
     effects of aircraft and aircraft engines.

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am pleased that we have been able to 
reach an agreement with the managers on this issue. The amendment 
offered on behalf of Senator Chafee and myself corrects language in the 
bill that creates overlapping authority in the EPA and the FAA, 
conflicting regulations, and fiscal waste.
  The result of the Commerce Committee's proposal contained in S. 1994 
would have been confusion and uncertainty for the airline industry, and 
unnecessary burdens for the taxpayers.
  Let me explain the situation briefly. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 require the EPA to set emission standards for new aircraft 
engines. The bill before us, however, grants the FAA the very same 
authority. Thus, two different agencies would have the same authority.
  With all the effort by this administration and Congress to downsize 
the bureaucracy and trim agency budgets, I don't think the committee 
intended this duplication. The Secretary of Transportation acknowledges 
that, if this provision became law, the FAA would have had to develop 
the expertise and capacity to set emission standards. So this bill 
would have required an entirely new office, with a new budget and new 
workers all to do a job already being done by the EPA.
  This just didn't make sense. The FAA is now straining to meet its 
basic responsibilities in aviation security and safety. We should not 
divert them from those critical missions by forcing them to duplicate 
work already being performed by another agency.
  Mr. President, this amendment corrects the situation by eliminating 
the provision in S. 1994 which creates the FAA's duplicate authority 
over emission standards. I'm pleased that the compromise we reached 
with the managers also requires greater cooperation between the two 
agencies by directing the EPA to consult with the FAA prior to setting 
new emission standards for aircraft engines. The amendment also allows 
the FAA Administrator to include representatives from the EPA on 
advisory committees that deal with issues of aircraft standards.
  This should facilitate coordination between EPA, the FAA and 
interested parties early in the development of any future regulations.
  In conclusion, I believe this amendment makes good sense all around. 
It protects the taxpayer by eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy and 
duplication. It encourages better dialogue between government and 
industry. And it avoids any weakening of our environmental standards.
  I'm pleased the managers of the bill have accepted the amendment and 
I thank them for their willingness to work with us on this important 
issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for 
his cooperation and the modification of his amendment. As far as this 
Senator is concerned, as far as our side is concerned and the 
administration is concerned, his modification makes his amendment now 
acceptable.
  The chairman of the subcommittee, Senator McCain, is working on one 
other amendment. We feel we are ready to go at some point with your 
amendment, which will be accepted, I am sure. I do thank him, again, 
for his cooperation and congeniality.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, let me express my appreciation to the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky for his help on this and also 
Senator McCain, the floor manager of this legislation. This is 
something that has been worked out. Amazingly enough, we seem to have 
everybody satisfied. Having seen these things in the past, I am a great 
believer in getting things done, if we can.
  I will suggest the absence of a quorum and see perhaps if we can get 
Senator McCain here just briefly and get this one accepted, if it is 
agreeable. If there is no other business, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant 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 (Mr. Ashcroft). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. FORD. As far as Senator Chafee's amendment is concerned, now, as 
modified, this side has no objection.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we have no objection to the amendment. But 
also I would like to thank Senator Chafee. He is the watchdog in this 
body for environmental issues. I am very grateful that he would reach 
this compromise so that we can move forward with the bill. Frankly, I 
think the bill will be stronger now that we have his seal of approval. 
So we have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question occurs on agreeing to the 
amendment No. 5361, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 5361), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question now occurs on the Simon amendment 
No. 5364.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Simon 
amendment be set aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Again, I want to express my appreciation to Senator 
McCain and Senator Ford for their assistance in this, also the folks 
from the FAA and EPA. I think we have worked out a good solution here, 
and I am very pleased with that.
  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.

[[Page S10743]]

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we sometimes appear not to be working as it 
relates to the camera in the Senate Chamber. However, those that have 
been observing from the balcony and those who are staff and Senators 
will understand we have been working feverishly for about the last 2 
hours in order to accommodate Senators who have amendments that are 
reworded and so forth so that we might move forward with legislation 
that is meaningful and that is doable.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee. 
We arrived at an agreement and modified his amendment and we were able 
to accept that.
  I want everyone to know we have been working hard to put this piece 
of legislation together. It is important. Hopefully, we will be able to 
finish by 2 o'clock.


                           Amendment No.5359

    (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding acts of 
                        international terrorism)

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I call up amendment 5359, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Mr. Reid, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5359.

  Mr. FORD. 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, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF THE SENATE.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) there has been an intensification in the oppression and 
     disregard for human life among nations that are willing to 
     export terrorism;
       (2) there has been an increase in attempts by criminal 
     terrorists to murder airline passengers through the 
     destruction of civilian airliners and the deliberate fear and 
     death inflicted through bombings of buildings and the 
     kidnapping of tourists and Americans residing abroad; and
       (3) information widely available demonstrates that a 
     significant portion of international terrorist activity is 
     state-sponsored, -organized, -condoned, or -directed.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that if evidence establishes beyond a clear and reasonable 
     doubt that any act of hostility toward any United States 
     citizen was an act of international terrorism sponsored, 
     organized, condoned, or directed by any nation, a state of 
     war should be considered to exist or to have existed between 
     the United States of America and that nation, beginning as of 
     the moment that the act of aggression occurs.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is a sense of the Senate as it relates 
to evidence established relating to hostilities toward any U.S. citizen 
as it relates to the airlines. I believe this amendment is cleared and 
we can move forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5359) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.


                           Amendment No. 5369

   (Purpose: To provide for additional days for comment for proposed 
regulations establishing special flight rules in the vicinity of Grand 
                         Canyon National Park)

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

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Mr. Bryan, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5369.

  Mr. FORD. 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, insert the following:

     SEC.   . SPECIAL FLIGHT RULES IN THE VICINITY OF GRAND CANYON 
                   NATIONAL PARK.

       The Secretary of Transportation, acting through the 
     Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, shall 
     take such action as may be necessary to provide 30 additional 
     days for comment by interested persons on the special flight 
     rules in the vicinity of Grand Canyon National Park described 
     in the notice of proposed rulemaking issued on July 31, 1996, 
     at 61 Fed. Reg. 40120 et seq.

  Mr. FORD. On behalf of Senator Bryan, this amendment relates to 
flying over the Grand Canyon National Park. I believe this is also 
agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5369) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5372

(Purpose: To prohibit the Surface Transportation Board from increasing 
                               user fees)

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

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Mr. Dorgan, for 
     himself and Mr. Pressler, proposes an amendment numbered 
     5372.

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

       At the appropriate place, insert the following: 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Surface 
     Transportation Board shall not increase fees for services in 
     connection with rail maximum rate complaints pursuant to 49 
     CFR Part 1002, STB Ex Parte No. 542,''.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Pressler be added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this is an amendment relating to increasing 
fees in connection with rail rates. I believe this is agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5372) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5371

 (Purpose: To assure adequate resources for the Essential Air Service 
                                program)

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

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Mr. Exon, for 
     himself, Mr. Daschle, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Pressler, proposes 
     an amendment numbered 5371.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 95 at the end of line 11 insert the following new 
     sentence: ``Services for which costs may be recovered include 
     the costs of air traffic control, navigation, weather 
     services, training and emergency services which are available 
     to facilitate safe transportation over the United States, and 
     other services provided by the Administrator or by programs 
     financed by the Administrator to flights that neither take 
     off nor land in the United States.''

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Daschle, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Pressler, be added as cosponsors 
of this amendment by Senator Exon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I believe this amendment is also agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5371) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5368

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

[[Page S10744]]

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Domenici, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5368.

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

       On page 119, line 1, strike all after ``activities'', 
     through ``collections'' on line 2.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, my amendment would make a technical 
change to a provision contained in the bill regarding the budgetary 
treatment of certain fees. The amendment would not change the budget 
scoring of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office, nor would it 
change the budget treatment of the user fees created in the bill for 
international overflights.
  The amendment has been cleared by both managers of the bill and I 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment that has to 
do with offsetting budgetary considerations. It is acceptable to both 
sides. I have no further comment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5368) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the 
consideration of an amendment by Senator Helms, and I ask unanimous 
consent because this amendment by Senator Helms had been intended to be 
included in the package last night. We neglected to do so by oversight. 
So, again, I ask unanimous consent that an amendment by Senator Helms 
be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 5377

(Purpose: To provide for the transfer of the United States' interest in 
        the Hickory, North Carolina Air Traffic Control Tower.)

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

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Helms, for 
     himself and Mr. Pressler, proposes an amendment numbered 
     5377.

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

     SEC. 41  . TRANSFER OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER; CLOSING OF 
                   FLIGHT SERVICE STATIONS.

       (a) Hickory, North Carolina Tower.--
       (1) Transfer.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration may transfer any title, right, or interest the 
     United States has in the air traffic control tower located at 
     the Hickory Regional Airport to the City of Hickory, North 
     Carolina, for the purpose of enabling the city to provide air 
     traffic control services to operators of aircraft.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment by Senator Helms has to do 
with flight service stations and an air control tower. It is acceptable 
by both sides.
  I have no further comment on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 5377) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Senator Roth will be coming to the floor 
momentarily to propose an amendment, which is without controversy. We 
are ready to accept that amendment. That will leave us with three 
amendments remaining--one by Senator Brown of Colorado, one by Senator 
Graham of Florida, and one by Senator Simon of Illinois.
  We are in the process of working out language on these three final 
amendments, and I am hopeful that following Senator Roth's statement, 
within a very short period of time, we will have completed all pending 
amendments on this bill. We will then be prepared to move to third 
reading and a vote, and that decision is to be made by the majority 
leader and Democratic leader.
  Until Senator Roth arrives and we finish working out this language, 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. ROTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 5370

(Purpose: To provide for expenditures from the Airport and Airway Trust 
                                 Fund)

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the Simon amendment 
will be set aside. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Roth], for himself and Mr. 
     Moynihan, proposes an amendment numbered 5370.

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

TITLE--EXTENSION OF AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY

     SEC.   . EXPENDITURES FROM AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND.

       Section 9502(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to expenditures from Airport and Airway Trust Fund) 
     is amended by--
       (1) striking ``1996'' and inserting ``1997''; and
       (2) inserting ``or the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act 
     of 1996'' after ``Administration Authorization Act of 1994''.

  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, this bill calls for expenditures from the 
airport and airway trust fund. The airport and airway trust fund is 
governed by the Internal Revenue Code which is exclusively within the 
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. Therefore, at the request of the 
Commerce Committee, Senator Moynihan and I are offering an amendment to 
modify the Internal Revenue Code in order to allow expenditures from 
the airport and airway trust fund as provided in this bill. I am 
pleased to take action today to ensure continued funding for the airway 
system, particularly in light of current security and system concerns.
  It is my understanding that this amendment has been cleared on both 
sides of the aisle and there is no objection to it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, this side has no objection. We accept the 
Senator's amendment and thank him for his interest.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? If not, the question 
is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5370) was agreed to.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the 
Finance Committee while he is in the Chamber. This legislation has a 
lot of implications associated with it concerning the way we are going 
to fund the Federal Aviation Administration, and a great deal of what 
is going to happen in the future falls under the authority of the 
Finance Committee. I thank Senator Roth for his cooperation, for 
joining us in an effort at reforming the Federal Aviation 
Administration financially and for finding ways that we can fully fund 
it. I believe we could not have done so without the spirit of 
cooperation that he and his staff have displayed.
  I thank the Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Let me join my colleague in complimenting Senator Roth. I 
believe it was almost unanimous among

[[Page S10745]]

those Senators who were here last night who were very concerned about 
the so-called ticket tax expiring on December 31 and going through a 
10-month hiatus as we had, and it was finally worked out. Many of our 
colleagues are going to be asking about additional security operations, 
new and innovative ideas, new machinery, LOI's, letters of intent, that 
we have on airports, things of that nature.
  I encourage the Senator, if he could, to find a way in his good work 
to see if there is something we could do to extend the so-called ticket 
tax until such time as a report comes back with suggestions from the 
group on how to finance FAA. I think it would meet with a great many 
accolades and applause, and so forth, if he could do that.
  Many of us have projects that are ongoing, and many of us have 
letters of intent. I do not want any Senator to look at me and say, 
``Where is the money?'' and I did not make every effort to try to 
accomplish that. So I say that to my friend in a spirit of cooperation.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I agree with my distinguished colleague as 
to the urgency for action in this area, and the desire for the Finance 
Committee to move expeditiously on the tax matters. I have to say, like 
the Senator from Kentucky, I am very concerned about the security of 
the airports and want to work very closely with the Commerce Committee 
in assuring it is adequate, and that whatever financing is necessary 
becomes available.
  I yield the floor.


               Emergency Revocation Amendment to S. 1994

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I had intended to offer an amendment 
regarding the Federal Aviation Administration's [FAA] emergency 
revocation powers; however, after conferring with the chairman and 
ranking member I have withdrawn my amendment because they have agreed 
to work with me on this issue in the 105th Congress.
  Aviation safety not only requires consistent diligence, but also 
balance. It is balance that my amendment sought to achieve between the 
rights of the airmen to use their certificates and the need for the FAA 
to immediately revoke the certificates of unsafe operators. Over the 
past several years we have witnessed a sharp increase in the number of 
emergency revocations. In an revocation action, brought on an emergency 
basis, the airman or other certificate holder loses the use of the 
certificate immediately, without an intermediary review by an impartial 
third party. The result is that the airman is grounded and in most 
cases out of work until the issue is adjudicated.
  My amendment would have established a procedure whereby the airman 
could request a hearing before the NTSB Board on an expedited basis to 
determine if a true emergency existed and therefore justified the 
immediate revocation of the airman's certificate. If the NTSB decided 
no emergency existed, then the airman could have use of his certificate 
while the FAA pursued their case against the airman. If the NTSB 
decided an emergency existed then the revocation would remain in effect 
until the case could be fully adjudicated.
  Given the chairman's assurances of his willingness to work with me on 
this issue in the 105th Congress, I have withdrawn my amendment and 
look forward to working him and the ranking member to address this 
problem.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I want to 
assure him that it is my intention that the committee work closely with 
him on this issue.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield further, I concur with Chairman 
Pressler and want to add my assurances that the Subcommittee on 
Aviation will throughly examine this issue through the hearing process 
in the 105th Congress.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. If the Senator will yield, I too want to assure the 
Senator from Oklahoma that we will work with him to address the problem 
he has highlighted.
  Mr. FORD. If the Senator will yield, I agree with the chairman that 
we should review this issue more closely in the 105th Congress.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the chairmen and ranking members. I appreciate 
their willingness to not only discuss this issue but to come to some 
resolution.
  Mr. BURNS. I join my colleagues in calling for hearings on this 
important issue. This issue deserves our immediate attention and I look 
forward to working with the chairman in developing a record on this 
issue.


                          The ``Age 60 Rule''

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, I should like to address a critical issue 
that is very familiar to Members of this body who have been involved 
with the Federal Aviation Administration--it is the ``age 60 rule.'' In 
1959, the FAA implemented a regulation to prohibit pilots, having 
reached the age of 60, from flying jets regulated by part 121 of the 
FAA regulations--that is, passenger-carrying jets with more than 30 
seats. This year, the FAA has extended that ban to include commuter 
jets with more than 10 seats.
  I do not want to hold up this very important bill in order to carry 
out a lengthy debate on whether or not the ban is justifiable. I am not 
here to overturn that rule. Indeed, few of us here would be in any way 
qualified to do such a thing. Instead, I believe the FAA must certainly 
be willing to treat pilots over the age of 60 in a manner that is fair 
and consistent with its treatment of other pilots.
  The FAA, acting in the interest of public safety has concluded that 
pilots--however experienced they may be--over the age of 60 should not 
be allowed to fly. I would submit, however, that this conclusion has 
not been supported through any independent study. It can not be 
accurately studied because no U.S. pilot over the age of 60 has been 
allowed to fly ``part 121'' aircraft at any time during the last 36 
years.
  In light of this situation, the judiciary--in a number of cases, but 
notably in the October 31, 1990 Baker versus FAA (7th Circuit Court of 
Appeals)--has upheld the FAA's position for the reason, as they stated, 
that the issue of age discrimination is clearly subordinate to that of 
passenger safety. The court did point out, however, that one of the 
FAA's own studies on flight time for class III pilots indicated that 
pilots between 60 and 70 with more than 1,000 hours of total flight 
time and more than 50 hours of recent flight time had the lowest 
accident rates of any age group of pilots.
  In conclusion, the court admitted that these pilots face a catch 22 
in that they are unable to obtain exemptions from the age 60 rule until 
they can show they can fly large passenger aircraft safely, yet they 
cannot show such ability until they obtain an exemption. In the end, 
the court affirmed the FAA's order, saying, ``it is supported by 
substantial, albeit certainly not compelling evidence.''
  In the FAA's ``part 121'' regulations, the FAA is empowered to grant 
exemptions to this rule if it ``finds that such action would be in the 
public interest,'' however, no exemptions have ever been granted 
regardless of physical condition or safety record. This is in spite of 
the fact that the FAA currently issues special certificates to pilots 
under the age of 60 with histories of alcohol abuse or even heart 
conditions. The FAA's explanation is that it has ``present tests that 
can predict the expected course of a known medical deficiency'' such as 
heart disease or alcoholism ``with sufficient accuracy to allow valid, 
individualized judgments'' but that ``the same accuracy is not possible 
when assessing the decrements associated with the aging process.'' I do 
not believe this is a consistent policy or a fair treatment of many 
pilots with impeccable records, but who also have more than 60 years of 
life behind them.

  In this bill, which will do so much to advance the issue of airline 
safety, I think it is a tragedy that there has been no mention of the 
fact that hundreds of this country's potentially safest and most 
experienced pilots have been grounded because of a rule with little or 
no empirical basis. I strongly believe that the FAA should outline the 
criteria by which it would consider exempting certain pilots from the 
``age 60 rule,'' so that even a very small number of exceptionally fit 
pilots could be studied in order to form the basis for a future review 
of this outdated rule.
  I know this issue was briefly touched upon in Commerce Committee 
hearings, but it was not explored in enough depth, so I would like to 
ask my friend from Arizona, chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee of 
the Senate Commerce Committee, whether he would

[[Page S10746]]

consider calling hearings on this important issue to many airline 
pilots, the ``age 60 rule.''
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend that the Aviation Subcommittee has 
held a number of hearings on this in the past and I would again 
consider having additional hearings on this very important matter.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator for his courtesy and his extremely 
hard work on this legislation.


                    Terrorism and Aviation Security

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished chairman 
of the Commerce Committee for moving forward on this important bill and 
for including provisions that seek to address terrorism and aviation 
security. I have worked with the chairman on these important provisions 
for many months. The Gore Commission recommended that the FAA move 
forward expeditiously with deployment of advanced explosive detection 
equipment, and this legislation contains provisions to implement that 
recommendation.
  For too long our efforts have fixated on finding the perfect 
technology that will give us a silver bullet against terrorism at our 
airports. While other countries have deployed explosive detection 
technology that is commercially available, economically reasonable, and 
compatible with realistic air carrier operating conditions, our 
research-oriented approach has resulted in the U.S. deploying nothing, 
and thus becoming an attractive target for terrorists.
  It is my understanding that the language in the managers' amendment 
requires the FAA Administrator to deploy existing, commercially 
available, and operationally practicable explosive detection devices.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is 
correct. This legislation requires the FAA to begin immediate 
deployment of commercially available explosive detection equipment. 
This deployment will occur as an interim measure to address airport and 
air carrier security vulnerabilities while the FAA continues to 
undertake research and operational testing of equipment such as the 
CTX.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from South Dakota if I am 
correct that the language contained in this bill will result in the 
speedy deployment of a variety of explosive detection systems that are 
cost effective, and compatible with realistic operating conditions, 
such as those systems manufactured by Vivid Technologies, Thermedics 
Detection, EG&G, IonTrack, and AS&E.
  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is 
correct--that is the intent of this bill.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for 
his clarification and I voice my strong support for these security 
provisions.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, for years we have been asking passengers 
to pay money to support the safety needs of the aviation system. In 
1970, Congress created the airport and airway trust fund as a means to 
make sure that the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] had enough 
money to build and support our Nation's airports and the FAA's own air 
traffic control system.
  The FAA's mission is to oversee the safety of the traveling public. 
When any accident occurs, as we have seen in the recent ValuJet and TWA 
accidents, there are many possible reasons for the accident. People on 
television are quick to rush to conclusions. We use the expertise of 
the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] to determine the cause 
of a crash. The Everglades crash scene, as Bob Francis, Vice Chairman 
of the NTSB, has indicated, was extremely treacherous and necessitated 
a difficult investigation. The TWA accident presents the additional 
complication of a criminal investigation carried on side-by-side with 
the accident investigation. One thing is certain--the FAA must be fully 
funded to meet the challenges and aviation growth in the future.
  S. 1994 incorporates much of the text of S. 1239, the FAA reform 
bill, reported by the Commerce Committee last November. Those 
provisions call for an independent review of the precise needs of the 
FAA, followed by the submission of a funding proposal to finance the 
agency. The industry must recognize that ultimately we have to decide 
how best to support and fund the agency. Delay is no longer an option.


                          Oversight of Safety

  When we take a broad perspective, we do know that aviation is the 
safest form of transportation. More than 40,000 people die each year in 
highway accidents. According to testimony before the Commerce 
Committee, more people die each year because of electrocution--525--
than because of airline crashes. Yet, the tragic crash of ValuJet 
flight 592 into the Florida Everglades on May 11 is significant because 
it may well have been avoidable.
  We can go back over every action by the FAA, every inspector general 
[IG] report, every report by the General Accounting Office [GAO], and 
still not resolve what is safe. If someone says ``you need more 
inspectors or better training for inspectors,'' and a crash occurs, the 
person pushing for more inspectors and training is touted as a sage by 
the media. Anyone, however, can pick any issue in the aviation field, 
make a broad statement, and tomorrow there may be a crash that may make 
the statement appear to be the essence of wisdom.
  The FAA oversees the activities of carriers and maintenance 
facilities through its inspector work force. Each air carrier is 
assigned a principal operations, maintenance, and avionics inspector. 
For a large carrier, there may be 30 to 60 FAA inspectors assigned to 
oversee its operations. In addition, the FAA uses ``geographic'' 
inspectors who, for example, are responsible for air carrier operations 
at a particular airport or area. The geographic inspector may conduct 
ramp inspections on a wide variety of aircraft types, even though the 
inspector may only be certificated on one aircraft type. As a general 
matter, FAA inspectors are extremely well qualified. An air carrier 
operations inspector, for example, is required to hold a pilot's 
license, with a minimum of 1,500 flight hours.
  The DOT IG's office testified on April 30 before the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee on problems concerning the inspector 
work force. Substantial and serious concerns were raised and as a 
result I asked the chairman for a hearing on that matter. The concerns 
raised by the IG included insufficient training for inspectors and the 
inadequate computerization of inspection reports. These are legitimate 
concerns that must be addressed.
  The FAA will be completing a review of its inspector work force 
perhaps this week. I wrote to the FAA Administrator expressing my 
desire to work with him to address the inspector issues. GAO has 
indicated that the FAA inspectors need substantial training, perhaps 
$17 million more than requested by the FAA. The training budget has 
been cut by 42 percent from the 1993 level. If we are to expect the FAA 
inspectors to do their job properly, they must be adequately trained 
and have the tools needed to do their job. For example, the FAA is 
struggling with developing a computer system to track inspector safety 
reports. The inspectors are frustrated with the new computer system, 
and spend far too much time inputting data, rather than doing 
inspections. The system is supposed to be able to aid the FAA in 
targeting its resources. FAA management must work with its work force 
to get that system back on track so that the inspectors have confidence 
in the system. DOT needs additional inspectors.


                           Aviation Security

  Aviation security is an extremely complex issue. It involves 
technology, people, intelligence information, national security, and a 
recognition that there are people willing to commit heinous crimes 
aimed at our government and our citizens.
  On December 21, 1988, Pan Am flight 103 blew up over Lockerbie, 
Scotland, killing 270 people. It took almost 2 years to pass 
legislation to address some of the problems that stemmed from that 
crash.

  Investigators in New York have not yet identified the cause of the 
crash of TWA flight 800, and numerous options are being considered. We 
have to let the investigators complete their mission. The NTSB, Navy, 
FBI, and State and local personnel are working hard to determine the 
cause of the accident. We do know this, however--the public deserves 
the best technology operated by the best trained individuals, to reduce 
the risks of a terrorist attack.

[[Page S10747]]

  Another thing is clear--security is going to be costly. The FAA has 
estimated that it will cost as much as $2.2 billion to install up to 
1,800 machines at 75 airports. Today, there are approximately 14,000 to 
18,000 screeners, paid an average of $10,000 to $15,000 per year. These 
screeners are one line of defense, but a critical one in the fight 
against terrorism. They need training, and they need to be paid in 
accordance with their responsibilities. The present turnover rate among 
these employees is extremely high. Unless we change the way we provide 
security, we cannot upgrade it. All the technology in the world still 
requires a person to watch a screen, listen to alarms, and be able to 
recognize materials that should not go on board an aircraft.
  No matter what we do, safety comes first. Nothing should go onto an 
aircraft without being screened. Cargo, company material, and baggage 
all should be subject to inspection.
  Security changes may require a fundamental alteration in the way air 
carriers provide services. Longer lines can be expected. Unfortunately, 
it is a price we must pay to deal with people in this world willing to 
stop at nothing.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this bill.


                       Noise Mitigation Programs

  Mr. GORTON. Within the programs authorized in S. 1994, the Federal 
Aviation Administration reauthorization bill, are allocations for noise 
mitigation. Under the Airport Improvement Program [AIP], the Federal 
Aviation Administration [FAA] has allocated funds to airports of all 
sizes to implement noise mitigation programs. Due to lower funding 
levels of the AIP, the FAA has recently implemented a rule that limits 
an airport to $8 million maximum for Federal noise mitigation funds--$5 
million a year for single family housing and $3 million a year for all 
other uses.
  Mr. President, while this type of new cap may be appropriate in 
certain circumstances, I believe that a single cap, regardless of an 
airport interests or needs, is inappropriate for two reasons. First, in 
evaluating existing noise programs around the country, I think it is 
evident that certain airports have made noise mitigation a top 
priority. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, for example, has been 
the national leader and was the first to implement the local housing 
insulation program to reduce noise impacts in houses surrounding the 
airport. Having enacted noise mitigation programs, certain airports 
that enacted plans prior to imposition of this new cap, and after 
extensive negotiations and commitments with both the surrounding 
communities and the FAA, are now expected to follow through on previous 
commitments. If the program cost exceeds the new cap, the FAA is 
essentially abandoning its previous commitments. I believe that is 
unacceptable.
  Second, it is clear that large airports in densely populated areas 
should have to implement broader noise mitigation programs than small, 
general aviation airports. For that reason, a single, hard cap for all 
airports, regardless of size and location, is not the best way to 
distribute funds in an equitable manner.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona knows that I included 
language in the fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations Senate 
report that directs the FAA to consider pledges and agreements made by 
the airport authority, in consultation with the FAA, to communities 
prior to the promulgation of the new ceiling, and to make appropriate 
exceptions to the policy where necessary to meet legitimate 
expectations of neighborhoods near airports. Because the fiscal year 
1997 Transportation appropriations House report was silent on the 
issue, the Senate language is the prevailing language that should be 
followed by the FAA.
  I believe it is appropriate, however, to also discuss this matter 
within the context of this legislation to ensure that my sentiments on 
this issue are correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. I agree with the Senator from Washington. We all 
understand that, in an era of constrained budgets, it may be necessary 
for the FAA to try to limit noise mitigation funds per airport. As the 
Senator mentioned, however, I agree that where prior commitments have 
been made it is necessary and appropriate that the FAA show flexibility 
so that those commitments may be honored.


                        Train Whistle Provision

  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, the managers' amendment to the 
legislation before us includes a provision that provides important 
direction to the Department of Transportation with regard to the 
implementation of a provision of the Swift Rail Development Act of 
1994.
  Under this 1994 law, the Federal Government is required to develop 
regulations that direct trains to sound their whistles at all hours of 
the day and night at most at-grade railroad crossings around the 
country, unless the local communities can afford to act on a specified 
list of alternatives. The Swift Rail Development Act will require 
trains to blow their whistles at approximately 168,000 railroad 
crossings in the United States and more than 9,900 in Illinois--
including about 2,000 in the Chicago area and 1,000 in Cook County 
alone.
  This provision was inserted into the 1994 law without debate or 
discussion. Communities had no input into the process, even though it 
will be communities that will be most affected.
  I am acutely aware of the need to improve the safety of railroad 
crossings. A recent tragedy in my home State involving a train and a 
schoolbus in Fox River Grove, IL, killed seven children and shattered 
the lives of many more families. According to statistics published by 
the Department of Transportation, someone is hit by a train every 90 
minutes. In 1994, there were nearly 2,000 injuries and 615 fatalities 
caused by accidents at railroad crossings around the country. Clearly, 
ensuring the safety of our rail crossings is imperative.
  The Swift Rail Development Act mandates that trains sound their 
whistles at every railroad crossing around the country that does not 
conform to specific safety standards. It does not take into 
consideration the effect of this action on communities, nor does it 
require the Department of Transportation to take into consideration the 
past safety records at affected at-grade crossings.
  Requiring trains to blow their whistles at every crossing would have 
a considerable effect on people living near these crossings. It is 
unclear, however, that there would be a commensurate improvement in 
safety. In Fox River Grove, for example, the engineer blew his whistle 
as he approached the road crossing, but the schoolbus did not move.
  At many railroad crossings in Illinois and elsewhere, accidents never 
or rarely occur, while some crossings are the sites of frequent 
tragedies. Just as we do not impose the same safety mandates on every 
traffic intersection in the country, we should not universally require 
trains to blow their whistles at every railroad crossing in the 
country.
  When transportation officials decide to make safety improvements at a 
highway intersection, they consider a wide range of factors, including 
its accident history, traffic patterns, and conditions in the 
surrounding area. Every intersection is a case study. There are 
guidelines, but not inflexible rules.

  The approach to railroad crossing safety should be no less reasoned. 
The train whistle should be one tool in the transportation safety 
official's regulatory repertoire; it should not be the only one. 
Because every community has a different history and different needs, I 
do not believe that a one-size-fits-all, top-down approach to railroad 
crossing safety is appropriate.
  In Dupage County, IL, for example, there are 159 public railroad 
crossings. In 1994, there were accidents at only 18 of these crossings, 
and 45 have not experienced an accident in at least 40 years. On one of 
METRA's commuter rail lines, 64 trains per day pass through 35 
crossings. In the last 5 years, there have been a total of three 
accidents and one fatality along the entire length of this corridor.
  Every one of the crossings on this METRA commuter line has a whistle 
ban in place to preserve the quiet of the surrounding communities. The 
imposition of a Federal train whistle mandate on this line would, 
therefore, have a considerable negative impact on the quality of life 
of area residents. The safety benefits, on the other hand, would, at 
best, be only marginal.
  METRA's Chicago to Fox Lake line has 54 crossings and is used by 86 
trains per day. A whistle ban is in place on 37

[[Page S10748]]

of these crossings. Between 1991 and 1995, there were a total of 13 
accidents on this line, with 5 injuries and 1 fatality.
  In Des Plaines, IL, one of my constituents reports that she lives 
near 5 crossings. In the last 11 years, there has been only one 
accident at any of these crossings. She will hear a train whistle at 
least 64 times per day and night.
  In Arlington Heights, IL, there are four crossings in the downtown 
area about 300 feet away from one another. A total of 5,400 residents 
live within one-half mile of downtown, and 3,500 people commute to the 
area every day for work. Sixty-three commuter and four freight trains 
pass through Arlington Heights every weekday between the hours of 5:30 
a.m. and 1:15 a.m.
  Train whistles are blown at nearly 150 decibels, and depending on the 
weather, they can be heard for miles. According to one Burlington 
Northern railroad conductor, a train traveling from Downers Grove, IL 
to La Vergne, IL--a distance of approximately 12 miles--would have to 
blow its whistle 124 times. There are 144 trains traveling this route 
every day.
  Mr. President, the residents of these communities, and others across 
Illinois and the country, are confused by the 1994 law that will 
require train whistles to sound at all hours of the day and night in 
their communities--in some cases hundreds of times per day--at railroad 
crossings that have not experienced accidents in decades, if ever.
  Under a Federal train whistle mandate, homeowners in many of these 
communities would experience a decline in their property values, or an 
increase in their local taxes in order to pay for expensive safety 
improvements. The 1994 law, in this respect, represents either a taking 
of private property value, or an unfunded mandate on local communities.
  The train whistle mandate places the entire burden on the community. 
Trains will keep rolling through quiet, densely populated towns at all 
hours of the night, and both the railroads and the passengers will 
experience no disruptions.
  In aviation, by contrast, airline flights are routinely routed to 
minimize the disturbance to surrounding communities. Flight curfews are 
established, and restrictions are placed on certain types of aircraft 
in efforts to minimize the disruption to area residents. These 
restrictions place burdens on airlines, passengers, and the 
communities; it is a joint effort.
  The pending legislation includes a provision providing the Department 
of Transportation with important direction on how to implement the 
train whistle law in a more rational and flexible manner. It directs 
the Secretary of Transportation to consider the interests of affected 
communities, as well as the past safety records at affected railroad 
crossings. The concerns of local communities must be heard--not just 
the sounds of train whistles.
  It also addresses safety concerns. In situations where railroad 
crossings are determined not to meet the supplementary safety 
requirements, communities will have up to a maximum of 3 years to 
install additional safety measures before the train whistle mandate 
takes affect. In these situations, the Department of Transportation 
will work in partnership with affected communities to develop a 
reasonable schedule for the installation of additional safety measures.
  Mr. President, I have been concerned about the implementation of the 
Swift Rail Development Act since Karen Heckmann, one of my 
constituents, first brought it to my attention more than a year ago. 
Since that time, I have spoken and met with mayors, officials, and 
constituents from Illinois communities, and visited areas that would be 
most severely affected. In response to their concerns, I have written 
several letters to, and met with Transportation Secretary Pena and 
other officials numerous times, and have been working with the 
Department of Transportation to ensure that they implement the 1994 law 
in a manner that both works for communities and protects safety.
  The pending legislation provides important congressional direction to 
the Department of Transportation that is consistent with the ongoing 
discussions that I, and other members of Congress, continue to have 
with the Department.
  The Senate adopted a functionally identical amendment to the 
Transportation appropriations bill this summer. During conference 
committee consideration of that bill, the amendment was deleted and 
language was instead inserted into the conference report that 
accompanies that bill.
  I am pleased that the Senate today will again pass the strong, 
legislative language providing direction to the Department of 
Transportation. I want to thank my colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, for 
his work on this issue, and also the members of the Commerce Committee 
for again accepting this important provision.
  Mr. KERRY. This bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation 
Administration is good legislation. I would like to commend the 
diligent efforts of several Senators in drafting this legislation and 
in shepherding it through the committee process--including Senators 
Ford, McCain, Hollings, and Pressler, and also the work of their 
capable and helpful staffs.
  Mr. President, this is a very important bill to our Nation because 
the FAA plays such a critical role in our nation's transportation 
infrastructure. We ask the FAA each year to ensure the safety of all 
civil aviation and to oversee the continued development of our national 
system of airports. Significantly, through a comprehensive program that 
includes a vast air traffic control network, and thousands of 
maintenance inspections of our nation's civilian airlines, the FAA 
carries out the important task of ensuring the safety of the millions 
of Americans that utilize air travel each year. This bill is also 
important to Massachusetts which relies very heavily on air transport 
for both people and cargo. From Logan Airport in Boston to the smaller 
airports located throughout Massachusetts, airports and air transport 
are critical to the economic and social travel needs of the people of 
Massachusetts.
  Foremost, I support this bill because it provides the FAA with the 
necessary tools to carry out these important tasks. S. 1994 provides 
the FAA with $9.28 billion in total budget authority for fiscal year 
1997 which includes $5 billion for operations, $2.28 billion for the 
airport improvement program, $1.8 billion for facilities and equipment, 
and $200 million for research, engineering, and development. This total 
figure represents an increase of $1.13 billion over the FAA's total 
budget authority for fiscal year 1996 and an increase of $1.07 billion 
over the administration's budget request.
  But this bill does more than simply provide funding. In order to 
improve our civil aviation system, the bill seeks to reform and improve 
the FAA's operations. The bill affords the FAA a needed measure of 
autonomy from the larger Department of Transportation. For example, the 
FAA administrator will have the final authority to accept or reject 
proposed changes to FAA regulations. This change moves the final word 
to where it belongs: the agency with the expertise. In addition, the 
bill places time restrictions on the FAA's ability to act on pleadings 
from the aviation industry and other interested parties. This change 
will lend a measure of certainty to the timing of FAA actions and, 
thereby, make it easier for the industry to forge ahead with business 
plans that depend on FAA regulatory action.
  The bill also contains a provision to make sure that smaller airports 
continue to receive sufficient financial assistance should FAA Federal 
funding levels decline. Specifically, S. 1994 caps the percentage of 
funding that can be allocated to large and medium airports. This 
provision will permit smaller airports, such as those in New Bedford 
and North Adams, MA, to continue to receive a substantial level of FAA 
funding.
  I am pleased to note that the bill does not reverse the FAA's long-
standing and sensible policy of permitting multi-modal independent 
authorities, such as the Massachusetts Port Authority, to function as 
intended by their enabling statutes. For years, MASSPORT has been 
permitted to manage a multi-modal transportation system for the Boston 
region, using revenues from Logan Airport, the Port of Boston, Tobin 
Bridge, and other activities, to administer the system as a whole. At 
different times, this has meant that one individual component has 
subsidized other components that

[[Page S10749]]

MASSPORT operates. Because the region relies on all components working 
together, federal law has recognized such subsidies as legitimate 
and permissible. Indeed, without the authority to merge revenues, the 
entire transportation infrastructure of the greater Boston region would 
be thrown into chaos causing disastrous consequences for the region's 
economy. I want to thank Senator McCain and his staff for working with 
my staff on this issue so that a compromise could be reached that is 
acceptable to all parties involved. I also want to recognize the 
efforts of Minority Counsel Sam Whitehorn for his contributions to the 
discussions between our offices and the ultimate agreement.

  I also would like to call the Senate's attention to the FAA's recent 
decision to award the contract for designing and constructing the next 
generation of air traffic control systems, known as the Standard 
Terminal Automation Replacement System or STARS, to the Raytheon Co. 
which is headquartered in Lexington, Massachusetts. The STARS program 
will provide a complete replacement of critical air traffic control 
radar displays of aircraft in the ``terminal area''--the airspace 
within 50 miles of an airport.--The systems in use today are based on 
outdated technologies and their replacement is absolutely essential to 
keep up with our Nation's increased air traffic demands. I am proud 
that this Massachusetts company, known for years to be on the cutting 
edge of important technological advances, has been given the 
opportunity to reconstruct our air traffic control systems for the 21st 
century. I am equally pleased that the location of first implementation 
is to be Logan Airport.
  Finally, and importantly, I am very pleased that this bill contains 
some very important steps toward enhancing airport security that will 
result in greater safety for commercial flights originating at U.S. 
airports. I have been pushing the FAA for several years to begin to use 
existing advanced technologies far more capable than x-rays and metal 
detectors to screen passenger baggage for explosives before it is 
placed on aircraft. At long last, based on the conclusions of the Gore 
Commission established by President Clinton to address airline security 
in the aftermath of the TWA crash off Long Island, the FAA will be 
instructed to move forward in this respect. Rather than awaiting the 
arrival of a new sensor technology that can meet all desired sensor 
standards perfectly or nearly perfectly, the FAA will be instructed to 
procure and implement use of the best currently available technology--
which is the approach taken by virtually all European nations. It is 
long past time for the United States to take this step. I have 
addressed this subject at greater length with Chairman Pressler 
previously during this debate.
  Mr. President, this is a well crafted bill. I will vote for this 
bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.


   Support for FAA Authorization Bill Air Travel Safety and Security 
                               Provisions

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want to express my appreciation to the 
managers of the FAA reauthorization bill for incorporating into the 
bill many of the provisions of the Travelers Rights Act which I 
introduced prior to the August recess.
  Mr. President, air travel is fundamental to our national 
transportation system. Americans who travel across this Nation and 
globally would not be able to conduct their business without the 
conveniences of air travel. However, recently the dangers of air travel 
have become even more clear. With the risks of air travel in mind, I 
introduced the Travelers Rights Act to provide for a way that consumers 
could obtain safety information. To provide to the public the safety 
background on airlines is a matter of common sense. It is a matter of 
public policy to provide citizens the information necessary for them to 
make choices in most other areas basic to their health, safety, and 
welfare. Given that food labeling must reveal ingredients, automobile 
labels must indicate maintenance and mileage, and under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, recently reauthorized, water contaminants must be 
revealed annually to the water users and communities, we should do 
require no less in regard to air travel.
  Besides mandating intensified security and safety for air travel, the 
provisions of the Travelers Rights Act that have been incorporated were 
the travelers' access to information and the safety survey and reports 
that the FAA will be required to submit to Congress. There is 
information that ought to be available and if the customer seeks the 
information the airlines should expeditiously provide it. This bill is 
not to scare travelers about the safety and security of air travel, 
rather on the contrary, I believe this bill will inspire confidence 
through openness and knowledge. Additionally, if customers of air 
travel exercise their right to know about certain elements about the 
airlines, aircraft, and crew then that too will enhance the trust 
between customers and the airlines. In this effort to require knowledge 
and the coordination of information, Senators Ford and Wyden have been 
extremely helpful in their communication with the Federal Aviation 
Administration.
  I do regret that absent from title III of the FAA reauthorization is 
the Victims Rights Program, which I see as integral to expediting the 
distribution of information to the survivors of victims of terrible 
airline accidents and destruction. The responsible Federal agencies 
should be coordinated better to provide families the details and facts 
as quickly as possible and in such a manner so that survivors can 
grieve and cope with tragedy with all of the knowledge that they need.
  But I do commend Senator Ford for integrating into title III of the 
bill the provisions of consumer access that the Travelers Rights Act 
contained.
  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, as the Senate moves to a conference with 
the House of Representatives on the Federal Aviation Administration 
Reauthorization Act of 1996, I am hopeful conferees will give 
thoughtful consideration to the provisions included in the manager's 
amendment adopted Tuesday evening. I noted with some concern that a 
number of provisions in this amendment were new to the bill, and in 
some cases, not germane to the purpose of the legislation. I hope my 
colleagues will share my interest in assuring that an appropriate check 
and balance is maintained as the 104th Congress continues its 
legislative work.
  While I support swift enactment of this important measure to 
reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, I am concerned about a 
provision of the bill included with the manager's amendment amending 
the Johnson Act. In response to concerns about the rapid growth of 
legalized gambling in the United States in recent years, Congress 
recently approved legislation to create a 2-year National Gambling 
Impact Study Commission. This Commission will conduct a comprehensive 
review of the social and economic impact of legalized gambling on our 
Nation, and will provide a report to Congress, the President, 
Governors, and others, on this important issue. Until we know more 
about the effects of this recent national trend, I have reservations 
about changing a Federal law that could allow for further expansion of 
legalized gambling in the United States.


                     Amendment to the Johnston Act

  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there was 
language included in the manager's amendment to the Federal Aviation 
Authorization Act of 1996 that would allow a gambling operation off the 
coast of California.
  I am the chief sponsor of legislation establishing a gambling 
commission to study the impact of gaming on municipalities, states and 
tribal governments. It is my feeling that we are making a mistake by 
sanctioning this new operation before we have a chance to study the 
Commission's findings.
  The Federal Aviation Authorization legislation is an important bill, 
which is why I offered my support despite the language amending the 
Johnston Act.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today we are considering the reauthorization 
of the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]. The FAA performs a 
critical role in managing our nation's air traffic control system, 
which handles two takeoffs and landings of aircraft every second of 
every hour of every day. Yet most Americans are unaware of the 
complexity and scope of this system, and simply take it for granted.
  Nonetheless, the deregulation of the airlines and expansion of the 
air transportation system have imposed significant strains upon the 
existing system.

[[Page S10750]]

 Some air control centers are using older equipment that is not as 
reliable as what is currently available. Other centers, that lack both 
equipment and sufficient numbers of air traffic controllers, are forced 
to delay flights. Reform of the FAA is needed, because increasing 
demand for air travel will only exacerbate these problems at our 
nation's major airports.
  My own state of West Virginia, however, does not have a major hub 
airport. We have not had to worry about delays of frequently scheduled, 
and low-priced flights. Our problems have been of an entirely different 
magnitude. We have had to endure the cancellation of flights, the end 
of airline service to some of our communities, and a huge increase in 
fares charged to passengers who fly out of airports in West Virginia.
  This dramatic decline in airline service to my state has occurred as 
a result of airline deregulation. On the day that I cast my 14,000 
vote, I observed that one of the votes that I most regret was 
supporting airline deregulation. At the time, I was told it would lead 
to cheaper fares. It has, but only in some regions of the country and 
large urban areas, while my own constituents have paid hundreds of 
dollars more for even shorter flights. I was told that deregulation 
would lead to an increase in the number of flights, and make air 
service more convenient. Again, it has, but only if your city is 
fortunate to be at the center of a major market. My own constituents 
have far fewer flights to choose from, and in many cases, must drive to 
an airport in another state in order to fly at a reasonable price. This 
is a far cry from convenience.

  This bill addresses these concerns, as it directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to conduct a study to examine air fares that are charged 
to passengers using airports located in small communities, as compared 
with air fares charged to passengers using large hub airports. The 
purpose of the report will be to determine if passengers using airports 
in small communities are paying ``a disproportionately greater price'' 
as compared with passengers using hub airports in large urban areas, as 
well as to indicate the number of small communities that have lost air 
service as a result of the deregulation of commercial air carriers.
  I strongly support this study, and believe that an examination of the 
impact of deregulation on rural America is long overdue. Nonetheless, 
from the perspective of West Virginia, it is almost self evident that 
small communities are paying a disproportionately greater price. For 
example, if I want to fly from my office in Charleston, West Virginia's 
capital and largest city, to my office in Washington, I will pay a one-
way walk-up coach fare of $332. If I want to benefit from airline 
deregulation, I must spend over two hours driving to Columbus, OH, in 
order to fly for $179. In other words, I must drive west, consuming 
gasoline and adding another automobile to the highways, in order to fly 
east at a reasonable fare. To use another example, it costs twice as 
much to fly from Charleston to Houston, TX, as compared with flying 
from Columbus to Houston.
  In a 1996 study by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the GAO found 
that fares have decreased at small and large hub airports. However, 
airports serving small and medium-sized communities in the Southeast 
and Appalachian region ``have experienced sharp increases in fares 
since deregulation.'' Not surprisingly, the GAO found that where low-
cost carriers have entered a market, the fares have declined. But in 
areas that have not been so fortunate--where one or two higher cost 
airlines dominate service--fares have risen by more than 20 percent. 
When the GAO examined the fares charged per passenger mile at the 
Charleston airport, it found that fares had increased by 24.7 percent 
from 1979 to 1994.

  Under the onslaught of deregulation, it is becoming increasingly 
difficult for small airports in West Virginia to continue to operate. 
Several of these airports benefit from Essential Air Service (EAS) 
support. The EAS program was created as a direct result of airline 
deregulation, for even as the supporters of deregulation trumpeted its 
benefits, they recognized that deregulation would hurt small airports. 
EAS was intended to be a temporary subsidy for small airports to help 
them develop profitable service. The impact of deregulation has been so 
severe that EAS has become a permanent necessity in order to keep some 
small airports open. This bill includes a provision that permanently 
funds the EAS program at a level of $50 million, which is an increase 
of $24.1 million, when compared to current appropriations. If less than 
$50 million is obligated for EAS programs, the remaining funds will be 
made available for grants to rural airports to improve rural air 
safety. This increase in EAS funding, and the provision calling for the 
study of rural air fares, was offered in the Commerce Committee by 
Senator Byron Dorgan, and I wish to thank him for his efforts to help 
struggling airports in small communities.
  S. 1994 also includes a provision that requires that funding to large 
and medium hub airports would be limited to a percentage of total AIP 
funding. This provision will help protect small airports from 
disproportionate cuts in AIP funding, in the event that future levels 
of appropriations to AIP should decline.
  This bill is a significant and positive step in examining the impact 
of deregulation on small airports in our country. But it is not enough. 
Small airports across America are suffering under the burden of rising 
fares and declining service. As the Congress continues to examine the 
issues surrounding FAA reform in the next few years, it is my hope that 
the impact of deregulation on small community airports can be given 
additional consideration.
  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. 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.


                           Amendment No. 5378

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Brown, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Simon amendment is set 
aside.
  Without objection, the amendment may be considered at this time.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), for Mr. Brown, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5378.

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

     SEC.  . REPORTING FOR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS.

       Section 47112 is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(d) Reporting for Procurement Contracts.--(1) The 
     Secretary of Transportation shall promulgate regulations to 
     require that each grant agreement that includes the awarding 
     of any contract that includes Federal funds in an amount 
     greater than or equal to $5,000,000 under this subchapter 
     provides for a report to the Secretary that states--
       ``(A) the number of bids from qualified, responsive and 
     reasonable bidders that were in amounts lower than the amount 
     specified in the bid submitted by the bidder awarded the 
     contract;
       ``(B) for each bid referred to in subparagraph A (other 
     than the bid submitted by the bidder awarded the contract) 
     the amount by which the bid submitted by the bidder awarded 
     the contract exceeded the lower bid.
       ``(2) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply to grants 
     referred to in this paragraph that are awarded on or after 
     the date of enactment of this Act.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Senator Ford and I have examined this 
amendment. It has to do with disclosure of contract awards. We 
appreciate Senator Brown's willingness to change the language so that 
it is acceptable to both sides.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Colorado.
  The amendment (No. 5378) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

[[Page S10751]]

  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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President and colleagues, I rise in support of this legislation, 
S. 1994, to reauthorize the programs of the FAA. This is important 
legislation, and I especially want to commend the chairman of the 
Aviation Subcommittee, Mr. McCain, and also the distinguished ranking 
member of the Aviation Subcommittee, Senator Ford, for working closely 
with me on several provisions that have been included in this 
legislation.
  Suffice it to say that when consideration of this bill began, it was 
a relatively modest reauthorization measure. No safety or security 
issues--certainly not any dramatic changes in safety or security 
policy--were envisioned at that time. Now these concerns are finally 
back to the forefront where they belong. It is my view that with this 
legislation the Senate takes the first step toward meaningful action to 
improving aviation safety and security in our country.
  I think it has to be understood that there is still a long way to go 
even with the enactment of this legislation, but with the passage of 
this bill at least the prospect has begun in earnest to strengthen 
safety and security for the citizens who fly in our country.
  My view is that in particular it is time to adopt new policies that 
empower the consumer, make it possible for consumers to be in a 
position to get critical information about aviation safety in our 
country. Right now it is possible for consumers to find out if their 
bags get crushed, and it is possible to find out if their flight is on 
time. But it is pretty darned hard for consumers to find out if the 
airline that they fly on has been fined for violating a major safety 
law.
  At present what happens is, if there is a violation of a major safety 
law by an airline, for a citizen to find out they have to file a 
Freedom of Information Act request in order to get the information 
about a safety violation on the part of an airplane on an airline that 
they fly regularly. I do not think that is good enough. I think 
consumers deserve better. And Senator Ford and I have requested that 
the Federal Aviation Administration undertake an effort to make this 
kind of information available to the citizens of our country.
  In the next few weeks we expect to receive a report from the Federal 
Aviation Administration about the best way to make important safety 
information available to the public, and this legislation that the 
Senate considers today requires a comparable report to the National 
Transportation Safety Board.
  Mr. President, colleagues, let me say that from my standpoint this is 
only part of what needs to be done to empower consumers to get relevant 
information about safety and security. For example, today the Federal 
Aviation Administration posts signs in U.S. airports about the security 
dangers in foreign airports, but there are not any signs about security 
problems at our airports. It seems to me, again, that consumers, in 
line with certain uniform criteria so that the airlines and all who 
work in aviation understand what the standards are--the airlines would 
be expected to act in concert with those kinds of safety and security 
criteria, and the public would have a right to know whether airports in 
our country are meeting those safety and security criteria just as we 
now have postings with respect to security problems at foreign 
airports.

  So I think that in these next few weeks we will begin to get 
information from the FAA with respect to how to make this key safety 
information public. I want it understood, Mr. President and colleagues, 
that I think this is just the beginning.
  I want to thank the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. Both he 
and his staff have been very helpful to me in this effort to empower 
consumers. I am going to make a couple of other quick comments with 
respect to the legislation, but I want Chairman McCain to know that I 
very much appreciate the help that he and his staff, as well as Senator 
Ford, have given me on this; because, for the life of me, I cannot 
figure out why it is right for consumers to find out if their bags get 
crushed, find out if their flights are on time, but why they ought to 
have to go out and file a Freedom of Information Act request to 
determine whether an airline has violated major safety laws. That is 
not right. That has to be changed. On a bipartisan basis, working with 
Chairman McCain and ranking member Ford, I think we can get it changed. 
We will get that information with respect to the FAA in the next couple 
of weeks.
  This legislation makes a positive step forward as well as by 
requiring a comparable report from the National Transportation Safety 
Board.
  I also want to say to Chairman McCain that I want to work very 
closely with him on the matter of security postings at our airports. I 
have had a chance, both publicly and privately, to discuss this with 
officials in the aviation field. It is important to do it in line with 
certain recognized criteria. But it seems to me that, if an airline 
passenger in Phoenix, Portland, or anywhere else goes into an airport 
and finds out about overseas airports that have security problems, it 
seems to me they ought to have a right to know about the airports in 
our country where there are security concerns as well because I think 
those empowered consumers, once they have that kind of information, 
will help us and help us on a bipartisan basis to work for the kind of 
safety and security that the public deserves.
  Mr. President, colleagues, one of the other aspects of this bill that 
I think makes a positive step forward deals with the need for 
uniformity in definitions relating to safety. Right now an accident 
involving a death or a serious injury or substantial damage to an 
aircraft is treated the same as an accident involving a plane backing 
into a truck or a coffee-cup spill that causes problems which are also 
reported as an accident. An incident involves less severe mishaps that 
affect safety in other ways, such as planes hitting birds or things of 
this nature. This legislation will provide some uniformity in terms of 
definitions in this area, and I think that is a fortunate step forward.

  I also think this legislation is very helpful from the standpoint of 
requiring more comprehensive employment investigations, including 
criminal history record checks for individuals who will screen airline 
passengers, baggage and property. Under Senators McCain and Ford, what 
has happened here is the legislative straitjacket that has hamstrung 
FAA efforts in this area are removed. I think that is a helpful step 
forward as well.
  Finally, I think this legislation is a very important measure with 
respect to the small airports of our country. These airports, such as 
Bandon and John Day and Klamath Falls, in my home State, serve citizens 
in rural Oregon. This legislation makes it possible for those small 
airports around the country to get some help at a critical time. 
Without the funding formula of this legislation, the smaller airports 
would suffer disproportionate cuts in grant funding at a time when 
appropriations are especially tight.
  So this is a piece of legislation that needs to be enacted. I think, 
with respect to safety and security, it is important to note that when 
this reauthorization began, safety and security were not much measured 
in what looked, at that time, to be a modest reauthorization. But the 
events of the last few months have indicated that important and much 
more significant action needs to be taken, especially with respect to 
safety and security. I think the legislation that Chairman McCain and 
Ranking Member Ford bring to the Senate moves us significantly in the 
right direction.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and urge adoption of the 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Campbell). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for not 
only his kind words but, far more important, for the exuberance, 
passion, and knowledge that he brings to the Aviation Subcommittee and 
the Commerce,

[[Page S10752]]

Science and Transportation Committee. Obviously, he is committed and 
knowledgeable on these issues. We value his participation and the very 
important contributions he has made to this legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me join my colleague, Senator McCain, in 
complimenting the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden. He has been a great 
asset to this institution since he arrived and has been a tremendous 
asset to the Commerce Committee since he has joined us there. He has 
been thoughtful, he has been thorough, he has been amenable, but all 
the time pushing forward as it relates to help in all pieces of 
legislation, not particularly this one, in his effort to see that his 
constituents are protected and are helped.
  I compliment him on the contribution he has made to having S. 1994 at 
this point, and I look forward to working with him in the future.


                           Amendment No. 5364

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, it is my understanding the Simon pension 
amendment is pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of entering 
into a colloquy with the Senator from Illinois regarding his limited 
scope audit amendment.
  Mr. SIMON. I would be delighted to enter into such a colloquy.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. We have drafted a sponsors' memorandum to accompany 
the amendment to assist with the interpretation of this legislation. 
Would the Senator agree that this interpretative memorandum embodies 
what the sponsors intend to accomplish with this legislative change to 
ERISA?
  Mr. SIMON. Yes.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would ask unanimous consent that the interpretive 
memorandum be printed in the Record immediately preceding the 
disposition of the amendment, and I thank the Senator from Illinois.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


   Interpretive Memorandum for Repeal of Pension Limited Scope Audit

       This amendment addresses potential deficiencies with 
     ERISA's current audit requirements for employee pension 
     benefit plans. Specifically, the legislation addresses the 
     ``limited scope audit'' provisions in ERISA. The sponsors of 
     the amendment intend this memorandum to accompany the 
     legislation to provide guidance to employee benefit plans, 
     accountants, auditors, and regulated financial institutions.
       Under current law, ERISA Sec. 103(a)(3) requires the 
     administrator of a benefit plan to engage an independent 
     qualified public accountant to examine the financial 
     statements of the plan and render an opinion as to whether 
     the financial statements are presented fairly in conformity 
     with generally accepted auditing principles. However, under 
     Sec. 103(a)(3)(C), the accountant need not render an opinion 
     as to assets of the plan held by a bank, insurance company, 
     or other financial institution subject to State or Federal 
     regulation.
       Since many pension plans have a material portion of their 
     assets held by regulated financial institutions, and an 
     accountant generally will not provide an opinion (e.g. the 
     accountant provides a disclaimed opinion) as to a plan when a 
     material portion of its assets are not accessible to the 
     accountant, a great number of plans receive no opinion. The 
     General Accounting Office and the Department of Labor's 
     Inspector General have identified the large number of 
     disclaimed opinions that have been issued as a source of 
     concern.
       The sponsors intend this amendment to require, in virtually 
     every circumstance, that pension plan accountants rely upon 
     the audits (e.g. SAS 70 reports) performed for banks and 
     other regulated institutions. Thus, pension plan auditors, 
     relying upon the audit report of the regulated entity, would 
     be able to perform an audit and express an opinion on the 
     plan's financial statements without any scope restriction.
       The sponsors recognize the concerns of pension plan 
     sponsors and regulated financial institutions regarding 
     duplication of effort, increased cost, and disruption of 
     operations that might otherwise be associated with modifying 
     the limited scope audit provisions of ERISA. The sponsors do 
     not intend that regulated institutions undergo multiple 
     independent audits to satisfy the requirements of this 
     legislation. Such a requirement would needlessly raise costs 
     to plans and disrupt the operations of the regulated 
     institution. For these reasons, the sponsors intend, in the 
     vast majority of cases, that plan accountants will rely upon 
     the audits (e.g. the SAS 70 report) performed by the auditors 
     of the regulated financial institution.
       However, there are a narrow set of circumstances where the 
     SAS 70 report may not be, on its face, sufficient for the 
     plan auditor's purpose. The auditor's response to those 
     situations will vary depending on many factors, including the 
     plan's own system of reviewing the results of the regulated 
     institution's processing of the individual plan's activities. 
     Significantly, the situations where the pension plan auditors 
     needs physically to visit the regulated institution are very 
     infrequent, and are most likely to occur when problems are 
     identified with the regulated institution's processing.
       The instances where the sponsors anticipate that plan 
     auditors may need to perform additional audit work, beyond 
     the SAS 70 report, include the following:
       1. The SAS 70 report is a so-called Type I audit, which 
     includes a description of whether the policies and procedures 
     in place at the regulated institution's operation are fairly 
     represented and are suitably designed. However, the Type I 
     audit does not include an assurance on the functional, 
     operating effectiveness of the regulated institution's 
     policies and procedures, as would be provided under a Type II 
     SAS 70 report. In this situation, the plan auditor may need 
     to perform tests of the controls, depending upon whether it 
     is more efficient to reduce the assessed level of control 
     risk at the regulated institution or to perform additional 
     work at the plan.
       2. If the SAS 70 report covers a different reporting period 
     than the plan's fiscal year, then the auditor may need to 
     inquire of the regulated institution as to whether there were 
     any changes to the institution's policies and procedures 
     during the period not covered by the SAS 70 report. If the 
     difference in coverage period is significant, or there have 
     been material changes to the regulated institution's policies 
     and procedures as they relate to the plan's transactions, 
     then the plan auditor may need to gain an understanding of 
     the policies and procedures in effect during the period not 
     covered by the SAS 70.
       3. If the SAS 70 report is limited as to its coverage of 
     the regulated institution's policies and procedures as they 
     relate to the plan being audited, then the auditor may need 
     to gain an understanding of the policies and procedures not 
     covered in the SAS 70 report. For instance, if the SAS 70 
     report does not address the policies and procedures specific 
     to the services performed for the plan, or the report does 
     not cover activities performed by subservices, then 
     additional work may be required (such as, in the latter case, 
     obtaining a SAS 70 report from the subservicer).
       4. If the SAS 70 report identifies instances of 
     noncompliance with the regulated institution's internal 
     control structure policies and procedures, then the auditor 
     would have to consider the effect of those findings on the 
     assessed level of control risk of assertions in the plan's 
     financial statements.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I strongly support the Jeffords-Simon amendment, and I 
strongly urge the Senate to approve the Pension Audit Improvement Act 
of 1996. This will make a significant improvement in the safety of 
working Americans' pensions.
  The amendment will require that every penny of assets held by pension 
plans is subject to rigorous annual audit. Plan participants and the 
Department of Labor will be able to identify where plan assets are held 
and what investment vehicles are being used to fund pension benefits.
  Under current law, if a pension plan invests a large percentage of 
its assets in a highly leveraged insurance company, plan participants 
often have no way to know that their benefits are at risk.
  Current law exempts nearly one-third of the $3 trillion in assets 
held by pension plans from the strict audit requirements of the ERISA 
statute. That's more than $950 billion in pension plan assets that 
pension plan participants and the Department of Labor cannot track.
  This amendment will change all that. Under the amendment, plan 
sponsors will be required every year to provide a detailed audit of 100 
percent of a plan's assets. Plan participants and the Department of 
Labor will have the tools necessary to assess whether plan sponsors are 
living up to strict fiduciary requirements. Hard-working Americans 
should not have to fear that their pensions will disappear before they 
retire.
  This amendment is sensible and needed. It enhances the safety of the 
vast assets held by America's pension plans. Working Americans deserve 
the pensions they have labored hard and long to earn. This amendment 
will significantly advance that goal and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. FORD. We are ready to accept the Simon amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5364) was agreed to.

[[Page S10753]]

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5373

 (Purpose: To amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify the authority of 
 the Customs Service to require air carriers to provide by electronic 
     transmission advance cargo and passenger manifest information)

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I call up an amendment by Senator Graham of 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford], for Mr. Graham, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 5373.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.   . ADVANCE ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF CARGO AND 
                   PASSENGER INFORMATION.

       (a) Cargo Information.--
       (1) In general.--Section 431(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
     (19 U.S.C. 1431(b)) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Any manifest'' and inserting ``(1) Any 
     manifest'', and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) Every passenger air carrier required to make entry 
     or to obtain clearance under the customs laws of the United 
     States (or the authorized agent of such carrier) shall 
     provide by electronic transmission cargo manifest information 
     described in subparagraph (B) in advance of such entry or 
     clearance in such manner as the Secretary shall prescribe.
       ``(B) The information described in this subparagraph is as 
     follows:
       ``(i) The airport of arrival or departure, which ever is 
     appropriate.
       ``(ii) The airline prefix code.
       ``(iii) The carrier code.
       ``(iv) The flight number.
       ``(v) The date of scheduled arrival or date of departure, 
     whichever is appropriate.
       ``(vi) The permit to proceed to the destination, if 
     applicable.
       ``(vii) The master and house air waybill numbers and 
     quantities.
       ``(viii) The first airport of lading of the cargo.
       ``(ix) A description and weight of the cargo.
       ``(x) The shipper's name and address from all air waybills.
       ``(xi) The consignee name and address from all air 
     waybills.
       ``(xii) Notice that actual boarded quantities are not equal 
     to air waybill quantities.
       ``(xiii) Transfer or transit information.
       ``(xiv) Warehouse or other location of the cargo.
       ``(xv) Any other data that the Secretary may by regulation 
     prescribe.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Subsection (d)(1)(A) of section 
     431 of such Act is amended by inserting before the semicolon 
     ``or subsection (b)(2)''.
       (b) Passenger Information.--The Part II of title IV of the 
     Tariff Act of 1930 is amended by inserting after section 431 
     the following new section:

     ``SEC. 432. PASSENGER MANIFEST INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR AIR 
                   CARRIERS.

       ``(a) In General.--Every passenger air carrier required to 
     make entry or obtain clearance under the customs laws of the 
     United States (or the authorized agent of such carrier) shall 
     provide by electronic transmission passenger manifest 
     information described in subsection (b) in advance of such 
     entry or clearance in such manner and form as the Secretary 
     shall prescribe.
       ``(b) Information Described.--The information described in 
     this subsection is as follows:
       ``(1) Full name of each passenger.
       ``(2) Date of birth and citizenship of each passenger.
       ``(3) Passport number and country of issuance of each 
     passenger.
       ``(4) Passenger name record.
       ``(5) Any additional data that the Secretary, by 
     regulation, determines is reasonably necessary to ensure 
     aviation safety pursuant to the Customs laws of the United 
     States.''.
       (c) Definition.--Section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(t) Passenger Air Carrier.--The term `passenger air 
     carrier' means an air carrier (as defined in section 
     40102(a)(2) of title 49, United States Code) or foreign air 
     carrier (as defined in section 40102(a)(21) of such title 49) 
     that provides transportation of passengers to or from any 
     place in the United States.''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect 45 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we are now in a position to accept this 
amendment. I think our colleagues will be thankful that this is the 
last amendment on the agenda.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5373) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 5379

             (Purpose: To change the caption of title III)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a technical amendment at the desk. 
I ask unanimous consent that it be considered at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5379.

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

       On page 2, in the item relating to title III, strike 
     ``AIRPORT'' and insert ``AVIATION''.
       On page 14, line 11, strike ``AIRPORT'' and insert 
     ``AVIATION''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is an amendment which is purely 
technical in nature. It was requested by the Finance Committee and is 
simply changing one word. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5379) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


                           Amendment No. 5374

(Purpose: To provide for sequential referral of an implementing bill to 
    the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the 
                         Committee on Finance)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that amendment No. 
5374 had never been called up. It was an oversight. I believed it had 
been called up last night. That was part of our unanimous-consent 
managers' amendment.
  I ask that amendment No. 5374 be considered at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5374.

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

       On page 113, beginning with line 16, strike through line 10 
     on page 115 and insert the following:
       ``(c) Consideration in Senate.--An implementing bill 
     introduced in the Senate shall be referred to the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation shall report the bill 
     with its recommendations within 60 days following the date of 
     introduction of that bill. Upon the reporting of the bill by 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the 
     reported bill shall be referred sequentially to the Committee 
     on Finance for a period of 60 legislative days.
       ``On page 116, strike lines 3 through 9.''
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 5374) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there may be additional colloquies that 
may be submitted between now and 2 o'clock, when I intend to propound a 
unanimous consent agreement concerning a vote on this bill today. But, 
according to the unanimous consent agreement entered into last night, 
that completes the amendments that are applicable to the omnibus FAA 
bill. That would complete our consideration of the bill, with the 
exception of the entry of colloquies and final passage, on which we 
will be asking for a rollcall vote.
  In that case, Mr. President, before I turn to my friend from 
Kentucky, I

[[Page S10754]]

want to express my deep and profound appreciation for his effort on 
this legislation. This legislation is the product of many years of work 
together. He and I have been concerned about issues of aviation safety 
for the last 10 years that we have closely worked together. We have 
been concerned about the very serious issue of FAA reform and providing 
the right amount of funding for the FAA. We have been concerned about 
so many aspects of this bill from FAA reform to airport security to 
airline safety to airport revenue diversion and many others. We have 
been through a very long hearing process in all areas of this omnibus 
aviation bill. I think, when you look at the broad scope of this bill, 
it is really a fundamental piece of legislation as far as aviation in 
America is concerned. It would not have been possible without the 
bipartisan effort, especially led by my friend from Kentucky.
  I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Pressler, who urged us on, who made valuable and important 
contributions, and without whose leadership this legislation would not 
be possible. Senator Hollings, of course, who is one of the more 
knowledgeable individuals on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
Committee, has been extremely helpful, as well as Senator Stevens.
  Mr. President, I also would be remiss in not pointing out that 
Senator Ford, Senator Pressler, Senator Hollings and I worked very 
closely with the Administration on this very important legislation. The 
Secretary of Transportation, Secretary Federico Pena, the Administrator 
of the Federal Aviation Administration, Mr. David Hinson, and 
especially--certainly especially--Ms. Linda Daschle, who did, really, 
the difficult spade work involved with this bill, especially FAA 
reform, spending literally hundreds of hours of negotiations in 
crafting this legislation between the Administration and Congress and 
Democrats and Republicans. So I especially thank Linda Daschle for her 
tireless stamina and outstanding work.
  I also would like to thank our staff: Paddy Link, Tom Hohenthaner, 
Mike Reynolds, and Mike Korens of Senator Pressler's staff, Mitch Rose 
of Senator Stevens' staff, of course, Sam Whitehorn of Senator 
Hollings' staff and Tom Zoeller of Senator Ford's staff. Sam and Tom 
have been extremely helpful and cooperative. Finally, I would like to 
personally thank the tireless efforts of Chris Paul and Mark Buse on my 
staff. They worked very hard and spent many long hours, and I am 
especially grateful to them, as well. As I have said earlier, the staff 
of the Finance Committee worked with us in order to complete this bill 
and I wish to recognize them.
  I would like to add one final note before yielding the floor to my 
friend from Kentucky.
  Last night and again today, the Senator from Kentucky and I talked 
about this issue of the ticket tax. Mr. President, it was a disaster. 
It was a disaster when we let this ticket tax lapse last December. I 
value the opinion of my friend from Kentucky on this. It is almost 
unconscionable for us to go out of session and let this ticket tax 
lapse again. We all know that the ticket tax lapses on the 31st of 
December. Congress will not be doing anything until, at best, late in 
January, and it could be much longer than that.
  I would like to tell my colleagues that the Senator from Kentucky and 
I will be having to, if necessary, resort to parliamentary measures in 
order to get this ticket tax extended, ideally until such time as the 
commission reports out its recommendations or the Finance Committee 
will complete the entire process, but certainly a year, I would say, as 
a bare minimum. There is going to be a big crush of business coming up 
in a week or so. I do not intend to inflict further damage on our 
ability to complete our obligations--they are not our privileges; our 
obligations--to the American public concerning the maintenance, the 
improvement of and the safety of America's aviation system.
  Again, I thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation on this 
bill. It is a very complex piece of legislation, encompassing a lot of 
different issues concerning aviation, in fact, just about everything we 
can think of. I thank my colleagues for their consideration.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President. I know the Senator from Kentucky 
has comments before I propound the request concerning the vote at 2 
p.m. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Ford] is 
recognized.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I am pleased to support S. 1994, the Federal 
Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996. As the ranking 
member of the Aviation Subcommittee, I want to thank the chairman of 
the subcommittee, Senator McCain, for his leadership and determination 
in bringing this bill to the Senate floor.
  Mr. President, as the 104th Congress comes to a close, there are many 
bills which are labeled as ``must pass.'' But this bill truly is a 
must-pass piece of legislation.
  The FAA reauthorization act includes provisions which reauthorize the 
Airport Improvement Program [AIP]. The AIP program funds hundreds of 
airport improvement and construction projects throughout our Nation. 
But the program expires on September 30. Without this reauthorization 
bill, the FAA would be unable to fund many worthy aviation 
infrastructure projects. We cannot let that happen. The FAA's forecasts 
for the aviation industry project tremendous growth. Those forecasts 
project an average increase of 3.7 percent in domestic passenger 
traffic by the year 2007. One of the big growth areas will most likely 
be in the regional and commuter industry. In 1995, regional and 
commuter air carriers carried 53.7 million passengers. By the year 
2007, the FAA projects these same carriers to carry 96.9 million 
passengers--an annual growth of 5.4 percent.
  The tremendous growth of air traffic will place tremendous challenges 
on airports and airways management. That is why it is so important for 
the Senate to pass S. 1994. We cannot permit the AIP program to lapse. 
We must continue to support many worthy airport construction and 
improvement projects that will help to sustain and support the growing 
demand for air carrier services, both passenger and cargo.
  These increased demands on the air transport system require the 
Congress to re-examine the way in which the FAA is managed and funded. 
The FAA is predominantly funded through the airport and airway trust 
fund. The monies which are in the trust fund are distributed among 
specific programs and functions, including the FAA's operations 
account, the facilities and equipment account, research, the 
engineering and development account, as well as the Airport Improvement 
Program.
  The trust funds is supported solely through revenue derived by a 10 
percent passenger ticket tax, interest paid on Treasury certificates, 
and other taxes associated with air travel and aviation. However, on 
January 1, 1996, the aviation excise taxes lapsed. That lapse in the 
taxes resulted in a loss of $500 million a month in trust fund 
revenues. With the enactment of the minimum wage and small business tax 
credits act, the aviation excise taxes were reinstated, but only to the 
end of this calendar year.
  This experience has highlighted some problems and concerns with the 
FAA. Without a steady and reliable source of revenue, the FAA cannot 
fulfill its mission to promote a safe and reliable aviation system. To 
that end, S. 1994 establishes a 11-member panel to conduct an 
independent assessment of the FAA financing and cost allocations 
through 2002. This independent panel shall include individuals who have 
expertise in the aviation industry and who are able, collectively, to 
represent a balanced view of the issues which are important to all 
segments of the aviation industry, including: general aviation, major 
air carriers, air cargo carriers, regional air carriers, business 
aviation, airports, aircraft manufacturers, the financial community, 
aviation industry workers, and airline passengers.
  This independent assessment is required to complete its work within 
12 months. At which time the panel will make a report to the Secretary 
of Transportation. S. 1994 includes provisions which would provide for 
expedited consideration of any legislative proposal forwarded by the 
independent panel.
  It is important to point out that we want this panel to be 
independent. It is

[[Page S10755]]

important that this panel consider all the options which can be 
considered for funding the FAA. By including all segments of the 
aviation industry, it is our hope that the independent panel will 
produce an unbiased and balanced report which considers all the pros 
and cons to funding options. We need to depoliticize the process for 
funding the FAA. By creating this independent panel, it is our hope 
that we can get a fair and reliable assessment of needs and funding 
sources. And through the expedited procedures contemplated in the bill, 
we hope to be able to enact those funding options as quickly as 
possible so that we will not face another funding lapse to the trust 
fund and the FAA.
  This funding study will build upon personnel and procurement reforms 
already in place at the FAA, which were included in the 
Transportation Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996.

  In addition to the independent study on funding solutions for the 
FAA, the bill also includes provisions for the creation of a Management 
Advisory Council. Mr. President, I think we all acknowledge that the 
FAA has been an agency with its problems. Some of that criticism is 
well-deserved. But, I think that most Members will also acknowledge, 
that under the current leadership of David Hinson, the FAA is beginning 
to respond to the challenges. We want to build on these improvements 
and we want to enable the FAA to improve its management so that it is 
prepared to face the challenges of the 21st century.
  The Management Advisory Council [MAC] will be composed of 15 members 
to provide the Administrator with input from the aviation industry and 
community. Membership on the MAC will include representatives from all 
government and all segments of the aviation industry; all of whom will 
be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the 
Senate. Members of the MAC should be selected from among individuals 
who are experts in disciplines relevant to the aviation community and 
who are collectively able to represent a balanced view of the issues 
before the FAA. It is important to note that selection for MAC 
membership is not required to be based on political affiliation or 
other partisan considerations.
  As was noted in the committee's report on S. 1994, the MAC is not 
another paper tiger. Rather, it is intended that the MAC's 
recommendations be taken under serious consideration by the 
Administrator.
  Among the issues that we expect that the MAC to examine are: air 
traffic control modernization; FAA acquisition management; rulemakings 
and cost-benefit analysis; review the process by which the FAA 
determines to use advisory circulars and service bulletins; review of 
old rules, including FAR part 145.
  Mr. President, since the Commerce Committee reported S. 1994, we 
experienced another air tragedy: the destruction of TWA flight 800 over 
the Atlantic Ocean. At this time, we do not know what caused that 
tragedy. But we do know that we need to reexamine our aviation security 
measures. Following this tragedy, the President appointed Vice 
President Gore to head a special commission on aviation security. 
Earlier this month, the Gore commission presented to the President's 
its initial report to the President. That report made a number of 
recommendations including the purchase of explosive detection 
equipment; the placing of security equipment at our major airports; 
increasing the use of passenger profiling through the use of existing 
data bases and air carrier computer reservation systems; criminal 
background checks and FBI fingerprint checks for all security screeners 
and other airport and airline personnel with access to secure areas; 
increasing funding to be used to facilitate a greater role for the U.S. 
Customs Service and other law enforcement agencies; designate the 
National Transportation Safety Board to deal with the families and 
relatives of crash victims; and provide additional funds for the 
training of airport security screeners. Within the managers amendment, 
we have included legislative language that will give the FAA the legal 
authority to undertake and implement the recommendations of the Gore 
commission.
  It is important to note, however, Mr. President, that the Gore 
commission has not completed its work. In fact, the review of aviation 
security and safety is a dynamic and evolving process. While we have 
attempted to include security provisions within this bill, it is 
anticipated that the Congress will be considering further security 
recommendations and enhancements as the Gore commission continues its 
work.
  I want to express my thanks to the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. 
Lautenberg] and the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] for their 
contributions to this effort. I look forward to working with them in 
the future on this issue.
  Mr. President, let me thank all Members who have expressed an 
interest in this bill. As my colleagues are aware, last night, Senator 
McCain and myself worked throughout the evening to fashion a managers' 
amendment. Within that amendment, we have tried to include provisions 
and language that are of concern to other Members. I want to express my 
appreciation to my colleagues for their willingness to work with us on 
drafting this managers' amendment. Because of their cooperation and 
assistance, I believe that we will be able to move this bill forward 
quickly and complete action prior to September 30.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by addressing one particular issue, 
the privatization of airports. I am aware that the House bill includes 
a provision which would establish a pilot program for six airports. I 
oppose those efforts because the definition of privatization allows the 
new airport owner to divert revenues off of the airport; to receive 
Federal grants; to collect federally authorized PFC's; allow major 
carriers to dictate who runs an airport; and gives general aviation no 
say in privatization. In my mind, this form of privatization is a new 
form of corporate welfare. Moreover, Mr. President, privatization is 
opposed by the airlines, by general aviation, and by the airports. I am 
not opposed to finding new and innovative solutions to financing our 
airports. But I do not believe that privatization is a means to achieve 
that end.
  Mr. President, let me thank my friend from Arizona, the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Commerce and Transportation 
Committee. It is always a joy to watch him work. It is a joy to work 
with him. He has the kind of tenacity that is needed around here at 
times to accomplish something that is important not only to this 
country but internationally.
  Senator McCain is called on for more than just aviation. Senator 
McCain is leaned on quite often as it relates to our defense policy. 
His love of the country and his defense of military personnel is always 
above reproach and without doubt.
  So I am pleased that we have had this opportunity to work together, 
because the ingredients in this piece of legislation, if we can 
maintain it in conference, bring us to a point, I think, I say to 
Senator McCain, that we have been striving for for a long time.
  We have learned something, and I hope a lot of our colleagues have 
learned something. One of the top five Senators in the U.S. Senate over 
the centuries is from Kentucky. He is Henry Clay. Henry Clay was known 
as ``the Great Compromiser.'' Compromise is not a nasty word, it is not 
a word that you ought to run from. But that is how you accomplish 
things around here.
  Henry Clay described compromise as ``a negotiated hurt.'' A 
compromise is a negotiated hurt. Sure, it hurts to lose something that 
you feel strongly about, but you usually get something. My father 
always told me, ``You give up something, you get something,'' and that 
is compromise.
  So I think in the proceedings on this bill, once it was brought up, 
that we have injected the Henry Clay philosophy. We have worked 
together. We have had give and take. We have had Senators who were very 
reluctant to give up what they wanted, but somehow or another we found 
a way to modify their amendment so that it would not be so onerous to 
some and yet pleasing to the offeror of the amendment.
  So the experience of the moment is always something that builds on 
the education of the time spent in this institution.
  Let me join with my friend in thanking his staff--I will not go 
through the list--for all of their fine cooperation,

[[Page S10756]]

and my two--I want to say staffers, but they are my friends. That is 
the way I look at them, Sam Whitehorn and Tom Zoeller, and the others 
on the staff and those from other committees who have been working with 
us. We found an air of cooperation and camaraderie that has been 
unusual, I think. So I am very pleased with the cooperation we have 
had, and I thank my friends.
  Mr. President, let me thank all Members, too, who have expressed an 
interest in this piece of legislation. As my colleagues are aware, last 
night, Senator McCain and I worked throughout the evening to fashion 
what we referred to here as a ``managers' amendment.'' Those are 
amendments to be offered to the bill that we were able to work out and 
find agreement on. Rather than go through the long harangue of debate 
and running back and forth, our staffs worked together and our Senators 
cooperated. So we worked hard to fashion what we refer to and what was 
offered, what was adopted, as the ``managers' amendment.'' Of course, 
the leadership in putting that together is given to Senator McCain for 
his extraordinary effort in putting this managers' amendment together.

  Within that amendment, we have tried to include provisions and 
language that are of concern to not only our Members but others, 
because when we pass legislation, we either help or hurt our 
constituents. We either make it better or worse. So we have to be 
careful, once we agree on it, of what it does for the safety, for the 
betterment of the economy, whatever it might be. Even though we may 
agree, it is for those beyond this Chamber for whom we are here to 
work.
  Sometimes I don't always vote the way I personally feel. I think it 
was Hamilton who said in referring to the Congress, ``In these Halls, 
the people's voice shall be heard by their immediate representative.'' 
That is us, and we vote what we hear from our constituents. Sometimes 
it is not exactly the way we would want it, but you try to respond to 
those who are interested.
  I think we have another interested group out there that we have not 
had before, and it is the so-called ``C-SPAN junkies.'' I read the 
other day where some tape C-SPAN and come home at night and watch us. I 
didn't know we were that good. I thought maybe some of them just turned 
us off. But these are people who have watched us, listened to us, and 
have become informed.
  I don't know how many calls you get, but every once in a while, 
someone will call and say, ``I heard you speak. I don't agree with 
that. I think you ought to do this,'' and it has been an interesting 
period in the institution of the Senate.
  I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to all my colleagues 
for their willingness to work with us in drafting this piece of 
legislation. Because of that cooperation and assistance, I believe we 
will be able to move this bill forward quickly and complete action, 
hopefully, before September 30.
  So we have some time. I assure my colleagues, as Senator McCain and I 
have assured each other, as soon as this bill is passed, we are going 
to work. We are not going to rest on our laurels and beat our chests, 
We passed a bill. We are not finished. We have a conference to go to. 
We have a final bill to complete. We have to have one that the 
administration will agree to. As Senator McCain said, we have worked 
with the administration. We have tried to work with all parties. I 
believe in the end we will have a piece of legislation that will be 
acceptable all around.
  Mr. President, let me conclude by reiterating one particular issue, 
and that is the privatization of airports. I am aware that the House 
bill includes a provision which would establish a pilot project of six 
airports. Up front--I am not trying to kid anybody--I oppose those 
efforts because the definition of privatization allows the new airport 
owner to divert revenues off of the airport, to receive Federal grants, 
to collect Federally authorized PFC's, allow major carriers to dictate 
who runs an airport, and gives general aviation no say--gives general 
aviation no say--in the privatization.
  So in my mind, Mr. President, this form of privatization is a new 
form of corporate welfare--a new form of corporate welfare. Moreover, 
Mr. President, privatization is opposed by the airlines, by general 
aviation, and by the airports. I am not opposed to finding new and 
innovative solutions to financing our airports, but I do not believe 
that privatization is a means to achieve that end.
  So having said that, Mr. President, I believe we are ready to go to 
third reading.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there further amendments? If not, the 
question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, and was 
read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report calendar No. 588, H.R. 3539.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3539) to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the 
enacting clause is stricken, and the text of S. 1994 as passed by the 
Senate is inserted in lieu thereof.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading 
of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I would like to thank my friend 
from Kentucky. I remember when I was a new Member of the Senate, he was 
kind enough, as chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, to come to my 
State and have a hearing on the Grand Canyon and other issues. That has 
characterized our relationship now for more than 10 years.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that final passage occur on 
H.R. 3539, at 2 p.m. today, and that paragraph 4 of rule 12 be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

                          ____________________