[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11940-S11943]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. LOTT. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.


                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate the conference 
     report to accompany H.R. 3539, The Federal Aviation 
     Administration Reauthorization bill.
       Trent Lott, Don Nickles, Strom Thurmond, Jon Kyl, Judd 
     Gregg, Slade Gorton, Paul D. Coverdell, Frank H. Murkowski, 
     Craig Thomas, Harry Reid, Wendell Ford, Conrad Burns, Kay 
     Bailey Hutchison, John Breaux, Tom Daschle, Arlen Specter.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote occur 
on cloture at 10 a.m. on Thursday, October 3, that there be 1 hour for 
debate to be equally divided between the two leaders prior to the 
cloture vote, a mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived; I further 
ask unanimous consent that on Tuesday, October 1, there be 3 hours of 
debate, equally divided between the two leaders, on the conference 
report and 3 hours equally divided in the same fashion on Wednesday, 
October 2, both days for debate only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I thank all who have been involved in 
working out this agreement. I think it is in the best interest of the 
Senate. It is a fair way to deal with this important legislation that 
involves airport infrastructure and safety. This way, we will have 
ample time to have debate on Tuesday and Wednesday. We will get a vote 
on cloture on Thursday, and then we will be able to work toward a final 
vote, also on Thursday. So I thank the Senator.
  Mr. STEVENS. If the leader will yield, I want to commend all Senators 
for this action and thank the leader for his determination, and the 
Democratic leader also for being patient and finding a way to bring 
this matter to a close.
  Under the circumstances--and I have discussed this with the 
Parliamentarian--this means that we will vote before the week is out on 
the FAA bill. For that reason, I do withdraw all the objections that I 
filed to the matters pending. We have been waiting for some action to 
indicate we will vote on this bill this week.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I can, I will outline the closing script 
so all will be familiar with it.
  When the Senate completes it business today, it will stand in 
adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m., October 1, and there will then 
be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend 
beyond the hour of 12:30, with Senators permitted to speak therein for 
not more than 5 minutes each.
  We will recess from 12:30 until 2:15 for the weekly party caucuses to 
meet. We will have the time agreed to, 90 minutes on each side, and the 
same will occur on Wednesday. We will go to votes on Thursday.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If the majority leader will yield, I announce to our 
colleagues, just so there is no confusion, the Democratic caucus will 
not be meeting. It will just be the Republican caucus.
  Mr. LOTT. Just before I yield the floor, I would like to make it 
official that we will have no further votes tonight. There could be 
votes on other issues tomorrow or the next day. We are still working 
very actively on the parks legislation. Perhaps there could be a vote 
on that on Tuesday or Wednesday.
  Other than that, we don't anticipate any other votes. We need to make 
sure the Members are aware that there is that one possibility, at 
least.
  At this point, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we will look forward to further debate on 
this measure on tomorrow and Wednesday, prior to a vote on Thursday. 
But I just want to reiterate for the record what I stated and what I 
think represents the feeling of all those that are opposed to this 
special provision in the legislation.
  We were quite prepared to move toward an amendment on the continuing 
resolution, to offer the FAA bill without this amendment and go into a 
10-minute time limitation. I am convinced it would have passed. So I 
hope we are not going to hear a lot of statements on the floor that 
those that now are opposed to this particular proposal are not in favor 
of the FAA conference report. We very clearly were. We have indicated--
those of us on our side--to our minority leader that we were prepared 
to offer an amendment and to move that amendment on the shortest 
possible time. And we would have concluded both the continuing 
resolution and this measure here and, hopefully, might have even 
finished up the parks legislation, so the Senate would have been out 
tonight.
  The burden for the delay is not on those of us who have spotted this 
special interest legislation. It is on those who want to continue it in 
the legislation. That is why there is going to be continued debate on 
Wednesday and Thursday on the substance of that particular legislation. 
I look forward to that matter. I think it is extremely important that 
we understand the record completely, since we were not given an 
opportunity earlier in the evening during the various parliamentary 
situations, to understand that all of us who are opposed to this 
special interest legislation are committed toward the FAA conference 
report and were prepared to take action for that during the course of 
the afternoon, or even tomorrow or the next day, if it goes on through 
without that special provision.
  The burden lies on those who want to retain that measure. I am going 
to reject, and I do reject the suggestion that somehow those that want 
to continue that special provision in here are more concerned about 
safety in the airports than those of us who are not. That legislation 
could pass tonight if they want to strike that provision. We could move 
toward an implementation on it.
  So I hope we will have an opportunity to debate the real merits of 
the legislation. I look forward to that. During the measure, we will 
point out what happened on the 1995 conference between the House and 
the Senate, when the Senate report now reveals that it was the Senate 
conferees that advanced the position to eliminate this language. We 
heard a great deal earlier in the day about where did this idea come 
from. Well, we find out, in reading the report now, that it was 
advanced by our Senate conferees, and the final report was signed by 
the Senate conferees for the elimination of

[[Page S11941]]

that proposal. That is where it originated. But we will have more of an 
opportunity to go through what we are really talking about.
  What we are talking about are workers and workers' rights. We are 
talking about those workers who were effective in terms of winning 
local elections by more than 60 percent of the vote in 1991 and the 
continued effort to frustrate workers who have played by the rules, 
followed the law, and now are having a legislative end-run over their 
legitimate interests and being added in the last hour.

  So, Mr. President, this issue is not going to go away. We will have a 
chance to call the roll on Thursday. But before that, we will be able 
to make the case in terms of workers' rights and what is happening to 
those families, by this action, and circumventing litigation which is 
now currently pending, where those of us who have followed that believe 
that those workers' rights will be sustained. Nonetheless, we are faced 
with circumventing their very, very legitimate rights and issues, and I 
just feel that we will have a good opportunity to get through that on 
tomorrow and the next day.
  So I look forward to that debate. I thank the leadership for working 
out at least this process, which will give some opportunity to focus on 
the substance of this particular measure and won't get lost or be 
buried under parliamentary maneuvers, which effectively have, today at 
least, eliminated the chance to have a full expression and discussion 
and debate on this measure.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would like to thank both leaders--both 
the Democratic leader as well as Senator Lott--for working out this 
arrangement with the assistance of many, including the Senator from 
Kentucky, Senator Ford, as well as others who have made this agreement 
possible.
  I must say we have come a very long way in the last few hours when we 
were faced with what is clearly a filibuster. There is no doubt about 
it. We were not allowed to enter into time agreements. We were not 
allowed to move forward. There were quorum calls entered into. The 
Record is clear as to what was transpiring here.
  The fact is that people all over America who are concerned about 
airline safety, who are concerned about projects that are under way 
that need additional funding, new projects needing funding, nearly 9 
billion dollars' worth--said enough, enough, enough. Move forward with 
this. We have enough problems with airline safety. We need the 
provisions that are in this bill to make the airlines safer and the 
people who use the airlines safe.
  It is clear what was going on before. The Senator from Massachusetts 
clearly wanted to block this conference report from being enacted by 
the U.S. Senate unless that provision that he found objectionable be 
removed, even though safety would have been clearly in some jeopardy as 
well as further funding.
  I do not mean to take on the Senator from Massachusetts on this 
issue. But I do think it is important to clarify the record. It is also 
important, Mr. President, to clarify the record as to what happened in 
conference. It was an open conference. It was not a closed conference. 
The conferees from both sides were there--both Republican and Democrat. 
There were open and honest exchanges that were held. The amendment that 
the Senator from Massachusetts finds so onerous, Mr. President, was 
proposed by one of the Democrat conferees from his side of the aisle--
not from this side of the aisle. It was voted in favor of by both of 
the Democrat Senators from that side of the aisle who supported it.
  So it was unanimous in the Senate. No objection was raised by any 
conferee.
  I understand that the Senator from Massachusetts is a strong advocate 
of labor, and he has clearly his mission and his philosophy. I respect 
that even though I may not agree with him. But to portray this as some 
sort of behind-the-scenes, backdoor attempt by those on this side of 
the aisle to do something in the way of subterfuge simply flies in the 
face of what actually happened.
  I want to repeat, the amendment was proposed by a conferee from that 
side of the aisle--not this side. It was voted on unanimously by all 
Senate conferees. Because, Mr. President, it is clear--was clear to the 
conferees and is clear now--that this was a mistake in legislation that 
needed to be repaired. That was the view of all of the conferees and 
all of us who have been involved in this issue for a very, very long 
period of time.
  Mr. President, I am not going to go through--we will have time 
tomorrow and the next day; the hour is late--all of the vitally needed 
security measures that are part of this bill. I mean, they are vital. 
We adopted many of those that were recommended by the Vice President's 
commission because we felt we couldn't wait until next year. Some of 
these things have to be enacted as soon as possible. We are talking 
about a grave threat to the very lives of men and women who fly on 
airlines.
  If we had done what was taking place in a parliamentary fashion as 
short a time ago as a few minutes ago while the bill was demanded to be 
read, then clearly we wouldn't have been able to move forward.
  I am not going to go through the nearly $9 billion worth of projects 
that are vitally needed. I will not talk about all of those in the 
State of Massachusetts, or, frankly, those in the State of Iowa.
  When I asked that further reading of the bill be suspended, the 
Senator from Iowa on three different occasions objected--objected. He 
must have objected to the $1.8 million that is going to be made 
available for Des Moines International, and the $1.4 million for Cedar 
Rapids Municipal for the sake of a cause that has to do with organized 
labor--organized labor, which is in an unprecedented fashion pouring 
money in to defeat Republicans in the upcoming election. I understand 
why the Senator from Iowa would do that. I understand why the Senator 
from Massachusetts would do it.
  But I beg the Senator from Massachusetts, please, please don't 
portray what has just transpired as anything but what it was--an 
attempt to block passage of the conference on the part of the Senator 
from Massachusetts and the declared, avowed intention of the majority 
leader to finish this bill for the good of the United States of America 
and get a final vote on the conference report.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for 
a question.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield so we can call up a clean bill 
that is at the desk right now and pass it tonight without that 
provision so that we can attend to all of those provisions that the 
Senator from Arizona mentions? We can call that right up tonight and 
pass it. Why don't we go ahead and do that? Or is the Senator from 
Arizona so strongly committed to this antiworker provision that he 
would deny those safety provisions from being adopted in the Senate and 
from being adopted tonight?
  Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator finished?
  Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. In response, I say to the Senator from Massachusetts--I 
am sure he was here on the floor when we entered into a unanimous-
consent agreement, the unanimous-consent agreement which could have 
been objected to in just the last few minutes by the Senator from 
Massachusetts if he had chosen to, if he had wanted to get a clean 
bill. I suggest that he could have objected, and then said, let us have 
a clean bill. Instead, the Senator from Massachusetts sat silent while 
the unanimous-consent agreement was propounded. While the Senator from 
Iowa was--and who probably wants to ask another question about how he 
is beholding to organized labor, as well as the Senator from 
Massachusetts is, to the point where they would block passage of a 
conference bill that has to do with airline safety and the funding of 
nearly $9 billion worth of projects for the American people.
  I would be glad to respond to any question the Senator from Iowa has.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator for yielding. I just ask the 
question. Will the Senator then sit silent while I propound a 
unanimous-consent request to bring up the bill?
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to. My colleagues may object, however, 
because they know we just entered into a

[[Page S11942]]

unanimous consent agreement which, if the Senator from Iowa or the 
Senator from Massachusetts wanted differently, they could have objected 
to.

  Mr. HARKIN. The point is we did bring up a clean bill, and, 
obviously, there is an objection on that side.
  Mr. COATS. Would the Senator from Arizona yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes, for a question.
  Mr. COATS. I say to the Senator from Arizona, we have just been put 
through about 5 hours worth of procedural gimmickry by the Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from Iowa when the House has already 
adjourned, when the Nation's business in this Congress has been 
finished. Because the Senator from Massachusetts, as some, apparently, 
gift to organized labor, is not happy with one of the small provisions 
in a bill that provides airport safety and critical airport funding 
says, ``I don't care what the rest of the Senate thinks, I do not care 
what the House of Representatives thinks,'' 435 people have finished 
their business in the House of Representatives and gone back home to 
their districts, and 100 Senators would like to complete their 
business--we thought we had at 6 o'clock, when a motion to table was 
overwhelmingly supported against the provision offered by the Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  Do you remember what that vote was? That is my question. What was the 
vote on the motion to table?
  Mr. McCAIN. Ninety-seven to two, I believe.
  Mr. COATS. Ninety-seven to two. So clearly both Republicans and 
Democrats, with the exception of the two Senators --maybe there were 
three; I guess the Senator from Wisconsin was involved in this also--
said, ``No; we are going to hold onto the last procedural gimmick that 
we can possibly hold onto,'' and make the entire U.S. Senate not only 
stay in business until 11 o'clock this evening but come back tomorrow 
to debate only this issue, come back Wednesday to debate only this 
issue, come back Thursday so that we can have a procedural vote finally 
to force the Senator from Massachusetts, the Senator from Iowa and the 
Senator from Wisconsin to give up and yield to the overwhelming will of 
the U.S. Senate.
  Is that the understanding of the Senator from Arizona of what is 
going on here?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is my understanding.
  Also, as you know, the House did vote on this very issue. There was a 
majority vote in the other body that approved of this legislation with 
the provision that the Senator from Massachusetts found objectionable.
  I am sorry the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator from Iowa 
have left the floor. So I will refrain from belaboring them further 
because I think it would be unfair to do so.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield to the Senator from Texas as for a question.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to ask the Senator from Arizona, besides 
the fact that we are going to have to come back and debate this for 2 
more days, if there isn't another point; that is, what happens 
tomorrow? Tomorrow is October 1.
  I wonder how many States have airports with runways being built that 
might have to stop that construction. I wonder if there are air traffic 
control systems that are being improved that will not have the money 
tomorrow because we did not vote on this bill. I wonder if the Senator 
from Arizona knows there are some real issues that are going to be 
determined because there is not funding tomorrow for airport safety and 
terrorism and other very important airport issues that we have been 
talking about, as the Senator from Arizona knows, for months and months 
and months here trying to make sure that we fight terrorism, that we 
allow Americans to fly in safety and tomorrow, October 1, is the first 
day of the fiscal year.
  I just wondered if the Senator from Arizona would like to discuss 
what we are going to miss tomorrow and the next day while we play games 
on the Senate floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Texas for raising that question 
because I think it is a very good one. We are talking about Tuesday, 
Wednesday, and a final vote on Thursday. We are talking about 3 days 
here. I intend to find out, between now and when we commence debate 
again tomorrow, how many projects, indeed, will have to be terminated 
for 3 days, how many projects will not be able to be started because 
for some reason we are dragging out the inevitable.
  We all know there will be an overwhelming vote, probably end up with 
a voice vote once we vote cloture, I would imagine. And also as 
important is that we need to move forward as quickly as possible on 
these antiterrorism measures. In all due respect, I remember being 
belabored and beaten up because I did not support an increase in the 
minimum wage, that somehow I was cruel and inhumane to working men and 
women in America.
  That is an allegation that may be true or not, depending on your 
philosophy, but I do not see how you can be concerned about the safety 
of people who are flying in the airlines if you are going to delay for 
no good reason the antiterrorism measures that we need to get to work 
on immediately. I fear and so do other people--certainly the Vice 
President's commission, certainly the task force that the Senator from 
Texas was a key and important member of in recommending the 
antiterrorism measures which are included in this bill--that there 
should be delay in moving forward with them as quickly as possible.
  Look, again, I feel rather badly because the Senator from 
Massachusetts is not in the Chamber, nor is the Senator from Iowa, to 
respond. So I want to be very careful, and perhaps we will be able to 
reinitiate this debate and discussion tomorrow or the next day or the 
next day. But there was some very harsh rhetoric used about this side 
of the aisle when we were debating the minimum wage bill about 
insensitive, uncaring, and those kinds of things. Some of it I really 
regretted hearing and I thought it lowered the level of the debate and 
discourse in the Senate.
  I have to say I cannot think of any good reason why we should not 
vote tomorrow, vote cloture on this bill tomorrow and move forward, why 
we should drag it out for 3 days and not have these projects, many of 
which the Senator from Texas referred to and which, by the way, I will 
get a list of and have read and included in the Record tomorrow. Why we 
do not move forward with those escapes me.
  I want to point out one thing again for the Record. The Senator from 
Texas was involved in a task force convened immediately after the TWA 
tragedy and made some very in-depth studies and came up with some 
recommendations, which, by the way, I am very happy to say, the Vice 
President's task force came up with almost identically. I am very 
grateful for her efforts because if it had not been for that, some of 
these provisions would not be in this legislation which is so 
important. So we owe a great debt to the Senator from Texas.

  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise not to prolong our proceedings; they 
have gone on far too long, but I wanted to express my thanks to the 
Senator from Arizona for his willingness to consider the problems with 
Denver's sixth runway. Denver is not only the newest major airport in 
the Nation but the biggest and perhaps one of the biggest in the world. 
It does need a sixth runway. I support the sixth runway. It is 
integral, I think, not only for operations in severe weather but 
integral for international flights out of the airport.
  Mr. President, I have had a concern as the sixth runway has gone 
forward, and that is the record of Denver of not accepting the lowest 
bid when they contract out for projects. It strikes me we all have a 
responsibility, including within our States and districts, to make sure 
the public money is not wasted.
  In requesting the GAO audit of the practices that led to the huge 
cost overruns at the Denver airport, we discovered, as reported by the 
GAO, that there were a significant number of contracts which were let 
for construction at the airport that were not given to the lowest 
qualified bidder.
  Here, Mr. President, let me emphasize these are screened and deemed 
qualified, and there were a large number, significant number of 
contracts, I

[[Page S11943]]

should say, that were not given to the lowest bidder who was qualified.
  I had asked the GAO to determine how much money that cost the 
taxpayers, how much difference there was between the lowest bid and the 
higher bid that the airport in Denver accepted, and they were unable to 
come up with that. The information was simply not available as to how 
much money the taxpayers had lost because they had not taken the lowest 
qualified bid.
  I give that background because my concern about the sixth runway is 
that that practice may be repeated on the sixth runway construction 
grants, and I think we would be remiss if we gave money for 
construction to that project which did not insist on either the lowest 
bid or, if they choose not to take the lowest bid--and there may be 
circumstances that justify that--at least they would disclose the 
amount of money that the bid they accepted exceeded the lowest bid.
  Frankly, I believe disclosing that would be a strong incentive for 
officials who get Federal money to look for the best bargain for the 
taxpayer.
  Here is what has happened. The amendment I offered--it was adopted on 
this floor--that required disclosure when you do not take the lowest 
bid of the major contracts was lost in conference. The House would not 
go along with it. I asked the City of Denver to give me a letter 
committing to disclose the amount of money of the bid that they 
accepted for the sixth runway exceeds the lowest bid, and they have 
declined to do so.
  Mr. President, I cannot in good conscience ask this Congress to send 
money for the sixth runway in Denver without at least a disclosure by 
the city of how much money they leave on the table or how much money it 
cost the taxpayers.
  So I am sad tonight. The Senator from Arizona listened to our 
concern. He was willing to help out Denver to try to work with us. He 
bent over backwards to try to be helpful, to look for avenues where 
this could be corrected and the sixth runway could go ahead, but I was 
not able to bring to the Senator from Arizona or this body a commitment 
from Denver that said they will disclose the facts when they get the 
lowest bid.
  Mr. President, in light of that, unfortunately, the sixth runway is 
lost for this year. As I leave this body, I know it will be considered 
again next year. But, Mr. President, I hope future Congresses do not 
hand out money for someone who is not going to take the lowest bid, or 
at least disclose how much over that lowest bid they took.
  Mr. President, I might point out that what happens in some of these 
cases is that the contractor who gets the bid, when he has not been the 
lowest bidder, then gets hit up for paying contributions from the 
politicians who ran for office who were involved in letting the bids. I 
think it is crystal clear to everyone what is involved here. You turn 
down the lowest bidder, you give the contract to someone who did not 
deserve it, at least in terms of the bidding process, and then you go 
and ask that contractor for money. I think there is not any doubt in 
anybody's mind who understands this situation what is going on there.
  I do not think we ought to let it happen. I do not think we ought to 
hand out money without at least insisting that it be disclosed. I 
appreciate the efforts of the Senator from Arizona. I appreciate the 
efforts of the Senator from South Dakota, to work on this.
  I am sad that we have not been able to go ahead with the sixth 
runway. But, Mr. President, this is an issue we should not ignore.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado. I want 
to tell him that I had no idea that it was not a matter of public 
record when taxpayers' dollars are being used, as to what the bids were 
and who made the low bid and who made the high bid and what, in fact, 
was the entire process of ascertaining and awarding these bids. They 
should be open to public scrutiny. For the life of me, I cannot 
understand any rationale, when it is taxpayers' dollars being used, why 
this procedure and process should be hidden from public view.
  I want to assure the Senator from Colorado that I view it, not only 
as something that I would want to do, it is something that I feel 
obligated to do, and that is to follow up on this issue next year. I do 
not know all the details of this matter in regards to Denver 
International Airport but let me tell the Senator from Colorado, as he 
knows as well as I do, when processes like this are kept from public 
view, it lends itself to procedures and results which are not always in 
the public's interest. That is why we demand open disclosure of bidding 
in the Federal process. Frankly, it should not happen anywhere without 
an open and complete accounting to the taxpayers for the taxpayers' 
dollars uses.
  If they are using private money, if someone donates the money to the 
airport and says use this however you want to--fine. If they do not 
want to describe how it is being used or who gets the bid, that is fine 
also.
  But, as long as it is taxpayers dollars--and correct me if I am 
wrong, some $4 billion has gone into the construction of Denver 
International Airport, I would ask the Senator from Colorado? Then I 
think, obviously, the best value for the dollar should be gained, not 
only for the people of Colorado, but for taxpayers all over America.
  So, I again thank my dear, dear friend from Colorado. Frankly, I view 
him as our conscience. I am not sure what we are going to do without 
him. Everyone is replaceable around here, but he is one that I think is 
far harder to replace than most. I appreciate, again, his commitment on 
this effort.
  Mr. President, before going through closing down the Senate, I want 
to again thank my friend from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, the 
chairman of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which 
I will do again at the end of this process on Thursday. And I hope it 
is earlier.
  Senator Pressler has been committed to this process. He has been 
actively involved. His leadership in the conference, his leadership as 
we went through this two year-long process, was absolutely critical and 
vital. I am grateful for his leadership and his example of 
conscientiousness, that he sets for all of us.

                          ____________________