[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 141 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12225-S12228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CLOTURE VOTE ON FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION REAUTHORIZATION

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, on the cloture vote, which was one of the 
last votes--if not the last--I cast in this body, I departed from my 
customary practice of supporting cloture. I have cast some 350 votes 
for cloture during my 36 years in the Senate, often at variance with my 
own party and usually irrespective of the issues, except in 
extraordinary circumstances.
  The vote today was one of those extraordinary cases. At issue was a 
provision that would grant an exclusive benefit to the management of 
one corporate entity, at the expense of long established principles of 
fair labor relations. Moreover, the provision was added in 
circumstances that were at variance with customary legislative practice 
and rules. So, in my view, the only proper course was to oppose the 
cloture motion in order to allow for consideration of alternative 
action.
  As I leave the Senate, I continue to believe that cloture is a 
valuable tool to prevent legislative deadlock. I recognize that in its 
more recent usage, it has become simply a test of supermajority 
strength on the one hand, and on the other, a defensive weapon for a 
minority. But in overall terms, the Senate does need a mechanism that 
will assure reasonable continuity of action and I am proud of my record 
of cloture votes in that regard.
  Mr. KENNEDY. How much time remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the side of the Senator from Massachusetts, 
there is 7 minutes, and 8 minutes on the opposing side.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. President, we all know what is going on here. Make no mistake 
about it. We all know what is going on here. This provision that is 
being put in is not a technical amendment, meant to correct an 
inadvertent drafting change. The Congressional Research Service, the 
President, and the House Members who spoke on the floor explained that 
this is not a technical correction. Any fair evaluation of history 
would demonstrate that.
  This rider is being added to the FAA bill for Federal Express, now 
and for the future. Federal Express is expanding its trucking 
operations. Where UPS is concerned, the air carriers are under the 
Railway Act and the truck drivers are under the National Labor 
Relations Act. Initially, all of UPS was under the National Labor 
Relations Act because they used only trucks. When they added aircraft, 
the decision was made that UPS air carriers would be considered under 
the Railway Labor Act.
  That is the same situation we have here. Federal Express started out 
just as an air carrier and now it wants to go into trucks. This is a 
preemptive strike to make sure that workers at the local level will not 
be able to have the same kind of justification for National Labor 
Relations Act coverage as they have at UPS or other companies. They are 
trying to manipulate the whole process and fix the game.
  The fact is, Mr. President, they are moving now, as their principal 
officers point out, they are now expanding. In the future, according to 
Federal Express, only overnight packages traveling more than 400 miles 
will be flown; all others will travel on the road. The question is, are 
all of these trucks on the road going to be considered air carriers? 
That is the logic. That is the logic that is being presented here.
  All we are trying to say is, let the National Labor Relations Board 
decide whether Federal Express's truck drivers should be under the 
National Labor Relations Act. If the workers can convince other workers 
to form a union, let them vote for a union. If they cannot, then they 
will vote against a union. But why have a legislative interruption that 
strips them of their right to vote?
  I come back to the fact, Mr. President, with all respect to my 
colleague

[[Page S12226]]

and friend from South Carolina, this was attempted five times by the 
Republican leadership over in the House of Representatives. I do not 
question that there will be some Democrats here who will support it. 
But there was virtually unanimous rejection by Democrats in the House 
of Representatives of this rider because it is special-interest 
legislation to undermine the rights of working families, and a majority 
of Democrats in the Senate this morning will vote likewise.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, once again my distinguished friend from 
Massachusetts has misquoted the matter of truck drivers' rights. We 
have been saying this for 3 days. They say a man convinced against his 
will is of the same opinion still, but all I can do is put in the 
entire decision. It is that all of the truck drivers--and they are not 
under the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Act. They are under the 
Railway Labor Act and have been, and decision after decision after 
decision we put in, all the decisions found them under the Labor 
Railway Act; none of the decisions have found them under the NLRA.
  That is how they organized. Mr. President, 90 percent of their 
carrier is by air; 90 percent of UPS is on the surface, on the ground. 
That is the difference. We even had the lawyer of the Teamsters Union 
in a hearing here earlier this year use the expression, the difference 
between these companies is night and day, but here you get a political 
jambalaya to fit into this silly filibuster.
  How can you get the truth out of everybody? Isn't their any pride and 
conscience in this body? A mistake was made. Everybody knows it was a 
mistake. We are trying to correct the mistake. We are not changing the 
rights of any parties whatever. But they are trying to make a Federal 
case out of workers' rights, slashing opportunities, and everything 
else that they have put on the billboards. I would be ashamed to put 
that thing up behind me.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield one minute to the Senator from 
Arkansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I am not going to discuss whether there was 
a mistake or not. I think that has been bandied around quite a bit. I 
would like to discuss the company itself.
  I have heard many of our colleagues, or heard about many of my 
colleagues, talking about this being an antiworker company, or this 
being an antiworker cause that we are debating on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. Mr. President, I would challenge any colleague of ours in the 
U.S. Senate to go out around this town, or around this country, and 
when they see a Federal Express worker I would challenge my colleagues 
to ask that person, that employee of Federal Express, what they think 
of that company. I say that because it is not only one of the hundred 
best companies in our country, but they have a scholarship program, and 
they are going to say this works wonderfully for our families. They 
have a reimbursement program for tuition. They have extended health 
care. And they have many other programs that makes the morale of this 
company I think second to none.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hope that the Senator from Massachusetts 
would extend the courtesy to me as sponsor of the bill to make a final 
statement.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I would be glad to. I had Senator Murray who is coming 
to the floor. I was trying to permit her 3 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to note, if I could, that I intend to 
use leader time after all of the statements have been completed at 
approximately 10 o'clock.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 4 minutes, 
and the Senator from Arizona has 4 minutes and 49 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. President, I would just say really in conclusion to my friend 
from Arkansas and others that we had a series of workers that came 
yesterday and commented. They have worked for Federal Express over a 
long period of time. Every one of those workers has a deep sense of 
pride in their company. But every one of them wonders why we are 
changing the rules of the game because they believe that they ought to 
be able to have a vote on whether they should be able to organize or 
not organize.
  The fact remains that, if the situation is as described by the 
Senator from South Carolina, these truck drivers are all working under 
the Railway Act, and there really is no necessity. If this decision has 
already been made, there is no necessity to pursue this particular 
legislation. But the facts belie that, and the facts belie it 
independent of the Senator from Massachusetts and the Congressional 
Research Service; independent of the Senator from South Carolina or 
myself; and, Mr. President, the administration has made that same 
finding independent of the Senator from South Carolina or myself.
  This is more than a technical change. He can say it and repeat it. I 
can say it and say that it isn't. But let us take the independent 
evaluation.
  Mr. President, this special interest provision is going to be of 
enormous value and gain to one company--Federal Express--and to the 
disadvantage of working families.
  The point that I am making and have repeated is that attitude with 
regard to working families has been exemplified here on the floor of 
the U.S. Senate by Republican leadership, the same Republican 
leadership that advanced this in the House of Representatives. Five 
different times that were rejected. That is the same leadership that 
fought the minimum wage and fought working people on the earned income 
tax credit; who fought working families with regard to the Davis-Bacon; 
have fought working families' interests with regard to education, and 
Mr. President, pension reform. Those interests have cut back on the 
life blood of working families in order to have tax breaks for the 
wealthiest individuals and corporations.

  That is the record of this attempt by the Republican leadership in 
the House and the Senate. It is a similar kind of attitude that we are 
seeing now reflected toward those workers who have legitimate 
grievances and are entitled to have that worked out by the National 
Labor Relations Board.
  Mr. President, I withhold the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 1 minute 
and 30 seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I withhold that.
  Mr. McCAIN. I take it then the Senator from Massachusetts does not 
intend to allow me to make a final statement.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I see my colleague and friend, as I indicated before, 
the Senator from Washington, and I would like to be able to yield to 
her for a minute and a half. I will do that at this time, if the 
Senator would indulge. I always intended to let the Senator make it. I 
wanted to also extend the courtesy to my colleague from Washington.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator from Washington has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. President, I rise today to support the efforts by the Senator 
from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, and others, in telling us to slow 
down and take a look at what we are doing in our rush to get out of 
town.
  To me this is an issue of fairness. I have listened carefully to the 
debate over the last 4 days. It is an issue of fairness for thousands 
of working families across this country, whether or not they will have 
the right to make sure that they can pay for their families' food on 
the table, send their children to college, to have working conditions 
that are fair and reached in fair agreement.
  I know we all want to leave town. We want to leave quickly. Everyone 
wants to get home. But let us not leave a legacy of giving special 
treatment to one company and leaving thousands of workers for many 
years to come without fair treatment in their employment.

[[Page S12227]]

  I thank the President.
  I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding the time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will use my remaining time.
  Mr. President, I hope we will invoke cloture and pass this important 
legislation.
  This conference report is the product of 2 long years of hard work 
and negotiations. All was done in the open. And over that period, 
Chairman Pressler, ranking member Hollings, Senator Ford, Senator 
Stevens, and I have heard from countless interests. We all worked hard 
to balance the competing views. I believe this bill represents a 
thoughtful, balanced approach to this subject.
  I will not repeat all that this bill would do. The conference report 
was not only read. But we have now debated it for over 3 days.
  Mr. President, soon the Senate will vote on whether or not to invoke 
cloture on the FAA Reauthorization Act. I want to emphasize the 
importance of this vote.
  A vote for cloture is a vote for airport and airline safety, for 
airport security, for airport construction, and for jobs. Make no 
mistake. This is much, much more than a vote about one provision in the 
bill. We must invoke cloture on this bill. It must be passed.

  Mr. President, I know that some of my colleagues, especially those on 
the other side of the aisle, have already left town and don't want to 
return. While I sympathize with their plight, I want the Record to note 
that not voting on this very important legislation because of vacation 
plans, or campaign activities, is not a valid excuse. Vacations and 
campaigns can wait. They cannot and should not take precedence over the 
safety of the flying public.
  We have all missed votes. But this is not just any vote. This is the 
last issue this Congress will deal with. This is an issue involving the 
safety of air travel in this country. This is an issue of job creation. 
This is an issue of helping the families who have lost loved ones in 
air disasters. This is an issue of improving our airports.
  Simply, this is an issue that cannot be delayed until next year.
  Mr. President, according to experts at the Finance Committee, the 
Joint Committee on Taxation, and the Congressional Budget Office, money 
cannot be spent on these needs unless this bill is enacted into law. We 
cannot wait until next year. Such a wait may result in months upon 
months of delay.
  For the safety of the flying public, I appeal to my colleagues to 
support cloture and to support this bill.
  I want to note that this debate should be a debate about aviation 
issues. It is not a partisan debate. It is certainly not a debate about 
one company. Those charges that this bill contains a special interest 
provision is simply spurious.
  Yesterday, and today, the senior Senator from Massachusetts displayed 
a poster on the floor of this Senate entitled ``Republican Attacks on 
the Middle Class.'' Mr. President, this is not a partisan debate. 
Democrats and Republicans are all equally responsible for this bill.
  Mr. President, the Senate will soon vote on whether or not to invoke 
cloture on the FAA reauthorization bill. I want to emphasize to my 
colleagues the importance of this vote. A vote for cloture is not, as 
the Senator from Massachusetts would have you believe, a vote against 
labor. A vote for cloture on this bill is an affirmative vote. It is a 
vote for airplane safety, for airport security, and for much-needed 
airport construction. It is a vote for jobs--many thousands of jobs.
  The Senator from Massachusetts would like to use this bill in yet 
another attempt to turn the upcoming election into class warfare--using 
one small provision in this bill to accuse Republicans who support this 
critically important legislation of abandoning working men and women. 
Yet, as we all know, the provision which the Senator finds so 
objectionable was sponsored by a Democrat Member of the Senate, and 
enjoys the support of a number of other Senators from the other side of 
the aisle.
  Mr. President, the election will be here soon enough.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes of leader time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the election will be here soon enough. I 
think the American people have heard all of our political arguments 
already. Little is to be gained by using the last piece of legislation 
in the 104th Congress to underscore campaign slogans one more time at 
the cost of the security of the American people; at the cost, Mr. 
President, of the safety of the air travel in the United States; at the 
cost, Mr. President, of thousands and thousands of jobs. Is this really 
necessary so the Senator from Massachusetts can make one last attack on 
Republicans before we adjourn?
  Is one last bit of disingenuous, transparent politicking really worth 
risking public safety? Is it really worth the cost of jobs and costs to 
our communities?
  Mr. President, the FAA Reauthorization Act had, up until the last few 
days, represented what works in Washington. It is a completely 
bipartisan bill drafted with the close cooperation of the 
administration. Republicans and Democrats worked constructively in both 
Houses of Congress without any partisan rancor or gamesmanship to do 
what is in the best interests of public safety and to do what is in the 
best interests of our communities. We have done what the American 
people so obviously want us to do and what they believe we too seldom 
do--put their interests before our own.
  Why must we now, at this late date, turn this sound, bipartisan, 
necessary, urgent and well-intended legislation into one last occasion 
to score points off each other? The people are profoundly disappointed, 
if not surprised, that we have done so.
  The time has come, now that we have all had our fun, to interrupt our 
political posturing for just a moment and free the FAA bill from the 
1996 election campaign. Let us at last do what the people expected us 
to do when they sent us to Washington--to take care of their welfare, 
look after their interests, protect them when they travel, and help 
provide their communities with the infrastructure necessary for their 
communities to grow.
  This should not be a hard vote for any Member of the Senate. A vote 
for cloture should be an easy vote for us all. It is an easy vote 
because it is the right vote even if we must relinquish some small 
political advantage that might be gained in casting the wrong vote. 
Whatever that advantage be, its value cannot compare to the value this 
bill holds for all our States and for all our constituents. Let us act 
in the best interests of all Americans, for that is in our own best 
interests as well.
  I urge my colleagues, all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
to join with Senator Ford and I, with Senator Hollings and Senator 
Pressler, with all the Democrats and Republicans in both Houses of 
Congress, with administration officials and the leadership of Congress, 
with all of us who abandoned partisanship for the sake of the public 
and vote for cloture. Let us finish the work of the 104th Congress and 
go home with pride, Republican and Democrat alike, in working together 
to improve our country in that we have made Washington work for the 
people.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield myself as much leader time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized under leader 
time.
  Mr. LOTT. First I want to emphasize, Mr. President, this has been a 
bipartisan effort. I did not know the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina was in the Republican leadership yet, but he has been accused 
of that, I guess, this morning because, in fact, it was his amendment 
that included this provision in the bill, and Senator Pryor from 
Arkansas is supportive of this legislation and Senator Moynihan, 
Senators McCain and Stevens. It has truly been bipartisan. There is no 
question about that. I think we should proceed from that standpoint.
  This morning, I am thinking about the families of victims of airline 
incidents and accidents that have to be still horrified at what they 
have been through and horrified at what we have been doing for the last 
3 days. We have been delaying this very important FAA

[[Page S12228]]

reauthorization conference report, and as a result of that delay we 
have threats to radar, air traffic control equipment, navigation 
equipment, landing systems equipment that remedies air traffic control 
outages, Doppler radar for wind shear, research and development, 
advancement of explosive detection systems, human factor research, 
aging aircraft.
  This is big. This is important legislation, and it is, over 2 years, 
$19 billion for infrastructure security and safety.

  This would be a senseless roll of the dice, if we did not invoke 
cloture this morning, bring this filibuster to a conclusion and move 
this legislation on through.
  I remind my colleagues the House has already acted responsibly, 
overwhelmingly moved this legislation, and they are gone. What would be 
the situation if we did not bring this filibuster to a conclusion this 
morning? We would not have any legislation, or if we had legislation 
that made changes it would go back to the House and there is great 
concern about when or if they would be able to get action on this 
legislation. We should act together this morning and end this 
filibuster and pass this legislation.
  Now, one other point. I do not understand the attacks on Federal 
Express. This is an outstanding company headed by an outstanding 
individual. They are providing services that 30 years ago we could not 
even comprehend. They are doing a great job, and yet they are being 
attacked as if they are some sort of villain. It is absolutely wrong, 
the rhetoric we have had to listen to over the past 3 days on a 
technical point.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of what is 
involved in this legislation be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

    Highlights of FAA Reauthorization Conference Report (H.R. 3539)

       Reauthorization of FAA--FY 1997, $9.7 billion; FY 1998, 
     $9.9 billion.

                        [In billions of dollars]                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year-- 
                                                       -----------------
                                                          1997     1998 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport grants........................................     $2.3     $2.4
Radar, air traffic control equipment, navigation                        
 equipment, landing systems [ILS] equipment that                        
 remedies air traffic control outages doppler radar                     
 for wind shear.......................................      2.1      2.2
Operations............................................      5.2      5.4
Research and development, advancement of explosive                      
 detection systems, human factor research, aging                        
 aircraft, air traffic control safety issues..........    (\1\)    (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ $20.8 million.                                                      
\2\ No authorization.                                                   
                                                                        
Note: Research and Development levels include an additional $31 million 
  for security programs consistent with the Administration's emergency  
  request for funds.                                                    

                     construction: pro-worker bill

       Kenai Municipal Airport, AK--Alaska Regional Aircraft 
     Firefighting Training Center ($8 million).
       Anchorage Airport, AK--Rehabilitate runway and lighting 
     ($2.1 million).
       Allakaket Airport, AK--Rehabilitate runway and lighting 
     ($5.5 million).
       Deadhorse Airport, AK--Construct aircraft rescue and 
     firefighting building ($3.5 million).
       Yuma Intl. Airport, AZ--Cargo apron expansion, cargo 
     security, new terminal, enhanced security for new terminal.
       Scottsdale Airport, AZ--Aircraft rescue and firefighting 
     vehicle and fire station ($1.2 million).
       Phoenix Sky Harbor Intl. Airport, AZ--Construction of 3rd 
     runway and residential soundproofing.
       San Bernardino County-Chino Airport, CA--New runway 
     construction ($10 million).
       Buchanan Airport, CA--Taxi-ways and aprons near total 
     failure ($5 million).
       Oxnard Airport, CA--Replace aircraft rescue and 
     firefighting vehicles ($247,000).
       Greely-Weld County Airport, CO--Construction of new runway 
     ($32 million).
       Boulder Municipal Airport, CO--Security lighting.
  Mr. LOTT. I also ask unanimous consent that an explanation of the 
fact that this is a technical point be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Fact Sheet--Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3539, the Federal 
                     Aviation Authorization of 1996

       A provision is contained in the Conference Report to 
     accompany H.R. 3539 which makes a technical correction to a 
     drafting error which was contained in the Interstate Commerce 
     Commission Termination Act of 1995.
       The following outlines the problem, the facts and the 
     solution:


                                PROBLEM

       A drafting error in the Interstate Commerce Commission 
     Termination Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-88) created an ambiguity 
     affecting the status of express carriers under the Railway 
     Labor Act.
       One provision (Sec. 10501) states the intent of Congress: 
     ``the enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall 
     neither expand or contract coverage of the employees and 
     employers by the Railway Labor Act. . .''
       However, a second provision drops ``express carriers'' 
     under the Railway Labor Act. This was clearly inadvertent and 
     in contradiction to the stated intent of Congress.


                                 FACTS

       Since the inception of the Railway Labor Act, ``express 
     carriers'' have come under the law's jurisdiction.
       The Railway Labor Act is designed to protect the interests 
     of employees covered by that Act and is not an ``anti-labor'' 
     law.
       For 62 years, employers and employees have been 
     successfully governed by the provisions of the Railway Labor 
     Act.


                                SOLUTION

       A provision in the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 
     3539, the Federal Aviation Authorization Act of 1995, states 
     that if an express company was under the Railway Labor Act 
     prior to the enactment of the ICC Termination Act, then that 
     express company shall remain under the purview of the Railway 
     Labor Act.

  Mr. LOTT. It is a small point. It reaffirms what has been the law for 
62 years. This is not a grab. This is not an effort to stomp somebody. 
This is an effort to be fair, to correct a clear oversight; a mistake 
was made. We are trying to correct that. That is all.
  This is so important. We should this morning act together to stop the 
filibuster, pass this legislation and go home for the sake of the 
American people. I urge my colleagues, let us vote together. Let us 
invoke cloture and pass the legislation in an expeditious manner.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wishes to advise the distinguish 
leader that under rule XXII the yeas and nays are automatic.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________