[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 141 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12230-S12232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             RULE 28 CHALLENGE TO THE FAA CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. PRESSLER. Mr. President, the Senate soon will be voting on the 
motion to overrule the decision of the Chair with respect to the ruling 
that section 1223 of the conference report pending before the Senate 
violates rule 28 of the Senate by exceeding the scope of the authority 
of the conference committee. As chairman not only of the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation which is the committee of 
jurisdiction in the Senate, but also as chairman of the conference 
committee that produced this report, I rise to ask my colleagues to 
overturn the ruling of the Chair in this matter.
  Do I do so because I believe the provision was, in fact, within the 
scope of the conference? No, Mr. President, I admit this section, added 
by an amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina, and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, Senator 
Hollings, was not contained in the legislation as initially passed by 
either the House or the Senate. I am also fully aware that Rule 28.2 of 
the Standing Rules of the Senate clearly states a conference committee 
``shall not insert in their report matter not committed to them by 
either House.''
  However, Mr. President, those on the opposite side of the issue know 
full well that this is done with some frequency when a particular 
situation necessitates such action. Those Members also know that as a 
result, sections in

[[Page S12231]]

many, if not most of the conference reports considered in this body 
would be subject to this same point of order. Do we raise such points 
of order? No, Mr. President, we do not. Why? Because all Members know 
full well that this is how we conduct our business and have done so 
throughout our history.
  Indeed, in this very conference report, if we are to fully and fairly 
adopt the line of reasoning that section 1223 exceeds the scope of the 
conference, we need to look at several other sections of the report 
added by the conference committee I chaired that were in neither the 
House nor Senate passed versions of the underlying legislation. Let me 
give a few examples.
  Section 302 of the conference report directs the Administrator of the 
Federal Aviation Administration to certify companies providing security 
screening and to improve the training and testing of security screeners 
through development of uniform performance standards. Mr. President, 
this provision appears in neither the House nor the Senate bill. It was 
added in conference after it was made as one of the recommendations of 
Vice President Gore's Commission on Aviation Security, of which I am 
proud to be a member. It was included by the conferees because it was 
determined to be important enough for this Nation's airline security 
that Congress should not wait until next year to enact the 
recommendation.
  For similar security reasons, the conference included Section 305(b) 
giving the FAA Administrator authority to deploy Government purchased 
explosive detection devices. Mr. President, I would point out that this 
provision was considered by the conferees at the request of the 
administration. Both the administration and members of the conference 
knew it was an important part of efforts to improve aviation security 
in this country. I have to admit, Mr. President, as such not much 
thought was given to whether it was technically within the authority of 
the conference committee to act.

  As final examples I would cite section 503 concerning studies of 
minimum standards for pilot qualifications and of pay for training and 
section 1220 concerning structures interfering with air commerce. 
Again, neither was in the House or Senate bills. Again, the conference 
acted because it was important that Congress deal with the matters.
  Mr. President, no Member has risen to raise a rule 28 point of order 
against these provisions. Why? Because none has become so unfairly 
politicized as section 1223. Indeed, the fact that the Senator from 
Massachusetts has raised the scope issue only against this one section 
of the report seems to indicate he may be less interested in the 
sanctity of the Senate rules than he is in making a political 
statement. I certainly will not waste the Senate's time by rehashing 
the arguments made over the last 3 days. Lord knows we have wasted far 
too much time already on this point.
  I will simply summarize what I have already said. This is not about 
unfairly granting a special interest provision to a single large 
corporation. Interestingly, none of the Members that have raised that 
point on the floor of the Senate over the last 3 days served on the ICC 
conference last December that started all this. Thus, they simply are 
not in a position to know the facts.
  Who does know the facts, Mr. President? Those of us who actually 
served on the ICC conference. Those of us who were actually in the 
room. Those of us who actually wrote the conference agreement. I was 
there, Mr. President. I know what did and did not happen and what was 
and was not agreed to. The Senator from South Carolina was there, Mr. 
President. He too, knows what we were about. We made a mistake. We 
inadvertently changed a section of Federal law we never voted to 
change. That is why Senator Hollings offered this amendment in 
conference and why we included section 1223 in the conference report. 
We needed to correct our mistake. It starts there and it ends there Mr. 
President. We were doing nothing more or less than fixing an unfair 
situation we created in another bill.
  Finally, Mr. President, those supporting the ruling of the Chair warn 
us that we are setting a very dangerous precedent if we overrule the 
Chair on this point of order. We are warned this will only be the 
beginning. That soon we will be faced with conference reports changing 
civil rights laws and making major revisions to health care. Mr. 
President, I prefer to give my colleagues more credit than that. 
Obviously, if, for example, a conference committee on a Commerce 
Committee bill like this one produces a report that rewrites our civil 
rights laws a point of order surely will be raised. Just as obviously, 
such a point of order would likely be sustained by a huge majority of 
the Members of this body. But that is not what we are talking about. 
What we are voting on today is whether to allow this Conference 
Committee to fix an honest mistake. It is that simple. I urge my 
colleagues to vote to overturn the ruling of the Chair.

  Mr. President, let me also take just a moment to thank those 
individuals who have been so instrumental to the passage of this 
critical legislation. As has already been said, this process has taken 
the better part of the last 2 years. It would not have been possible 
without a great deal of dedication and hard work on the part of many of 
my colleagues and some very talented staff work.
  My good friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, has been a driving force 
behind this legislation. Senator McCain skillfully managed this 
legislation and his outstanding work and leadership helped make this 
significant legislative accomplishment possible. I also want to commend 
my good friend from Alaska, Senator Stevens, whose legislative skill 
and leadership contributed greatly to this legislation. Senator 
Stevens' dedication to improving aviation safety and improving the 
treatment of families of aviation disaster victims is exemplary.
  Let me also commend and thank my good friend from South Carolina, the 
ranking member of the Commerce Committee Senator Hollings, who provided 
important leadership on this bipartisan legislation. Also, let me 
acknowledge the efforts of Senator Ford, the ranking member of the 
Aviation Subcommittee.
  Mr. President, I would be remiss if I failed to acknowledge the 
outstanding contribution staff from the Commerce Committee and personal 
offices made in this process. For the past 2 years, staff has worked 
literally thousands of hours on this legislation. From the Commerce 
Committee, I wish to commend the outstanding efforts of Paddy Link, Tom 
Hohenthaner, Mike Reynolds, and Mike Korens from the majority staff and 
Kevin Curtin and Sam Whitehorn from the minority staff. I also want to 
commend the outstanding efforts of Chris Paul of Senator McCain's 
staff, Mitch Rose and Earl Comstock of Senator Stevens' staff, Amy 
Henderson of Senator Hutchison's staff and Tom Zoeller of Senator 
Ford's staff.
  I thank them all for all the professionalism, dedication and hard 
work during both good times and bad. I think the final bill embodies 
the true spirit of bipartisan compromise and cooperation that is the 
mark of excellence in the legislative process. All involved should be 
proud.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Has all time expired?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair wishes to inform the Senate that the 
Senator from Alaska has 3 minutes 37 seconds; the Senator from 
Massachussets has 2 minutes 50 seconds.
  Mr. LOTT. We are prepared to yield back.
  Mr. STEVENS. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I yield my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded, it is the 
opinion of the Chair that the conference report exceeds the scope, and 
the point of order is sustained.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate? On this question, the clerk 
will call the roll.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. A ``yea'' vote is 
to sustain the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is correct.

[[Page S12232]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Indiana [Mr. Coats], 
the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], and the Senator from New Hampshire 
[Mr. Gregg], are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Campbell] is 
absent due to illness.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is 
absent on official business.
  The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 56, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 305 Leg.]

                                YEAS--39

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Heflin
     Helms
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Nunn
     Pell
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Simon
     Specter
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--56

     Abraham
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Burns
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frahm
     Frist
     Gorton
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kassebaum
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Pressler
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roth
     Shelby
     Simpson
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Campbell
     Coats
     Gramm
     Gregg
     Leahy
  The ruling of the Chair was rejected as the judgment of the Senate.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________