[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 23 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1771-S1775]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND REINSTATEMENT ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 19, H.R. 668.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, by the 
number, I am not certain that this is the tax bill.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, that is the airline ticket tax issue.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, we have 
had this discussion with the distinguished chairman of the Finance 
Committee, Senator Roth, and the distinguished ranking member, Senator 
Moynihan. We have worked out an arrangement where Senator Moynihan is 
prepared to have as the effective date the enactment date of this 
legislation--perhaps I should yield to my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Moynihan, for him to speak for himself.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Yes. I would like to say, first of all, that I very 
much appreciate the judgment of the Senator from Pennsylvania that the 
bill will be enacted, and that I propose to amend it such that it takes 
effect upon enactment as against the day it is actually passed, which 
is the precedent. But with that agreement, that it will be enacted.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that is satisfactory. Enactment, after it 
is passed by both Houses and signed by the President, is the effective 
date that it becomes law.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. That is correct. I also agree, hearing now that it will 
become law.
  Mr. ROTH. Reserving the right to object.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, if I may just finish the comment, I have 
great admiration for Senator Moynihan. I don't know whether it will 
become law or not. If it does, so be it. I just want to be sure that 
enactment is not the day we pass it, but the enactment of the statute 
is the day which it becomes law after passage by the Congress and 
signed by the President.
  With that understanding, I do not object.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania and the leadership of 
the Finance Committee, the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from 
New York. I thank them very much for their leadership.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
like to make a statement for the Record prior to final disposition of 
this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Florida that he be allowed to make a statement?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would like 
to inquire. Is the Senator from Florida suggesting that he would like 
to make a statement at this point in the Record?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to make a statement at this point in the 
Record prior to the disposition of this matter.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, could I inquire how long this might take?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Approximately 10 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
statement of the Senator from Florida, my unanimous-consent request 
again recur with H.R. 668.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the order, the Senator from Florida is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, what concerns me--and why I want to make 
this statement before we vote it--is the irony of what we are doing at 
this hour of the night. We have spent the past several days, the past 
several weeks, debating an amendment of the U.S. Constitution to 
require a balanced budget. I support that amendment and look forward to 
voting for it on Tuesday.

  In the midst of that debate, we now at this hour are going to take up 
legislation to extend the airline ticket tax, which has been expired 
for 10 of the past 14 months. I support that. We should reenact the 
airline ticket tax. In my opinion, we should not have allowed it to 
expire as we have.
  But what is significant about what we are about to do is that we are 
extending the airline ticket tax to September 30, 1997. Why are we 
doing that? Is it because we do not need the resources of this revenue 
source beyond September 30, 1997? Clearly not.
  There are extensive needs in the national aviation system. There are 
extensive needs in virtually every community which has an airport--a 
commercial airport or a general aviation airport--which benefits by the 
resources derived from this tax.
  In light of that, why are we enacting this extension from now until 
September 30, 1997? We paid a heavy price because of the fact that this 
tax has been allowed to lapse twice in the past 14 months. This tax 
expired on January 1, 1996. It was nearly 8 months later, August 27, 
1996, that it was reenacted. That reenactment, however, was only until 
the end of the calendar year 1996, December 31. It has lapsed since 
that date until today.
  So since January 1, 1996 until today, the tax has been in effect 
approximately 4 months. It has been in a lapse status for 10 months. 
Every day that this tax is not in effect reduces the revenue to the 
aviation trust fund by over $15 million; approximately $500 million a 
month is lost to the support of safety in the air because of our 
failure to keep this tax consistently, stably in place.
  In light of that history, I ask again, why today are we only enacting 
this until September 30, 1997? Why are we not making this a permanent 
tax today as it has been for most of its history?
  Well, Mr. President, I must sadly report that we are doing this for 
exactly the reason that we have gotten into a $5.4 trillion national 
debt. Here tonight, in the middle of the debate on a

[[Page S1772]]

balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States, we 
are about to engage in what I consider to be one of the more 
hypocritical actions in terms of our real commitment to a balanced 
budget.
  What is the significance of having this tax lapse on the 30th of 
September? The significance is that we are going to count in our budget 
for the period that will begin October 1, 1997, $6 billion of revenue 
for the next 10 years, or $60 billion of additional revenue based on 
the way in which the U.S. Senate scores its legislation. The House, 
which uses a 5-year rule, is going to score $30 billion of additional 
revenue because we are allowing this tax to lapse on the 30th of 
September.
  Mr. President, I know you are a prominent business person and deal 
with complex financial matters. You say, how can this be? What has 
actually happened in the last 14 months is, we have lost $5 billion of 
real revenue. Four percent of the Federal deficit for fiscal year 1997 
will be the loss of revenue by allowing this ticket tax to lapse for 10 
of the past 14 months. Yet, Mr. President, we are about to set up a 
process where it is almost guaranteed to lapse again.
  The reason we are doing it is because under our arcane budget rules, 
if the tax is not in place as of the beginning of the fiscal year, we 
can assume that it is all fresh, new revenue and therefore we have 
found $60 billion in order to support other spending or to finance tax 
reductions. It is no real additional money. In fact, every expectation 
is there will be less real money because there will be a hiatus in this 
tax after September 30.
  Why do I feel relatively confident, although sadly so, that there 
will be a hiatus in this tax after September 30, 1997? The answer is 
because we have virtually ordained that it shall be. Why have we done 
so? Because last year we passed an aviation reform bill, and in that 
bill we provided that the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary 
of the Treasury would report to the Congress on their collective 
recommendations as to what kind of permanent method of taxation we 
should use for commercial aviation.
  There is a dispute that has broken out between various segments of 
the commercial aviation industry as to how the tax should be 
structured. The interesting thing is that we are about to pass a bill 
in which the tax will expire on September 30. When do you think the 
report that we have already requested will be submitted to Congress? 
The answer is in October 1997. So we are not even going to get the 
report upon which we are supposed to make a judgment until after this 
tax has expired.
  I suggest we are virtually guaranteeing that we will have yet another 
lapse in this tax, yet another hole in the trust fund that millions of 
Americans look to, albeit in a distant, obscure way, but they look to 
it with hopes that that trust fund will help make their period in the 
skies above America a safer experience.
  The fact is that we have removed $5 billion of that safety over the 
last 14 months, and we are about to pass a bill that is virtually 
guaranteeing that we will remove more of it. And we are doing it 
solely, in my judgment, in order to be able to create a fictitious $60 
billion that we can then use in order to justify other spending--not 
spending in aviation but spending in any area that we choose to do so, 
or reduction of taxes. If you want to know why in the last 20 years we 
have added almost $4.5 trillion to the national debt, you are looking 
here tonight at an example of the very kind of accounting gamesmanship 
that has gotten us into our current posture.
  It had been my original intention to offer an amendment to this bill, 
as I did in the Finance Committee, to extend this bill at least to the 
end of the calendar year so that we would have an opportunity to 
consider the October report, make a reasoned judgment, and enact 
whatever permanent reforms we want to enact without suffering another 
lapse in revenue.
  However, I recognize at this late hour the chances of such an 
amendment being successfully considered are nil. I also recognize the 
importance of getting this tax back in place as rapidly as possible so 
that we can stop the loss of the $5 billion.
  Now, some might say, isn't it a good idea to have this tax lapse for 
10 of the last 14 months. Has that not resulted in a bonanza of savings 
to American commercial aviation users? The fact is there has been some 
of that. Some airlines have, in fact, reduced their ticket price by the 
amount that was represented by the 10-percent tax which is embedded in 
that price. Others have not done so. So in some instances the American 
flying consumer has paid the same amount for the ticket but has not 
received the benefit of investment in the safety of our airways.
  It will be my intention as soon as possible to introduce legislation 
that will make this tax permanent and will eliminate the ``Perils of 
Pauline'' that we have experienced first in August 1996 and now again 
in February 1997.
  One of the reasons that we are rushing to enact this now is that the 
train is almost at the ``damsel in distress.'' The FAA has said that 
they are in a position now that within the next few weeks, if not days, 
they will be in a position of having to send out notices to aviation 
facilities across the country that they cannot meet their obligations 
because the trust fund will have been depleted.
  For that reason, I do not believe it is prudent to add one additional 
absurdity on top of the pile of absurdities that are represented by our 
actions relative to this aviation tax over the last 14 months. I regret 
that we are taking this action. I am afraid that it casts a pall on our 
seriousness of commitment to a balanced budget amendment when we have 
often used the analogy with a balanced budget that it is like a serial 
killer who has written on the wall, ``Stop me before I kill again,'' 
that we need the balanced budget amendment to say, ``Stop us before we 
commit deficit again.''
  Well, this is a good example of why we will need that constitutional 
amendment because clearly we are not showing that kind of discipline in 
adopting this legislation tonight. This is not a proud day for the 
Senate. It is not a happy day for the U.S. taxpayers. I hope that we 
can indicate to them that they will do better at some future date.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I renew my unanimous-consent request to 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 19, H.R. 668.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 668) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to reinstate the Airport and Airway Trust Fund excise 
     taxes, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, this is the first bill passed by the 
Committee on Finance in the 105th Congress, and characteristically, it 
was adopted by unanimous vote. I would point out that 6 of the 10 major 
pieces of legislation reported by the Senate Finance Committee during 
the 104th Congress also were passed unanimously. We are off to a good 
start in the Finance Committee this year, and I hope we maintain this 
fine tradition under the able leadership of Senator Roth.
  We are here today because the taxes levied to finance the airport and 
airway trust fund have expired. These taxes largely support the 
operations of our Federal Aviation Administration, including our 
Nation's air traffic control system. They also finance our airport 
improvement program, providing grant money for important airport 
equipment and infrastructure improvements. Collection of these taxes is 
critical to maintaining and improving our national air transportation 
system and continuing to fund airport modernization projects, aviation 
safety enhancements, and airport security efforts.
  On February 4, the Finance Committee held a hearing on the status of 
the trust fund, which we found to be critical. There is an unexpected 
shortfall in the trust fund. The Treasury Department had transferred 
estimated trust fund excise tax receipts to the trust fund based upon 
an assumption--now known to be inaccurate--regarding the timing of tax 
receipts. The Treasury Department was required to reverse this 
transfer, and we are informed that a correcting transfer of almost $1.2 
billion has been made.

[[Page S1773]]

  The trust fund will be depleted much sooner than expected, which has 
consequences. FAA informs us that while the air traffic control system 
will be funded through the end of the fiscal year, funds for FAA 
capital programs will be depleted in March. If we do not act promptly, 
FAA will be forced to halt new airport improvement grants, and to 
cancel contracts that are designed to improve airports and airway 
systems in every part of the country. These programs could include 
better bomb detection equipment, improvements for better communication 
between pilots and controllers, and safety and security studies.
  The Finance Committee under Chairman Roth's leadership moved quickly. 
One day after our hearing, we unanimously reported out a bill to extend 
the trust fund taxes through the end of the fiscal year, or September 
30, 1997, and to allow Treasury to transfer trust fund tax receipts to 
the trust fund, no matter when the taxes are collected.
  The House has now passed identical legislation. It therefore falls to 
us in the Senate to pass this bill, promptly and without amendment, and 
to send it to the White House for the President's signature.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.R. 668 
which extends the aviation ticket tax through the end of fiscal year 
1997. This tax is essential to the day-to-day operation of our Nation's 
aviation system. Money to improve, maintain, and run our airports is 
wholly supported by fees paid by the users of the air transportation 
system. It is not paid for by the taxes we all pay on April 15. Air 
travelers paid for our airports in the form of a 10 percent ticket tax 
every time they flew prior to December 31, 1996. That money has been 
going into the airport and airway trust fund, and the money is then 
disbursed through the appropriations process.
  We have told people to pay this tax, and we have told them we will 
then spend it on airports and making improvements to the air 
transportation system. I know that there is a great need to refurbish 
our Nation's airports. In South Carolina, I visit small airports and 
see the condition of the runways. Small airports cannot generate the 
funds needed without the assistance of the Federal Aviation 
Administration, which provides the necessary money from the trust fund.
  Our problem now is that the ticket tax expired at the end of 1996. 
Due to budget games, the money that we thought would be in the trust 
fund is not there. Originally we were advised that the trust fund would 
be broke in July, but it will be depleted as early as March. If this 
situation is not corrected, millions of dollars in airport 
modernization projects, aviation safety enhancements, and airport 
security efforts will have to be delayed or terminated. The obvious 
answer to this untenable situation is to reinstate the aviation ticket 
tax, and that is why I am supporting H.R. 668. I urge my fellow 
colleagues to quit playing budget games and start fulfilling one of 
government's primary functions--preserving the safety of the American 
people.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
legislation before us to reinstate the aviation excise taxes, which 
support important aviation safety and security improvements, as well as 
system capacity enhancements. It is our duty to take action now to 
restore this vital revenue stream. I commend the Finance Committee for 
recognizing the urgency of this situation and moving the legislation 
forward on a fast track.
  The aviation excise taxes lapsed on December 31, 1996. Current 
estimates show that if we do not restore the aviation trust fund taxes 
immediately, the trust fund balance will be insufficient to pay for the 
safety and security programs we approved last year as part of the 
Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996. The Federal Aviation 
Administration predicts, and budget officials confirm, that under 
current circumstances capital spending on aviation will come to a halt 
in March. We are clearly doing the right thing by approving this 
legislation in these emergency circumstances.
  I am disappointed, however, that we could only agree to extend the 
current tax structure for aviation improvements until the end of 
September. I fear we will face another tax lapse at that time, and risk 
jeopardizing the trust fund sponsored programs again. The taxes for 
aviation safety and security should remain in place until we are ready 
to offer a suitable alternative to the current structure. Congress last 
year established the National Civil Aviation Review Commission to study 
and make recommendations along these lines. The term of the tax 
extension should coincide with this process.
  Nevertheless, I endorse this legislation because my foremost priority 
right now is restoring the viability of the trust fund. I realize that 
if the Senate successfully extended the term of the reinstatement 
beyond September, the House would object. We would have to take the 
issue up in conference, and thus delay resolution of a situation that 
has already reached critical mass. Realistically, we would probably end 
up in a position no better than the one we are in today.
  That said, we should be clear about one of the main reasons we are 
setting ourselves up for another lapse. The dedicated aviation trust 
fund taxes have fallen victim to congressional budget games. The excise 
taxes that support our aviation system expired late last year and late 
the year before, following years of uninterrupted renewal. Congress 
figured out that if it allows the aviation taxes to lapse, it can 
reinstate the taxes later, and use the revenues to offset tax cuts or 
increased spending elsewhere in the budget.
  This is budget chicanery, pure and simple. We should use the taxes 
paid by air travelers and shippers exclusively for aviation safety, 
security and capacity improvements. When we use these aviation revenues 
to offset spending elsewhere in the budget, the American people 
rightfully question how we intend to use their dedicated aviation 
taxes.
  More important, we should not play with this dedicated aviation 
revenue stream, simply to take advantage of convoluted congressional 
budget procedures. The need for budget process reform is clear. I will 
continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to impress upon them 
the reality that it does not matter if revenues and appropriations are 
accounted for on different sides of the ledger. Even if the excise tax 
revenues are deposited in the trust fund, deficit pressures will reduce 
incentives to spend these funds for their dedicated purpose--aviation 
safety and capacity improvements.
  Budget process reform is a debate for a later date. Today, I rise in 
full support of this legislation to reinstate the aviation excise taxes 
on a short term basis to support critical aviation safety and security 
improvements. We must remain vigilant in seeing this legislation 
through to enactment. Any further lapse in the taxes that support the 
trust fund would jeopardize safety-related capital improvements, and 
shake the public confidence in the Government's ability to safeguard 
the Nation's air travelers.
  We should all be held accountable for not letting the excise taxes 
that support our aviation system lapse in the future. It would be wrong 
and irresponsible for us to let the aviation trust fund get caught up 
in our budget games again.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to first thank Senator Roth and 
Senator Moynihan, the entire Finance Committee, and its staff, for 
acting quickly on reinstating, for a short term, the taxes that fund 
the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]. Many of you may not be aware 
of how the FAA is funded, or how critical its mission is to our 
economy.
  The FAA receives its funds from two sources--the general fund and the 
airport and airway trust fund. The trust fund, up until December 31, of 
last year, was supported by a series of excise taxes--a 10 percent 
ticket tax, a 6.25 percent freight waybill tax, a $6 international 
departure tax, and two noncommercial aviation fuel taxes. For Fiscal 
Year 1997, the appropriation for the FAA was $8.563 billion. A total of 
$3.1 billion comes from the general fund, and $5.3 billion from the 
trust fund.
  One thing many of us fail to really comprehend is how important 
aviation is to our economy. We know that a safe and efficient air 
traffic control system, and a well functioning FAA, are key components 
to our economy. The President recently recognized the importance of 
aviation to our country by stepping in to stop a strike at American 
Airlines.

[[Page S1774]]

  Let me put some numbers out to explain how critical aviation is--the 
total annual impact of aviation to our economy is $771 billion. That is 
a staggering figure, but we all know that travel for business and 
travel for tourism are key components of our local economies.
  Failure to reinstate this tax will bring the FAA effectively to a 
halt. Yes, the air traffic controllers would be paid, as would the 
other FAA staff. But, my colleagues should understand that no money--
absolutely no money, would be available to buy new air traffic control 
equipment and to fund airport development.
  This is not a simple problem. The FAA has under contract billions of 
dollars for new equipment. If the FAA is not able to pay its 
contractors, it will have to give them adequate notice to shut down the 
programs. This means more than not buying a piece of equipment next 
week, but shutting down existing programs underway. The lawyers will be 
suing each other for years.
  I want to also state that last year, this body worked hard to pass an 
authorization bill for the FAA. As those of you that were here will 
recall, we stayed in session an extra week to get that bill through. 
That bill was and is important because it set a course for doing 
something different for the FAA--fundamentally changing the way it does 
business and how we fund that agency.
  The long-term funding question remains unanswered. To answer that 
question, this body voted to establish a 21-member Commission. The work 
of the Commission must move forward, and it must be done expeditiously. 
With reconciliation looming, any change in the current system--a new 
tax system or a new user fee system--must be worked out now. The entire 
aviation industry must agree to how much money the FAA needs, and who, 
and how to pay for it.
  I know that many of my colleagues share this view, and look forward 
to working this matter out with them.
  The lapse in the ticket tax and the uncertainty over funding, is 
something our high technology, safety organization--the FAA--cannot 
afford. Our constituents and families cannot afford it either.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an important issue 
related to reinstatement of the aviation excise taxes. Financing for 
the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], and for the aviation safety 
and security initiatives it supports, is an issue of critical 
importance in both the short and the long term. That is why the last 
Congress established a process for achieving a long-term solution.
  The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 created the National 
Civil Aviation Review Commission, and tasked it with developing 
specific legislative proposals for long-term FAA funding. 
Unfortunately, the administration has failed to appoint any of the 13 
members it is responsible for appointing to the Commission despite the 
fact that the reauthorization act was signed into law nearly 5 months 
ago. This Commission has very important responsibilities and it needs 
to begin its work soon. The exercise we are engaged in today clearly 
demonstrates that need.
  The Commission has a limited time in which to complete its tasks and 
must begin its work immediately. In fact, an independent assessment of 
the funding needs of the FAA should be completed this week. The 
assessment was prepared specifically for the Commission s use. However, 
because the administration has failed to make any appointments, there 
probably will not be a Commission to receive the assessment.
  The aviation leadership of the Commerce Committee wrote to the 
President on January 28 to request that he take action to ensure that 
the commissioners are appointed immediately. I have also made 
Transportation Secretary Slater aware on numerous occasions of the 
urgency of the Commission appointments.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to the President 
on this subject from Senators Gorton, Hollings, Ford, and myself be 
printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
           Transportation,
                                 Washington, DC, January 28, 1997.
     Hon. William J. Clinton,
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: As you know, the Federal Aviation 
     Reauthorization Act of 1996, Public Law 104-264, established 
     the National Civil Aviation Review Commission to address the 
     two very important issues of aviation safety and long-term 
     funding of the national air transportation system, 
     particularly the Federal Aviation Administration. We worked 
     closely with the Administration to craft this legislation, 
     and we appreciate the Administration's support. However, the 
     act set down a firm time line for the Commission to follow in 
     accomplishing its many tasks, including important issues 
     related to aviation safety. It is time now to move forward 
     and enable the Commission to do its work.
       Thirteen members of the Commission are to be appointed by 
     the Secretary of Transportation. Given the time constraints 
     of the act and the critical nature of the Commission's 
     duties, we hope that you will act swiftly to ensure the 
     appointment of these commissioners. We expect that the 
     Congressional leadership will move forward in concert with 
     the Administration in making its own appointments. However, 
     the leadership has waited for the Administration to make a 
     move before it completes its appointments so that 
     Congressional appointees can provide any needed balance in 
     the composition of the Commission.
       We urge you to take action to ensure that these 
     commissioners are appointed as soon as possible. The 
     Commission has a great deal to accomplish and time is running 
     short. In February, an independent assessment of the funding 
     needs of the FAA should be completed and the work of the 
     Commission must begin in earnest. Knowing of your commitment 
     to a safe and secure aviation system, we look forward to your 
     swift action on this matter.
           Sincerely,
     John McCain,
       Chairman.
     Slade Gorton,
       Chairman, Aviation Subcommittee.
     Ernest F. Hollings,
       Ranking Member.
     Wendell H. Ford,
       Ranking Member, Aviation Subcommittee.

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished chairman of 
the Commerce Committee will yield for a question?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield to the 
distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank the Senator. As the chairman knows, the 
congressional leadership also has responsibility for appointing eight 
of the members of the commission. I wanted to confirm my understanding 
of the congressional leadership's responsibility for making 
appointments to the commission. Am I correct in believing that the 
congressional appointees were designed to ensure that the commission is 
not composed simply of people representing just the views of the 
administration?
  Mr. McCAIN. The majority leader is absolutely correct. As mentioned 
in our letter to the President, the chief sponsors of the FAA 
reauthorization bill wanted to be sure that the commission was a 
balanced group. We fully expected the administration to act very 
quickly to appoint commissioners, so that then the congressional 
leadership would have an opportunity to address any perceived biases or 
omissions.
  Mr. LOTT. I appreciate your confirming my understanding of the intent 
of the reauthorization act. Also, I join you in urging the 
administration to make its appointments without delay. The commission 
must begin working on a long-term funding solution so that we can avoid 
such problems as we are addressing today.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to thank the majority leader for providing 
me this opportunity to clarify the matter of appointments to the 
National Civil Aviation Review Commission. His support and leadership 
have been instrumental in the efforts of the Commerce Committee to 
address the needs of the National Aviation Transportation System.
  At this point, I once again urge the administration to assume 
responsibility for making appointments to the National Civil Aviation 
Review Commission, so that the long-term funding needs of the FAA can 
be addressed.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, on H.R. 668, had this been a rollcall 
vote, I would like for the Record to reflect that I would have voted 
``no.''
  No one is more supportive of aviation safety than myself. I have 
pointed out

[[Page S1775]]

on the Senate floor that I have actually been in a plane crash.
  But, I oppose this measure because I believe that the American people 
are taxed too much. Why is it that general revenues, collected through 
income taxes, are not enough to cover such basic government services as 
safe skies.
  Further, even if we were to impose such a fee, we should find 
offsetting spending and tax cuts so that we do not increase the tax 
burden on the American people. Regrettably, this effort failed in the 
House of Representatives.
  Finally, this tax could be restructured so that it does not punish 
traveling Americans, but such a report on restructuring is not due 
until October of this year.
  For all of these reasons I oppose the ticket tax.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the bill be 
considered read a third time, passed, and the motion to reconsider be 
laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 668) was passed.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman from 
Delaware for his efforts in this matter. I think it is clearly the 
right thing to do. The alternative would have been a catastrophe with 
our aviation programs in this country. We did not really have any 
alternative, and I think we have taken the right step. The proof that 
it is the right thing to do is that it passed overwhelmingly in the 
House, I think close to 370 votes perhaps, and in the Senate, while 
there are some reservations about it, we are able to move it with 
unanimous consent.
  So I thank the leadership of the committee.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Will the majority leader yield for a comment?
  Mr. LOTT. I will be delighted to yield.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, this is the first measure to be 
reported from the Committee on Finance, and once again it was reported 
unanimously. In the last Congress, of the 10 major measures that came 
out under the leadership of Senator Roth, 6 were unanimous, which 
speaks of his chairmanship and prudence and desire to enhance revenues.
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad the Senator put it so delicately, Madam 
President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I would just like to say to the 
distinguished majority leader, it would not have been possible to have 
gotten this through unanimously without the active support of the 
ranking member, and I publicly thank him for his contribution.
  I should also like to point out that what we did is exactly what was 
requested by the administration.
  Mr. LOTT. Yes.
  Mr. ROTH. To carry it out until September 30. And that is exactly 
what we did. I think this is a wise move. It protects the safety of our 
air passengers. I thank the leader for his help in this matter.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Madam President, may I just concur in those remarks. 
May I also report that the trust fund began in the administration of 
President Nixon, and our distinguished Senator from Utah was the person 
who managed the representation up on Capitol Hill, from the Department 
of Transportation.

                          ____________________