[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10825-S10829]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 WENDELL H. FORD NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 
                                  1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I support S. 2279, the Wendell H. Ford 
National Air Transportation System Improvement Act of 1998. This 
measure will enhance the safety and efficiency of our air 
transportation system, upon which the island state of Hawaii is 
uniquely dependent. I am pleased that this weighty legislation is named 
for the departing senior senator from Kentucky, whose contributions to 
aviation are legion. I am especially supportive of Title VII of the 
bill which addresses the issue of air tour operations at national 
parks.

  Mr. President, Title VII of S. 2279 establishes a comprehensive 
regulatory framework for controlling air tour traffic in and near units 
of the National Park System. The legislation requires the Federal 
Aviation Administration, in cooperation with the National Park Service 
and with public input from stakeholders, to develop an air tour 
management plan (ATMP) for parks currently or potentially affected by 
air tour flights.
  Under the ATMP process, routes, altitudes, time restrictions, 
limitations on the number of flights, and other operating parameters 
could be prescribed in order to protect sensitive park resources as 
well as to enhance the safety of air tour operations. An ATMP could 
prohibit air tours at a park entirely, regulate air tours within half a 
mile outside the boundaries of a park, regulate air tour operations 
that impact tribal lands, and offer incentives for the adoption of 
quieter air technology. An ATMP would include an environmental 
determination.
  S. 2279 also creates an advisory group comprising representatives of 
the FAA, Park Service, the aviation industry, the environmental 
community, and tribes to provide advice, information, and 
recommendations on overflight issues.
  As embodied in the ATMP process, this bill treats overflights issues 
on a park-by-park basis. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, the 
legislation establishes a fair and rational mechanism through which 
environmental and aviation needs can be addressed in the context of the 
unique circumstances that exist at individual national parks.
  I am pleased that this procedural approach, in addition to 
requirements for meaningful public consultation and a mechanism for 
promoting dialogue among diverse stakeholders, mirrors key elements of 
legislation--the National Parks Airspace Management Act, cosponsored by 
my colleagues Senator Inouye and Senator Frist--that I have promoted in 
the last three Congresses.
  Mr. President, adoption of this bill is essential if we are to 
address effectively the detrimental impacts of air tour activities on 
the National Park

[[Page S10826]]

System. Air tourism has significantly increased in the last decade, 
nowhere more so than at high profile units such as Grand Canyon, Great 
Smoky Mountains, and Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes national parks in 
my own state. A 1994 Park Service study indicated that nearly a hundred 
parks experienced adverse park impacts, and that number has assuredly 
risen since then. Such growth has inevitably conflicted with the 
qualities and values of many park units, in some instances seriously.

  While air tour operators often provide important emergency services, 
enhance park access for special populations (e.g., the handicapped and 
elderly), and offer an important source of income for local economies, 
notably tourism-dependent areas such as Hawaii, unregulated overflights 
have the potential to harm park ecologies, distress wildlife, and 
impair visitor enjoyment of the park experience. Unrestricted air tour 
operations can also pose a safety hazard to air and ground visitors 
alike.
  It is therefore vital that we develop a clear, consistent national 
policy on this issue, one that equitably and rationally prioritizes the 
respective interests of the aviation and environmental communities. 
Congress and the Administration have struggled to develop such a policy 
since enactment of the National Parks Overflights Act of 1987, 
Congress's initial, but limited attempt to address the overflights 
issue. S. 2279 will finish where the 1987 Act left off, providing the 
FAA and Park Service with the policy guidance and procedural mechanisms 
that are essential to balancing the needs of air tour operators against 
the imperative to preserve and protect our natural resources.
  Mr. President, the overflights provisions of this bill are the 
product of good faith efforts on the part of many groups and 
individuals. They include: members of the National Parks Overflights 
Working Group, whose consensus recommendations form the underpinnings 
of this legislation; representatives of air tour and environmental 
advocacy organizations such as Helicopter Association International and 
the National Parks and Conservation Association; and, officials of the 
FAA and Park Service, notably Park Ranger Wes Henry, the Park Service's 
long-serving point man on overflights, who has served as the agency's 
institutional memory and conscience on this issue.
  However, Title VII is above all the product of the energy and vision 
of Senator John McCain. As the author of the 1987 National Parks 
Overflights Act, Senator McCain was the first to recognize the adverse 
impacts of air tours on national parks, and the first to call for a 
national policy to address this problem. Since then, he has employed 
his moral authority and legislative acumen impel progress on this 
subject. For his leadership in writing this bill and for his long 
advocacy of park overflight issues, Senator McCain deserves our lasting 
appreciation.
  Mr. President, I am tremendously honored to have worked closely with 
Senator McCain over the last year to formulate an overflights bill that 
promotes aviation safety, enhances the viability of legitimate air tour 
operations, and protects national parks from the most egregious visual 
and noise intrusions by air tour helicopters and other aircraft. Left 
unchecked, air tour activities can undermine the very qualities and 
resources that give value to a park; these must be protected. I believe 
that the pending measure reasonably and prudently balances these 
sometimes opposing considerations, and urge my colleagues to support 
this legislation.
  That concludes my remarks, Mr. President. Before closing, however, I 
would like to recognize the staff of the Commerce Committee--including 
John Raidt, Mike Reynolds, Charles Chambers, Sam Whitehorn, and Ann 
Choiniere--for their hard work in putting this legislation together. 
Ann Choiniere especially deserves mention for her day-to-day management 
of this issue. I would also like to recognize former members of my own 
staff, Kerry Taylor, Bob Weir, and Steve Opperman, who made important 
contributions to this issue. Steve in particular has served as an 
expert resource whose tireless, and largely unheralded contributions 
have shaped the overflights debate in a major way.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Before my dear friend from Hawaii leaves the floor, let 
me thank him for his kind words. As always, he is too modest. For many 
years now he and I have worked together on this issue. His dedication 
to the protection and preservation of Haleakala's and Hawaii's 
volcanoes is notable. It is noteworthy and it is in keeping with his 
incredible dedication, passion and efforts on behalf of his Native 
Hawaiians, as well as all citizens of his most beautiful State.
  I thank the Senator from Hawaii for his kind remarks.
  Mr. FORD. I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished 
chairman, and thank my friend from Hawaii for his kind remarks about me 
personally. It seems that more of these remarks are coming as the days 
near the end, and maybe I won't want the days to end, but I do thank my 
friend from Hawaii very much.


                           Amendment No. 3620

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to go back to the amendment of the 
Senator from Oklahoma. I admire the tenacity and commitment to aviation 
of the Senator. Also, I have had the privilege of personally 
experiencing his piloting skills while being with him in the great 
State of Oklahoma. Although I must admit that my willingness to ride in 
an airplane with him while he was at the controls had more to do with 
my conviction that because of my colorful history associated with 
aviation having long ago convinced me I was not intended to die in an 
airplane, as I watched my dear friend from Oklahoma fly into what one 
would describe as ``threatening weather'' with intrepid courage and 
skill, I have grown to appreciate him even more.
  Associated with that kind of piloting skills is his dedication to 
aviation and his tenacity associated with this issue specifically. I 
don't agree with the amendment of the Senator, but I do believe and I 
am convinced we can work out something which will be agreeable, because 
the Senator from Oklahoma does identify a problem. I don't agree with 
the Senator from Oklahoma that it is as big a problem, but when someone 
like Mr. Hoover, who he just described, is subjected to what he was 
subjected to, then there is a problem. But I am just not convinced that 
the remedy that the Senator from Oklahoma is prescribing is the proper 
remedy. He certainly, in a very articulate fashion, describes the 
problem we need to work together and address.
  The FAA uses its emergency authority only as a remedial measure when 
a certificate holder lacks the necessary qualifications to hold the 
certificate, and the continued exercise of the privileges of the 
certificate would be contrary to public safety in air commerce or air 
transportation. All emergency suspensions are premised on a reasonable 
suspicion as to the certificate holder's qualifications.
  FAA policy since approximately 1990 has generally been that an 
emergency exists in which a certificate holder lacks the technical 
qualifications, or the care, judgment, or responsibility to hold an FAA 
certificate, and remains in a position to use the certificated skills. 
In such cases, the FAA has reasoned that it intolerably threatens air 
safety to permit pilots, aircraft mechanics, or air carriers, for 
example, to operate or repair aircraft when the FAA has reasonably 
concluded that they do not possess the qualifications necessary to 
perform those functions. If it is clear that a certificate holder will 
be unable to exercise the privileges of the certificate, the FAA will 
not invoke an emergency suspension.
  An emergency order is effective immediately upon issue, rather than 
being stayed pending conclusion of the adjudicative process. An 
expedited adjudication process is initiated since the certificate 
holder immediately loses his or her privileges. The FAA respects the 
privilege of holding a certificate, but must ensure as its primary 
mission the highest standards of aviation safety. Retaining authority 
to take immediate action in emergency situations is integral to the 
FAA's ability to carry out this mission.
  While S. 842 would not limit the FAA's ability to immediately revoke 
a certificate, it would complicate the process of appealing such an 
order by providing new avenues of appeal in addition to those already 
existing. Currently, a person subject to an emergency revocation order 
may appeal the

[[Page S10827]]

emergency nature of that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals. There is 
no deadline for the Court of Appeals to act although the FAA claims 
that the court will usually rule within 5 to 7 days. According to the 
GAO, few choose to do this and even fewer prevail.
  This amendment changes this procedure for challenging the emergency 
nature of a suspension. Rather than appealing to the Court of Appeals, 
the emergency nature of the revocation could be appealed to the NTSB. 
Under the amendment, the NTSB would have 5 days to decide whether it 
was really an emergency. If the person does not prevail before the 
NTSB, he or she would then be able to appeal to the U.S. Court of 
Appeals under the same circumstances as currently exist. This risks 
placing substantial strain on limited agency resources by creating a 
right to appeal to the NTSB, when there is no demonstrable need for 
such change.
  Between 1993 and 1997 the FAA initiated an average of only 2.55% of 
its total enforcement caseload as emergency actions. This average 
demonstrates the FAA's commitment to using this authority only in those 
cases where the FAA finds that a serious question exists as to a 
certificate holder's qualifications, and no other action will suffice 
to ensure the highest standards of safety are maintained. Additionally, 
the FAA prevails on the vast majority of emergency actions before the 
NTSB, supporting its position that it has acted properly and not abused 
its authority. From 1990 through 1997, the FAA was reversed in only 2% 
of the cases in which emergency orders or revocation were issued, and 
in only 1% of the cases in which emergency orders of suspension were 
issued.
  The FAA opposes S. 842. The agency argues that the bill does not 
alter what may be appealed, merely who would have jurisdiction of an 
appeal. The FAA believes that S. 842 does not make the process more 
effective or efficient, but rather creates several new final agency 
decisions, all of which would be subject to appeal in the Courts of 
Appeals, which in turn would complicate and potentially prolong, not 
streamline, the process.
  The FAA has stated that, even if the bill is enacted, an equal number 
of emergency actions can be expected to be issued with the only result 
being the additional strain on FAA and NTSB resources in response to 
more appeals regarding the existence of an emergency. On the other 
hand, if the legislation results in a significant enough strain on FAA 
resources that the agency is discouraged from its current use of its 
emergency authority, the FAA argues that it would permit allegedly 
unqualified certificate holder to operate one to two years or longer, 
while the non-emergency litigation is ongoing. In sum, the FAA does not 
believe that its actions and record before the NTSB support the need 
for any change in the current system.
  Mr. President, I am always reluctant, whenever we are talking about 
safety--and maybe it is a bit of cowardice, but I think it is good 
sense when we are talking about safety to be very, very, very serious 
about the recommendations of those agencies that we entrust with those 
responsibilities.
  Obviously, the NTSB is one of those. As the Senator from Kentucky 
will attest, we have had the NTSB before our committees on many 
occasions--not just aviation, but many others. They are comprised of 
very outstanding, knowledgeable people. Mr. Hall, in particular, has 
impressed us a great deal.
  I understand the Senator from Oklahoma will want a recorded vote. I 
want to assure him that if he doesn't prevail on this vote, I want to 
work with him because he has cited serious examples of abuse of power--
or certainly injustice, if not abuse of power. The Senator from 
Oklahoma deserves, as those people who have not been fairly treated or 
where there is the appearance of unfair treatment--I won't allege that 
it actually happened, but certainly if there is an appearance of it, I 
want to work with him in getting something added in the bill to provide 
additional protections. At the same time, I hope that whatever we do, 
we can achieve the support and cooperation of both the FAA and the 
NTSB, which is not the case with this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Abraham). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I join my chairman in his remarks. I thought 
they were excellent and to the point. I agree with Senator McCain that 
we ought to work with the Senator from Oklahoma to see if we can get 
something in the bill that will at least recognize the problem that he 
has brought forth here this afternoon.
  As of now, I will join with my colleague and oppose Senator Inhofe's 
amendment. It is my understanding that GAO, FAA, and the Department of 
Transportation IG have all looked at FAA's use of its emergency 
authority. There are only a few cases where the FAA has been reversed. 
GAO found that FAA used its authority in only 3 percent of its 
enforcement cases from 1990 to 1997. It shows a great deal of restraint 
that they only use it in cases where they think it is an emergency. 
And, as my friend from Arizona has said, most of those cases have been 
upheld. So FAA must have the authority--must have the authority--to 
revoke certificates on an emergency basis.
  The National Transportation Safety Board, FAA, and GAO all oppose any 
change. Beyond that, I think I will join with my friend from Arizona in 
trying to work out something that might be satisfactory, rather than 
just to look at it a little closer than we have been looking at it. We 
can all find one or two horror stories. I don't know how many 
certificates were revoked. I don't know how many charges were presented 
to the FAA. Those figures are not here. But in all cases, the 
percentage that Senator McCain represented--2 percent or 1 percent--and 
then only 3 percent, from 1990 to 1997, of its enforcement cases have 
they revoked certificates. So I think it indicates that there is a 
concern on the part of FAA that they not do anything irrational, but 
that they look at the cases thoroughly and then make a judgment as it 
relates to emergency authority only.
  So I hope that the Senator from Oklahoma will give us an opportunity 
to sit down and work with him. I hate to be in opposition to all the 
amendments that are brought, but this is one that I will have to be 
opposed to and would encourage my colleagues to vote against if the 
Senator insists that we go on.
  He stops in my hometown on occasion, I say to my friend from Arizona, 
and buys gasoline from the chairman of the Republican Party in my 
county. He is keeping the Republican Party going. I want him to 
continue to fly over the Owensboro stop and fill up with gasoline and 
keep our economy going. I would not want him to not stop in Owensboro. 
I gave you a hometown reason for us to try to help the Senator from 
Oklahoma to work something out. I look forward to him agreeing to that. 
If not, I could not agree to a vote tonight. I am sure the Senator 
would not want one either. We would have to wait and set a time certain 
for tomorrow because I understand that his side has a little shindig 
tonight that they would like to get to. We will accommodate him as they 
accommodated us last night. We ought to reciprocate, under the 
circumstances.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me respond to the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I can assure him that I will 
continue to stop in Owensboro to get my gas as I fly. There is good 
reason for that; it is the cheapest gas between Tulsa, OK, and National 
Airport.
  Mr. FORD. We also have mighty fine barbecue there, too.
  Mr. INHOFE. I eat at the Moonlight Cafe, which is owned by the 
chairman of the Democratic Party.
  Mr. FORD. See, he is neutral.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I don't disagree with some of the 
statements made here. I have a little different interpretation. I think 
the Senator from Arizona is correct when he says 2.55 percent of those 
were of an emergency nature. The numbers equate to about roughly 300 
people.
  Now, all too often, we stand down here and say it is such a small 
number that, if there is an injustice, it doesn't affect that many 
people. I think that is probably true, but those individuals who are 
affected, it is a matter of taking away their livelihoods. I disagree

[[Page S10828]]

with the way the system works. When I look at the average between the 
time of the alleged offense and the emergency revocation, the average 
time of those in this last entire year was 132 days. I ask the 
question, How could there be an emergency nature to these revocations 
if it takes 132 days before that license is revoked?
  I also comment on the extreme cases that we bring out, such as the 
Ted Stewarts and the Bob Hoovers. There are many others out there like 
that. Again, we are not talking about anything that is going to impair 
the safety of the flying public or the pilots because we are setting 
aside a process whereby there are a certain number of hours to appeal 
this to the NTSB. It goes back to using the same argument that was 
successfully used when we changed the rules having to do with civil 
penalties. With civil penalties, we argued that you can't have just the 
FAA be the judge and jury and appellate court; and, of course, it has 
worked out very well since then.
  While I respectfully disagree with my colleagues from Arizona and 
Kentucky, I say that there is no interpretation that can be put on my 
amendment that is going to do anything to make flying more hazardous, 
or to keep a person from holding a certificate if there is an emergency 
nature to the revocation. If there is an emergency nature to the 
revocation, as determined by the NTSB--and that is their job--then, of 
course, they will keep the certificate and that individual will not 
have the ability to fly an airplane.
  Let me just make one comment about the NTSB because, while it has 
been stated that the NTSB and FAA are both opposed to this amendment, I 
can assure you we talked as recently as yesterday to Dan Campbell, the 
chief counsel for the NTSB, and he says, no, it is natural that they 
generally don't want a heavier workload than they currently have. But 
he feels that this is a fair approach, and they don't have an official 
position against it.

  Does the FAA? Yes. I think any time you are dealing with a 
bureaucracy--I don't care if it is the IRS, the FDA, the EPA, or the 
FAA, or any of the rest of them--they don't like to give up anything. 
This way, they would be giving up part of this appellate process. This 
is a matter of fairness.
  I recognize that we will not be voting until tomorrow. However, I ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient is second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. FORD. There we go. We are working together again.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is right.
  Mr. President, I will make one last comment. In the event that my 
amendment will not prevail tomorrow, I look forward, of course, to 
working with both the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from 
Arizona to try to make it more workable.
  I yield the floor.


            Airport Protection From Forced Scheduled Service

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, today I am speaking in support of an 
amendment to address a problem facing small reliever airports that do 
not accept scheduled service operations. Centennial Airport is a small 
reliever airport near Denver, Colorado, where operations consist 
primarily of small private chartered and business planes. A unique 
situation exists at Centennial Airport involving certain charter 
services and a loophole in the federal regulations governing scheduled 
flights.
  Centennial Airport is not certificated for scheduled flight service. 
In fact, the Airport Authority, with strong local backing, has banned 
scheduled service at Centennial. According to federal law, the Federal 
Aviation Administration cannot force any airport to become 
certificated. The airport is not equipped with a terminal, baggage 
system, or passenger security. Furthermore, Denver International 
Airport is less than 25 miles from Centennial, and has the capacity to 
handle additional scheduled service operations.
  A situation arose more than three years ago when a company called 
Centennial Express Airlines, Inc. began charter service at Centennial, 
but immediately announced that the airline's service would continue as 
scheduled service. The Airport Authority sued and the County District 
Court ordered the flights stopped. In April of this year the Colorado 
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Centennial Airport Authority's ban. The 
Court cited the safe operation of the airport as a priority, and upheld 
the airport's discretion to prohibit scheduled passenger service.
  While this decision protected the airport's right to refuse scheduled 
service, a similar situation recently arose with another company, 
Colorado Connection Executive Air Services, and the result has been 
detrimental for Centennial Airport.
  In 1997, Colorado Connection proposed to start public charter 
passenger service pursuant to a regular and public schedule. Colorado 
Connection, which is entirely owned by Air One Charter, tried using a 
combination of Department of Transportation and Federal Aviation 
Administration exemptions to offer scheduled service. Air One Charter 
indicated intent to market 6-12 daily flights to various Colorado 
cities and to contract baggage services for their flights.
  The Centennial Airport Authority unanimously voted to deny airport 
access to Colorado Connection's scheduled service. The vote took place 
in April 1998 and a month later the FAA initiated a Part 16 
investigation. The FAA claims that the Airport Authority's move to deny 
service is unjustly discriminatory. Recently, the FAA issued a decision 
to pull federal funding for Centennial Airport if the ban on scheduled 
service is not lifted. This decision is in direct conflict with the 
Colorado Supreme Court's ruling on the issue. It is the result of a 
loophole in a law that was not intended to force small airports to take 
on the responsibility and burden of supporting scheduled service.
  Immediately following the announcement of the FAA's decision, the 
owner of Centennial Express was reported by the Denver Post to have 
plans to begin scheduled flights from Centennial Airport.
  I have proposed legislation to rectify this situation and uphold the 
authority of airports like Centennial to ban all scheduled service if 
they choose to do so. This proposal allows a general aviation airport 
to deny access to a public charter operator that operates as a 
scheduled service, and clarifies that such action would not be in 
violation of requirements for federal airport aid. This will not 
require any airport to do anything, and it will not allow an airport to 
discriminate against one scheduled service operator and not another.
  This measure, which is included in the manager's amendment, is nearly 
identical to language that the House Commerce Committee has included in 
its FAA Reauthorization Act. It would prohibit the FAA from charging 
discrimination if an airport chooses to deny access to scheduled 
service operators. It will only apply to reliever airports that are not 
certificated under Part 139 to handle scheduled service and airports 
within 35 miles of a large hub airport.
  I appreciate my colleagues' support for the rights of small airport 
authorities and surrounding communities to retain control over their 
airports.


  Banning Commercial Tour Overflights at Rocky Mountain National Park

  Mr. President, I begin by thanking Chairman McCain and the other 
Committee members for their efforts to mitigate the problems presented 
by scenic overflights at national parks. Tour overflight disturbances 
are a growing problem at a number of parks. This is an issue that I 
have been involved in for the last four years, and I recognize that 
other Members of Congress have tried to address this issue.
  While I support the plan put forth by the Committee, I am offering an 
amendment to modify the overflights bill to address a specific Colorado 
issue. I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to work with me on this 
problem.
  In particular, I am concerned that helicopter sightseeing tours at 
Rocky Mountain National Park would seriously detract from the enjoyment 
of other park visitors and would have a negative impact on the 
resources and values of the park itself, and I worry about the serious 
safety risks involved with overflights in this area.
  Rocky Mountain National Park is a relatively small park in the 
Rockies, about 70 miles from Denver. The park receives nearly three 
million visitors each year, almost as many as Yellowstone national 
park, which is eight

[[Page S10829]]

times its size. The park is easily accessible, yet continues to provide 
quiet, solitude, and remoteness to visitors, especially in the back 
country. Trail Ridge road provides a unique experience for visitors 
that are not able to hike in the park. It is the highest paved highway 
in the United States, and crosses the park from east to west. 
Spectacular views of peaks and valleys can be seen from the road and 
nearby overlooks in every direction, similar to what you could see 
during a helicopter tour. Trail Ridge Road reaches above the timber 
line and travels for 4 miles above 12,000 feet and for 11 miles above 
11,000 feet.
  Several problems are specific to this mountainous national park. The 
elevation of the Park does not allow for a large minimum altitude to 
minimize noise, therefore, according to the National Park Service, 
natural quiet is unlikely if overflights are permitted at all. The 
terrain, consisting of many 13,000 foot peaks and narrow valleys, 
coupled with unpredictable weather presents serious safety concerns. 
Also, the unique terrain of Rocky Mountain National Park would cause 
air traffic to cumulate over the popular, lower portions of the park as 
pilots are forced to navigate around the dangerous peaks and high 
winds. Not only would the overflights be concentrated directly over the 
most popular portions of the park, but more powerful, and louder, 
helicopters must be used to achieve the necessary lift at a high 
altitude.
  Rocky Mountain National Park has been fortunate enough to be free 
from overflights to this point, partially because local towns have 
discouraged companies that might provide such services. Last year the 
FAA issued a temporary ban on sightseeing flights over Rocky Mountain 
National Park.
  In light of these distinctive qualities, one can assess that the best 
solution to overflight disturbance is a ban on commercial tour flights 
at Rocky Mountain National Park. My proposed ban will apply to 
commercial tour overflights only, with exceptions granted for emergency 
flights and commercial airlines and private planes. Both the senior 
Senator from Colorado and I are strongly behind this effort to 
permanently ban overflights at the park.
  A ban would be completely consistent with the recommendations of the 
overflights task force. There has been public involvement and 
preparation of an air tour management plan. There is no need to repeat 
the steps required under this legislative proposal at Rocky Mountain 
National Park.
  A commercial tour overflight ban has wide spread support throughout 
my state. State and local officials in areas adjacent to the park 
strongly support a ban on overflights. In fact, local ordinances 
already exist to protect the quiet at the Park. The entire Colorado 
delegation and Colorado's Governor are on record in support of an 
overflight ban. My proposal is supported by the business community, 
including the local Chambers of Commerce, as well as the local 
environmental community.
  In 1995, one of our top Denver newspapers editorialized that the FAA 
should make Rocky Mountain National Park off-limits to low-flying 
aircraft use, ``the sooner the better.'' Now, three years later, we 
have finally taken the opportunity to place a permanent restriction on 
scenic overflights.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________