[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 129 (Thursday, September 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10903-S10913]
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.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to 
thank the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, 
and the ranking member, Senator Hollings, as well as Senators Ford and 
Gorton for their patience and help in working with me to reach an 
acceptable agreement regarding O'Hare Airport.
  I do not think I need to remind them how upset I was when I learned 
they had added a provision to the FAA reauthorization bill adding 100 
additional flights per day at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport. 
The provision was added to the original legislation without consulting 
the local officials who manage the airport, without input from the 
mayor of Chicago who is responsible for the airport, without input from 
the local communities surrounding the airport who will be most affected 
by additional noise and air pollution, and without consulting either of 
the senators from Illinois.
  This provision immediately raised a firestorm of criticism in the 
Chicago area. I have an inch-thick stack of newspaper clips from about 
a 10 day period after this provision appeared in the FAA 
reauthorization bill, which attests to the deep level of interest 
Chicago-area residents have in this matter.
  O'Hare is already the busiest airport in the world. There are at 
least 400,000 people whose daily lives are affected by the noise and 
air pollution generated by the airport. The quality of life of these 
suburban residents must be taken into account before changes are made 
affecting the number of operations at O'Hare Airport.
  While I was displeased that the new-flights provision was added to 
the FAA bill without consulting me, the chairman and ranking member 
have since been gracious and accommodating and have worked with me to 
reach an agreement on this issue. I want to thank the chairman for his 
patience, and for his willingness to work with me on a compromise that 
I believe accommodates his needs, as well as the needs of Chicago-area 
residents.
  The agreement we reached reduces from 100 to 30 to the number of 
additional flights per day at O'Hare. The agreement provides that 18 of 
the 30 slot exemptions will be reserved for ``under-served'' markets, 
and no less than six of the 18 will be ``commuter'' slot exemptions 
reserved for planes with less than 60 seats.
  Before any of these slot exemptions are made available, the Secretary 
must: certify that the additional flights will cause no significant 
noise increase; certify that the additional flights will have no 
adverse safety effects; consult with local officials on the 
environmental and noise effects of the additional flights; and perform 
an environmental review to determine what, if any, effect the 
additional flights will have on the environment.
  In addition, only ``Stage 3'' aircraft, the quietest type of aircraft 
recognized by the FAA, will be eligible to use the new take-off and 
landing slots.
  Finally, after three years the Secretary of Transportation will study 
and report to Congress as to whether the additional flights resulting 
from the new slot exemptions have had any effects on: the environment, 
safety, airport noise, competition at O'Hare, or access to under-served 
markets from O'Hare.
  The Secretary will also study and report on noise levels in the areas 
surrounding the four ``high-density'' airports (Chicago O'Hare, 
Washington National, New York LaGuardia, and New York JFK) once the 
national 100 percent Stage 3 requirement is fully implemented in the 
year 2000.
  I believe this agreement goes a long way toward addressing the 
concerns of the local officials and residents of the cities surrounding 
O'Hare. I want to again thank Senators McCain, Hollings, Ford, and 
Gorton for their attentiveness and understanding. The people of 
Illinois spoke out in response to the O'Hare provision they inserted in 
the FAA reauthorization bill, and these Senators listened.
  I am particularly pleased that the agreement we reached on this 
issue, that was reflected in the managers' amendment adopted yesterday, 
allows this important FAA reauthorization legislation to advance in the 
Senate. This bill must become law before the end of the year in order 
to ensure that important airport improvement projects are not delayed 
or disrupted.
  The legislation also includes several important provisions designed 
to increase air service to small and under-served communities. In 
Illinois, some of the most serious complaints regarding air service 
come from our small and medium-sized communities that want air service 
to O'Hare and other major airports in order to attract global 
businesses. I am delighted I was recently able to help restore air 
service between Decatur, Illinois and O'Hare. The restoration of this 
service will help the city of Decatur, which promotes itself as 
``America's Agribusiness Center,'' grow in today's global economy. 
There are a number of communities across my state demanding flights to 
Chicago and New York, and the provisions of this legislation should 
help them get more air service.
  I want to again thank the chairman for his understanding.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, while we are waiting for what I hope will be 
a final resolution of one remaining matter on this bill, I would like 
to speak to the bill itself, with the understanding of my friend and 
colleague from Arizona, who knows that I am going to be critical of a 
portion of the bill. I would like to also thank my colleagues from the 
capital area, the distinguished senior Senator from Virginia, Senator 
Warner, as well as Senators from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes and Senator 
Mikulski, for their efforts to make some improvements in an area of 
this bill that concerns all of us, and many others.
  Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to express my strong opposition 
to interference in our region's airports that is included in the FAA 
reauthorization bill. I certainly understand that this overall 
legislation is important for the Nation as a whole, and I fully support 
most of the bill. We must clearly prepare for the future by investing 
in aviation infrastructure, safety, and security. This bill provides 
for those critical investments and, for that, I thank Senators McCain 
and Ford.
  This bill also reauthorizes the Airport Improvement Program, which 
funds the capital needs of our Nation's airports, including millions of 
dollars for Virginia facilities. Moreover, as the bill's name implies, 
it reauthorizes the Federal Aviation Administration. The FAA monitors 
aircraft inspections, manages air traffic control, and develops new 
ways to detect and prevent security threats. Without these efforts, few 
people would want to travel by air.

[[Page S10904]]

  But beyond all of the good and necessary things this bill does, Mr. 
President, it also reneges on two important Federal commitments to the 
citizens of Virginia and this area--the existing flight limits and the 
existing perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. 
These two Federal commitments are extremely important to the future 
strength and stability of both National and Dulles Airports, Mr. 
President. They are also extremely important to the communities that 
surround the airports and have relied on the existing rules.
  Mr. President, as my friend and the author of this legislation is 
quoted as saying just yesterday--but admittedly in a different 
context--``a deal is a deal.'' And changing that deal to the clear 
detriment of the communities and businesses that relied on it--is 
fundamentally unfair.
  This Congress should not involve itself in matters that are 
essentially local and regional, that serve both the airports and their 
communities well, and that have provided and continue to provide a road 
map to future economic strength for the people of northern Virginia as 
well as those throughout the metropolitan Washington area.
  Mr. President, these changes are bad public policy because they 
benefit, in some cases, Members of Congress, and certainly a small 
group of consumers, while harming a far larger group. They wreak 
serious damage on the interdependence of National Airport and Dulles 
National Airport. They erode the quality of life for communities 
surrounding the airports. And they fly in the face of an agreement this 
Congress made in 1986 to turn those airports over to a regional 
authority and essentially leave them alone.
  First, Mr. President, proponents argue that this bill would 
marginally assist air travelers by increasing the number of daily 
flights at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. But when we 
increase the number of flights to benefit a few people, we increase the 
congestion for everyone, and we add to the overall delays of all who 
fly in and out of National Airport.
  In weakening the perimeter rule, we allow a few select people to take 
long-haul flights out of National. But what about consumers who may 
lose their short-haul flights to make room for flights to California, 
Nevada, and Arizona? I am concerned that once we breach the perimeter 
rule we will eventually lose small-haul flights to smaller communities 
altogether. This would be brought about in a bill intended to assist 
travelers to underserved communities.
  Second, adjusting the perimeter rule at National will fundamentally 
shatter the carefully crafted interdependence between National and 
Dulles airports that has proven so effective in fostering growth at 
both airports.
  Today Dulles flourishes as an international gateway for our region. 
National thrives, providing convenient regional service. The history of 
both airports shows us that this constructive, vibrant interdependence 
is not by accident.
  National first opened in 1941, before the advent of large commercial 
jets such as the DC-8. And Dulles was built in 1962 because larger jets 
could not land on National's short runways. Medium-sized jets arrived 
on the scene in 1966, and National soon became overcrowded. Jets were 
forced to circle, and delays were considerable.
  In 1966, the airlines agreed to limit the number of flights at 
National. They also agreed to a perimeter rule to further reduce 
overcrowding.
  But these were voluntary limits and did not provide the security or 
the stability needed to maximize the potential of either airport. So 
during the 1970's and early 1980's, improvements were negligible or 
nonexistent at both National and Dulles, for two reasons.
  One, National drained flights from Dulles. And so improvements at 
Dulles were put on hold. Two, improvements were also on hold at 
National. Extensive litigation and public protest over increasing noise 
lead to this freeze. And there was even some discussion of shutting 
down National completely.
  Congressional legislation in 1986 solved these problems by codifying 
the perimeter and slot rules that the airlines themselves had agreed 
upon, and by creating an independent authority to manage the airports. 
This statutorily limited the number of flights at National, along with 
the accompanying delays and noise, and increased the business at Dulles 
providing what we thought was long-term stability to both airports.
  Mr. President, there is no way around the fact that weakening the 
perimeter rule will bring long-haul flights to National at the expense 
of Dulles.
  This marriage between National and Dulles--along with the stability 
that accompanies most strong unions--has been extremely lucrative for 
both airports.
  Billions of dollars have been invested by businesses in the area near 
Dulles Airport based on the assumption that Dulles would remain the 
region's major international gateway. And the public represented by the 
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has made significant 
investments in Dulles, including more than $1.6 billion in bonds.
  Investments in Reagan National Airport have also grown under the 
stability provided by local management and the slot and perimeter 
rules. Since the airport was transferred to the Metropolitan Washington 
Airports Authority, more than $940 million has been invested in the 
airport. The new terminal is well designed, and represents our Nation's 
capital well. But the new terminal at National and the substantial 
investments at Dulles would not have occurred, Mr. President, without 
the perimeter and slot rules.
  In 1986, Congress was sensitive to community outrage as well as the 
need to improve service. In hearings on the legislation, Congressman 
Hammerschmidt asked how the Congress could be sure residents would 
support improvements at National. Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth 
Dole stated:

       With a statutory bar, to more flights, noise levels, will 
     continue to decline, as quieter aircraft, are introduced.
       Thus all the planned projects at National, would simply 
     improve the facility, not increase, its capacity, for air 
     traffic.
       Under these conditions, I believe that National's 
     neighbors, will no longer object, to the improvements.

  Mr. President, as a result of this understanding between the local 
community and the Congress, we have had enormous benefits to air 
service in this region--benefits that we shouldn't imperil by changing 
rules that have worked so well.
  Third, Mr. President this exchange between Secretary Dole and 
Congressman Hammerschmidt illustrates that there was some concern about 
the effect of the transfer legislation on the people who live in the 
communities around National Airport. We need to be sensitive and 
respectful of their concerns and wishes today.
  Increasing the number of flights at National Airport will increase 
the noise level for local citizens, will exacerbate the congestion for 
residents, will increase delays for those who fly in and out of 
National, and could also pose safety risks for surrounding communities.
  Weakening the perimeter rule could wreak economic hardship on Dulles, 
which would threaten the countless businesses and families who settled 
around the airport expecting it to remain our Nations regional 
international gateway.
  By focusing on the few travelers who may benefit from increasing the 
flight limits at National, this bill ignores the harm it will cause to 
the many northern Virginia families who are neighbors to National 
Airport. Local communities and local businesses surrounding both 
airports are in opposition to changes in the flight limits and the 
perimeter rules. It is their quality of life, their economic strength, 
their ability to plan for a secure future, that is at risk with this 
portion of the legislation. We have a system in place that works for 
this region. We have a careful balance between two airports that needs 
to be preserved.
  Finally, Mr. President, with this bill we are again meddling in the 
affairs of two airports that Congress transferred to a regional 
authority which we created because we thought airports could be managed 
better by the authority than by Members of Congress.
  The 1986 transfer legislation signed into law by President Ronald 
Reagan embodied two important concepts that are demolished by the bill 
we are considering today: That local authorities--not the Federal 
Government--should decide local issues; and, that the two airports work 
together in tandem, and with BWI, to serve the national capital region.

[[Page S10905]]

  As I mentioned earlier, the operation of one airport cannot be 
changed without affecting the operation of the other.
  As the Senate Commerce Committee report noted at the time:

       [I]t is the legislation's purpose, to authorize the 
     transfer under long-term lease of the two airports ``as a 
     unit, to a properly constituted independent airport 
     authority, to be created by Virginia and the District of 
     Columbia, in order to improve the management, operation, and 
     development of these important transportation assets.''

  Let me quote from Congressman Dick Armey, who has the following to 
say about transferring the airports from Federal to local control:

       The simple fact is that our Federal Government was not 
     designed, nor is it suited, to the task of running the day-
     to-day operations of civilian airports.
       Transferring control of the airports to an ``independent 
     authority'' will put these airports on the same footing as 
     all others in the country.
       It gets the Federal Government out of the day-to-day 
     operation and management of civilian airports, and puts this 
     control into the hands of those who are more interested in 
     seeing these airports run in the safest and most efficient 
     manner possible . . . Rather than throw limited federal funds 
     at the airports and tell them to do what they can, this 
     legislation will allow the type of coordinated long-range 
     planning necessary to keep the airports safe and efficient 
     into the future.

  The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has engaged in the 
type of long-range coordinated planning that Mr. Armey encouraged. 
Essential to that long-range plan is to balance the operations of the 
two interdependent airports. National is designed to handle short-haul 
flights inside the perimeter, and Dulles is designed to handle long-
haul flights which are essential to maintaining Dulles as an 
international gateway.
  Yesterday, I heard one of my colleagues comment on the bustling 
activities surrounding Dulles. The current robust growth at Dulles 
results directly from the balance between the two airports. The 
legislation we are considering today begins to tip that balance in a 
way that will harm both of the airports as well as the communities that 
surround them.
  As Senator Dole said during debate on the 1986 legislation:

       Mr. President, I would like to take just one moment to 
     reaffirm my support for passage of the regional airport bill.

  Continuing to quote Senator Dole. ``There are a few things the 
Federal Government--and only the Federal Government--can do well. 
Running local airports is not one of them.''
  Finally, Mr. President, in making these changes to the flight limits 
and the perimeter rule, proponents argue that we are just following the 
wisdom of the free market. I am aware that the slot and perimeter rules 
are limits on the market, and I am also aware that GAO studies have 
criticized the rules as anticompetitive. Moreover, I believe in the 
free market.
  But Government has a role in checking the excesses that can flow from 
an unfettered free market. The market won't educate children, the 
market won't protect workers, the market won't check monopolies, and 
the market won't safeguard our natural resources.
  So our charge as policymakers in a capitalist economy is to allow 
individuals and entrepreneurs and businesses the freest rein possible 
while safeguarding society's other concerns. Defining those concerns 
and implementing those safeguards without destroying the benefits we 
achieve from the free market is one of the most difficult tasks we 
face.
  Mr. President, the free market doesn't care if Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport is unnecessarily congested, but we do. The 
free market doesn't care if there are flight delays, but we do. The 
free market doesn't care if there is excessive noise in Alexandria or 
Arlington, but we do. The free market doesn't care if Dulles Airport is 
harmed, but we do.
  We seek a balance here between the free market and the strength of 
our airports and the quality of life of our people. That balance is 
embodied in the flight limits and perimeter rule. They should not be 
sacrificed to the free market in this debate.
  And perhaps more egregiously, Mr. President, this legislation applies 
an adherence to free market principles on an inconsistent and selective 
basis. This bill, for example, contemplates restricting air flights 
over both small and large parks. The report on the bill states that the 
Commerce Committee ``intends that the [Federal agencies] work together 
to preserve quiet in the national parks.'' The report goes on to say 
that while ``natural quiet is not an important attribute for all 
national parks, such as historic sites in urban settings,'' preserving 
quiet in some parks ``may require banning commercial air tour 
operations over the park altogether.''
  I agree with the committee, Mr. President. We should work to preserve 
the pristine nature of our national parks for the public to enjoy.
  But how can we abandon free market principles to preserve the 
sanctity of our parks and use free market principles to damage the 
sanctity of life here in our Nation's Capital? It would be wrong, Mr. 
President, to force Virginians and those who live in this area to 
endure more noise from National Airport.
  There is a second significant inconsistency in this bill, and that 
involves service assistance for small communities.
  On the one hand, the bill attempts to expand service to underserved 
communities. It creates the Community-Carrier Air Service Program which 
seeks to develop public/private partnerships with commercial airlines 
and the local State and Federal governments. These partnerships will 
offer service previously unavailable. In addition, the bill maintains 
the Essential Air Service Program which now subsidizes air service in 
communities such as Kingman, AZ; Rockland, ME; and Seward, AL.
  On the other hand, we jeopardize short-haul service from National. 
This legislation weakens the perimeter rule which was created to both 
improve service to underserved airports and to expand service at Dulles 
Airport. Again, if we weaken the perimeter rule, we weaken more than 
Dulles Airport. We begin a dangerous journey that could jeopardize 
consumer access to smaller airports across the Nation that currently 
benefit from the perimeter rule.
  Fortunately, Mr. President, the bill before us does not erase the 
perimeter rule altogether. Unfortunately, it does damage to the rule, 
and I believe it contemplates doing away with the rule completely, 
which embodies its own threat to the economic performance of our 
region.
  Before I conclude, I want to ask that Members of this body step back 
for just a moment and recommit ourselves to honoring the commitment 
that we made to our regional airports in 1986. Those of us who 
represent this region have spent enormous time and energy over the last 
decade trying to keep the Congress from breaking its commitment to 
communities that we serve. We need to stop wasting valuable time 
micromanaging these airports. Let's put out a moratorium, if you will, 
on legislating changes that are in the purview of the Metropolitan 
Washington Airports Authority. Let's give the Authority, say, 5 years 
to continue to develop a strong, vibrant air transportation system we 
want and need for this area at the dawn of a new millennium.
  I understand that Senators McCain and Lott will express their 
commitment not to interfere further in the slot and perimeter rule 
should this bill pass. I welcome that commitment. But let's acknowledge 
that the existing rules we change with this bill were carefully 
crafted, are based on sound public policy, and should not be altered. 
And let's oppose this Federal intervention in the operation of two 
airports that are doing just fine without us.
  Mr. President, I know this bill will pass, and it should for the 
reasons I stated at the outset. But in opposition to yet another broken 
promise by this Congress to the citizens of Virginia and this region, I 
will vote no on final passage and hope that my concerns, shared by so 
many of our colleagues, will be addressed in conference.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor and 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page S10906]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. While my friends from Virginia are here on the floor, 
both Senator Warner and Senator Robb, I want to first of all tell 
Senator Robb I appreciate all his words of criticism and scorn. They 
are well received.
  Mr. ROBB. And friendship.
  Mr. McCAIN. In the spirit of friendship.
  I also want to say that both Senator Robb and Senator Warner have 
been staunch advocates for the people who live in the State of Virginia 
who are directly affected by these policy changes. I understand that 
concern and that commitment, and I think it is not only appropriate but 
laudable. I assure both Senators, my commitment to them and their 
citizens is we will do everything we can to see that there is not an 
increase in noise in the neighborhoods surrounding these airports. If 
we renege on that commitment, I will be glad to come back and revisit 
this issue. If there is an increase of noise pollution of any kind, I 
want to tell my two dear friends that I will come back, revisit this 
issue, so that we can repair any damage that is inflicted on the people 
of the State of Virginia--and Maryland as well, I might add. Maryland 
as well.
  Both Senators from Virginia have been staunch opponents. They have 
done remarkable things in preventing even this very modest--let's be 
realistic here--this is very modest. When we are talking about a total 
of six round-trip flights a day, it is not a huge increase. But they 
have done a great job, and I commit to them, finally, we will be glad 
to revisit this issue if problems arise as a result of this 
legislation.
  Also, we can put all the blame on Senator Ford because he will no 
longer be with us at that time.
  Mr. FORD. There he goes, talking out of school again.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, may I thank our friend and colleague from 
Arizona, who has worked for many, many years. He does reflect an 
ongoing dialog that my distinguished senior Senator and I, and the two 
distinguished Senators from Maryland, have had with him as well as 
Senators representing a couple of the other airports that were affected 
by both flight and perimeter rules.
  I appreciate very much and take sincerely his offer to revisit the 
question on noise. I hope he will also include, at least in the spirit 
of the commitment that he makes, both congestion and diminution in the 
vitality of Dulles, which is really the other major issue that we are 
talking about. All of these are in play.
  But I understand and appreciate very much, as does my senior 
colleague, both the commitment the Senator from Arizona has made as 
well as the spirit of that commitment and the spirit with which he has 
worked with us over a very long period of time, many years, to get to 
this particular point.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I join with my distinguished colleague, 
Senator Robb, in expressing to both managers our appreciation. It is 
clear that we are about to adopt a bill which will have measurable 
impact, in terms of the environment, on the immediate region--Maryland, 
Virginia, and the District of Columbia. I am about to make a correction 
in an amendment which will provide, I think, adequate monitoring of 
that impact on the environment.
  I started on the question of these airports--I can't remember, it is 
so many years ago now. Now that Senator Robb has joined me in the 
Senate, he, too, has worked very hard on the airports. I was on the 
airport commission when we transferred them from Federal ownership to 
the current legal concept with MWAA. As a matter of fact, I think my 
colleague was Governor; isn't that correct?
  Mr. ROBB. If my colleague will yield just for a comment, I was indeed 
and, as a matter of fact, had an opportunity to come up and work with 
the distinguished senior Senator and with others on this legislation. 
Before I left the Governors' office, I appointed the first two members 
of the board.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct. I actually wrote the 
legislation that was eventually adopted. But so much for history.
  The residents of this community have to endure the hardships as 
occasioned by this growing airport. But in the course of my analysis 
here, in the past year, of this question, I talked at great length with 
the technical people. The margin, the incremental margin that could 
increase both in noise pollution and safety--we should include safety 
in this, and certainly in my conversations no alarm bells were sounded. 
I hope the NEPA report eventually verifies that finding.
  I also would like--having a few moments here with the distinguished 
managers of this bill, would like to talk a moment about the MWAA 
board. I know the Committee on Commerce has had the hearing on them. 
They are yet to go on the Executive Calendar. This is something I have 
been following very closely. I do not wish to say more about it, but I 
just look my constituents straight in the eye and say, ``Trust the old 
senior Senator that somehow this thing is going to be resolved.'' I 
have known Mr. McCain a quarter of a century as a colleague. Trust me, 
this will be resolved.
  I would like to place in the Record the importance of allowing last 
year's money, and such moneys that flow from this piece of 
legislation--exactly what those projects are. I enumerated them in the 
course of the hearings on the MWAA appointees, but I think it is 
important to put them in the Record. Foremost among them is, hopefully, 
the elimination of those vehicles that go out between the terminals at 
Dulles--how many of our colleagues have come up to me on the floor: 
``John, the time has come; we have outlived those''?--and other very 
important modifications, modernization for both of these airports, for 
which I and others have fought hard in these years.
  At Reagan National Airport and Washington Dulles International 
Airport several major projects are virtually on hold as a result of 
inaction by the Senate on the confirmation of Metropolitan Washington 
Airports Authority board members:
  (1) At Dulles, the temporary gates attached at the foot of the tower 
need to be replaced. $11.2 million would come from PFCs; (2) an all-
weather connector between a new, badly-needed parking garage and the 
Main Terminal would require about $29 million from PFCs; (3) for the 
Midfield B Concourse, a tunnel with moving sidewalks would replace the 
mobile lounge ride, with about $46 million provided by PFCs; (4) a new 
baggage handling requires $31.4 million in PFC revenue.
  At Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport there are several more:
  (1) Rehabilitation of the historic old main terminal, now called 
Terminal A, will cost $94 million, and is to be paid for with $21 
million in grants and $36 million in PFCs; (2) the ``connector'' 
between the old and new terminals will be widened, and moving sidewalks 
added. The cost is $4.8 million, with $4.3 million in PFCs.
  Mr. President, these two airports are vital to the economic 
development of Virginia and the entire metropolitan Washington area. We 
are anxious that they are physically able to support the improvements 
in air service the region so badly needs.
  I would urge the Commerce Committee to act promptly to forward these 
nominations to the Senate for its advice and consent.
  So I thank the managers. This is an important colloquy we have had 
right now. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Very quickly we will go--Senators Gorton and Specter are 
here with the final amendment which we will go to in a moment.
  Mr. WARNER. May I make a technical change?


                     Amendment No. 3639, As Amended

  Mr. FORD. Prior to that, we have a pending amendment that is agreed 
to.
  Mr. McCAIN. We have a pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the amendment 
of the Senator from Maryland is adopted.
  The amendment, No. 3639, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S10907]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I assure my colleague Senator Warner on his technical 
amendment, we are going to mark up the nominees to the board on 
Thursday and we will report them out on Thursday.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.


                      Amendment No. 3643 Vitiated

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, earlier the Senate adopted amendment No. 
3643, which the Senator from Virginia introduced on behalf of Senator 
Robb, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Mikulski.
  By an innocent error, the wrong sheet of paper got into the hands of 
the clerk. I take full responsibility.
  I now ask that amendment No. 3643 be vitiated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Amendment No. 3643 was vitiated.


                           Amendment No. 3644

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Ms. Mikulski and Mr. Robb, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3644.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 43 of the Manager's Amendment beginning with line 
     21, strike through line 5 on page 44 and insert the 
     following:
       (d) Assessment of safety, noise and environmental 
     impacts.--The Secretary shall assess the impact of granting 
     exemptions, including the impacts of the additional slots and 
     flights at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport provided 
     under subsections (a) and (b) on safety, noise levels and the 
     environment within 90 days of the date of the enactment of 
     this Act. The environmental assessment shall be carried out 
     in accordance with parts 1500-1508 of title 40, Code of 
     Federal Regulations. Such environmental assessment shall 
     include a public meeting.

  Mr. WARNER. I am pleased to offer this amendment for myself and 
Senators Sarbanes, Mikulski and Robb.
  The purpose of this amendment is in the event the conference report 
adopts part or all of the provisions of this bill which would increase 
the number of slots--that is in this legislation that we are now 
considering--the Secretary of Transportation is given authority to 
grant additional slots and additional flights beyond the 1,250-mile 
perimeter of the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. These 
provisions will permit 24 additional flights daily at Reagan National 
Airport.
  I have worked with the managers of the bill for some time. I have 
expressed my grave concern about the perimeter rule and the associated 
potential, and probably likely degradation of environmental 
consequences from these flights.
  So, to the extent our bill as passed through the Senate, which still 
remains to be seen but I presume it will--will contain this provision, 
then of course, in the conference I cannot predict what will come out 
of conference. But in that event, then I think we better put a little 
insurance policy in here as regards the environmental concerns. That is 
the purpose of this amendment. These additional flights are permitted 
without any evaluation of the potential impact on noise level, safe 
operations of the airport, or other environmental impacts.
  The amendment I offer today, together with my distinguished 
colleagues from Virginia and Maryland, requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to conduct an environmental assessment of the potential 
impacts of these additional flights on noise levels, safety and the 
environment prior to the Secretary granting any exemptions.
  That is a very important provision. The environmental assessment 
process, as defined under the National Environmental Policy Act, 
ensures that the Secretary will fully review possible impacts of these 
additional flights. Also, this process provides the opportunity for the 
public to fully participate--I underline that, the public gets a 
voice--in making known their views on the potential impacts of these 
additional flights.
  I believe this amendment is critical to ensuring that the Ronald 
Reagan Washington National Airport continues to be a safe and efficient 
airport for the traveling public, the area residents, and, indeed, the 
many thousands of employees who work at this airport, together with the 
aircrews who operate these aircraft.
  Having worked the better part of the day on this amendment with the 
managers, it is my understanding at this time the managers indicate 
they will accept this amendment without the necessity of a rollcall 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. FORD. My friend and colleague is not here, the manager of the 
bill from the majority side. We have discussed this between us and the 
Senator's statement, as far as I am concerned, is absolutely true. He 
has worked hard on it, done a lot of hard work on it. I think it is 
absolutely necessary we have it in for his protection and others. I 
would not want to speak for my colleague.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I did speak with the manager just moments 
ago, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and he has agreed. I convey 
that to the distinguished minority leader.
  Mr. FORD. I don't doubt your word.
  Mr. WARNER. I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, without 
objection, the amendment is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 3644) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair and thank the managers.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 3645

  (Purpose: To amend title 46, United States Code, to provide for the 
    recovery of non-pecuniary damages in commercial aviation suits)

  Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Santorum, Senator Lott and 
myself, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter] for himself, 
     Mr. Santorum and Mr. Lott, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3645.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC.   . COMPENSATION UNDER THE DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT.

       (a) In General.--Section 2 of the Death on the High Seas 
     Act (46 U.S.C. App. 762) is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     recovery''; and
       (2) adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(b) Commercial Aviation.--
       ``(1) In General.--If the death was caused during 
     commercial aviation, additional compensation for non-
     pecuniary damages for wrongful death of a decedent is 
     recoverable in a total amount, for all beneficiaries of that 
     decedent, that shall not exceed the greater of the pecuniary 
     loss sustained or a sum total of $750,000 from all defendants 
     for all claims. Punitive damages are not recoverable.
       ``(2) Inflation adjustment.--The $750,000 amount shall be 
     adjusted, beginning in calendar year 2000 by the increase, if 
     any, in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers for 
     the prior year over the Consumer Price Index for all urban 
     consumers for the calendar year 1998.
       ``(3) Non-pecuniary damages.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `non-pecuniary damages' means damages 
     for loss of care, comfort, and companionship.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies to any death caused during commercial aviation 
     occurring after July 16, 1996.

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment clarifies the 1920 
shipping law known as the Death on the High Seas Act which has been 
interpreted to prohibit families of victims, such as those who were on 
TWA Flight 800, from seeking relief for other than pecuniary damages.
  This amendment is a modification of Senate bill 943 which I had 
introduced

[[Page S10908]]

earlier with the following cosponsors Senators Santorum, D'Amato, 
Lautenberg, Inhofe, Gramm of Texas, Hutchison of Texas, Moynihan, 
Wellstone, Dodd, Feinstein, Torricelli, Murray, Durbin, Moseley-Braun, 
Mikulski, Sarbanes, Robb and Levin.
  We have not had an opportunity to circulate this amendment, but I do 
think it would have very broad support since those cosponsors supported 
the broader legislative proposal contained in Senate bill 943.
  Mr. President, we are submitting this compromise amendment in order 
to move ahead to obtain some possible compensation for damages beyond 
pecuniary damages. Specifically, the families of victims of plane 
crashes more than 3 miles off our shores will be able to sue not only 
for economic losses such as the lost salary of a deceased spouse, but 
also for non-economic losses such as loss of companionship, loss of 
care, and loss of comfort.
  The amendment provides that a court can make an award for 
nonpecuniary damages which shall not exceed the greater of the 
pecuniary loss sustained or a total of $750,000 per victim.
  This amendment is retroactive to the crash of TWA 800, which 
tragically took 230 lives on July 17, 1996. The hardest hit community 
in the TWA 800 crash was Montoursville, PA, which lost 16 students and 
5 adult chaperones from the local high school who were participating in 
a long-awaited French club trip to France. It was the parents of some 
of these children who first contacted our office about introducing 
legislation to allow them to seek compensation other than for pecuniary 
losses, which they believed courts would not provide.
  Mr. President, under this amendment, the loss for noneconomic damages 
will be the greater of the pecuniary loss sustained for a total of 
$750,000 per victim. Illustratively, if the pecuniary loss to an 
individual was $1 million, then that individual could obtain $1 million 
for nonpecuniary damages. But if the pecuniary damages are less than 
$750,000, the maximum that an individual can take would be $750,000.
  I offer this amendment, Mr. President, to make the best of what I 
consider to be a less-than-desirable situation. I am philosophically 
strongly opposed to caps on damages. I believe that there is very 
substantial evidence that corporate America has disregarded damages to 
victims on a calculated pecuniary evaluation as to what will cost them 
the least money.
  Illustrative of that is the famous Pinto case where Ford decided to 
leave the gas tank in the back of the car because it would cost $11 or 
$12 to move it to a safe position; and there was a calculation, as 
disclosed in the files of the Ford Motor Company, that that judgment 
was made because it would be cheaper to pay the damages than it would 
be to change the location of the gas tank.
  I have some detailed knowledge of recent litigation involving Ford 
Motor Company where there was a defective brake at issue. It was 
acknowledged to be defective and the National Transportation Safety 
Board said it was defective, and there were efforts made to get Ford to 
recall it, but Ford did not recall it, again, obviously, because the 
costs they calculated would be less onerous from a financial point of 
view to allow that danger to remain. A young child aged 3 was killed as 
a result of that incident.
  And there are many, many cases--case after case--the tobacco cases, 
which were recently illustrative, where there is a calculation made by 
the corporation to give false information for pecuniary gain, which 
would warrant punitive damages; cases involving IUDs where there were 
known defective instrumentalities; cases involving flammable pajamas 
where children were burned; many, many cases which have led me to 
conclude that there really ought not to be caps.
  I have had some experience as a litigator, mostly on the defense 
side, some for claimants for personal injuries, but mostly on the 
defense side with the firm of Barnes, Dechert, Price and Rhoads, later 
known as Dechert, Price and Rhoads of Philadelphia, and have seen this 
issue from both sides of the fence. But it is not possible to move 
ahead on the FAA reauthorization bill, which is an appropriate spot to 
have this aviation amendment, without tying up this important 
legislation.
  We have had a series of meetings with interested parties and had an 
amendment to the Death on the High Seas Act been enacted which would 
have had unlimited damages, there was the announced intent to 
filibuster the bill. However, the pending FAA bill really needs to be 
enacted because it contains very substantial money for airport 
construction across my State of Pennsylvania and throughout America.
  So this is a compromise which can be worked out. The figure moved 
from $250,000 for nonpecuniary damages to $600,000, to the greater of 
the pecuniary loss or $750,000. I think that the figure is too low as 
it stands now, but this is the best that can be obtained today. I would 
note that in offering this amendment today, I make the pledge that if 
we fail to remove them in Conference on the FAA bill, I will introduce 
legislation in the next Congress to take the caps off because I think 
one day there will be a Congress which will be sympathetic to 
eliminating such caps.
  When there was a threat of a filibuster, that was on the basis that a 
Death on the High Seas Act amendment might be enacted without any cap 
at all. The whole issue of product liability is a complex issue. And 
there are some who think that it ought to be curtailed to some 
substantial extent and others who think that it ought not to be 
curtailed.
  But this does advance the position of families of individuals who 
have met with tragic death. And it is not uncommon in our Congress and 
our U.S. Senate that we reach compromises and live to fight another day 
to push the principles that we believe in. But this is the best that 
can be done.
  In conversations with my constituents and interested parties there 
is, I think, a sense that this is a desirable consequence today, the 
$750,000 in noneconomic damages, and that we will look to another day 
to try to remove the caps altogether.
  I want to comment briefly about what I consider to be a very serious 
potential problem for the Senate procedurally on what has occurred in 
this matter with respect to what amendments are in order under our 
rules and what notification Senators like me receive on that matter. It 
was well known by all of the interested Senators--the majority leader's 
office, the managers of the bill, and others--that an amendment on 
Death on the High Seas would be offered.

  Then there was a unanimous consent request where the matters that 
could be presented were limited. At that time, the technical 
consideration was raised as to what was a relevant amendment, which 
challenged the ingenuity of the Parliamentarian as to what is relevant 
in technical Senate rules.
  Had there been any doubt in my mind that this amendment was to be 
challenged on the basis of relevance, and all the interested parties 
knew what it was, it would be a relatively simple matter for me as a 
Senator having a right to object to a unanimous consent agreement and 
to have this specific amendment protected so that I would not face a 
technical challenge on relevancy. I brought that issue to the attention 
of the distinguished majority leader and said if we were starting to 
parse semicolons in this body we would have to have a lot of Senators 
on the floor to protect their interests on unanimous consent 
agreements, because it was plain that this amendment was to be offered. 
Our distinguished majority leader thought my point was well taken.
  Thereafter, there was another unanimous consent agreement entered 
into on the floor of the Senate without ``hotlining''--and I don't know 
that anybody listening to C-SPAN2 cares about it, but the Senators do 
care--and hotlining is a procedure where Senators' offices are called 
and told this unanimous consent agreement is to be entered into, which 
is more than an announcement on the floor of the U.S. Senate, which may 
be noted or may not be noted.
  This Senator did not have notice about a limitation on the amendments 
which were to be limited in the FAA bill under the unanimous consent 
agreement. Here again, all the parties were on notice that this was an 
issue which this Senator intended to pursue.
  Now, I have made it plain in my discussions with the interested 
parties

[[Page S10909]]

and the majority leader that I understood the importance of this FAA 
bill, that I would not take steps which would tie the bill up and that 
I was prepared to try to reach an acceptable compromise as to a figure 
on noneconomic damages.
  However, this experience has taught me something new. From what I 
have seen in the Senate up to this point, there is a recognition of 
what Senators intend to offer and there is notification so that 
Senators can appear and protect their technical interests.
  I am not claiming it is prejudice because, as I repeat, I was 
prepared to accept this compromise. But to be put in a position where, 
had I chosen not to do so, to have been foreclosed under these 
circumstances, I think, would have been an inappropriate limitation on 
my rights to offer a broader amendment. If I must take the position of 
filing an objection to every unanimous consent agreement, that is an 
alternative that I would not like. But, that may be necessary if we are 
not to have our interests protected and to be notified where our 
interests are known--to come and make sure our amendments can be 
offered.
  I speak about that at some great length because I am very concerned 
about what has happened in this case. I cannot be more emphatic in 
saying I disapprove of the procedures which were followed here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the Death on the High Seas Act was either 
passed or last amended some 70 years ago. It is an act relating to 
exactly that--death on the high seas--that sets out limitations on 
damages that can be recovered in fault-based actions for such deaths.
  Obviously, the absence of any change in those limitations can be said 
to be something of an anachronism at this point. The Death on the High 
Seas Act does not limit the dollar amount of actual economic damages 
that can be recovered. The Death on the High Seas Act applies equally 
to death over the seas or on the seas as a result of an aircraft 
accident. The rationale, of course, for that kind of limitation on 
damages is the vital importance to the people of this country, of the 
maritime transportation of goods and passengers, and the air 
transportation of goods and passengers over the seas of the world.
  The view, I am sure, of those who passed the act in the first place 
was that this was such an important part of our society, that it was so 
important to encourage the development of efficient, swift, and 
inexpensive transport of goods and passengers, that there should be 
certain limitations to legal actions resulting in deaths on the high 
seas.
  The bill to which the Senator from Pennsylvania refers was the 
subject of a hearing in the Commerce Committee. That bill was not 
reported favorably or at all by the committee. So some portion of it or 
all of it was originally posed as an amendment to this bill on the 
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, to which this 
subject is not clearly relevant.
  The proponents of S. 943 and of the original form of this amendment 
wanted to remove all limitations--both for noneconomic damages and for 
punitive damages--from any such actions. That seemed to me, and 
continues to seem to me, to be an inappropriate response. The necessity 
for transportation by air over seas remains absolute in the world in 
which we live, and to subject either aircraft manufacturers or airlines 
to unlimited amounts of noneconomic damages and to punitive damages 
would have a clearly negative impact on the design and maintenance of 
airliners and of the airlines that operate.
  Flight 800 is not a Ford Pinto. All airlines and all aircraft 
manufacturers, domestic and foreign, are required to meet 
extraordinarily strict safety standards imposed by the Government of 
the United States. After 2 or 3 years of study, the greatest experts in 
the world are not certain of the cause of that crash. They think they 
know, but if one thing is clear to the ordinary observer, the crash did 
not take place due to the negligence of the manufacturer or of TWA.
  Nevertheless, in the fault-based litigation field which afflicts the 
United States, there is little doubt that a number of juries by trial 
lawyers could be persuaded that negligence that no one could have 
determined in advance was, in fact, present, and these damages would 
thereby be unlimited.
  So as the Senator from Pennsylvania has so graciously pointed out, we 
have here a compromise. I think that it is appropriate that certain 
noneconomic damages be recoverable. I think they will be recoverable 
and will be recovered even though in the normal sense of the word 
``negligence'' against any of the defendants, it will never actually be 
proven. But I do not think that they should be unlimited. I do not 
think that cases like this admit to punitive damages under any 
conceivable set of circumstances.
  What this bill does is two things: It allows the recovery of certain 
noneconomic damages for the loss of care, comfort, and companionship of 
those who were killed in the aircraft crash to which this bill is 
retroactively applicable, and in future aircraft accidents, up to the 
amount of actual economic damages or $750,000--whichever figure is 
larger. I believe that is a generous award and a generous limitation 
for aircraft accidents.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania feels they should be unlimited, and he 
represents a strongly held point of view held by a large number of 
other Members of this body. But this is a legislative compromise. These 
damage limitations are far greater than they are under present law. 
They are far less than the American Trial Lawyers Association would 
like.
  It does seem to me that in a body that has struggled with product 
liability legislation for the better part of two decades, and which 
includes a majority of Members who feel that certain limits should be 
placed on product liability litigation, but whose goals have been 
frustrated through filibusters and the like, that to add another field 
to the kind of unlimited litigation that so plagues society at the 
present time and has so troubled debates in this body, not just over 
product liability but over medical malpractice as well, that such an 
extension would be highly unwise.

  As a consequence, the Senator from Pennsylvania and I disagree on the 
general philosophy of the vehicle with which we are involved here. But 
I think that, in the best traditions of the Senate, our disagreements 
have been resolved, at least for the time being, by a compromise--a 
compromise that has limits --limits that I think are perhaps too high 
on the kind of damages that can be recovered and implicitly as to 
whether they should be recovered at all under the circumstances, and 
the belief of the Senator from Pennsylvania that standard negligence 
rules ought to apply here as they do in many other areas.
  We have reached compromise on this. He has proposed an amendment 
which he doesn't completely agree with himself, but he thinks it 
represents an improvement. And I agree with an amendment that I do not 
completely disagree with and one I think is relatively too generous. It 
may well be that the Senator from Arizona thinks this will be the last 
amendment on this bill and we will move forward from here. I guess we 
can say that at some future time there will be another contest during 
which we can examine the premises of our fault-based system of 
liability and its relationship to aircraft accidents at greater length 
and at more leisure.
  For the time being, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania and the 
other Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Santorum, who first brought this 
to my attention, and the many others who worked very hard to reach an 
accommodation. The senior Senator from Pennsylvania has done a very 
good job on a cause in which he believes, even though he didn't get 
everything he wanted.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Washington for 
those kind remarks. I thank him for saying the Senator from 
Pennsylvania has done a good job. If I can attract the attention of the 
Senator from Washington, I think he has done even a better job. He and 
I were elected in 1980 and have served in this body for some 
considerable period of time, and we are lawyers. It may be unwise to 
make that kind of admission publicly on C-SPAN2, but we are lawyers. We 
have many discussions and we agree most of the time.

[[Page S10910]]

  I heard Don Meredith, the legendary quarterback of the Dallas 
Cowboys, make a comment about lawyers one day. He said, ``99 percent of 
the lawyers give the rest of them a bad name.'' Senator Domenici, who 
is listening, is also a lawyer and, with some frequency, he disagrees 
with the legal profession. We will continue to take up these issues. 
This is the conclusion for today.
  The bill will now go to conference and, in conference, on the House 
side there has been a decision that the Death on the High Seas Act 
should not apply to any aircraft accidents. It should apply only to 
other instrumentalities, but not to airplanes. That will be a matter 
for conference. If the House should prevail, then the objectives of 
this Senator would have been accomplished because there would be no 
limitation on damages because the Act would be inapplicable to airline 
crashes.
  With respect to the TWA 800 incident, it ought to be noted that the 
federal district court, the trial court, has recently ruled that the 
limitation of the Death on the High Seas Act does not apply because, 
while it was outside of 3 miles, it was within 12 miles, and a certain 
action by President Reagan extended that definition of our waters to a 
12-mile limit. But that hasn't been ruled upon by the court of appeals, 
nor by the Supreme Court. So that district court judge's ruling may 
change. There are issues that are yet to be resolved in conference and 
also in the courts on this matter.
  In conclusion, I think we have advanced the matter. It is in 
accordance with the traditions of the Senate to try to reach an 
accommodation and move the legislation forward and reenter the fray and 
rejoin the issue at a later date. I thank the Chair and yield the 
floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to thank my two 
lawyer colleagues. I am very pleased that I am not of that profession. 
I will refrain from telling any more lawyer jokes on the floor.
  There were two very different positions here and strongly held views. 
I believe this is what our work here in the Senate is all about. The 
Senator from Washington, in his responsibilities as chairman of the 
Aviation Subcommittee, has preserved some fundamental principles here, 
and I also think the Senator from Pennsylvania, who has taken a major 
step forward concerning children. For the first time, now children will 
be ranked along with everybody else in compensation and in the case of 
tragedy. I believe that the people who have fallen victim to these 
terrible aircraft tragedies owe a great debt of gratitude to Senator 
Specter for what he did tonight. There is now some hope for them for 
some reasonable compensation. We all know that there is no compensation 
for the loss of a life. But there are certainly ways that we can make 
their lives better and give them a chance to have a decent future.
  I thank Senator Specter for what he did here tonight. I also want to 
thank Senator Gorton, who fundamentally protected principles that he 
has adhered to for a long period of time.
  I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Arizona for those comments. He has done an outstanding job as chairman 
of the Commerce Committee on this bill and on other matters.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I object to that right now, and I suggest 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, because of the unanimous consent 
agreement, which limited the number of amendments, the Senator from 
Pennsylvania and I have agreed to put that amendment into the managers' 
package, which we will be proposing very shortly. It will be Senator 
Specter's amendment. We do this only for the sake of preserving the 
process of the unanimous consent agreement. It will be part of the 
managers' amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, that accurately states our agreement. For 
technical reasons, I will withdraw the amendment and it will become a 
part of the bill as if voted on and passed as part of the managers' 
package. I concur with what my colleague just articulated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is withdrawn.
  The amendment (No. 3645) was withdrawn.
  Mr. McCAIN. Senator Wyden has very strong views on the High Seas Act. 
We have been working together on a colloquy that will be included in 
the Record to reflect that.


                    alaska exemption from title vii

  Mr. STEVENS. I thank the Manager, the Senator from Arizona, Chairman 
McCain, for his able and fair management of the FAA Reauthorization 
bill. Subsection 702(b) exempts overflights in Alaska from the 
provisions of the new section 40125 of title 40 set forth in the 
subsection 702(a). Is that the Committee's intent?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. Subsection 702(b) also exempts overflights in Alaska 
from the provisions of Title VII of S. 2279. Is that the Committee's 
intent?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. STEVENS. The effect of subsection 702(b) then, is to expressly 
prohibit the federal government's prohibition and regulation of 
overflights over national park land and tribal land in Alaska, if there 
were lands or waters in Alaska that would otherwise qualify as such 
land in the absence of this exemption.
  Mr. McCAIN. That is correct.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask that the chairman of the authorizing committee for 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Senator Murkowski, 
to comment on section 702(b) and the operation of section 1110(a) of 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Section 1110(a) of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act provides an express and affirmative right to air 
access to federal lands in Alaska. Section 1110(a) provides as follows:

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or other 
     law, the Secretary shall permit, on conservation system 
     units, national recreation areas, and national conservation 
     areas, and those public lands designated as wilderness study, 
     the use of snowmachines (during periods of adequate snow 
     cover, or frozen river conditions in the case of wild and 
     scenic rivers), motorboats, airplanes, and nonmotorized 
     surface transportation methods for traditional activities 
     (where such activities are permitted by this Act or other 
     law) and for travel to and from villages and homesites. Such 
     use shall be subject to reasonable regulations by the 
     Secretary to protect the natural and other values of the 
     conservation system units, national recreation areas, and 
     national conservation areas, and shall not be prohibited 
     unless, after notice and hearing in the vicinity of the 
     affected unit or area, the Secretary finds that such use 
     would be detrimental to the resource values of the unit or 
     area. Nothing in this section shall be construed as 
     prohibiting the use of other methods of transportation for 
     such travel and activities on conservation system lands where 
     such use is permitted by this Act or other law.

  Overflights, including those conducted for profit, are a 
``traditional activity'' in Alaska, and as such currently may be 
subject to ``reasonable regulation'' by the Secretary of the Interior 
under section 1110(a). This policy works for Alaska. Although section 
1110(a) applies notwithstanding any other law, section 702(b) clarifies 
that Congress is not changing its policy toward Alaska in any way.
  Mr. STEVENS. The last time Congress enacted legislation on the 
overflights matter was in the 100th Congress under Public Law 100-91 
(101 Stat. 674 et seq.). Prior to enactment, this legislation was 
reviewed by both the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
and the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation. As a 
Commerce Committee member then and now, I would like to discuss P.L. 
1001-91.
  Under P.L. 100-91, Congress mandated a study by the Secretary of the 
Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, to 
determine the impacts that overflights of aircraft have on park unit 
resources. Section 1(c) expressly excluded all National

[[Page S10911]]

Park System units in Alaska from the research and the study. In a 
hearing held during the 105th Congress on S. 268, the park overflights 
bill that ultimately became Title VII of S. 2279, the National Park 
Service testified that Alaska parks were not a part of the study 
commissioned in 1987 and completed in 1995. Therefore, that study 
mandated by Congress did not provide a basis for applying S. 2279's 
park overflights provisions to Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. That's clear.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I filed an amendment on this bill regarding 
the eligibility for new slots at Reagan National Airport. I have 
decided not to seek a vote on my amendment at this time. I appreciate 
the efforts of my colleague, Senator McCain, the chairman of the 
Committee, and his leadership on the FAA bill. I would like to ask if 
the Chairman would be willing to continue to review this issue and its 
merits as he takes this bill to conference.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Indiana has made clear his concerns 
regarding increasing the ability of airlines to compete for slots at 
Reagan National. I can assure him that we will continue to look at this 
issue as we approach conference in the hopes of crafting a final 
provision which best meets the many competing interests of members and 
their states, including those expressed by the Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. I thank the Chairman.


               Consumer Access to Travel Information Act

  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished 
senior Senator from Arizona, the manager of this bill, in a discussion 
about the growing concern of consumers about airline travel in this 
country.
  Earlier this year, I introduced S. 1977, the Consumer Access to 
Travel Information Act of 1998. I introduced this important piece of 
legislation to address a growing problem in the airline industry. For 
over three years, the major airlines have been moving to gain more 
control over the airline travel ticket distribution system. While this 
effort may seem harmless, the ramifications to consumers are 
significant. Currently, most air travelers get their information from 
one of the 33,000 travel agencies around the country. These agencies 
provide consumers with unbiased and comprehensive air travel 
information, i.e. the best flight at the cheapest fare. Without that 
independent source of travel information, there is no doubt that 
consumers will be paying more, in many cases, substantially more for 
air travel.
  S. 1977 would simply require the Secretary of Transportation to 
investigate the extent of possible anti-consumer, anti-competitive 
behavior of major airlines, including discriminatory and predatory 
practices of airlines which target travel agents, other independent 
distributors, and small airlines. This is authority that the Secretary 
currently has under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, but has 
failed to act upon. this bill would make certain this investigation is 
undertaken. If it is determined that anticompetitive, discriminatory or 
predatory practices exist, the Secretary would report to Congress those 
steps the Department intends to take to address such practices.
  Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Chairman of the Commerce 
Committee whether he has been made aware of concerns raised by 
consumers regarding air travel?
  Mr. McCAIN. I want to thank the Senator from New York for raising 
concerns in this area. I have, indeed, heard from consumer groups, 
particularly small businessmen, regarding the high price of air travel, 
and the lack of competition in certain markets. Although most of the 
concerns in this area focus on small, upstart, and regional airlines' 
ability to compete with the big airlines, I am glad that you have 
brought to my attention the role of the larger airlines in the ticket 
distribution system.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator. I salute and support the efforts by 
the manager of this bill to address the competition issue with small 
airlines. A critical part of a small airline's ability to compete is to 
have its tickets distributed by an independent entity, mainly the 
travel agent. Travel agents provide critical services to air travelers, 
and air travelers depend heavily on travel agents to provide an 
accurate, broad selection of schedules, fare quotes, and ticketing 
services for all airlines.
  Mr. President, I ask the Senior Senator from Arizona if Congress 
should address possible anti-competitive behavior with respect to the 
airline ticket distribution system?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator raises a valid concern and I 
believe it is one our Committee needs to explore further. Although I 
understand the Senator's legitimate concern about the treatment of 
travel agents by the major airlines, the Committee needs to investigate 
this issue further before we pass any legislation on the matter.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I naturally would prefer to pass this 
legislation now and have the Department begin looking into possible 
anti-competitive activities, but I understand the distinguished 
Chairman's position. In addition, I realize this FAA Reauthorization 
legislation must be signed into law by the end of this month, and I do 
not want to delay it further. I ask the Senior Senator from Arizona if 
the Commerce Committee could have a hearing on this matter in the near 
future to thoroughly examine the airline ticket distribution system and 
the critical role of travel agents for consumers?
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from New York that the Committee needs 
to explore this issue further, and I would like to work with him to put 
together a hearing on this matter as soon as it is feasible. The air 
travelling consumer has a real advocate in the Senator from New York, 
and his leadership on this issue is to be commended.
  Mr. D'AMATO. I thank the Senator, and I look forward to working with 
him further on this important issue.
  I thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 2279. This 
is an important bill that we must finish before we adjourn. Without it 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) cannot spend any money on 
airport improvements, and airports in my state of South Carolina and 
throughout the nation would have to stop needed improvements that will 
bring better, safer air service to local communities--service which 
allows those communities to attract and expand businesses.
  The bill authorizes approximately $10 billion per year for the FAA 
for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. This will allow the FAA to focus on its 
most important mission--safety. Last year, more than 500 million 
passengers boarded planes and arrived at their destinations safely. Out 
air traffic control system is the safest in the world, but it needs to 
be upgraded if we are to remain the world's leader.
  The FAA is about to deploy new controller work stations--first in the 
Seattle en route center, and later in other en route centers. New 
controller work stations should also begin to be deployed within the 
next year under the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System 
(STARS) contract.
  More needs to be done. The National Civil Aviation Review Commission 
(NCARC) reported that unless something is done, the air traffic system 
faces gridlock. The FAA has estimated that future passenger growth will 
be about 3.5% per year through 2009, with enplanements going from 561 
million in 1998 to 821 million in 2009. More controllers and more 
equipment are needed. Not only are we looking at relying on satellites 
to track aircraft, but each of our airports will need to expand. 
Concrete, new lighting systems, new terminals, and new security 
measures are required.
  Right now, with the passage of last year's tax increase on the air 
carriers, the Airport and Airway Trust Fund is flush with money. The 
FAA estimates that the Trust Fund will take in total receipts of 
$10.622 billion in FY 1999. Only about 60 percent of the FAA's budget 
comes from the Trust Fund, with the remainder coming from the General 
Fund. There is more than enough money in the Trust fund to pay for the 
Airport Improvement Program (AIP), and I wish we could invest more 
funding for the program than is included in the bill.
  Next year I will fight to make sure that we restore the trust in the 
aviation trust fund by taking it off budget. The state of South 
Carolina has an airport in every county. These airports serve small and 
large communities

[[Page S10912]]

that benefit from the opportunities that are created by construction on 
an up-to-date airport. For example, runway improvements at the 
Greenville/Spartanburg Airport allowed the South Carolina Upstate to 
attract BMW to build its North American plant there. AIP funding helped 
the former Myrtle Beach Air Force Base become the Myrtle Beach Jetport, 
bringing hundreds of tourists to vacations on the South Carolina Grand 
Strand. Whether it is Orangeburg, Marlboro County, or Hilton Head, 
South Carolina needs strong air transportation infrastructure. I can 
tell you as I travel around the state how critical aviation is. I have 
supported these interests for many years. This bill allow us to 
continue to meet the needs of the state and country.
  Finally, included in the managers' amendment are provisions of the 
Visit USA Act, introduced earlier this year as S. 2412 by Senator Burns 
and myself to further the international standing of the U.S. travel and 
tourism industry. As co-chairman of the United States Senate Tourism 
Caucus along with Senator Burns, I know that the tourism industry is a 
winner for the United States. In my state of South Carolina, tourism 
generates over $6.5 billion and is responsible for 113,000 jobs. Over 
46 million international visitors came to the United States and spent 
over $90 billion in 1997. These visitors generated more than $5 billion 
in Federal taxes alone. To compete with other nations for a larger 
share of international tourism over the next decade, we must support an 
international tourism marketing effort. Provisions of this legislation 
would do that by authorizing appropriations for the marketing program 
of the U.S. National Tourism Organization (NTO). This authorization 
would allow the NTO to continue operations beyond the October 11 sunset 
date.
  This legislation is the product of a lot of hard work by many members 
of the Commerce Committee. I would like to thank them for their 
dedication to improving America's airport infrastructure and bolstering 
the safety of airline travel. I look forward to expeditious 
consideration and passage of S. 2279.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3646

  (Purpose: To make technical corrections in the managers' amendment)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask that a managers' amendment be 
included at this time, which also includes what had previously been the 
Specter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), for himself and Mr. 
     Ford, proposes an amendment numbered 3646.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 18 of the managers' amendment, line 17, strike 
     ``11(4)'' and insert ``(4)''.
       On page 34 of the managers' amendment, line 6, insert 
     ``directly'' after ``person''.
       On page 34, beginning in line 10, strike ``aircraft 
     registration numbers of any aircraft; and'' and insert ``the 
     display of any aircraft-situation-display-to-industry derived 
     data related to any identified aircraft registration number; 
     and''.
       On page 34 of the managers' amendment, beginning in line 
     14, strike ``that owner or operator's request within 30 days 
     after receiving the request.'' and insert ``the 
     Administration's request.''
       On page 34 of the managers' amendment, strike lines 16 
     through 21.
       On page 34 of the managers' amendment, line 22, strike 
     ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
       On page 36 of the managers' amendment, strike lines 16 and 
     17 and insert the following:
       ``(1) An airport with fewer than 2,000,000 annual 
     enplanements; and
       On page 39 of the managers' amendment, beginning in line 4, 
     strike ``shall, in conjunction with subsection (f),'' and 
     insert ``shall''.
       On page 40 of the managers' amendment, strike lines 1 
     through 8 and insert the following:
       ``(i) Regional Jet Defined.--In this section, the term 
     `regional jet' means a passenger, turbofan-powered aircraft 
     carrying not fewer than 30 and not more than 50 
     passengers.''.
       On page 41 of the managers' amendment, beginning in line 9, 
     strike ``In addition to any exemption granted under section 
     41714(d), the'' and insert ``The''.
       On page 41 of the managers' amendment, beginning in line 
     24, strike ``In addition to any exemption granted under 
     section 41714(d) or subsection (a) of this section, the'' and 
     insert ``The''.
       On page 42 of the managers' amendment, beginning in line 5, 
     strike ``smaller than large hub airports (as defined in 
     section 47134(d)(2))'' and insert ``with fewer than 2,000,000 
     annual enplanements''.
       On page 42 of the managers' amendment, line 10, strike 
     ``airports other than large hubs'' and insert ``such 
     airports''.
       On page 46, line 18, strike ``(d)'' and insert ``(f)''.
       On page 46, line 24, after ``and the'' insert 
     ``metropolitan planning organization for''.
       On page 47, line 1, strike ``Council of Governments''.
       On page 35 of the managers' amendment, between lines 2 and 
     3, insert the following:

     SEC. 529. CERTAIN ATC TOWERS.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, 
     intergovernmental circular advisories or other process, or 
     any judicial proceeding or ruling to the contrary, the 
     Federal Aviation Administration shall use such funds as 
     necessary to contract for the operation of air traffic 
     control towers, located in Salisbury, Maryland; Bozeman, 
     Montana; and Boca Raton, Florida, provided that the Federal 
     Aviation Administration has made a prior determination of 
     eligibility for such towers to be included in the contract 
     tower program.
       On page 114, insert:

     SEC. 530. COMPENSATION UNDER THE DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT

       (a) In General.--Section 2 of the Death on the High Seas 
     Act (46 U.S.C. App. 762) is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
     recovery''; and
       (2) adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(b) Commercial Aviation.--
       ``(1) In general.--If the death was caused during 
     commercial aviation, additional compensation for non-
     pecuniary damages for wrongful death of a decedent is 
     recoverable in a total amount, for all beneficiaries of that 
     decedent, that shall not exceed the greater of the pecuniary 
     loss sustained or a sum total of $750,000 from all defendants 
     for all claims. Punitive damages are not recoverable.
       ``(2) Inflation adjustment.--The $750,000 amount shall be 
     adjusted, beginning in calendar year 2000 by the increase, if 
     any, in the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers for 
     the prior year over the Consumer Price Index for all urban 
     consumers for the calendar year 1998.
       ``(3) Non-pecuniary damages.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `non-pecuniary damages' means damages 
     for loss of care, comfort, and companionship.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     applies to any death caused during commercial aviation 
     occurring after July 16, 1996.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is no further debate on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3646) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I move to lay on the table in my capacity as a 
Senator from Utah.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe there are no other amendments.
  We are prepared for third reading of the bill.
  I would like to withhold that for just 1 minute.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand there are no further 
amendments.
  We are prepared for third reading of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill is open to further amendment. If 
there be no further amendment to be proposed, the question is on 
agreeing to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read 
the third time.

[[Page S10913]]

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 536, H.R. 4057, all 
after the enacting clause be stricken, and the text of S. 2279, as 
amended, be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill then be read the third 
time, and immediately following the convening of the Senate on Friday 
there be 20 minutes for closing remarks divided equally between the 
majority and minority managers; and, following that time, the Senate 
proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 4057, with no other intervening 
action or debate.
  I finally ask unanimous consent that following passage of the bill 
the Senate insist on its amendment, request a conference with the 
House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of 
the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, there 
will be a vote tomorrow morning at approximately 9:50 on passage of the 
FAA reauthorization bill.

                          ____________________