[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 117 (Friday, September 10, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10718-S10720]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--MESSAGE ACCOMPANYING S. 1437
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Chair lay before
the Senate a message from the House to accompany S. 1437, the FAA
reauthorization. I further ask consent the Senate disagree to the
amendments of the House, agree to the request for a conference with the
House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of
the Senate.
Before the question is put, I do want to say the FAA reauthorization
is a very important piece of legislation, obviously. It never seems to
be easy getting it through the Congress. I remember in 1996 it was the
last bill that we
[[Page S10719]]
passed of the session, and it took an extra week of the session to get
it through. Now we find, after a lot of work involving issues all the
way from safety and improvements in airports and questions of slots at
various airports--New York, Chicago, as well as what to do with Reagan
National Airport--the Senate has developed what I think is a good bill.
The House has passed a bill, but it has provisions in it that are of
great concern to the chairman of the committee in the Senate and the
chairman of the Budget Committee. So there are, once again,
complications.
Because of the need to stay on the appropriations bills and fulfill
our commitments, it is very difficult to schedule a lengthy debate on
FAA reauthorization. I have spoken to Senator Daschle and said: Is
there some way we can work out an agreement to perhaps bring it up in a
short period of time so we get it done, even in the midst of all the
appropriations bills? The other option is to go straight to conference
with the bill the Senate Commerce Committee reported and the bill the
House has reported. That is what this would attempt to do so we could
move on with the process.
That effort was made during the latter part of July. We thought we
had it cleared a couple of times, and then we ran into objections. I do
have a list of proposed conferees who would come both from the Commerce
Committee and from another committee that is interested in this, the
Transportation Appropriations Committee, I believe, Senator Shelby; and
Budget, Senators Domenici and Grassley, and of course their
counterparts from the Democratic side.
I make that unanimous consent request at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall
object on behalf of Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader. But before
doing so, I would like to point out the Senate passed S. 1467, which is
a 60-day extension of the airport grant program. We have dealt with
this issue of the reauthorization act for some long while.
In fact, in the Commerce Committee on which I and the majority leader
both serve, we have passed S. 82. It has been waiting to be brought to
the floor of the Senate for debate. The process that is described by
Senator Lott would, in effect, prohibit Senators from debating this
issue on the floor of the Senate. Because the House passes an omnibus
bill and attaches it to the 60-day extension, the Senate does not have
the opportunity to debate. It means people who have amendments they
would like to offer, perhaps, to the bill that we wrote in the Commerce
Committee will not have that opportunity. This will then be decided in
conference. That is not appropriate and not something we could agree
to.
But I do want to say, and I expect the majority leader probably
disagrees, this process has been abysmal. We have a system in this
country with radical expansion of the number of people flying. The FAA
is an organization that desperately needs some assistance and some
predictability and consistency with a reauthorization they can count
on. We should have done this long ago. Passing 60-day extensions
doesn't serve anybody's interest.
Several days on the floor of the Senate would resolve this from the
standpoint of the larger reauthorization bill and move this process
forward. I will be forced to object to the unanimous consent request
for those reasons, the request offered by the majority leader. I do so
object, and then I would like to offer a unanimous consent request on a
different way to accomplish the same result. But I object to the
unanimous consent request by the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. DORGAN. If I might ask the majority leader for the opportunity to
offer a unanimous consent request?
I ask consent the Senate disagree to the House amendments so the
message on this bill can be returned to the House this afternoon. That
would enable the House to recede from its amendment and send S. 1467,
the short-term extension bill the Senate passed on August 2, to the
President immediately for his signature. This would ensure this process
would continue, local airports would be able to receive the estimated
$290 million in funds due through the end of this fiscal year, and do
that until the Senate has had an opportunity to consider the FAA
reauthorization bill. We should do that. Senators have that right. It
ought to be a priority. I hope we can accomplish that. I make this in
the form of a unanimous consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would have to object at this time.
However, I find some interest in the offer. But I would need to consult
with the chairman and the ranking member and make sure all Senators are
aware of that. I have a number of Senators who have put me on notice,
on both sides of the aisle, that before we agree to a further, or some
other, agreement or unanimous consent, they would want to be notified.
I know Senator Fitzgerald of Illinois was one of those. I believe one
of the New York Senators had notified me to that effect also. So we
would need to clear it with a number of people.
I personally think the 60-day extension is the way to go and that is
why I supported the 60-day extension before we went out. We had not
been able to resolve the scheduling problems or resolve the substance
of the issues, and while we were doing that, I thought the responsible
thing to do was the 60-day extension, and I will continue to advance
the need for that. Unfortunately, the House didn't agree with that and
they took our 60-day extension and attached their bill to it and sent
it back, which, in effect, meant that we did not have the extension
because this was the final couple of days of the July recess.
There are disagreements on how to resolve the FAA reauthorization. I
noted we had a similar disagreement over a very narrow point back in
1996 and the whole session was delayed an extra week because Senator
Kennedy had a point that he was concerned about. But we got it done,
and I am determined we are going to get it done this time.
I must say to the Senator, if I could create an extra 10 days in a
month, I would probably do that because it is very hard to accommodate
what we must do and accommodate agreements that are reached so we can
have not 1 week but 2 weeks of debate on a juvenile justice bill. We
find many of our bills are taking longer because Senators offer 100
amendments or a whole variety of things.
I am determined to get this done and I will continue to work with the
chairmen and the ranking members on both sides of the aisle, in both
Houses, and I will be pursuing the 60-day extension. I will get back to
the Democratic leadership about how we proceed with that.
Again, I note I did talk to Senator Daschle about trying to come up
with an agreement on a process where we could deal with this, even with
the limited time we have before us.
Mr. DORGAN. May I make just one comment?
Mr. LOTT. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the
Senator.
Mr. DORGAN. I observe on March 8 the Commerce Committee took action
on S. 82, which is the reauthorization of the FAA. So we have had a
substantial amount of time elapse. I think the Senator from Mississippi
agrees with me that the number of people using the aviation system in
this country has expanded dramatically. The capacity is being
substantially taxed in many ways, and we really do need to pass a
reauthorization bill. It is critically important that we get at this
business. I respect the difficulty of time that a majority leader has
to deal with, but this is a big issue, the issue of safety and
protecting the system by which we have an aviation transportation
system in our country, one that we are very proud of but one that
desperately is waiting for and needs a reauthorization bill passed by
the Senate. We ought to have the opportunity to debate that in the
Senate, get to conference, and we ought to make this a priority.
Mr. LOTT. Further reserving the right to object, if Senators will
show up, we can have work on Mondays and Fridays. If we do not have
objection to having a full day's work, such as this
[[Page S10720]]
coming Monday, we can get more done. But I should note also,
transportation in general is important. Roads and ports and harbors,
Amtrak, railroads, airlines--it is all important.
Yet, just yesterday, the Democrats insisted on blocking a maneuver to
get to consideration of the Transportation appropriations bill. They
threatened to filibuster because they did not like one provision in the
Transportation appropriations bill that will benefit two States, that
affects two States. Therefore, we could not invoke cloture on the
Transportation appropriations bill.
I agree, air safety is important but so is road safety. My father was
killed on an unsafe, narrow, two-lane highway. I get very excited and
determined when it comes to transportation, whether it is an
appropriations bill or transportation in general, and FAA
reauthorization. I hope we can find a way to work together to move both
these bills. I am committed to that.
I object.
I will move to the next request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
____________________