[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 133 (Tuesday, October 5, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11891-S11914]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   AIR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the pending amendments to the FAA bill.
  Pending:

       Gorton Amendment No. 1892, to consolidate and revise 
     provisions relating to slot rules for certain airports.
       Gorton (for Rockefeller/Gorton) Amendment No. 1893, to 
     improve the efficiency of the air traffic control system.
       Baucus Amendment No. 1898, to require the reporting of the 
     reasons for delays or cancellations in air flights.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am sorry that I was not here yesterday 
when the debate began. Nevertheless, I rise in support of S. 82, the 
Air Transportation Improvement Act. As everyone should be aware, this 
is ``must-pass'' legislation that includes numerous provisions to 
maintain and improve the safety, security and capacity of our nation's 
airports and airways. Furthermore, this bill would make great strides 
in enhancing competition in the airline industry.
  If Congress does not reauthorize the Airport Improvement Program 
(AIP), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will be prohibited 
from issuing much needed grants to airports in every state, regardless 
of whether or not funds have been appropriated. We have now entered 
fiscal year 2000, and we cannot put off reauthorization of the AIP. The 
program lapsed as of last Friday. Every day that goes by without an AIP 
authorization is another day that important projects cannot move ahead.
  If we fail to reauthorize this program, we may do significant harm to 
the transportation infrastructure of our country. AIP grants play a 
critical part of airport development. Without these grants, important 
safety, security, and capacity projects will be put at risk throughout 
the country. The types of safety projects that airports use AIP grants 
to fund include instrument landing systems, runway lighting, and 
extensions of runway safety areas.
  But the bill does more than provide money. It also takes specific, 
proactive steps to improve aviation safety. For example, S. 82 would 
require that cargo aircraft be equipped with instruments that warn of 
impending midair collisions. Passenger aircraft are already equipped 
with collision avoidance equipment, which gives pilots ample time to 
make evasive maneuvers. The need for these devices was highlighted a 
few months ago by a near-collision between two cargo aircraft over 
Kansas. Unfortunately, that was not an isolated incident.
  On the aviation safety front, the bill also: provides explicit AIP 
funding eligibility for the installation of integrated inpavement 
lighting systems, and other runway incursion prevention devices, 
requires more types of fixed-wing aircraft in air commerce to be 
equipped with emergency locator transmitters by 2002, provides broader 
authority to the FAA to determine what circumstances warrant a criminal

[[Page S11892]]

history record check for persons performing security screening of 
passengers and cargo, reauthorizes the aviation insurance program, also 
known as war risk insurance. This program provides insurance for 
commercial aircraft that are operating in high risk areas, such as 
countries at war or on the verge of war. Commercial insurers usually 
will not provide coverage for such operations, which are often required 
to advance U.S. foreign policy or to support our overseas national 
security operations. The program expired on August 6, 1999, and cannot 
be extended without this authorization, gives the FAA the authority to 
fine unruly airline passengers who interfere with the operation or 
safety of a civil flight, up to $10,000 per violation, authorizes 
$450,000 to address the problem of bird ingestions into aircraft 
engines, authorizes $9.1 million over three years for a safety and 
security management program to provide training for aviation safety 
personnel. The program would concentrate on personnel from countries 
that are not in compliance with international safety standards, 
authorizes at least $30 million annually for the FAA to purchase 
precision instrument landing systems (ILS) through its ILS inventory 
program, authorizes at least $5 million for the FAA to carry out at 
least one project to test and evaluate innovative airport security 
systems and related technologies, including explosive detection systems 
in an airport environment, requires the FAA to maintain human weather 
observers to augment the services provided by the Automated Surface 
Observation System (ASOS) weather stations, at least until the FAA 
certifies that the automated systems provide consistent reporting of 
changing meteorological conditions, allows the FAA to continue and 
expand its successful program of establishing consortia of government 
and aviation industry representatives at individual airports to provide 
advice on aviation security and safety, requires that individuals be 
fined or imprisoned when they knowingly pilot a commercial aircraft 
without a valid FAA certificate, requires the FAA to consider the need 
for (1) improving runway safety areas, which are essentially runway 
extensions that provide a landing cushion beyond the ends of runways; 
(2) requiring the installation of precision approach path indicators, 
which are visual vertical guidance landing systems for runways, 
prohibits any company or employee that is convicted of an offense 
involving counterfeit aviation parts from keeping or obtaining an FAA 
certificate. Air carriers, repair stations, manufacturers, and any 
other FAA certificate holders would be prohibited from employing anyone 
convicted of an offense involving counterfeit parts.

  This bill requires the FAA to accelerate a rulemaking on Flight 
Operations Quality Assurance. FOQA is a program under which airlines 
and their crews share operational information, including data captured 
by flight data recorders. Information about errors is shared to focus 
on situations in which hardware, air traffic control procedures, or 
company practices create hazardous situations.
  It requires the FAA to study and promote improved training in the 
human factors arena, including the development of specific training 
curricula.
  It provides FAA whistleblowers who uncover safety risks with the 
ability to seek redress if they are subject to retaliation for their 
actions.
  The legislation provides employees of airlines, and employees of 
airline contractors and subcontractors, with statutory whistleblower 
protections to facilitate their providing air safety information.
  These provisions will be critical in the continuing effort to enhance 
safety and reduce the accident rate.
  Of all the bills that the Senate may consider this year, the Air 
Transportation Improvement Act should be easy. This bill is 
substantially the same as the Wendell H. Ford National Air 
Transportation System Improvement Act, which this body approved last 
September by a vote of 92-1. If anything, this bill is better than last 
year's. There is no rational reason why we can't take care of this 
quickly.
  Because S. 82 is so similar to last year's FAA reauthorization bill, 
I will skip a lengthy description of every provision, particularly 
those that have not changed. Nevertheless, I do want to remind my 
colleagues of a few key items in this legislation and describe what has 
changed since last year.
  The manager's amendment to this bill, which is in the nature of a 
substitute, has at least three critical parts that are worth 
highlighting. First and foremost, S. 82 reauthorizes the FAA and the 
AIP through fiscal year 2002. Second, the bill contains essential 
provisions to promote a competitive aviation industry. Third, it will 
protect the environment in our national parks by establishing a system 
for the management of commercial air tour overflights. With the help of 
my colleagues, I have worked long and hard on all of these issues.

  The provisions in S. 82 that have generated the most discussion are 
the airline competition provisions. As I have said many times, the 
purpose of these provisions is to complete the deregulation of our 
domestic aviation system for the benefit of consumers and communities 
everywhere. According to the General Accounting Office, there still 
exist significant barriers to competition at several important airports 
in this country. These barriers include slot controls at Chicago 
O'Hare, Reagan National, and LaGuardia and Kennedy in New York, and the 
Federal perimeter rule at Reagan National.
  In a recent study, the GAO found that the established airlines have 
expanded their slot holdings a the four-slot constrained airports, 
while the share held by startup airlines remains low. Airfares at these 
airports continue to be consistently higher than other airports of 
comparable size.
  It does not take a trained economist to figure that out. If you 
restrict the number of flights, then obviously the cost of those 
flights will go up.
  Additionally, the federal permimeter rule continues to prevent 
airlines based outside the perimeter from gaining competitive access to 
Reagan National.
  This GAO report reinforces my view that the perimeter rule is a 
restrictive and anti-competitive Federal regulation that prohibits 
airlines from flying the routes sought by their customers. According to 
testimony presented to the Commerce Committee by the Department of 
Transportation, the perimeter rule is not needed for safety or 
operational reasons. For that matter, neither are slot controls. 
Therefore, these restrictions simply are not warranted.
  So long as the Federal Government maintains outdated unneeded 
restrictions, which favor established airlines over new entrants, 
deregulation will not be complete. Slot controls and the perimeter rule 
are Federal interference with the market's ability to reflect consumer 
preferences. We should not be in the position of choosing sides in the 
marketplace.
  With respect to Reagan National, I would like to make one final 
point. Just last month, the GAO came out with another study confirming 
that the airport is fully capable of handling more flights without 
compromising safety or creating significant aircraft delays. The GAO 
also found that the proposal in this bill pertaining to perimeter rule 
would not significantly harm any of the other airports in this region. 
I believe the GAO's findings demonstrated that there are no credible 
arguments against the modest changes proposed in this bill.
  Although the reported version of S. 82 increased the number of new 
opportunities for service to Reagan National compared to last year's 
bill, an amendment that will be offered by Senators Gorton and 
Rockefeller will bring the total number of slot exemptions back to the 
level approved by the Senate last year. It is sadly ironic that an 
airport named for President Reagan, who stood for free markets and 
deregulation, will continue to be burdened with two forms of economic 
regulation--slots and a perimeter rule. But some loosening of these 
unfair restrictions is better than the status quo, and so I will not 
oppose the amendment.
  Fortunately, the competition-related amendment being offered by 
Senator Gorton and others includes several significant improvements to 
the reported bill. Most notably, the slot controls at O'Hare, Kennedy, 
and LaGuardia airports will eventually be eliminated. This is a 
remarkable win for consumers and a change that I endorse 
wholeheartedly. Furthermore, before the slot controls are lifted 
entirely, regional jets, and new entrant air carriers will

[[Page S11893]]

have more opportunities to serve these airports. The typically low 
cost, low fare new entrants will bring competition to these restricted 
markets, which will result in lower fares for travelers. Travelers from 
small communities will benefit from increased access to these crucial 
markets.
  I am not alone in believing that the competition provisions in the 
bill are a big step forward for all Americans. Support for these 
competition-enhancing provisions is strong and widespread. I have heard 
from organizations as diverse as the Western Governor's Association of 
Attorneys General, the Des Monies International Airport, and Midwest 
Express Airlines. All of them support one or more of the provisions 
that loosen or eliminate slot and perimeter rule restrictions.
  But it was a letter from just an average citizen in Alexandria, VA 
that caught my attention. He said that he feels victimized by the 
artificial restrictions placed on flights from Reagan National. His 
young family is living on one paycheck. He says that his family budget 
does not allow them the luxury of using Reagan National, which is less 
than ten minutes from his home. To him, using Reagan National seems to 
be ``a privilege reserved for the wealthy and those on expense 
accounts.'' For the sake of his privacy I will not mention his name, 
but this is precisely the type of person who deserves the benefits of 
more competition at restricted airports like Reagan National.
  In summary, this bill represents two years of work on a comprehensive 
package to promote aviation safety, airport and air traffic control 
infrastructure investment, and enhanced competition in the airline 
industry. Our air transportation system is essential to the Nation's 
well being. We must not neglect its pressing needs. If we fail to act, 
the FAA will be prevented from addressing vital security and safety 
needs in every State in the Union. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support swift passage of this legislation.
  I thank Senator Hollings and his staff, Senator Rockefeller, Senator 
Gorton, and all members of the Commerce Committee who have taken a very 
active role in putting this legislation together. It is a significantly 
large piece of legislation reflecting a great deal of complexities 
associated with aviation and the importance of it.
  Approximately a year ago, a commission that was mandated to be 
convened by legislation reported to the Congress and the American 
people. Their findings and recommendations were very disturbing. In 
summary, these very qualified individuals reported that unless we 
rapidly expand our aviation capability in America, every day, in every 
major airport in America, is going to be similar to the day before 
Thanksgiving. I do not know how many of my colleagues have had the 
opportunity of being in a major airport on the busiest day of the year 
in America. It is not a lot of fun.
  I do a lot of flying, a great deal of flying this year, more than I 
have in previous years. I see the increase in delays, especially along 
the east coast corridor. I have seen when there is a little bit of bad 
weather our air traffic control system becomes gridlocked and hours and 
hours of delay ensue. These delays are well documented.
  The committee is going to have to look at what we have done in the 
air traffic control system modernization area. We are going to have to 
look at what they have not done. There are a number of recommendations, 
some of which we have acted on in this committee, some of which we have 
not. But if we do not pass this legislation, then how can we move 
forward in aviation in this country?
  I believe any objective economist will assure all of us that 
deregulation has led to increased competition and lower fares. But some 
of that trend has leveled off of late because of a lack of competition, 
because of a lack of ability to enter the aviation industry.
  This is disturbing to me because the one thing, it seems to me, we 
owe Americans is an affordable way of getting from one place to 
another; and more and more Americans, obviously, are making use of the 
airlines.
  I can give you a lot of anecdotal stories about what the effective 
competition is. For example, at Raleigh-Durham Airport, when it was 
announced that a new, low-cost airline was going to be operating out of 
that airport, the day after the announcement, long before the airline 
started its competition, the average fares dropped by 25 percent--a 25-
percent drop in average airfares.
  We have to do whatever we can to encourage the ability of new 
entrants to come into the aviation business. My greatest disappointment 
in deregulation of the airlines is that the phenomenon which was 
generated initially has not remained nearly at the level we would like 
to see it.
  There are problems many of my colleagues, including the Senator from 
West Virginia, have talked about at length--of rural areas not being 
able to have just minimal air services. That is why we are dramatically 
increasing the essential air service authorization, so that more rural 
areas can achieve it.

  I also think it is very clear the air traffic control system is 
lagging far behind. I think there is no doubt that we have had problems 
with passengers receiving fundamental courtesies and rights which they 
deserve. That is why there has been so much attention generated 
concerning the need for some fundamental, basic rights that passengers 
should have and receive from the airlines. For example, the debacle of 
last Christmas at Detroit should never be repeated in America, what 
airline passengers were subjected to on that unhappy occasion. Yes, it 
was generated by bad weather, but, no, there was no excuse for the 
treatment many of those airline passengers received on that day and 
other passengers have received in other airports around the country, 
only the examples were not as egregious, nor did they get the 
widespread publicity.
  If you believe, as I do, if we continue the economic prosperity that 
we have been enjoying in this country, we will continue to see a 
dramatic and very significant increase in the use of the airlines by 
American citizens, we have major challenges ahead.
  I do not pretend that this legislation addresses all of those 
challenges, but I do assert, unequivocally, that if we pass this 
legislation, pass it through the body, get it to conference, and get it 
out, we will make some significant steps forward, including in the 
vital area of aviation safety.
  I again thank Senator Gorton and Senator Rockefeller for all their 
hard work on this issue. I remind my colleagues that in about 5 
minutes, according to the unanimous consent agreement, all relevant 
amendments should be filed.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill 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 ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding the 10 a.m. filing requirement, it be in order for a 
managers' amendment and, further, the majority and minority leaders be 
allowed to offer one amendment each.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Baucus amendment 
No. 1898.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside and that I be permitted to call up an amendment 
that I have at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1907

(Purpose: To establish a commission to study the impact of deregulation 
             of the airline industry on small town America)

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.

[[Page S11894]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Crapo). The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr. 
     Burns, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Robb, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Rockefeller, 
     and Mr. Harkin, proposes an amendment numbered 1907.

  Ms. COLLINS. 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 insert the following new section:

     SEC. ____01. AIRLINE DEREGULATION STUDY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment of Commission.--
       (1) Establishment.--There is established a commission to be 
     known as the Airline Deregulation Study Commission (in this 
     section referred to as the ``Commission'').
       (2) Membership.--
       (A) Composition.--Subject to subparagraph (B), the 
     Commission shall be composed of 15 members of whom--
       (i) 5 shall be appointed by the President;
       (ii) 5 shall be appointed by the President pro tempore of 
     the Senate, 3 upon the recommendation of the Majority Leader, 
     and 2 upon the recommendation of the Minority Leader of the 
     Senate; and
       (iii) 5 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives, 3 upon the Speaker's own initiative, and 2 
     upon the recommendation of the Minority Leader of the House 
     of Representatives.
       (B) Members from rural areas.--
       (i) Requirement.--Of the individuals appointed to the 
     Commission under subparagraph (A)--

       (I) one of the individuals appointed under clause (i) of 
     that subparagraph shall be an individual who resides in a 
     rural area; and
       (II) two of the individuals appointed under each of clauses 
     (ii) and (iii) of that subparagraph shall be individuals who 
     reside in a rural area.

       (ii) Geographic distribution.--The appointment of 
     individuals under subparagraph (A) pursuant to the 
     requirement in clause (i) of this subparagraph shall, to the 
     maximum extent practicable, be made so as to ensure that a 
     variety of geographic areas of the country are represented in 
     the membership of the Commission.
       (C) Date.--The appointments of the members of the 
     Commission shall be made not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.
       (3) Period of appointment; vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the 
     Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled 
     in the same manner as the original appointment.
       (4) Initial meeting.--Not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (5) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson.
       (6) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.
       (7) Chairperson.--The Commission shall select a Chairman 
     and Vice Chairperson from among its members.
       (b) Duties of the Commission.--
       (1) Study.--
       (A) Definitions.--In this subsection, the terms `air 
     carrier' and `air transportation' have the meanings given 
     those terms in section 40102(a).
       (B) Contents.--The Commission shall conduct a thorough 
     study of the impacts of deregulation of the airline industry 
     of the United States on--
       (i) the affordability, accessibility, availability, and 
     quality of air transportation, particularly in small-sized 
     and medium-sized communities;
       (ii) economic development and job creation, particularly in 
     areas that are underserved by air carriers;
       (iii) the economic viability of small-sized airports; and
       (iv) the long-term configuration of the United States 
     passenger air transportation system.
       (C) Measurement factors.--In carrying out the study under 
     this subsection, the Commission shall develop measurement 
     factors to analyze the quality of passenger air 
     transportation service provided by air carriers by 
     identifying the factors that are generally associated with 
     quality passenger air transportation service.
       (D) Business and leisure travel.--In conducting 
     measurements for an analysis of the affordability of air 
     travel, to the extent practicable, the Commission shall 
     provide for appropriate control groups and comparisons with 
     respect to business and leisure travel.
       (2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall submit an interim 
     report to the President and Congress, and not later than 18 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Commission shall submit a report to the President and 
     Congress. Each such report shall contain a detailed statement 
     of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, together 
     with its recommendations for such legislation and 
     administrative actions as it considers appropriate.
       (c) Powers of the Commission.--
       (1) Hearings.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, take such testimony, and 
     receive such evidence as the Commission considers advisable 
     to carry out the duties of the Commission under this section.
       (2) Information from federal agencies.--The Commission 
     shall consult with the Comptroller General of the United 
     States and may secure directly from any Federal department or 
     agency such information as the Commission considers necessary 
     to carry out the duties of the Commission under this section. 
     Upon request of the Chairperson of the Commission, the head 
     of such department or agency shall furnish such information 
     to the Commission.
       (3) Postal services.--The Commission may use the United 
     States mails in the same manner and under the same conditions 
     as other departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
       (4) Gifts.--The Commission may accept, use, and dispose of 
     gifts or donations of services or property.
       (d) Commission Personnel Matters.--
       (1) Travel expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (2) Staff.--
       (A) In general.--The Chairperson of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an 
     executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the 
     Commission.
       (B) Compensation.--The Chairperson of the Commission may 
     fix the compensation of the executive director and other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for the executive 
     director and other personnel may not exceed the rate payable 
     for level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of 
     such title.
       (3) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.
       (4) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
     The Chairperson of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       (e) Termination of Commission.--The Commission shall 
     terminate 90 days after the date on which the Commission 
     submits its report under subsection (b).
       (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       (1) In general.--There is authorized to be appropriated 
     $950,000 for fiscal year 2000 to the Commission to carry out 
     this section.
       (2) Availability.--Any sums appropriated pursuant to the 
     authorization of appropriations in paragraph (1) shall remain 
     available until expended.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
FAA reauthorization bill to establish an independent commission to 
thoroughly examine the impact of airline deregulation on smalltown 
America. I am very pleased to be joined in this effort by several 
cosponsors, including Senators Rockefeller, Burns, Baucus, Robb, 
Hollings, and Harkin.
  This amendment is modeled after a bill I recently introduced that 
would authorize a study into how airline deregulation has affected the 
economic development of smaller towns in America, the quality and 
availability of air transportation, particularly in rural areas of this 
country, and the long-term viability of local airports in smaller 
communities and rural areas.
  For far too long, small communities throughout this Nation, from 
Bangor, ME, to Billings, MT, to Bristol, TN, have weathered the effects 
of airline deregulation without adequately assessing how deregulation 
has affected their economic development, their ability to create and 
attract new jobs, the quality and availability of air transportation 
for their residents, and the long-term viability of their local 
airports. It is time to evaluate the effects of airline deregulation 
from this new perspective by looking at how it has affected the 
economies in small towns and rural America.
  Bangor, ME, where I live, is an excellent example of how airline 
deregulation can cause real problems for a smaller community. Bangor 
recently learned it was going to lose the services of Continental 
Express. This follows a pullout by Delta Airlines last year. It has 
been very difficult for Bangor to provide the kind of quality air

[[Page S11895]]

service that is so important in trying to attract new businesses to 
locate in the area as well as to encourage businesses to expand.
  Nowadays, businesses expect to have convenient, accessible, and 
affordable air service. It is very important to their ability to do 
business. Although there have been several studies on the impact of 
airline deregulation, they have all focused on some aspects of air 
service itself. For example, there have been GAO studies that have 
looked at the impact on airline prices.
  Not one study I am aware of has actually analyzed the impact of 
airline deregulation on economic development and job creation in rural 
States. Indeed, we have spoken to the GAO and the Department of 
Transportation, and they are not aware of a single study that has taken 
the kind of comprehensive approach I am proposing. Moreover, one GAO 
official told my staff he thought such a study was long overdue. We 
need to know more about how airline deregulation has affected smaller 
and medium-sized communities such as Presque Isle, ME, and Bangor, ME. 
We need to focus on the relationship between access to affordable, 
quality airline service and the economic development of America's 
smaller towns and cities.
  During the past 20 years, air travel has become increasingly linked 
to business development. Successful businesses expect and need their 
personnel to travel quickly over long distances. It is expected that a 
region being considered for business location or expansion should be 
reachable conveniently, quickly, and easily via jet service. Those 
areas without air access or with access that is restricted by 
prohibitive travel costs, infrequent flights, or small, slow planes 
appear to be at a distinct disadvantage compared to those communities 
that enjoy accessible, convenient, and economic air service.
  This country's air infrastructure has grown to the point where it now 
rivals our ground transportation infrastructure in its importance to 
the economic vibrancy and vitality of our communities. It has long been 
accepted that building a highway creates an almost instant corridor of 
economic activity for businesses eager to cut shipping and 
transportation costs by locating close to the stream of commerce.
  Like a community located on an interstate versus one that is 
reachable only by back roads, a community with a midsize or small 
airport underserved by air carriers appears to be operating at a 
disadvantage to one located near a large airport. What this proposal 
would do is allow us to take a close look at the relationship between 
quality air service and the communities it serves.
  Bob Ziegelaar, director of the Bangor International Airport, perhaps 
put it best. He tells me: Communities such as Bangor are at risk of 
being left behind with service levels below what the market warrants, 
both in terms of capacity and quality. The follow-on consequences are a 
decreasing capacity to attract economic growth.
  He sums it up well. A region's ability to attract and keep good jobs 
is inextricably linked to its transportation system. Twenty-one years 
after Congress deregulated the airline industry, it is important that 
we now look and assess the long-term impacts of our actions. The 
commission established by my amendment will ensure that Congress, small 
communities, and the airlines are able to make future decisions on 
airline issues fully aware of the concerns and the needs of smalltown 
America.
  Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee and the ranking 
minority members of both the subcommittee and the full committee for 
their assistance in shaping this amendment. I look forward to working 
with them. I know they share my concerns about providing quality, 
accessible air service to all parts of America. I thank them for their 
cooperation in this effort and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, obviously, this Senator from West 
Virginia is already a cosponsor of the amendment. There are very few 
people who would know the situation in this amendment as well as the 
Senator from Maine. Her State, as many rural States, has had a major 
reaction to deregulation. Economic development is always the first 
thing on the minds of States that are trying to grow and attract their 
population back. This is simply asking for a commission to study the 
effects of deregulation on economic development. I think it is very 
sensible. I think it highlights a real agony for a lot of States. It is 
highly acceptable on this side.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also thank the Senator from Maine. I do 
understand there have been some very negative impacts on Bangor and 
other parts of the State of Maine associated with airline deregulation. 
It needs to be studied. We need to find out how we can do a better job, 
as I said in my earlier remarks, allowing smaller and medium-sized 
markets to receive the air service they deserve which has such a 
dramatic impact on their economies.
  I thank the Senator from Maine for her amendment. Both sides are 
prepared to accept the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1907.
  The amendment (No. 1907) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment Nos. 1948 And 1949, En Bloc

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send two amendments to the desk, en 
bloc, and ask for their immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1948 and 1949, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1948

  (Purpose: To prohibit discrimination in the use of Private Airports)

       At the appropriate place insert the following:

     SEC.   . NONDISCRIMINATION IN THE USE OF PRIVATE AIRPORTS.

       (a) Prohibiting Discrimination in the Use of Private 
     Airports.--Chapter 401 of Subtitle VII of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting the following new 
     section after section 40122:

     ``Sec. 40123. Nondiscrimination in the Use of Private 
       Airports

       ``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no state, county, city or municipal government may 
     prohibit the use or full enjoyment of a private airport 
     within its jurisdiction by any person on the basis of that 
     person's race, creed, color, national origin, sex, or 
     ancestry.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1949

(Purpose: To amend section 49106(c)(6) of title 49, United States Code, 
               to remove a limitation on certain funding)

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Metropolitan Airports 
     Authority Improvement Act''.

     SEC. 2. REMOVAL OF LIMITATION.

       Section 49106(c)(6) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking subparagraph (C); and
       (2) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C).
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, these two amendments, along with amendment 
No. 1893, which was previously offered, have been accepted on both 
sides. There is no further debate on the amendments, and I ask for 
their adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to.
  The amendments (Nos. 1948, 1949, and 1893) were agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is now 
some 304 amendments that are germane that have been filed by the 
Senator from Illinois. Obviously, that is his right under the rules of 
the Senate.
  I would like for the Senator from Illinois to understand what he is 
doing. This is a very important piece of legislation. It has a lot to 
do with safety. The Senator from Illinois should know that. He is 
jeopardizing, literally, the safety of airline passengers across this 
country, perhaps throughout the world.

[[Page S11896]]

  I will relate to the Senator what he is doing. Before I do, I think 
he should know there are strong objections by the Senators from 
Virginia, the Senators from New York, and the Senators from Maryland, 
concerning this whole issue of slots and the perimeter rule--but 
particularly slots. We have been able to work with the Senators from 
these other States that are equally affected. It is very unfortunate 
that the Senator from Illinois cannot sit down and work out something 
that would be agreeable.
  I want to tell the Senator from Illinois, again, this is very serious 
business we are talking about. We are talking about aviation safety. 
This is the reauthorization of the Aviation Improvement Program. It 
requires fixed-wing aircraft in air commerce to be equipped with 
emergency locator transmitters; it provides broader authority to the 
FAA to determine what circumstances warrant a criminal history record 
check for persons performing security screening of passengers and 
cargo; it extends the authorization for the Aviation Insurance Program, 
also known as war risk insurance, through 2003; it requires all large 
cargo aircraft to be equipped with collision avoidance equipment by the 
end of 2002; it gives FAA the authority to fine unruly airline 
passengers who interfere with the operation or safety of a civil 
flight, up to $10,000 per violation; it authorizes $450,000 to address 
the problem of bird ingestions into aircraft engines; it authorizes 
$9.1 million over 3 years for a safety and security management program 
to provide training for aviation safety personnel.
  Mr. President, I have three pages. I ask unanimous consent that it be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
     Safety-related Provisions in S. 82, Air Transportation 
         Improvement Act
       Extends the contract authority through fiscal year 2000 for 
     Airport Improvement Programs (AID) grants. Federal airport 
     grants lapsed on August 6, 1999, because the contract 
     authority had not been extended. Authorizes a $2.475 billion 
     AID program in fiscal year 2000. (Sec. 103)
       Provides explicit AIP funding eligibility for the 
     installation of integrated in-pavement lighting systems, and 
     other runway incursion prevention devices. (Sec. 205)
       Requires nearly all fixed-wing aircraft in air commerce, to 
     be equipped with emergency locator transmitters by 2002. 
     (Sec. 404)
       Provides broader authority to the FAA to determine what 
     circumstances warrant a criminal history record check for 
     persons performing security screening of passengers and 
     cargo. (Sec. 306)
       Extends the authorization for the aviation insurance 
     programs (also known as war risk insurance) through 2003. The 
     program provides insurance for commercial aircraft that are 
     operating in high risk areas, such as countries at war or on 
     the verge of war. Commercial insurers usually will not 
     provide coverage for such operations, which are often 
     required to advance U.S. foreign policy or the country's 
     national security policy. The program expired on August 6, 
     1999, and cannot be extended without this authorization in 
     place. (Sec. 307)
       Requires all large cargo aircraft to be equipped with 
     collision avoidance equipment by the end of 2002. (Sec. 402)
       Gives the FAA the authority to fine unruly airline 
     passengers who interfere with the operation or safety of a 
     civil flight, up to $10,000 per violation. (Sec. 406)
       Authorizes $450,000 to address the problem of bird 
     ingestions into aircraft engines. (Sec. 101)
       Authorizes $9.1 million over three years for a safety and 
     security management program to provide training for aviation 
     safety personnel. The program would concentrate on personnel 
     from countries that are not in compliance with international 
     safety standards. (Sec. 101)
       Authorizes at least $30 million annually for the FAA to 
     purchase precision instrument landing systems (ILS) 
     through its ILS inventory program. (Sec. 102)
       Authorizes at least $5 million for the FAA to carry out at 
     least one project to test and evaluate innovative airport 
     security systems and related technologies, including 
     explosive detection systems in an airport environment (Sec. 
     105)
       Requires the FAA to maintain human weather observers to 
     augment the services provided by the Automated Surface 
     Observation System (ASOS) weather stations, at least until 
     the FAA certifies that the automated systems provide 
     consistent reporting of changing meteorological conditions. 
     (Sec. 106)
       Allows the FAA to continue and expand its successful 
     program of establishing consortia of government and aviation 
     industry representatives at individual airports to provide 
     advice on aviation security and safety. (Sec. 303)
       Requires the imprisonment (up to three years) or imposition 
     of a fine upon any individual who knowingly serves as an 
     airman without an airman's certificate from the FAA. The same 
     penalties would apply to anyone who employs an individual as 
     an airman who does not have the applicable airman's 
     certificate. The maximum term of imprisonment increases to 
     five years if the violation is related to the transportation 
     of a controlled substance. (Sec. 309)
       Requires the FAA to consider the need for (1) improving 
     runway safety areas, which are essentially runway extensions 
     that provide a landing cushion beyond the ends of runways at 
     certificated airports; (2) requiring the installation of 
     precision approach path indicators (PAPI), which are visual 
     vertical guidance landing systems for runways. (Sec. 403)
       Prohibits any company or employee that is convicted of 
     installing, producing, repairing or selling counterfeit 
     aviation parts from keeping or obtaining an FAA certificate. 
     Air carriers, repair stations, manufacturers, and any other 
     FAA certificate holders would be prohibited from employing 
     anyone convicted of an offense involving counterfeit parts. 
     (Sec. 405)
       Requires the FAA to accelerate a rulemaking on Flight 
     Operations Quality Assurance (FOQA). FOQA is a program under 
     which airlines and their crews share operational information, 
     including data captured by flight data recorders. Sanitized 
     information about crew errors is shared, to focus on 
     situations in which hardware, air traffic control procedures, 
     or company practices create hazardous situations. (Sec. 409)
       Requires the FAA to study and promote improved training in 
     the human factors arena, including the development of 
     specific training curricula. (Sec. 413)
       Provides FAA whistleblowers who uncover safety risks with 
     the ability to seek redress if they are subject to 
     retaliation for their actions. (Sec. 415)
       Provides employees of airlines, and employees of airline 
     contractors and subcontractors, with statutory whistleblower 
     protections to facilitate their providing air safety 
     information. (Sec. 419)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I won't go through them all. This is a 
very important bill. In this very contentious and difficult time 
concerning balanced budgets and funding for other institutions of 
Government, this authorization bill has been brought up by the majority 
leader, not by me. I hope it is fully recognized. I repeat, the 
Senators from Virginia, Senator Warner and Senator Robb, Senator 
Mikulski, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Durbin, and Senator Fitzgerald's 
predecessor, all worked together on this issue. We need to work this 
out and we need to have this authorization complete. I hope we can get 
that done as soon as possible.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                         Privilege Of The Floor

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John 
Fisher of the Congressional Research Service be granted the privilege 
of the floor during the Senate's consideration of S. 82.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, in response to the distinguished 
Senator from Arizona, I would be delighted to work with him as best I 
can. I am sorry we have missed each other in recent days. Obviously, he 
has dual responsibilities now as a candidate for President of the 
United States. I would certainly like to continue negotiations with 
him. I do believe----
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, he knows full well that for 
the last several months--in fact, ever since he came to this body--the 
Senator and I have been discussing this issue. It has nothing to do 
with any Presidential campaign or anything else. The Senator should 
know that and correct the record.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, I understand the last time we talked, I thought 
the Senator was working to address my concerns. In fact, I didn't 
realize he supported lifting the high density rule altogether. I guess 
that is what has taken me by surprise. Senator Moseley-Braun, my 
predecessor, and Senator Durbin urged your support to limit the 
increased exceptions for slot restrictions at O'Hare from 100 down to 
30. You had supported that in your original bill which had that 30 
figure. You and I had been having discussions with respect to that.
  This year, the amendment by Senator Gorton and Senator Rockefeller is 
what has given me pause because, obviously, that would be going in a 
different direction than the limitations that were worked out with you, 
Senator Durbin, and former Senator Moseley-Braun last year in what was 
reflected as the original version of S. 82.

[[Page S11897]]

  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, the fact is, the Senator has 
been involved in discussions in the Cloakroom, on the floor, in my 
office, and other places on this issue. If we don't agree, that is one 
thing, but to say somehow that my attention has been diverted is an 
inaccurate depiction of the situation.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, since we are on the FAA bill this morning, 
I will take a few minutes to discuss the issue of airline passenger 
rights.
  In the face of a wave of consumer complaints which are running at 
twice the number this time last year, the airline industry has proposed 
a Customer First program. I will take a few minutes this morning to 
ensure the Senate understands what this program is all about. After the 
industry released its voluntary proposal, I asked the General 
Accounting Office and the Congressional Search Service to analyze what 
the industry had actually proposed. In summary, these two reports--the 
one done by the General Accounting Office and the one done by the 
Congressional Research Service--demonstrates, unfortunately, when it 
comes to the industry's plan to protect passenger rights, there is no 
``There there.''
  These two reports found the airline industry's proposal puts 
passenger rights into three categories: first, rights that passengers 
already have, as in the rights of the disabled; second, rights that 
have no teeth in them because they are not written into the contracts 
of carriage between the passenger and the airline; third, rights that 
are ignored altogether, such as the right to full information on 
overbooking and ensuring that passengers can find out about the lowest 
possible fare.
  Specifically, I asked the General Accounting Office to compare the 
voluntary pledges made by the airline industry to the hidden but 
actually binding contractual rights airline passengers have that are 
written into something known as a contract of carriage. The 
Congressional Research Service pointed out:

       . . .front line airline staff seem uncertain as to what 
     contracts of carriage are.

  The Congressional Research Service found that:

       . . . even if the consumer knows they have a right to the 
     information, they must accurately identify the relevant 
     provisions of the contract of carriage or take home the 
     address or phone number, if available, of the airline's 
     consumer affairs department, send for it and wait for the 
     contract of carriage to arrive in the mail.

  As the Congressional Research Service states with their unusual tact 
and diplomacy:

       . . . the airlines do not appear to go out of their way to 
     provide easy access to contract of carriage information.

  I want the Senate to know the current status of passenger rights so 
we can begin to strengthen the hand of passengers at a time when we 
have a record number of consumer complaints.
  Two weeks ago, the Senate began the task of trying to empower the 
passengers with the Transportation appropriations bill. In that 
legislation, we directed the Department of Transportation inspector 
general to investigate unfair and deceptive practices in the airline 
industry. The Department of Transportation inspector general does not 
currently conduct these investigations so we added the mandatory 
binding consumer protection language in the Transportation 
appropriations bill to ensure the Transportation inspector general 
would have exactly the same authority to investigate these consumer 
protection issues that I proposed in the airline passenger bill of 
rights early this session.
  On this FAA bill, I am proposing another step to help passengers. The 
purpose of the amendment I offer is to make sure customers can find out 
whether the airlines are actually living up to their voluntary 
commitments by beginning to write them into the contracts of carriage--
the binding agreement between the passenger and the airline.

  This is what the law division of the Congressional Research Service 
had to say on that point:

       It would appear that the voluntary aviation industry 
     standards would probably not have the same level of 
     contractual enforceability that the provisions of the 
     ``contract of carriage'' has. Under basic American contract 
     law, the airlines offer certain terms and service under these 
     ``contracts of carriage'' and the consumer accepts this offer 
     and relies on the terms of the contract when he or she buys a 
     ticket. The voluntary industry standards are not the basis of 
     the contract and may lack the enforceability that the 
     conditions of the ``contract of carriage'' may possess.

  What especially troubles me is that the airlines are clearly dragging 
their feet on actually writing these consumer protection provisions in 
any kind of meaningful fashion.
  In fact, one of the proposals I saw from American Airlines stipulates 
specifically that their pledges to the consumer are not enforceable, 
that they are not going to be in the contracts of carriers.
  Under my amendment on this FAA bill, the Department of Transportation 
inspector general is going to investigate whether an airline means what 
it says, whether it is actually moving to put these various nice-
sounding, voluntary proposals into meaningful language. I am very 
hopeful that as a result of this amendment, we are going to know the 
truth about actually what kind of consumer protection proposals are in 
the airline industry's package.
  This amendment has been shared with the ranking minority member of 
the committee and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, and 
I have talked about it with the chairman of the full committee, Senator 
McCain. Also, it has been shared with the chairman of the subcommittee.
  There are many things in this good bill with which I agree. I am 
especially pleased, with Senator Rockefeller, Senator McCain, and 
Senator Gorton, we are taking steps to improve competition. I am very 
pleased, for example, we are doing more for small and medium-size 
markets. These are very sensible proposals.
  My concern is that together and on a bipartisan basis, we need to 
persuade the airline industry to put just a small fraction of the 
ingenuity and expertise they have that has produced one of the world's 
truly extraordinary safety records--the airline industry's safety 
record is extraordinary, and I simply want to see them put the 
ingenuity and expertise they have into trying to ensure that 
passengers get a fair shake as well.

  It is not right at a time like this, particularly when many of the 
airlines are making such significant profits, to leave airline service 
for the passengers out on the runway. The figures are indisputable. 
There are a record number of complaints. I hear constantly from 
business travelers about the unbelievable problems they have with 
failure to disclose, for example, overbooking. Many consumers have had 
problems trying to find out about the lowest fare.
  With the binding consumer protection language that was adopted in the 
Transportation appropriations bill so there will be an investigation 
into the problems I outlined in the airline passenger bill of rights, 
we have made a start. Today we will have a chance to build on that by 
making sure these voluntary pledges begin to show up in the contracts 
of carriage that actually protect the consumer.
  I express my thanks to Chairman McCain and Senators Rockefeller and 
Gorton for working with me on these matters and particularly to make 
sure the Senate knows that in many areas, the areas that promote 
competition and address the needs of small and medium-size airports--
this is an important bill. We can strengthen it with this consumer 
protection amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his 
steadfast advocacy for airline passengers and a range of other issues. 
I believe he has done this Nation a great service by attempting to see 
that airline passengers have certain fundamental benefits that most 
Americans assume they already had before certain information became 
known to them and to the Senate. I thank him very much. It appears to 
be a very good amendment.
  It has not been cleared yet by Senator Rockefeller. They still have 
some people with whom they have to talk. I have every confidence we 
will accept the amendment. I ask that the

[[Page S11898]]

Senator from Oregon withhold his amendment at this time until we are 
ready to accept it.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am happy to do that and anxious to work 
with the chairman and Senator Rockefeller. I will be glad to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Oregon, there 
is no plot or underlying purpose not to accept the amendment at this 
point, but there may be others who have amendments that relate to this 
area. Let's see what we have. From this Senator's point of view, the 
Senator from Oregon has made a useful amendment and, at the appropriate 
time, should there not be any problems that arise--I do not anticipate 
them--I will have no problem.


   Amendment No. 2070 To Amendment No. 1892, Amendment No. 1920, As 
               Modified, And Amendment No. 2071, En Bloc

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send three amendments to the desk, one 
by Senator Helms, which is a second-degree amendment to the Gorton 
amendment No. 1892, an amendment by Senator Boxer, and an amendment by 
Senator Inhofe. I ask unanimous consent that they be considered en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments are as follows:


                amendment no. 2070 to amendment no. 1892

       In the pending amendment on page 13, line 9 strike the 
     words ``of such carriers''.
                                  ____



                    amendment no. 1920, as modified

       Insert on page 126, line 16, a new subsection (f) and 
     renumber accordingly:
       ``(f) Technical Assistance.--
       (1) In general.--Participants carrying out inherently low-
     emission vehicle activities under this pilot program may use 
     no less than 10 percent of the amounts made available for 
     expenditure at the airport under the pilot program to receive 
     technical assistance in carrying out such activities.
       (2) Eligible consortium.--To the maximum extent 
     practicable, participants in the pilot program shall use 
     eligible consortium (as defined in section 5506 of this 
     title) in the region of the airport to receive technical 
     assistance described in paragraph (1).
       (3) Planning assistance.--The Administrator may provide 
     $500,000 from funds made available under section 48103 to a 
     multi-state, western regional technology consortium for the 
     purposes of developing for dissemination prior to the 
     commencement of the pilot program a comprehensive best 
     practices planning guide that addresses appropriate 
     technologies, environmental and economic impacts, and the 
     role of planning and mitigation strategies.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 2071

       On page 132, line 4, strike ``is authorized to'' and insert 
     ``shall''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments are agreed 
to en bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 2070, 1920, as modified, and 2071) were agreed 
to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. 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. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I wish to take a few moments now 
during this lull in activity on the floor to speak to my concerns about 
lifting the high density rule that governs O'Hare International Airport 
in my State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1892

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I think the first thing we need to do, 
in considering the Gorton-Rockefeller amendment to lift altogether the 
high density rule that governs O'Hare International Airport, is to look 
at what that high density rule is and why it was first imposed.
  The high density rule was imposed not by Congress, although Congress 
is attempting to repeal it; the high density rule was imposed by the 
Federal Aviation Administration back in 1968 or 1969. The reason they 
imposed it at O'Hare was because by then--already the world's busiest 
airport--demand for flight operations exceeded capacity at O'Hare. 
Given that situation, in order to prevent inordinate delays to the air 
traffic system at O'Hare and around the country, they capped the number 
of operations per hour at O'Hare. They capped those operations at 155 
flights per hour--roughly 1 every 20 seconds.
  The sponsors of this amendment, and others who are proponents of it, 
have said: We need to lift that high density rule because it is 
anticompetitive, and we have to get more competition for more slots and 
more flights at O'Hare. They point out that just two carriers--United 
Airlines and American Airlines--control 80 percent of the flight 
operations at O'Hare International Airport, and there are studies that 
show that given that duopoly, the prices are higher at O'Hare. And that 
is true. There is absolutely no question about it.
  The idea of increasing competition is great in the abstract. There is 
only one problem. O'Hare Airport does not have the capacity for more 
flights.
  How do we know that? We know that because the last time Congress 
considered lifting the high density rule in 1994, the FAA commissioned 
a study and asked: What would happen if we were to lift the high 
density rule at O'Hare International Airport? The study, commissioned 
by the FAA, came back and said if you did that, there would be huge 
delays at O'Hare International Airport that would reverberate 
throughout the entire air travel system in the United States of 
America.
  Consequently, following that report, in the summer of 1995, the U.S. 
Department of Transportation said they would not lift the high density 
rule at O'Hare because it would add to delays. The reason it would add 
to delays was because it would put more planes there waiting to take 
off or land, and that demand for more flights vastly outstripped the 
capacity at O'Hare.
  So the problem with lifting that high density rule is that unless 
there is more capacity in Chicago, planes are just going to sit on the 
runway at O'Hare until they can take off.
  What is the situation now? We have not lifted the high density rule 
now. Are there delays at O'Hare? You bet. There are more delays at 
O'Hare than just about any other major airport in the entire country, 
with as many as 100 airplanes lined up every morning waiting to take 
off from the runway.

  This proposal is a proposal that would give airlines an unfettered 
ability to schedule even more flights. Sometimes they schedule 20 
flights to take off at the same time. The marketing experts have told 
the airlines that 8:45 a.m. is a popular time, so schedule your plane 
to take off at 8:45 a.m. The airlines know darn well only one plane can 
take off at 8:45 a.m., but as many as 20 of them will be scheduled to 
take off at that time. What does that mean? That means when you are 
trying to take off on an 8:45 a.m. flight out of O'Hare, most likely 
you are going to be sitting on the tarmac waiting to take off.
  At least the high density rule is some limitation because it is a 
limitation on how many airline flights can be scheduled to take off 
within that 8 o'clock hour. But by lifting this rule, we are saying 
there is not going to be any limitation. Perhaps the airlines could 
schedule 100 or 200 or 300 flights to take off in that 8 o'clock hour. 
People will buy tickets; they think they are going to be able to take 
off sometime in that hour. They do not realize that is just a bait and 
switch; that the airlines know full well the passengers are going to 
have to be sitting on the tarmac waiting to take off.
  Does it make sense, at the most congested, most delay-ridden airport, 
to add even more delays? It makes no sense at all.
  I know Senator McCain well. I do believe he is very concerned about 
competition in the airline industry, and he, in good faith, wants to 
increase competition in the airline industry. I agree with him 
wholeheartedly on that point. But I do not agree we want to do it in a 
way that is going to inconvenience everybody who flies out of O'Hare, 
and not just everybody who flies out of O'Hare but people all around 
the country who will suffer because of backlogs and delays at O'Hare 
International Airport, which is in the center of our country.
  Furthermore, there is a provision in this bill--neatly tucked in 
there--that probably not many people can figure out what it means. Let 
me read it to you. As I said earlier, United and American have 80 
percent of the flights at O'Hare. So if we were to add slots or more 
flights at O'Hare, you would

[[Page S11899]]

think we would want to encourage some new entrants into the market, 
some other companies. That would bring some more competition, bringing 
some other airlines into O'Hare.
  There is a little provision in here. I wonder who thought of this. 
Did some Senator think of this?
  This is on page 4 of the amendment: ``Affiliated Carriers: . . . the 
Secretary shall treat all commuter air carriers that have cooperative 
agreements, including code-share agreements with other air carriers 
equally for determining eligibility for the application of any 
provision of these sections regardless of the form of the corporate 
relationship between the commuter air carrier and the other air 
carrier.''
  I bet many people wonder what that means. What that means is that 
American Airlines' wholly-owned subsidiary, American Eagle, and United 
Airlines' affiliate, United Express, can be treated equally with new 
commuter airlines that are trying to get in and get slots out of 
O'Hare.
  This provision in the bill seems to undercut, in my judgment, the 
argument that this bill would increase competition. In my judgment, 
competition isn't going to be increased by increasing concentration. 
The FAA bill before us today will not increase competition due to its 
definition of the term ``affiliated carrier.'' As the term ``affiliated 
carrier'' is defined, those carriers that already control the vast 
majority of capacity at the airport, United and American, will get 
eligibility for additional capacity and slots.
  In addition, many carriers that would benefit from this bill are 
wholly-owned subsidiaries of the controlling carriers. Later, I hope we 
can have a discussion on that particular aspect of the bill.
  Let me talk a little bit more in depth about the delays we already 
have at O'Hare, without this idea of increasing the number of flights 
we are going to have, regardless of the fact that we don't have more 
capacity for more flights.
  This was an article just the other day, September 10, 1999: ``Delays 
at O'Hare Mounting. For the first 8 months of this year, flight delays 
at O'Hare soared by 65 percent compared to all of 1997 and by 18 
percent over 1998, according to an analysis by the Federal Aviation 
Administration.''

  Why are those delays occurring? In part because in the existing law 
we already have exemptions from the slot controls put in by the FAA 
back in 1969. Those slot controls limited the number of flights to 155 
operations per hour. By virtue of the 1994 bill we passed in this 
Congress, before I was here, they allowed more exemptions to those slot 
rules, and the FAA has been granting those. In fact, I am told the FAA 
now has about 163 flights an hour at O'Hare. This bill would lift those 
caps entirely.
  This is from August 23, 1999. I said O'Hare is one of the most delay-
ridden, congested airports in the country. This article talks about it: 
O'Hare has one of the worst on-time arrival and departure records of 
any major airport in the Nation, according to U.S. Department of 
Transportation data analyzed by the Chicago Sun-Times. For the first 6 
months of 1999, O'Hare ranked at the bottom or second to last in 
percentage of on-time arrivals and departures at the 29 biggest U.S. 
airports, performing worse than the Boston and Newark airports, the 
other chronic laggards.
  This goes back to the idea that airlines set their own schedules. 
There are slot controls that limit the number of flights in an hour at 
O'Hare. You can get from the FAA a slot to take off in a particular 
hour. You can get a slot, for example, to take off at the 8 a.m. hour. 
It is up to the airline, then, to schedule when that plane will take 
off.
  It turns out, as the Sun-Times investigative report found, that many 
of the airlines schedule them all at the same time. At times there have 
been as many as 80 planes scheduled to take off, all at the same time. 
Obviously, they can't do that. What that means is that passengers sit 
on the runway and wait.
  Have you ever been in an airplane, sitting on the tarmac with that 
stuffy air, waiting for the plane to take off? The airlines always 
blame it on the weather or they blame it on the FAA. They blame it on 
somebody else. They never blame it on themselves for scheduling all the 
flights to take off at the same time, which we know as a matter of 
physics is impossible.
  This October 3 article, just this Sunday, was the front-page headline 
article in the Chicago Sun-Times:

                 Airlines Cramming Departure Time Slots

       Airlines at O'Hare Airport schedule so many flights in and 
     out during peak periods that it is impossible to avoid 
     delays, a Chicago Sun-Times analysis shows.
       O'Hare can handle about 3 takeoffs a minute at most, [that 
     is one every 20 seconds] but air carriers slate as many as 20 
     at certain times, slots they believe will draw the most 
     passengers. And they've continued to add flights to crowded 
     time slots, even though delays have been increasing since 
     1997.

  At least today, even as we have these horrible delays, there is some 
limitation as to how far the airlines can go with this bait-and-switch 
tactic with consumers. There is some check. That is the check on the 
absolute maximum number of slots that can be given for takeoffs and 
landings at O'Hare in a given hour. This bill removes that check. There 
will be no check then on airlines scheduling departures and arrivals 
all at the same time, when it is impossible for them all to land or 
take off at that time. In fact, you could have 200, 300, 400 flights 
all scheduled to take off at the same time. We are removing any of 
those caps.

  I mentioned that in 1995, the FAA ordered a study of what would 
happen if we lifted the high density rule. Again, the 1995 DOT study 
shows that lifting the high density rule more than doubles delay times 
at O'Hare. That is why they didn't do it. According to this report, a 
Department of Transportation May 1995 Report to Congress, a study of 
the high density rule, lifting the rule at O'Hare, ORD, is estimated to 
increase the average time average annual all-weather delay by nearly 12 
minutes, from 11.8 to 23.7 minutes per operation, and besides, that 
average annual delay is much higher now than it was back in 1995, 
assuming no flight cancellations occur due to instrument flight rules, 
weather. This is beyond the average of 15 minutes, the original basis 
for imposing HDR.
  There are many studies that show the problem. This is why the caps 
were put on at O'Hare. They wanted to stop delays. The studies have all 
shown that adding just one more slot beyond the capacity of an airport 
causes an exponential, compounding increase on the delays. In fact, 
this is a chart that the Federal Aviation Administration prepared on 
airfield and airspace capacity and delay policy analysis. Once you go 
beyond the practical capacity of an airport--and for O'Hare, the FAA 
has said it is 158 flights per hour--the delays skyrocket. In my 
judgment, if we are saying now we are not going to have any checks on 
the demand at O'Hare and there is no added capacity, we are going to go 
right up into this range very fast.
  I said yesterday, Mayor Daley from Chicago was supposed to be in 
Washington last week for an event. We were going to have a taste and 
touch of Chicago in Washington. There was a huge celebration. There 
were about 500 people at this reception. We were all there waiting for 
Mayor Daley. Everybody was asking: Where is Mayor Daley? It turns out 
Mayor Daley was delayed at O'Hare Airport. In fact, poor Mayor Daley 
had to sit on the tarmac for 4 hours at O'Hare. He arrived in 
Washington at 8:30 at night, after the reception was over, and he got 
the next plane back to Chicago.
  That is typical of the kind of delays people incur going through 
O'Hare. This bill would add to that. I think it is a mistake to do 
that. It ignores the original reason we had for the high density rule. 
Furthermore, I think it is unusual for Congress to put on the mantle of 
safety and aviation experts and decide that we are going to rewrite FAA 
rules. We ought to take that out of the political process, have the FAA 
write its own rules, not us rejiggle them from the statutes.
  With that, I am not going to mention at this time what I believe will 
be the extreme safety hazards by trying to cram more flights into less 
time and space at O'Hare. A flight lands and takes off every 20 seconds 
at O'Hare. If we are going to cram more in and narrow the distance, 
maybe it will come down to every 10 or 15 seconds. There is not much 
room for error. If you are sitting in a plane and you think there is a 
plane tailgating you, there is a lot of

[[Page S11900]]

pressure. All these takeoffs and landings will not give air passengers 
a great deal of comfort.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for a few minutes. I see Chairman McCain, and I wanted to engage 
him in a brief discussion on a matter involving the Death on the High 
Seas Act. I have offered several amendments with respect to this issue, 
but I don't intend to offer them this morning because this bill has 
several hundred amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think it is extraordinarily important 
that the Senate take steps promptly to remedy some of the loopholes in 
the antiquated Death on the High Seas Act. I have had constituents 
bring to my attention a tragedy that is almost unique in my years of 
working in the consumer protection field.
  Mr. John Sleavin, one of my constituents, testified before the 
Commerce Committee that he lost his brother, Mike, his nephew, Ben, and 
his niece, Annie, under absolutely grotesque circumstances. The 
family's pleasure boat was run over by a Korean freighter in 
international waters. The only survivor was the mother, Judith Sleavin, 
who suffered permanent injuries. The accident was truly extraordinary 
because, after the collision, there was absolutely no attempt by the 
Korean vessel to rescue the family or even to notify authorities about 
the collision. Mr. Sleavin's brother and his niece perished after 8 
hours in the water following the collision. It was clear to me that 
there was an opportunity to have rescued this family. Yet there was no 
remedy.
  We have had very compelling testimony on this problem in the Senate 
Commerce Committee. The chairman has indicated a willingness to work 
with me on this. We have a Coast Guard bill coming up, and because this 
is an important consumer protection issue and a contentious one, I 
don't want to do anything to take a big block of additional time.
  I will yield at this time for a colloquy with the chairman in the 
hopes that we can finally get this worked out so we don't have 
Americans subject to the kind of tragic circumstances we saw in this 
case, where a family was literally mowed down in international waters 
by a Korean freighter and should have been rescued and, tragically, 
loved ones were lost. I feel very strongly about this.
  I yield now to the chairman of the full committee to hear his 
thoughts on our ability to get this loophole-ridden Death on the High 
Seas Act changed, and particularly doing it on the Coast Guard bill 
that will be coming up.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Oregon. I know he 
has been heavily involved in this issue for a long time. We will have 
the Coast Guard bill scheduled for markup. At that time, I hope the 
Senator from Oregon will be able to propose an amendment addressing 
this issue. But I also remind my friend that there may be objection 
within the committee as well. I know he fully appreciates that. There 
is at least one other Senator who doesn't agree with this remedy. But I 
think we should bring up this issue and it should be debated and voted 
on. I think certainly the Senator from Oregon has the argument on his 
side in this issue.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman. I am going to be very brief in 
wrapping this up. I think our colleagues know that I am not one who 
goes looking for frivolous litigation. The chairman of the committee 
and all our colleagues on the Commerce Committee know that I spent a 
lot of time on the Y2K liability legislation this year so we could 
resolve these problems without a whole spree of frivolous litigation.
  But we do know that there are areas, particularly ones where injured 
consumers in international waters have no remedy at all, when they are 
subject to some of the most grizzly and unfortunate accidents, where 
there is a role for legislation and a need for a remedy.
  I am very appreciative that the chairman has indicated he thinks it 
is appropriate that we devise a remedy. I intend to work very closely 
with our colleagues on the Commerce Committee. I know the chairman of 
the subcommittee, Senator Gorton, has strong views on this. I am 
willing to look anew with respect to what that remedy ought to be so we 
can pass a bipartisan bill. But I do think we have to devise a remedy 
because to have innocent Americans run down in international waters 
without any remedy can't be acceptable to the American people.
  With that, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw all four of the 
amendments I have had filed on this bill with respect to the Death on 
the High Seas Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right. The amendments are 
withdrawn.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon. I look 
forward to working with him on this very important issue.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. BURNS. 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. BURNS. Mr. President, I will comment on an amendment we 
introduced last night and ask for the support of my colleagues. Before 
I do that, I want to recognize the chairman of the full committee, the 
Commerce Committee, and my colleagues on the subcommittee. There are 
many important provisions in this bill. Most importantly, I think it 
reauthorizes the funding mechanism for airport construction which has 
been going on around the country. I hardly find a place where there are 
not improvements being done to the infrastructure for air traffic.
  The legislation allows a limited number of exemptions to the current 
perimeter rule at the Ronald Reagan National Airport. Creating these 
exemptions takes a step in the right direction to provide balance 
between Americans within the perimeter and outside the perimeter. The 
current perimeter rule is outdated and restrictive to creating 
competition.
  We have the best and the most efficient modes of transportation in 
the entire world. No other country can make such a boast. With the 
exception, of course, of rail transportation and passengers, we have 
very competitive alternatives. Now is the time to further enhance our 
competitive aviation and rail alternatives, although some who live at 
the end of the lines sometimes question if we have competition in the 
right places.
  These limited exemptions to the perimeter rule will improve service 
to the nation's capital for dozens of western cities beyond the 
perimeter--while at the same time ensuring that cities inside the 
perimeter are not adversely impacted by new service. This is a fair 
balance which is consistent with the overall intent of the bill to 
improve air service to small and medium-sized cities.
  As a result, I believe our committee has crafted a limited compromise 
which protects the local community from uncontrolled growth, ensures 
that service inside the perimeter will not be affected and creates a 
process which will improve access to Ronald Reagan National Airport for 
small and medium-sized communities outside the current perimeter. 
Montana's communities will benefit from these limited exemptions 
through improved access to the nation's capitol.
  Throughout this bill, our goal has been to improve air service for 
communities which have not experienced the benefits of deregulation to 
the extent of larger markets. The provision related to improved access 
to Reagan National is no different.
  Today, passengers from many communities in Montana are forced to 
double or even triple connect to fly to Washington National. My goal is 
to ensure that not just large city point-to-point service will benefit, 
but that passengers from all points west of the perimeter will have 
better options to reach Washington and Ronald Reagan National Airport.
  This provision is about using this restricted exemption process to 
spread

[[Page S11901]]

improved access throughout the West--not to limit the benefits to a few 
large cities which already have a variety of options.
  Let me be clear, if the Secretary receives more applications for more 
slots than the bill allows, DOT must prioritize the applications based 
on quantifying the domestic network benefits. Therefore, DOT must 
consider and award these limited opportunities to western hubs which 
connect the largest number of cities to the national transportation 
network.
  I request the support of my colleagues on a very important amendment 
I along with my colleague from Missouri have introduced to this bill. 
That amendment was added last night. This amendment will establish a 
commission to study the future of the travel agent industry and 
determine the consumer impact of airline interaction with travel 
agents.
  Since the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was enacted, major 
airlines have controlled pricing and distribution policies of our 
nation's domestic air transportation system. Over the past four years, 
the airlines have reduced airline commissions to travel agents in a 
competitive effort to reduce costs.
  I am concerned the impact of today's business interaction between 
airlines and travel agents may be a driving force that will force many 
travel agents out of business. Combined with the competitive emergence 
of Internet services, these practices may be harming an industry that 
employs over 250,000 people in this country.
  This amendment will explore these concerns through the establishment 
of a commission to objectively review the emerging trends in the 
airline ticket distribution system. Among airline consumers there is a 
growing concern that airlines may be using their market power to limit 
how airline tickets are distributed and sold.
  Mr. President, if we lose our travel agents, we lose a competitive 
component to affordable air fare. Travel agents provide a much needed 
service and without them, the consumer is the loser.
  The current use of independent travel agencies as the predominate 
method to distribute tickets ensures an efficient and unbiased source 
of information for air travel. Before deregulation, travel agents 
handled only about 40 percent of the airline ticket distribution 
system. Since deregulation, the complexity of the ticket pricing system 
created the need for travel agents resulting in travel agents handling 
nearly 90 percent of transactions.
  Therefore, the travel agent system has proven to be a key factor to 
the success of airline deregulation. I'm afraid, however, that the 
demise of the independent travel agent would be a factor of 
deregulation's failure if the major airlines succeed in dominating the 
ticket distribution system.
  Tavel agents and other independent distributors comprise a 
considerable portion of the small business sector in the United States. 
There are 33,000 travel agencies employing over 250,000 people. Women 
or minorities own over 50 percent of travel agencies.
  Since 1995, commissions have been reduced by 30%, 14% for domestic 
travel alone in 1998. since 1995, travel agent commissions have been 
reduced from an average of 10.8 to 6.9 percent in 1998. Travel agencies 
are failing in record numbers.
  I think it is important we study the issue, get an unbiased 
commission together, and give a report to Congress. We will see how 
important the role played by the ticket agents and the travel agencies 
is in contributing to the competitive nature of travel in this country.
  I ask my colleagues to support this important amendment. We are 
dealing with a subject that needs to be dealt with; this bill needs to 
be passed. We are in support of it.
  I yield the floor, 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. FITZGERALD. 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. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I would like to take advantage of this 
opportunity to finish one final point to the speech I had given a few 
moments ago wherein I mentioned the likely delays that would be caused 
at Chicago O'Hare, and that is the increase in delays that would be 
caused in Chicago O'Hare and throughout our Nation's entire air traffic 
system if the high density rule were to be repealed. But right now I 
mention one other item which is probably the most important matter this 
Senate confronts in passing statutes to govern our aviation system, and 
that is the issue of safety.
  I alluded earlier to the fact that O'Hare is the world's biggest 
airport and that there is a takeoff and landing every 20 seconds at 
O'Hare. Any sixth grader can figure out if we are going to try to run 
more flights per hour and more flights per minute through O'Hare, we 
are going to have to bring them in and take them off in less time than 
20 seconds. Either that or we will continue mounting delays.
  Most likely, we will continue mounting delays. But it is possible the 
increased congestion and delays would cause the air carriers to be 
pressuring the FAA to let the planes take off and would be pressuring 
the air traffic controllers to get planes into the air quicker, and it 
would be pressuring them to shorten the separation distances between 
airplanes.
  Already in this country, in order to increase capacity at our 
airports without adding capacity in terms of new facilities and 
runways, we are doing a number of things. We are reducing separation 
distances between arriving aircraft.
  A couple of years ago, I was doing a landing at O'Hare. I was on a 
commercial air carrier. We were about to land at O'Hare. Lo and behold, 
we were about to land on top of another plane that was still on the 
runway. At the last minute, the pilot lifted up, and we took off again 
right before we hit the other plane that had not gotten off the runway. 
Many people have probably been through that experience. It is pretty 
frightening.

  If we are going to cram more flights into the same space at O'Hare, 
we are going to see more incidents like that. They are already reducing 
runway occupancy time. You will notice when your plane lands that it 
hightails it off that runway because it knows there is another plane 
right behind.
  They are doing something that they call land-and-hold operations--
they are doing it at O'Hare and across the country--where the plane 
lands, and it has to get to a crisscross with another runway. They have 
to hold while another plane lands. Pilots hate to do that, but they are 
forced to by air traffic control.
  We are seeing increasing incidents of triple converging runway 
arrivals in this country. All of this is designed to put more planes 
together in time and space. I think it is obvious to anybody that 
decreases the margin of safety that we have in aviation in this 
country.
  I think that is a great mistake because nothing is as important as 
the safety of the flying public.
  I call your attention to an article that appeared in USA Today. I 
apologize. The date is wrong on this. It says November 13, 1999. 
Obviously, that was November 13 of a different year because we haven't 
gotten to November 13 of 1999. This is actually from 1998.
  They had a front-page headline article called: ``Too Close for 
Comfort. Crossing Runways Debated as Travel Soars. Safety, On-Time 
Travel on Collision Course, Pilots Say.''
  Let me read a quote from this article from USA Today from November 
13, 1998.

       ``They are just trying anything to squeeze out more 
     capacity from the system,'' says Captain Randolph Babbitt, 
     President of the Airline Pilots Association, which represents 
     51,000 of the 70,000 commercial pilots in the United States 
     and Canada. ``Some of us think this is nibbling at the safety 
     margins.''

  Probably at no airport in the country have we nibbled more at the 
safety margins than at O'Hare International Airport--the world's 
biggest airport, the world's most congested, the one that has the most 
delays in this country.
  I will read a portion of a letter that was sent earlier this year to 
the Governor of our great State, Governor George Ryan.

       My name is John Teerling and I recently retired, after 31.5 
     years with American Airlines as a Captain, flying 
     international

[[Page S11902]]

     routes in Boeing 767 and 757's. I was based at Chicago's 
     O'Hare my entire career. I have seen the volume of traffic at 
     O'Hare pick up and exceed anyone's expectations, so much so, 
     that on occasions, mid-airs were only seconds apart. O'Hare 
     is at maximum capacity, if not over capacity. It is my 
     opinion that it is only a matter of time until two airliners 
     collide making disastrous headlines.

  I close with that thought, and I caution the Senate on the effects of 
our interfering in the rulemaking authority of the FAA, overruling 
their authority, and by statute rewriting their rules.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter to Governor George Ryan from 
this former American Airlines captain, John Teerling, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                             John W. Teerling,

                                   Lockport, IL, January 18, 1999.
     RE: A Third Chicago Airport
     Gov. George Ryan,
     State Capitol, Springfield, IL.
       Dear Governor Ryan: My name is John Teerling and I recently 
     retired, after 31.5 years with American Airlines as a 
     Captain, flying international routes in Boeing 767 and 757's. 
     I was based at Chicago's O'Hare my entire career. I have seen 
     the volume of traffic at O'Hare pick up and exceed anyone's 
     expectations, so much so, that on occasion mid-airs were only 
     seconds apart. O'Hare is at maximum capacity, if not over 
     capacity. It is my opinion that it is only a matter of time 
     until two airliners collide making disastrous headlines.
       Cities like Atlanta, Dallas and especially Miami continue 
     to increase their traffic flow, some months exceeding 
     Chicago, and at some point could supersede Chicago 
     permanently. If Chicago and Illinois are to remain as the 
     major Hub for airline traffic, a third major airport has to 
     be built, and built now. Midway, with its location and 
     shorter runways will never fill this void. A large 
     international airport located in the Peotone area, complete 
     with good ground infrastructure (rail and highway) to serve 
     Chicago, Kankakee, Joliet, Indiana and the Southwest suburbs, 
     would be win, win situation for all. The jobs created for 
     housing and offices, hotels, shopping, manufacturing and 
     light industry could produce three to four hundred thousand 
     jobs. Good paying jobs.
       Another item to consider, which I feel is extremely 
     important is weather. I have frequently observed that there 
     are two distinct weather patterns between O'Hare and 
     Kankakee. Very often when one is receiving snow, fog or rain 
     the other is not. These conditions affect the visibility and 
     ceiling conditions determining whether the airports operate 
     normally or not. Because of the difference in weather 
     patterns when one airport, say O'Hare, is experiencing a 
     hampered operation, an airport in Peotone, in all 
     probability, could be having more normal operations. 
     Airliners could then divert to the ``other'' Chicago Airport, 
     saving time and money as well as causing less inconvenience 
     to the public. (It's better to be in Peotone than in 
     Detroit).
       It is well known that American and United, who literally 
     control O'Hare with their massive presence, are against a 
     third airport. Why? It is called market share competition and 
     greed. A new airport in the Peotone area would allow other 
     airlines to service Chicago and be competition. American and 
     United are of course dead set against that. What they are not 
     considering is that their presence at a third airport would 
     afford them an even greater share of the Chicago regional pie 
     as well as put them in a great position for future expansion.
       You also have Mayor Daley against a third airport because 
     he feels a loss of control and possible revenue for the city. 
     This third airport, if built, and it should be, should be 
     classified as the Northern Illinois Regional Airport, 
     controlled by a Board with representatives from Chicago and 
     the surrounding areas. That way all would share in the 
     prestige of a new major international airport along with its 
     revenues and expanding revenue base.
       The demand in airline traffic could easily expand by 30% 
     during the next decade. Where does this leave Illinois and 
     Chicago? It leaves us with no growth in the industry if we 
     have no place to land more airplanes. If Indiana were ever to 
     get smart and construct a major airport to the East of 
     Peotone, imagine the damaging economic impact it would have 
     on Northern Illinois!
           Sincerely,
                                                 John W. Teerling.

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I would just make a couple of 
comments in general and not direct it to those who are trying to 
decrease or increase slots at airports but some philosophical points.
  A lot of these rules were set, as has been pointed out, some 30 years 
ago. Of course, there has been a lot of technology which has developed 
since that time, and a lot of it which has been in place since that 
time which allows much more efficient use. We don't have so-called 
``buy and sell'' situations anymore. We have slots.
  We also have, as I described in my opening statement yesterday, 
millions of Americans who fly every year, and 1 billion people will be 
flying in the next decade. We have a tripling of air cargo. We have an 
enormous increase in international flights. We have an enormous 
increase in letters and boxes, all of which require flights and all of 
which require slots. They go to different airports. But the point is 
everything is increasing.
  I don't think that any of us on the floor or colleagues who will be 
here to vote on various issues can pretend that we can turn around and 
say: All right, Mr. and Mrs. America. Yes, you are making more income. 
Yes, you are maybe vacation-conscious. Yes, this is a free market 
system. Yes, you live in a free country and you want to fly to more 
places and you have the money now to take your children with you. You 
are writing more letters. You are sending more packages because more 
services are available.
  We cannot pretend as though we are going to stop this process. I 
don't want to make the comparison to the Internet because the Internet 
has a life of its own. But it comes to mind. There are a lot of people 
who want to stop some of the things going on on the Internet. They 
can't do it. The Internet has a life of its own. It is the result of 
the free enterprise system that people decide to buy it or not buy it. 
That is their choice.
  But people also have the choice as to whether they want to fly or 
not. We are now coming to the point where we have the technology to 
allow a lot more of that to happen.
  I described a visit I made to the air traffic control center in 
Herndon, VA, which is highly automated and has the highest form of 
technology. If you want to say: All right. How many flights are in the 
air right now from 3,000 to 5,000 feet? How many are in the air now 
from 5,000 to 7,000, or 5,000 to 6,000? They push a button, and they 
can tell you every flight--because I have seen it--every flight in the 
country at certain levels. The whole concept of being able to increase 
flights is going to be there.

  No. 1, we have established the fact that Americans are free. This is 
not the former Soviet Union. People have the right to fly. They have 
the money to fly. The economy is doing better, and exponentially 
everything is growing. That case is closed.
  If somebody wants to say, let's stop that, let's just say we are 
going to pretend it was 30 years ago and only so many people can fly, 
only so many letters can be written, only so many international 
flights, the Italians and French are going to have to stop, it is OK 
the Japanese and Germans do it--life does not work like that. People 
have the right to make their decisions, and it is up to us in Congress 
to expedite the ability of the FAA to have in place the instruments, 
the technology, and the funding to make all of this work properly.
  I point out one economic thing that comes from the Department of 
Transportation which is very interesting. This happens to deal with 
O'Hare. That is an accident; it is not deliberate. But it makes an 
interesting point because it talks about the benefits if you open up 
slots and it talks about the deficiencies; there are both. If you open 
up more slots, you will get a benefit for the consumer that outweighs 
the total cost of the delays and, in short, the consumer will save a 
great deal of money, or a certain amount of money, on tickets. They 
will save money because there will be more competition, because there 
will be more slots, because there will be more flights. That is the 
free-market system. That is what brings lower costs.
  I do not enjoy flying from Charleston, WV, to Washington, DC, and 
paying $686 for a flight on an airplane into which I can barely 
squeeze.
  Let's understand, we have something which is growing exponentially 
and happens to be terrific for our economy. As I indicated, 10 million 
people work in this industry. You are not going to stop people from 
sending letters. You are not going to stop people from flying. You are 
not going to stop people from taking vacations. You are not

[[Page S11903]]

going to stop international traffic. None of that is going to happen. 
We have to accommodate ourselves.
  Does that mean there is going to be somewhat more noise? Yes.
  Does that mean we have to improve systems, engines, and research that 
are reducing that noise? Yes, we do.
  Does that mean there are going to be more delays? Probably.
  But the alternative to that is to say, all right, since we cannot 
have a single delay and nobody can be inconvenienced a single half 
hour, then let's just shut all of this off and go back to the 1960s and 
pretend we are in that era. We cannot do that. We simply cannot do 
that.
  I introduce that thought into this conversation. There will be other 
amendments and other points that will be made about it. But we are 
dealing with inexorable growth, which the American people want, which 
the international community wants, which is now supported by an economy 
which is going to continue to sustain it. Even if the economy goes 
through a downturn, it is not going to slow down traffic use 
substantially because once people begin to fly, they keep on flying; 
they do not give up that habit.

  We are dealing with a fact of life to which we have to make an 
adjustment in two ways: One, we have to be willing to accept certain 
inconveniences. I happen to live in one place where the airplanes just 
pour over my house. I do not enjoy that, but I adjust to it.
  Let's deal in the real world here. Flights are good for the economy; 
flights are good for Americans; flights are good for the world. 
Packages and letters are all part of communication. There is nothing we 
are going to do to stop it, so we have to make adjustments. One, in our 
own personal lives, and, two, we in Congress have to make adjustments 
by being far more aggressive in terms of expediting funding for 
research, instruments, and technology that will make all of this as 
easy as possible.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Grassley as an original cosponsor of the Collins amendment No. 1907.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1892, as modified

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Gorton, I send to the 
desk a modification to amendment No. 1892 offered yesterday by Senator 
Gorton and ask that it be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment (No. 1892), as modified, is as follows:

       On page 9, beginning with line 15, strike through line 11 
     on page 10 and insert the following:
       ``(2) New or increased service required.--Paragraph (1)(A) 
     applies only if--
       ``(A) the air carrier was not providing air transportation 
     described in paragraph (1)(A) during the week of June 15, 
     1999; or
       ``(B) the level of such air transportation to be provided 
     between such airports by the air carrier during any week will 
     exceed the level of such air transportation provided by such 
     carrier between Chicago O'Hare International Airport and an 
     airport described in paragraph (1)(A) during the week of June 
     15, 1999.


                Amendment No. 1950 To Amendment No. 1906

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up 
amendment No. 1906 submitted by Senator Voinovich, and on behalf of 
Senator Gorton, I send a second-degree amendment, No. 1950 to amendment 
No. 1906, and ask that the second-degree amendment be adopted and that 
the amendment No. 1906, as amended, then be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so. ordered.
  The amendment (No. 1906) is as follows:

       Strike section 437.

  The amendment (No. 1950) was agreed to, as follows:

     SEC. 437. DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES BY COMPUTER RESERVATIONS 
                   SYSTEMS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

       (a) Actions Against Discriminatory Activity by Foreign CRS 
     Systems.--Section 41310 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) Actions Against Discriminatory Activity by Foreign 
     CRS Systems.--The Secretary of Transportation may take such 
     actions as the Secretary considers are in the public interest 
     to eliminate an activity of a foreign air carrier that owns 
     or markets a computer reservations system, when the 
     Secretary, on the initiative of the Secretary or on 
     complaint, decides that the activity, with respect to airline 
     service--
       ``(1) is an unjustifiable or unreasonable discriminatory, 
     predatory, or anticompetitive practice against a computer 
     reservations system firm;
       ``(2) imposes an unjustifiable or unreasonable restriction 
     on access of such a computer reservations system to a 
     market.''.
       (b) Complaints by CRS Firms.--Section 41310 is amended--
       (1) in subsection (d)(1)--
       (A) by striking ``air carrier'' in the first sentence and 
     inserting ``air carrier, computer reservations system 
     firm,'';
       (B) by striking ``subsection (c)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (c) or (g)''; and
       (C) by striking ``air carrier'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``air carrier or computer reservations system 
     firm''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(1) by inserting ``or a computer 
     reservations system firm is subject when providing services 
     with respect to airline service'' before the period at the 
     end of the first sentence.

  The amendment (No. 1906), as amended, was agreed to.


                 Amendments Nos. 1900 And 1901, En Bloc

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Robb, I send to the 
desk two amendments that have been cleared on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be 
reported en bloc.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Robb, 
     proposes amendments numbered 1900 and 1901, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           amendment no. 1900

    (Purpose: To protect the communities surrounding Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport from nighttime noise by barring new flights 
             between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new section:

     SEC.  . CURFEW.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any exemptions 
     granted to air carriers under this Act may not result in 
     additional operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National 
     Airport between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 1901

(Purpose: To require collection and publication of certain information 
                       regarding noise abatement)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following new title:

                       TITLE ____--______________

     SEC. ____01. GOOD NEIGHBORS POLICY.

       (a) Public Disclosure of Noise Mitigation Efforts by Air 
     Carriers.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment 
     of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall collect and publish information provided 
     by air carriers regarding their operating practices that 
     encourage their pilots to follow the Federal Aviation 
     Administration's operating guidelines on noise abatement.
       (b) Safety First.--The Secretary shall take such action as 
     is necessary to ensure that noise abatement efforts do not 
     threaten aviation safety.
       (c) Protection of Proprietary Information.--In publishing 
     information required by this section, the Secretary shall 
     take such action as is necessary to prevent the disclosure of 
     any air carrier's proprietary information.
       (d) No Mandate.--Nothing in this section shall be construed 
     to mandate, or to permit the Secretary to mandate, the use of 
     noise abatement settings by pilots.

     SEC. ____02. GAO REVIEW OF AIRCRAFT ENGINE NOISE ASSESSMENT.

       (a) GAO Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study and report to Congress on 
     regulations and activities of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration in the area of aircraft engine noise 
     assessment. The study shall include a review of--
       (1) the consistency of noise assessment techniques across 
     different aircraft models and aircraft engines, and with 
     varying weight and thrust settings; and
       (2) a comparison of testing procedures used for unmodified 
     engines and engines with hush kits or other quieting devices.
       (b) Recommendations to the FAA.--The Comptroller General's 
     report shall include specific recommendations to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration on new measures that should be 
     implemented to ensure consistent measurement of aircraft 
     engine noise.

     SEC. ____03. GAO REVIEW OF FAA COMMUNITY NOISE ASSESSMENT.

       (a) GAO Study.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study and report to Congress on the 
     regulations and activities of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration in the area of noise assessment in communities 
     near airports. The study shall include a review of whether 
     the noise assessment practices of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration fairly

[[Page S11904]]

     and accurately reflect the burden of noise on communities.
       (b) Recommendations to the FAA.--The Comptroller General's 
     report shall include specific recommendations to the Federal 
     Aviation Administration on new measures to improve the 
     assessment of airport noise in communities near airports.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask that the amendments be adopted en 
bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 1900 and 1901) were agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. ROBB. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1904

 (Purpose: to provide a requirement to enhance the competitiveness of 
 air operations under slot exemptions for regional jet air service and 
   new entrant air carriers at certain high density traffic airports)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, finally, I send to the desk amendment No. 
1904 on behalf of Senator Snowe, and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Ms. Snowe, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1904.

  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title V of the Manager's substitute 
     amendment, add the following:

     SEC. ____. REQUIREMENT TO ENHANCE COMPETITIVENESS OF SLOT 
                   EXEMPTIONS FOR REGIONAL JET AIR SERVICE AND NEW 
                   ENTRANT AIR CARRIERS AT CERTAIN HIGH DENSITY 
                   TRAFFIC AIRPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417, as amended by 
     sections 507 and 508, is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:

     ``Sec. 41721. Requirement to enhance competitiveness of slot 
       exemptions for nonstop regional jet air service and new 
       entrant air carriers at certain airports

       ``In granting slot exemptions for nonstop regional jet air 
     service and new entrant air carriers under this subchapter to 
     John F. Kennedy International Airport, and La Guardia 
     Airport, the Secretary of Transportation shall require the 
     Federal Aviation Administration to provide commercially 
     reasonable times to takeoffs and landings of air flights 
     conducted under those exemptions.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The chapter analysis for 
     subchapter I of chapter 417, as amended by this title, is 
     amended by adding at the end thereof the following:

``41721. Requirement to enhance competitiveness of slot exemptions for 
              nonstop regional jet air service and new entrant air 
              carriers at certain airports.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on the 
other side, and there is no further debate on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1904) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from 
Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair, what is the pending 
amendment at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1898 offered by the Senator from 
Montana, Mr. Baucus.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 
1898 be temporarily laid aside and that we return to consideration of 
amendment No. 1892 offered by the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2259 To Amendment No. 1892

(Purpose: to strike the provisions dealing with special rules affecting 
                  Reagan Washington National Airport)

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to 
amendment No. 1892 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Robb] for himself, Mr. 
     Sarbanes and Ms. Mikulski; proposes an amendment numbered 
     2259 to amendment No. 1892.
       Beginning on page 12 of the amendment, strike line 18 and 
     all that follows through page 19, line 2, and redesignate the 
     remaining subsections and references thereto accordingly.

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Arizona 
for accepting three out of four of the amendments I have proposed. I 
had hoped we might someday find a way he could accept the fourth. I am 
very much aware of the fact, however, that he and some others are not 
inclined to do that. I have, therefore, sent to the desk an amendment, 
just read by the clerk in its entirety, which simply strikes the 
section of the amendment that deals with the number of additional slots 
at National Airport.
  In this particular case, this amendment offered by the Senator from 
Washington, while a step in the right direction from the original bill 
language which would have required that an additional 48 slots be 
forced on the Washington National Airport Authority, nonetheless cuts 
that in half and it gets halfway to the objective I hope we can 
ultimately achieve in this particular case.
  The amendment would reduce to zero the number of changes in the slots 
that are currently in existence at Ronald Reagan Washington National 
Airport.
  My primary objection to this section is that it breaks a commitment 
to the citizens of this region, by injecting the Federal Government 
back into the management of our local airports.
  Before I discuss this issue in detail, I wish to make clear that I 
fully support nearly all of the underlying legislation and have for 
some period of time. Congress ought to approve a multiyear FAA 
reauthorization bill that boosts our investment in aviation 
infrastructure and keeps our economy going strong. There is no question 
about that. I have supported that from the very beginning, and I thank 
the managers for their efforts in this particular regard.
  I have long believed that funding for transportation, particularly 
mass transportation, is one of the best investments our Government can 
make. For our aviation system, in particular, these investments are 
critical.
  As Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater noted:

       . . . aviation will be for America in the 21st Century what 
     the Interstate Highway System has been for America in this 
     century.

  It has been suggested that as part of our preparation for the next 
century of aviation to promote competition and protect consumers, we 
ought to impose additional flights on the communities surrounding 
National Airport.
  It has been argued that the high density rule, which limits the 
number of slots or flights at National, is a restriction on our free 
market and hurts consumers. I do not dispute the fact that flight 
limits at National restrict free market. I believe, however, that the 
proponents of additional flights give an inaccurate picture of the 
supposed benefits of forcing flights on National Airport.

  Before I go on to discuss the impact of additional flights on 
communities in Northern Virginia, I would like to deflate the idea that 
more flights will necessarily be a big winner for consumers.
  Based on the number of GAO reports we have had on this subject, some 
of our colleagues may think slot controls are somehow the primary cause 
of consumer woes. When we look at the facts, however, this simply is 
not the case.
  I understand reports by the GAO and by the National Research Council 
argue that airfares at slot-controlled airports are higher than 
average. However, the existence of higher-than-average fares does not 
tell us how slot controls may contribute to high fares at a specific 
airport. Many other factors, such as dominance of a given market by a 
particular carrier, or the leasing terms for gates, play a role in 
determining price. Also, simply noting the higher-than-average fares do 
not tell us whether slot controls are really a significant problem for 
the Nation.
  The U.S. Department of Transportation has examined air service on a 
city-by-city basis looking at all service to each city. This chart 
shows a 1998 third quarter DOT assessment of airfares, ranking each 
city based on the average cost per mile traveled. As you can see, the 
airports with the slot controls are not at the top of the list. In 
fact, they do not even make the top 106. Slot-controlled Chicago, as my 
distinguished colleague from Illinois has pointed out, comes in at No. 
19, right after Atlanta, GA; slot-controlled Washington, DC, comes in 
at 25, which is after Denver; and slot controlled

[[Page S11905]]

New York is way down the list at No. 42.
  Clearly, there are factors beyond slot controls that weigh heavily in 
determining how expensive air travel is in a particular city. So simply 
adding more flights will not necessarily bring costs down.
  Proponents of adding more slots at National may argue, nonetheless, 
that their proposal is a slam-dunk win for consumers. But on closer 
examination, more flights look less like a game-winning move and more 
like dropping the ball.
  Advocates of more flights ignore or downplay a central fact: More 
flights mean more delays, as the Senator from Illinois has so 
eloquently pointed out. More flights mean more harm to consumers in the 
airline industry. This is the untold story of the impact of more 
flights at National.
  The most recent GAO study downplays this issue in a passing reference 
to the impact of delays. According to the GAO:

       [I]f the number of slots were increased . . . delays. . 
     .could cause the airlines to experience a decreased profit . 
     . . the costs [of delay] associated with the increase would 
     be partially offset by consumer benefits.

  A 1999 National Research Council report acknowledges that delays 
resulting from more flights may hurt consumers:

       [I]t is conceivable that many travelers would accept 
     additional delays in exchange for increased access to [slot-
     controlled] airports. . . . Recurrent delays from heavy 
     demand, however, would prompt direct responses to relieve 
     congestion.

  Later on the report suggests ``congestion pricing'' to prevent 
delays. Congestion pricing would raise airport charges and, thus, 
airfares during busy times to reduce delays. In other words, the 
National Research Council is suggesting that additional flights would 
force consumers to either accept more delays or accept price hikes to 
manage delays.

  I understand the underlying bill says that additional slots shall not 
cause ``meaningful delay.'' The legislation does not define 
``meaningful delay,'' however, or provide any mechanism to protect 
consumers from delays, should they occur.
  While both the GAO and the NRC reports acknowledge we can expect 
delays, neither report examines the specific impact of delays on 
consumers.
  The most detailed analysis that is available to us comes from a 1995 
DOT study titled ``A Study of the High Density Rule.'' That report 
examines the impact of several scenarios, including removing slots at 
National completely, and allowing 191 new flights, the maximum the 
airport could safely accept according to their report.
  According to experts at DOT:

       [T]he estimated dollar benefit of lifting the slot rule at 
     National is substantially negative: minus $107 million.

  This figure includes the benefits of new service and fare reductions, 
weighed against the cost of delays to consumers and airliners.
  There is simply no getting around the fact that National has limits 
on how many flights it can safely manage. As we try to get closer to 
that maximum safe number, the more delays we will face.
  The DOT report goes on to examine the specific impact of adding 48 
new slots, as proposed by the underlying legislation. The report finds 
that the length of delays will nearly double from an average of 
something around 4.6 minutes to a delay of 8 minutes, on average. I 
will discuss the costs of these delays at National Airport in a moment.
  But in case some of my colleagues think that a few minutes of delay 
is not a problem for air travelers, the Air Transport Association has 
estimated that last year delays cost the industry $2.5 billion in 
overtime wages, extra fuel, and maintenance. Indeed, yesterday I was 
flying up and down the east coast and all of those charges were clearly 
adding to the cost of the airline, which will ultimately be passed on 
to the consumer.
  For consumers, there were 308,000 flight delays and millions of hours 
of time lost. For National in particular, the 1995 DOT report finds 
that airlines would see $23 million in losses due to delays. For 
consumers, 48 new slots would provide little benefit overall. Consumers 
would see $53 million in new service benefits, but delays would cost 
consumers $50 million.
  The report assumes no benefits from fare reductions with 48 slots, 
but, being generous, I have assumed an estimated fare reduction of $20 
million from fare benefits listed elsewhere in the report. Consumer 
benefits, therefore, are $53 million for new service; minus $50 million 
for delays, plus $20 million for possible discounts, for a total of 
about $23 million.
  Considering the fact that about 16 million travelers use National 
each year, that works out to about $1.50 per person per trip in 
savings.
  That is not much benefit for the 48 slots. For 24 slots, as the 
Gorton amendment provides, we don't have a good analysis of the cost of 
delay. I suspect, however, the ultimate consumer benefits are similarly 
modest.
  We all value the free market and the benefit it provides to 
consumers. At the same time, it is the job of Congress to weigh the 
benefits of an unrestrained market against other cherished values. The 
free market does not protect our children from pollution, guard against 
monopolies, or preserve our natural resources. In this case, we are 
weighing a small benefit that would come from an additional 24 slots at 
National against the virtues of a Government that keeps its word and 
against the peace of mind of thousands of Northern Virginians, as well 
as many in the District of Columbia and Maryland.
  Elsewhere in this bill, we would restrain the market. The legislation 
would restrict air flights over both small and large parks. I submit 
that is the right thing to do. We should work to preserve the sanctity 
of our national parks. But while this bill abandons free market 
principles to shield our parks, it uses free market principles as a 
sword to cut away at the quality of life in our Nation's Capital. It is 
wrong to try to force Virginians and those who live in this area, 
Maryland and the District of Columbia and elsewhere, to endure more 
noise from National Airport, especially when the consumer benefits are 
so small and so uncertain. Most troubling of all is the fact that this 
bill breaks a promise to the citizens of this region, a promise that 
they would be left to manage their own airports without Federal 
meddling. To give the context surrounding that promise, I must review 
some of the history of the high density rule and the perimeter rule at 
National.
  National, as many of our colleagues know, was built in 1941. It was, 
therefore, not designed to accommodate large commercial jets. As a 
result, during the 1960s, as congestion grew, National soon became 
overcrowded. To address chronic delays, in 1966, the airlines 
themselves agreed to limit the number of flights at National. They also 
agreed to a perimeter rule to further reduce overcrowding. Long haul 
service was diverted to Dulles. During the 1970s and early 1980s, 
improvements were negligible or nonexistent at both National and 
Dulles, as any of our colleagues who served in this body or the other 
body at that time will recall, because there was no certainty to the 
airline agreements.
  National drained flights from Dulles so improvements at Dulles were 
put on hold. Litigation and public protest over increasing noise at 
National blocked improvements there. As my immediate successor as 
Governor, Jerry Baliles, described the situation in 1986:

       National is a joke without a punchline--National Airport 
     has become a national disgrace. National's crowded, noisy, 
     and incomprehensible. Travelers need easy access to the 
     terminal. What they get instead is a half marathon, half 
     obstacle course, and total confusion.

  To address this problem, Congress codified the voluntary agreements 
the airlines had adopted on flight limits and created an independent 
authority to manage the airports. The slot rules limited the number of 
flights and noise at National, and the perimeter rule increased 
business at Dulles. Together with local management of the airports, 
these rules provided what we thought was long-term stability and growth 
for both airports. More than $1.6 billion in bonds have supported the 
expansion of Dulles. More than $940 million has been invested to 
upgrade National. These major improvements would not have taken place 
without local management and without the stability provided by the 
perimeter and slot rules.

[[Page S11906]]

  The local agreement on slot controls was not enacted into Federal law 
simply to build good airports. Slot controls embodied a promise to the 
communities of Northern Virginia and Washington and Maryland.
  In the 1980s, there was some discussion of shutting down National 
completely. Anyone who was here at the time will recall that discussion 
and the prospect that National might actually be shut down. We avoided 
that fate and the resulting harm to consumer choice with an agreement 
to limit National's growth. I suspect some individuals in communities 
around National believe the agreement did not protect them enough and 
should have limited flights even more. But by giving them some sense of 
security that airport noise would not continue to worsen by giving them 
a commitment, we were able to move ahead with airport improvements.
  Congress and the executive branch recognized the community outrage 
that had blocked airport work and affirmed that a Federal commitment in 
law would allow improvements to go forward.
  In 1986 hearings on the airport legislation, 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.

  As the Senate Committee on Commerce 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.''

  Local government leaders, such as Arlington County Board member John 
Milliken, at that time noted that they sought a total curfew on all 
flights and shrinking the perimeter rule but, in the spirit of 
compromise, would accept specific limitations on flights and the 
perimeter rule.
  The airport legislation was not simply about protecting communities 
from airport noise. It was also about the appropriate role of the 
Federal Government. Members of Congress noted at the time that the 
Federal Government should not be involved in local airport management. 
In short, local airports should be managed by local governments, not 
through congressional intervention.
  At a congressional debate on the airport legislation, Senator Robert 
Dole and Congressman Dick Armey affirmed that Federal management of the 
airports was harmful. According to 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.

  According to Congressman Dick Armey:

       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.

  I submit that local airports in Virginia have been well managed to 
date. We shouldn't now start second-guessing that effort.
  Again, the legislation before us reneges on the Federal commitment to 
this region that the Federal Government would not meddle in airport 
management and that we would not force additional flights on National. 
Congress repeated that commitment in 1990 with the Airport Noise 
Capacity Act which left in place existing noise control measures across 
the country. That act, wherein Congress limited new noise rules and 
flight restrictions, also recognized that the Federal Government should 
not overrule preexisting slot controls, curfews, and noise limits. The 
1990 act left in place preexisting rules, including flight limits at 
National.
  The bill before us contributes to the growing cynicism with which the 
public views our Federal Government. Overruling protections that 
airport communities have relied on is fundamentally unfair.

  Beyond the matter of fairness, forcing flights on National sets a 
precedent that will affect communities across the Nation. Many 
communities, such as Seattle, WA, and San Diego, CA, are trying to 
determine how they will address growing aviation needs and how their 
actions will affect communities around their airports.
  Those debates will determine how communities will treat their 
existing airport, whether they will close the airport to prevent 
possible growth in excess noise or leave it open to preserve consumer 
benefits, with the understanding that growth will be restrained.
  Those debates will also determine the location of new airports, 
whether a community will place the airport in a convenient location or 
further remove it from population centers to avoid noise impacts.
  The action Congress takes today will shape those debates. Knowing 
that Congress may intervene in local airport management will tip the 
balance toward closing the more convenient local airports out of fear--
fear that Congress will simply stamp out a local decision.
  Unfortunately, for the citizens around National, they trusted the 
Federal Government. They hoped the Federal Government agreement that 
they had to limit flights would protect them. As former Secretary of 
Transportation William Coleman noted in 1986, ``National has always 
been a political football.''
  To summarize, the additional flights proposed in this bill are not 
designed to address some major restraint on aviation competition. Slot 
controls may respect competition, but there are clearly many factors 
affecting airfares. More importantly, the benefits to consumers of 24 
additional flights at National are very uncertain. We will clearly have 
delays, and none of the studies supporting additional flights have 
examined in detail the cost of those delays. The best study we have on 
the subject, a 1995 DOT report, suggests that because of those delays, 
consumers won't get much benefit--maybe $1.50 per person, on average.
  We don't know how the delays at National--which we know will come if 
we approve the new flights--will affect air service in other cities 
with connecting flights to National. We are balancing these marginal 
benefits against the quality of life in communities surrounding the 
National Airport. We are pitting improved service for a few against 
quieter neighborhoods for many. We are also pitting a small, uncertain 
benefit to consumers against the integrity of the Federal Government.
  Forcing additional flights on National breaks an agreement that 
Congress made in 1986 to turn the airport over to a regional authority 
and leave it alone.
  A vote for this amendment to strike is a vote against more delays for 
consumers. A vote for this amendment is a vote in favor of a Federal 
Government that keeps its word. I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment to strike and retain the bargain, both implied and explicit, 
that we made in 1986 with the communities that surround the two 
airports in question.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Virginia. I 
understand his passion and commitment on this issue. On this particular 
issue, we simply have an honorable disagreement. He makes a very cogent 
argument, but with all due respect, I simply am not in agreement. I 
have a different view and perspective. He and I have debated this issue 
on a number of occasions in the past.
  I want to make a few additional points. Twelve new round-trip flights 
at Reagan National is barely acceptable to me. Because of Senator 
Robb's intense pressures and that of Senator Warner, and others, we 
have reduced it rather dramatically from what we had hoped to do. I 
know the Senator from Virginia knows I won't give up on this issue 
because of my belief. But 12 additional round-trip flights are simply 
not going to help, particularly the underserved airports all over 
America.
  The GAO has found on more than one occasion that significant barriers 
to competition still exist at several important airports, and both at 
Reagan

[[Page S11907]]

National Airport are slot controls and the perimeter rule.
  The GAO is not the only one that assesses it that way. The National 
Research Council's Transportation Research Board recently issued its 
own report on competition in the airline industry. This independent 
group also found that ``the detrimental effects of slot controls on 
airline efficiency and competition are well-documented and are too far-
reaching and significant to continue.''
  Based on its finding, the Transportation Research Board recommended 
the early elimination of slot controls. They were equally critical of 
perimeter rules.
  As I mentioned during my opening statement, the GAO came out last 
month with another study confirming that Reagan National is fully 
capable of handling more flights without compromising safety or 
creating significant aircraft delays. In fact, language in the bill 
requires that any additional flights would have to clear the Department 
of Transportation's assessment so far as any impact on safety. The GAO 
demonstrates that their arguments against these modest changes are not 
persuasive. I regret this legislation doesn't do more to promote 
competition at Reagan National Airport.
  I earlier read a statement from one of Senator Robb's constituents 
who alleged that he could not afford flights out of Reagan National 
Airport. Also, I got another letter that was sent to the FAA aviation 
noise ombudsman and printed in his annual activity report. The noise 
ombudsman deals almost entirely with complaints about noise.
  The relevant section of that report reads as follows:

       Very few citizens who are not annoyed by airplane noise 
     take the time to publicly or privately voice an opinion. The 
     Ombudsman received a written opinion from one such residence 
     in the area south of National Airport which said:
       Recently, someone left a ``flyer'' in my mailbox urging 
     that I contact you to complain about aircraft noise into and 
     out of the airport. I am going to follow her format point by 
     point.
       I have lived in (the area) for 35 years. I have not 
     experienced any increase in aircraft noise. I have noticed a 
     reduction in the loudness of the planes during that time.

  That makes sense, Mr. President, since aircraft engines are quieter 
and quieter. The citizen says:

       I do not observe aircraft flying lower. I have not observed 
     more aircraft following one another more closely. I have not 
     noticed the aircraft turning closer to the airport as opposed 
     to ``down river.'' My quality of life has not significantly 
     been reduced by aircraft noise. In fact, in the 1960s and 
     1970s, the noise was much louder. I am not concerned about 
     property values due to the level of aircraft noise. I would 
     be very concerned if there were no noise because it would 
     mean the airport was closed. A closure of the airport would 
     make my neighborhood less desirable to me and to many 
     thousands of others who like the convenience of Reagan 
     National Airport. I am concerned about safety and 
     environmental impacts, as everybody should be; but Reagan 
     National Airport has a good safety record and the 
     environmental impact is no greater here than elsewhere. I 
     have not heard any recent neighborhood ``upset''' about the 
     increase in airport noise. Reagan National Airport is the 
     most convenient airport that I have ever been in. I hope you 
     will do more to expand its benefit by expanding the range of 
     flights in and out of it.

  This is certainly another resident of Northern Virginia who has, in 
my view, the proper perspective. Most local residents don't get 
motivated to write such letters as the one I just read. Apparently, 
there are those who drop flyers in mailboxes asking people to write and 
complain.
  I yield to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from 
Arizona, with whom I agree on so many issues but disagree on this 
particular question. First of all, I will let the Senator know that I 
am not in any way affiliated or associated with an effort to get people 
to write the Senator from Arizona or anybody else. There may be others 
with good intentions. But I submit to my friend from Arizona that the 
letter he just read makes the point we are trying to make; that is, the 
letter--which I haven't seen yet--talks about it was worse back in the 
early 1960s when we had a slots agreement which limited the number of 
planes. We had a decrease in noise because of the aircraft noise levels 
in the stage 3 aircraft. All of this is consistent with what has 
happened. Why most of the individuals who live in these areas want to 
continue to have the protections that were afforded to them by the 1986 
agreement is precisely what is included in the letter my friend from 
Arizona just read.

  I ask my friend from Arizona to react to my reaction to a letter 
previously unseen, but it seems to me to be directly on point and makes 
the point as to why we are pursuing an attempt to keep my friend from 
Arizona from breaking that agreement.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend.
  First of all, the gentleman said 1960s and 1970s--not just 1960s, 
1970s. He said the noise was much louder in the 1970s.
  In a report to Congress recently, Secretary Rodney Slater announced 
that the Nation's commercial jet aircraft fleet is the quietest in 
history and will continue to achieve record low noise levels into the 
next century. Obviously, with stage 3 aircraft, that noise would be 
dramatically lessened, thank God. I hope there is going to be a stage 4 
that will make it even quieter. Clearly, it is not, because actually 
the number of flights have been reduced at Reagan National Airport 
since the perimeter rule and the slot controls were put in--because, as 
the Senator knows, the major airlines aren't making full use of those 
slots as they are really required to do by, if not the letter of the 
law, certainly the intent of the law.
  I remind the Senator, the requirement is they all be stage 3 
aircraft. New flights would have to be stage 4 aircraft.
  The Senator just pointed out how stage 3 aircraft are much quieter. 
They would have to meet any safety studies done by the DOT before any 
additional flights were allowed.
  Again, the GAO and the Department of Transportation--literally every 
objective organization that observes the situation at Reagan National 
Airport--say that increase in flights is called for. The perimeter 
rule, which was put in in a purely blatant political move, as we all 
know--coincidentally, the perimeter rule reaches the western edge of 
the runway at Dallas-Fort Worth Airport. We all know who the majority 
leader of the House was at that time. We all know it has been a great 
boon to the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport.
  Why wasn't it in Jackson, MS? I think if my dear friend, the majority 
leader, had been there at the time, perhaps it might have.
  But the fact is that the perimeter rule was artificially imposed for 
restraint. The Senator knows that as well as I do.
  But back to his question, again, the GAO, the DOT, the Aviation 
Commission, and every other one indicate clearly that this is called 
for. I want to remind the Senator. I do with some embarrassment--12 
additional flights, 12 additional round-trip flights? I think my dear 
friend from Virginia doth protest too much.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, will my friend from Arizona yield for an 
additional question?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask my friend from Arizona if he would 
address the other two principal concerns that have been raised--delays 
and the breaking of a deal. He has in part addressed the breaking of a 
deal. He says the deal in effect was political. Indeed, there are some 
political implications in almost anything that is struck, particularly 
as it affects jurisdictions differently in this body, as the Senator 
well knows. But it was a deal entered into by the executive branch, 
Congress on both sides, the governments of the local jurisdictions 
involved, and all of the local communities. That was the deal that was 
entered into. Now we are concerned about the impact of breaking the 
deal and the impact of additional delays.

  As I mentioned just a few minutes ago, I myself was caught in delays 
that were exacerbated by the fact that we had some planes waiting to 
take off ``right now.'' That is without any additional flight 
authorization during the time periods that are going to be sought.
  Second, certainly the Senator from Illinois talked about the fact 
that the mayor of Chicago came here for a specific reception that was 
in his honor to benefit Chicago and was inconvenienced to the point 
that he didn't arrive until after the reception was over and he turned 
right around. I almost did that yesterday on another flight.
  But the point is, more flights mean more delays and mean breaking the 
deal that the Congress, the executive

[[Page S11908]]

branch, and the local governments made with the people.
  Will the distinguished Senator from Arizona address those two 
elements of my concern at this point? I agree certainly on the stage 3 
engines and the continued noise reduction.
  Mr. President, before he answers the question, let me thank him for 
his accommodation in many areas. I am not in any way diminishing the 
number of changes the Senator from Arizona has made to try to address 
legitimate concerns that he recognized could be addressed. And this is 
a less bad bill than we had earlier with respect to this particular 
component of it. But we are still not where the deal said we ought to 
be. We are still not where we can represent to the people that we are 
not going to be creating additional delays in an obviously constricted 
area.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to respond very quickly. Does the Senator 
want an up-or-down vote on this amendment?
  Mr. ROBB. The Senator would definitely like it.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would like to ask the majority leader. Perhaps we can 
schedule it right after the lunch along with the other votes. I will 
ask the majority leader when he finishes his conversation. We are about 
to break for the lunch period. Would the majority leader agree to an 
up-or-down vote as part of the votes that are going to take place after 
the lunch?
  Mr. LOTT. That would be my preference, actually, Mr. President. If 
the Senator will yield, I would like to get that locked in at this 
point, if you would like to do so.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to.
  Could I just very briefly respond. We have been down this track many 
times. Delays are due to the air traffic control system, and obviously 
our focus and the reason why we have to pass this bill is to increase 
the capability of the air traffic control system. Deals are made all 
the time, my dear friend. The people of Arizona weren't consulted. The 
people of California weren't consulted. It was a deal made behind 
closed doors, which is the most unpleasant aspect of the way we do 
business around here, where people were artificially discriminated 
against because they happened to live west of the Dallas-Fort Worth 
Airport. It is an inequity, and it is unfair and should be fixed.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a vote on the 
Robb amendment be included in the stacked sequence of votes after the 
policy luncheon breaks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I may withhold for 1 second, I am 
concerned that there might be another Senator who would want to be 
heard on this issue. If so, we will delay the vote momentarily. But I 
don't know that that will be necessary, so let's go ahead and go 
forward with the stacked vote sequence.


                    Amendment No. 2254, As Modified

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment 
No. 2254, which I filed earlier today, to conform to the previous 
unanimous consent agreement as it relates to aviation matters. I send 
the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is so 
modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       Insert at the appropriate place:

     SEC.   . ROLLING STOCK EQUIPMENT.

       (a) In General.--Section 1168 of title 11, United States 
     Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1168. Rolling stock equipment

       ``(a)(1) The right of a secured party with a security 
     interest in or of a lessor or conditional vendor of equipment 
     described in paragraph (2) to take possession of such 
     equipment in compliance with an equipment security agreement, 
     lease, or conditional sale contract, and to enforce any of 
     its other rights or remedies under such security agreement, 
     lease, or conditional sale contract, to sell, lease, or 
     otherwise retain or dispose of such equipment, is not limited 
     or otherwise affected by any other provision of this title or 
     by any power of the court, except that the right to take 
     possession and enforce those other rights and remedies shall 
     be subject to section 362, if--
       ``(A) before the date that is 60 days after the date of 
     commencement of a case under this chapter, the trustee, 
     subject to the court's approval, agrees to perform all 
     obligations of the debtor under such security agreement, 
     lease, or conditional sale contract; and
       ``(B) any default, other than a default of a kind described 
     in section 365(b)(2), under such security agreement, lease, 
     or conditional sale contract that--
       ``(i) occurs before the date of commencement of the case 
     and is an event of default therewith is cured before the 
     expiration of such 60-day period;
       ``(ii) occurs or becomes an event of default after the date 
     of commencement of the case and before the expiration of such 
     60-day period is cured before the later of--
       ``(I) the date that is 30 days after the date of the 
     default or event of the default; or
       ``(II) the expiration of such 60-day period; and
       ``(iii) occurs on or after the expiration of such 60-day 
     period is cured in accordance with the terms of such security 
     agreement, lease, or conditional sale contract, if cure is 
     permitted under that agreement, lease, or conditional sale 
     contract.
       ``(2) The equipment described in this paragraph--
       ``(A) is rolling stock equipment or accessories used on 
     rolling stock equipment, including superstructures or racks, 
     that is subject to a security interest granted by, leased to, 
     or conditionally sold to a debtor; and
       ``(B) includes all records and documents relating to such 
     equipment that are required, under the terms of the security 
     agreement, lease, or conditional sale contract, to be 
     surrendered or returned by the debtor in connection with the 
     surrender or return of such equipment.
       ``(3) Paragraph (1) applies to a secured party, lessor, or 
     conditional vendor acting in its own behalf or acting as 
     trustee or otherwise in behalf of another party.
       ``(b) The trustee and the secured party, lessor, or 
     conditional vendor whose right to take possession is 
     protected under subsection (a) may agree, subject to the 
     court's approval, to extend the 60-day period specified in 
     subsection (a)(1).
       ``(c)(1) In any case under this chapter, the trustee shall 
     immediately surrender and return to a secured party, lessor, 
     or conditional vendor, described in subsection (a)(1), 
     equipment described in subsection (a)(2), if at any time 
     after the date of commencement of the case under this chapter 
     such secured party, lessor, or conditional vendor is entitled 
     under subsection (a)(1) to take possession of such equipment 
     and makes a written demand for such possession of the 
     trustee.
       ``(2) At such time as the trustee is required under 
     paragraph (1) to surrender and return equipment described in 
     subsection (a)(2), any lease of such equipment, and any 
     security agreement or conditional sale contract relating to 
     such equipment, if such security agreement or conditional 
     sale contract is an executory contract, shall be deemed 
     rejected.
       ``(d) With respect to equipment first placed in service on 
     or before October 22, 1994, for purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `lease' includes any written agreement with 
     respect to which the lessor and the debtor, as lessee, have 
     expressed in the agreement or in a substantially 
     contemporaneous writing that the agreement is to be treated 
     as a lease for Federal income tax purposes; and
       ``(2) the term `security interest' means a purchase-money 
     equipment security interest.
       ``(e) With respect to equipment first placed in service 
     after October 22, 1994, for purposes of this section, the 
     term `rolling stock equipment' includes rolling stock 
     equipment that is substantially rebuilt and accessories used 
     on such equipment.''.
       (b) Aircraft Equipment and Vessels.--Section 1110 of title 
     11, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

     ``Sec. 1110. Aircraft equipment and vessels

       ``(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subject to 
     subsection (b), the right of a secured party with a security 
     interest in equipment described in paragraph (3), or of a 
     lessor or conditional vendor of such equipment, to take 
     possession of such equipment in compliance with a security 
     agreement, lease, or conditional sale contract, and to 
     enforce any of its other rights or remedies, under such 
     security agreement, lease, or conditional sale contract, to 
     sell, lease, or otherwise retain or dispose of such 
     equipment, is not limited or otherwise affected by any other 
     provision of this title or by any power of the court.
       ``(2) The right to take possession and to enforce the other 
     rights and remedies described in paragraph (1) shall be 
     subject to section 362 if--
       ``(A) before the date that is 60 days after the date of the 
     order for relief under this chapter, the trustee, subject to 
     the approval of the court, agrees to perform all obligations 
     of the debtor under such security agreement, lease, or 
     conditional sale contract; and
       ``(B) any default, other than a default of a kind specified 
     in section 365(b)(2), under such security agreement, lease, 
     or conditional sale contract that occurs--
       ``(i) before the date of the order is cured before the 
     expiration of such 60-day period;
       ``(ii) after the date of the order and before the 
     expiration of such 60-day period is cured before the later 
     of--
       ``(I) the date that is 30 days after the date of the 
     default; or
       ``(II) the expiration of such 60-day period; and
       ``(iii) on or after the expiration of such 60-day period is 
     cured in compliance with the

[[Page S11909]]

     terms of such security agreement, lease, or conditional sale 
     contract, if a cure is permitted under that agreement, lease, 
     or contract.
       ``(3) The equipment described in this paragraph--
       ``(A) is--
       ``(i) an aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, 
     or spare part (as defined in section 40102 of title 49) that 
     is subject to a security interest granted by, leased to, or 
     conditionally sold to a debtor that, at the time such 
     transaction is entered into, holds an air carrier operating 
     certificate issued under chapter 447 of title 49 for aircraft 
     capable of carrying 10 or more individuals or 6,000 pounds or 
     more of cargo; or
       ``(ii) a documented vessel (as defined in section 30101(1) 
     of title 46) that is subject to a security interest granted 
     by, leased to, or conditionally sold to a debtor that is a 
     water carrier that, at the time such transaction is entered 
     into, holds a certificate of public convenience and necessity 
     or permit issued by the Department of Transportation; and
       ``(B) includes all records and documents relating to such 
     equipment that are required, under the terms of the security 
     agreement, lease, or conditional sale contract, to be 
     surrendered or returned by the debtor in connection with the 
     surrender or return of such equipment.
       ``(4) Paragraph (1) applies to a secured party, lessor, or 
     conditional vendor acting in its own behalf or acting as 
     trustee or otherwise in behalf of another party.
       ``(b) The trustee and the secured party, lessor, or 
     conditional vendor whose right to take possession is 
     protected under subsection (a) may agree, subject to the 
     approval of the court, to extend the 60-day period specified 
     in subsection (a)(1).
       ``(c)(1) In any case under this chapter, the trustee shall 
     immediately surrender and return to a secured party, lessor, 
     or conditional vendor, described in subsection (a)(1), 
     equipment described in subsection (a)(3), if at any time 
     after the date of the order for relief under this chapter 
     such secured party, lessor, or conditional vendor is entitled 
     under subsection (a)(1) to take possession of such equipment 
     and makes a written demand for such possession to the 
     trustee.
       ``(2) At such time as the trustee is required under 
     paragraph (1) to surrender and return equipment described in 
     subsection (a)(3), any lease of such equipment, and any 
     security agreement or conditional sale contract relating to 
     such equipment, if such security agreement or conditional 
     sale contract is an executory contract, shall be deemed 
     rejected.
       ``(d) With respect to equipment first placed in service on 
     or before October 22, 1994, for purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `lease' includes any written agreement with 
     respect to which the lessor and the debtor, as lessee, have 
     expressed in the agreement or in a substantially 
     contemporaneous writing that the agreement is to be treated 
     as a lease for Federal income tax purposes; and
       ``(2) the term `security interest' means a purchase-money 
     equipment security interest.''.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal 
Aviation Administration reauthorization bill and I am pleased we will 
have this opportunity to consider the current state of the aviation 
industry and some of the enormous challenges facing our air 
transportation system over the next decade. I resisted efforts earlier 
this year to bypass Senate consideration of this major transportation 
bill and go directly to conference with the House when the Senate 
passed a short term extension bill for the Airport Improvement Program. 
We need to have a serious debate on the increasing demands for air 
transportation, the capital requirements for our future air 
transportation system, the availability of federal funding and whether 
the current structure of the aviation trust fund will meet those needs, 
and finally, the lack of competition and minimal service that most 
small and medium sized communities are faced with in this era of 
airline deregulation.
  I want to commend Senators McCain, Rockefeller and Gorton for their 
hard work in resolving so many issues prior to bringing this bill to 
the floor. I am disturbed, however, by provisions in this bill which 
would force even more planes into an already jammed system in New York 
as well as Washington's National Airport. At a time when delays are at 
an all-time high, we continue to authorize more flights into and out of 
these already busy airports. I am even more perplexed at the timing of 
the current call to privatize our Air Traffic Control System. While 
certain segments of the industry support this effort, we often too 
quickly gravitate toward solutions such as privatization as cure all 
for whatever ails the system, instead of simply ensuring that the FAA 
has the tools and money it needs to do its job.
  Aviation has become a global business and is an important part of the 
transportation infrastructure and a vital part of our national economy. 
Every day our air transportation system moves millions of people and 
billions of dollars of cargo. While many predicted that an economy 
based on advanced communications and technology would reduce our need 
for travel, the opposite has proved true. The U.S. commercial aviation 
industry recorded its fifth consecutive year of traffic growth, while 
the general aviation industry enjoyed a banner year in shipments and 
aircraft activity at FAA air traffic facilities. To a large extent, 
growth in both domestic and international markets has been driven by 
the continued economic expansion in the U.S. and most world economies.
  The FAA Aerospace Forecasts Report, Fiscal Years 1999-2010, was 
issued in March of this year and forecasts aviation activity at all FAA 
facilities through the year 2010. The 12-year forecast is based on 
moderate economic growth and inflation, and relatively constant real 
fuel prices. Based on these assumptions, U.S. scheduled domestic 
passenger emplanements are forecast to increase 50.4 percent--air 
carriers increasing 49.3 percent and regional/commuters growing by 87.5 
percent. Total International passenger traffic between the United 
States and the rest of the world is projected to increase 82.6 percent. 
International passenger traffic carried on U.S. Flag carriers is 
forecast to increase 94.2 percent.
  These percentages represent a dramatic increase in the actual number 
of people using the air system, even when compared to the increase in 
air travel that occurred over the last ten years. Daily enplanements 
are expected to grow to more than 1 billion by 2009. In 2010, there 
will be 828 million domestic enplanements compared to last year's 554.6 
million, and there will be 230.2 million international enplanements 
compared to today's figure of 126.1 million. Respectively, this 
represents an annual growth of 3.4% and 4.95% per year. Regional and 
commuter traffic is expected to grow even faster at the rate of 6.4%. 
Total enplanements in this category should reach 59.7 million in 2010. 
As of September 1997, there were 107 regional jets operating in the 
U.S. airline fleet. In the FAA Aviation Forecasts Fiscal years 1998-
2009, the FAA predicts that there will be more than 800 of these in the 
U.S. fleet by FY2009.
  Correspondingly, the growth in air travel has placed a strain on the 
aviation system and has further increased delays. In 1998, 23% of 
flights by major air carriers were delayed. MITRE, the FAA's federally-
funded research and development organization, estimates that just to 
maintain delays at current levels in 2015, a 60% increase in airport 
capacity will be needed. As many of you may know, and perhaps 
experienced first hand, delays reached an all-time high this summer. 
These delays are inordinately costly to both the carriers and the 
traveling public; in fact, according to the Air Transport Association, 
delays cost the airlines and travelers $3.9 billion for 1997.
  We cannot ignore the numbers. These statistics underscore the 
necessity of properly funding our investment--we must modernize our Air 
Traffic Control system and expand our airport infrastructure. In 1997, 
the National Civil Aviation Review Commission came out with a report 
stating the gridlock in the skies is a certainty unless the Air Traffic 
Control, ATC, system and National Air Space are modernized. A system-
wide delay increase of just a few minutes per flight will bring 
commercial operations to a halt. American Airlines published a separate 
study confirming these findings. A third, done by the White House 
Commission on Aviation Security and Safety, dated January 1997 and 
commonly known as the Gore Commission, recommends that modernization of 
the ATC system be expedited to completion by 2005 instead of 2015.
  Regrettably, as the need to upgrade and replace the systems used by 
our air traffic controllers grows, funding has steadily decreased since 
1992. In FY '92 the Facilities and Equipment account was funded at $2.4 
Billion. In l997, F&E was $l.938 Billion. In 1998, the account was 
funded at 1.901 billion. Assuming a conservative 2015 completion date, 
the modernization effort requires $3 billion per year in funding for 
the Facilities and Equipment Account alone, the

[[Page S11910]]

mainspring of the modernization effort. Unfortunately, S.82 authorizes 
$2.689 billion for FY2000 while the Appropriations Committee has 
provided only $2.075 billion. We are falling short every year and 
losing critical ground in the race to update our national air 
transportation system.
  Increasing capacity through technological advances is crucial to the 
functionality of the FAA and the aviation industry. Today, a great deal 
of the equipment used by the Air Traffic Controllers is old and 
becoming obsolete. Our air traffic controllers are the front line 
defense and insure the safety of the traveling public every day by 
separating aircraft and guiding takeoffs and landings. Our lives and 
those of our families, friends, and constituents are in their hands. 
These controllers and technicians do a terrific job. The fact that 
their equipment is so antiquated makes their efforts even more heroic.
  We have the funds to modernize our air facilities but refuse to spend 
them and by doing so Congress perpetuates a fraud on the traveling 
public. The Airport and Airways Trust Fund, AAF, was created to provide 
a dedicated funding source for critical aviation programs and the money 
in the fund is generated solely from taxes imposed on air travelers and 
the airline industry. The fund was created so that users of the air 
transportation system would bear the burden of maintaining and 
improving the system. The traveling public has continued to honor its 
part of the agreement through the payment of ticket taxes, but the 
federal government has not.
  Congress has refused to annually appropriate the full amount 
generated in the trust fund despite the growing needs in the aviation 
industry. The surplus generated in the trust fund is used to fund the 
general operations of government, similar to the way in which Congress 
has used surplus generated in the Social Security trust fund. At the 
end of FY 2000, the Congressional Budget Office predicts that there 
will be a cash balance of $14.047 billion in the AATF, for FY2001, it 
will be $16.499 billion. By FY2009, the balance will grow to $71.563 
billion. Instead of using these monies to fund the operation of the 
general government, we should use them to fund aviation improvements, 
which is what we promised the American public when we enacted and then 
increased the airline ticket tax.
  Let's get our aviation transport system up to par and let's provide 
ways to increase competition and maintain our worldwide leadership in 
aviation. Let's follow the lead of Chairman Shuster and Congressman 
Oberstar and vote to take the Trust Fund off-budget. I look forward to 
a thoughtful debate on these issues and I intend to work with Senators 
McCain, Rockefeller, and Gorton to accomplish this common goal of 
ensuring that the safest and most efficient air transportation system 
in the world stays so.


                       national airspace redesign

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a provision 
in S. 82, the FAA Reauthorization Bill, that will provide an additional 
$36 million over three years to the National Airspace Re-Design 
project, and to thank Chairman McCain and Senators Hollings, and 
Rockefeller for their critical role in securing this funding.
  Many of my colleagues may not realize this, but the air routes over 
the U.S. have never been designed in a comprehensive way, they have 
always been dealt with regionally and incrementally. In order to 
enhance efficiency and safety, as well as reduce noise over many 
metropolitan areas, the FAA is undertaking a re-design of our national 
airspace.
  In an effort to deal with the most challenging part of this re-design 
from the outset, the FAA has decided to begin the project in the 
``Eastern Triangle'' ranging from Boston through New York/Newark down 
to Miami. This airspace constitutes some of the busiest in the world, 
with the New York metropolitan area alone servicing over 300,000 
passengers and 10,000 tons of cargo a day. The delays resulting from 
this level of activity being handled by the current route structure 
amount to over $1.1 billion per year.
  While many of my constituents, and I am sure many of Senators 
Hollings' and Rockefeller's as well, are pleased by the FAA's decision 
to undertake this difficult task, they are concerned by the timetable 
associated with the re-design. The FAA currently estimates that it 
could take as long as five years to complete the project. However, my 
colleagues and I have been working with the FAA to expedite this 
process, and this additional funding will go a long way toward helping 
us achieve this goal.
  In fact, I had originally offered an amendment to this legislation 
that would have required the FAA to complete the re-design process in 
two years, but have withdrawn it because it is my understanding that 
the Rockefeller provision will allow the agency to expedite this 
project.
  I want to recognize Senator Rockefeller again for including this 
funding in the bill, and ask Chairman McCain and Senator Rockefeller if 
it is the Committee's hope that this additional funding will be used to 
expedite the National Re-Design project, including the portion dealing 
with the ``Eastern Triangle's'' airspace.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my friend from New 
Jersey for his comments, and reassure him that it is the Committee's 
hope that the funding included in this legislation will allow us to 
finish the National Airspace Re-Design more expeditiously, including 
the ongoing effort in the Eastern Triangle.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I hope this money will be used to 
speed up the re-design project and finally bring some relief to the 
millions of Americans who use our air transportation system and live 
near our Nation's airports.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I am grateful to Chairman McCain and 
Senator Hollings and Rockefeller for their cooperation and support. I 
look forward to collaborating with them again on this very important 
issue.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for 
the actions taken by the Commerce Committee and in particular, Chairman 
McCain, in crafting provisions that will allow exemptions to the 
current perimeter rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. 
Mr. Chairman, I commend you on creating a process which I believe 
fairly balances the interests of Senators from states inside the 
perimeter and those of us from western states without convenient access 
to Reagan National.
  These limited exemptions to the perimeter rule will improve service 
to the nation's capital for dozens of western cities beyond the 
perimeter--while ensuring that cities inside the perimeter are not 
adversely impacted by new service. This is a fair balance which is 
consistent with the overall intent of the bill to improve air service 
to small and medium-sized cities.
  Throughout this bill, our goal has been to improve air service for 
communities which have not experienced the benefits of deregulation to 
the extent of larger markets. The provision relating to improved access 
to Reagan National Airport is no different. Today, passengers from many 
communities in the West are forced to double or even triple connect to 
fly to Reagan National. My goal is to ensure that not just large city 
point-to-point service will benefit, but that passengers from all 
points west of the perimeter will have better options to reach 
Washington, DC via Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. This 
provision is about using this restricted exemption process to spread 
improved access throughout the West--not to limit the benefits to a few 
large cities which already have a variety of options.
  Let me be clear, according to the language contained in this 
provision, if the Secretary receives more applications for additional 
slots than the bill allows, DOT must prioritize the applications based 
on quantifying the domestic network benefits. Therefore, DOT must 
consider and award these limited opportunities to western hubs which 
connect the largest number of cities to the national air transportation 
network. In a perfect world, we would not have to make these types of 
choices and could defer to the marketplace. This certainly would be my 
preference. However, Congress has limited the number of choices thereby 
requiring the establishment of a process which will ensure that the 
maximum number of cities benefit from this change in policy.
  I commend the Chairman and his colleagues on the Commerce Committee

[[Page S11911]]

for their efforts to open the perimeter rule and improve access and 
competition to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. As a part of 
my statement, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a 
letter sent to Chairman McCain on this matter signed by seven western 
Senators.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed--the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, August 23, 1999.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McCain: We are writing to commend you on your 
     efforts to improve access to the western United States from 
     Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. We support 
     creating a process which fairly balances the interests of 
     states inside the perimeter and those of western states 
     without convenient access to Reagan National.
       These limited exemptions to the perimeter rule will improve 
     service to the nation's capital for dozens of western cities 
     beyond the perimeter--while at the same time ensuring that 
     cities inside the perimeter are not adversely impacted by new 
     service. This is a fair balance which is consistent with the 
     overall intent of the bill to improve air service to small 
     and medium-sized cities.
       The most important aspect of your proposal is that the 
     Department of Transportation must award these limited 
     opportunities to western hubs which connect the largest 
     number of cities to the national transportation network. In 
     our view, this standard is the cornerstone of our mutual goal 
     to give the largest number of western cities improved access 
     to the Nation's capital. We trust that the Senate bill and 
     Conference report on FAA reauthorization will reaffirm this 
     objective.
       In a perfect world, we would not have to make these types 
     of choices. These decisions would be better left to the 
     marketplace. However, Congress has limited the ability of the 
     marketplace to make these determinations. Therefore, we must 
     have a process which ensures that we spread improved access 
     to Reagan National throughout the West.
       We look forward to working with you as the House and Senate 
     work to reconcile the differences in the FAA reauthorization 
     bills.
           Sincerely,
     Orrin G. Hatch,
       U.S. Senator.
     Larry E. Craig,
       U.S. Senator.
     Conrad Burns,
       U.S. Senator.
     Craig Thomas,
       U.S. Senator.
     Robert F. Bennett,
       U.S. Senator.
     Mike Crapo,
       U.S. Senator.
     Max Baucus,
       U.S. Senator.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gorton-Rockefeller 
amendment. This amendment makes important revisions to the underlying 
bill concerning the rules governing the allocation of slots at the 
nation's four slot-controlled airports--Chicago O'Hare, LaGuardia, 
Kennedy, and Reagan National Airports. The issues surrounding the 
application of the high density rule, and the perimeter rule, are both 
complex and delicate. They engender strong feelings on all sides. I 
believe that the bipartisan leadership of the aviation subcommittee, 
Senators Gorton and Rockefeller, performed a service to the Senate by 
crafting a compromise that, while not satisfactory to all Senators, 
proposes a regime that is much improved over the one contained in the 
committee-reported bill.
  Mr. President, when the Senate is in session, my wife and I reside in 
Northern Virginia, not far from the flight path serving Reagan National 
Airport. I have had misgivings about proposals to tinker with the 
status quo in terms of the number of flights coming into Reagan 
National Airport and the distances to which those flights can travel. 
Despite efforts to reduce the levels of aircraft noise through the 
advent of quieter jet engines, I can tell my colleagues that the 
aircraft noise along the Reagan National Airport flight path is often 
deafening. It can bring all family conversation to a halt. Current 
flight procedures for aircraft landing at Reagan National Airport from 
the north call on the pilots to direct their aircraft to the maximum 
extent possible over the Potomac River. The intent of this procedure is 
to minimize the noise impact on residential communities on both the 
Maryland and Virginia sides of the river. Notwithstanding this policy, 
however, too often the aircraft fail to follow that guidance. That is 
not necessarily the fault of the pilots. During the busiest times of 
the day, the requirement to stray directly over certain residential 
communities is necessary for safety reasons in order to maintain a 
minimum level of separation between the many aircraft queued up to land 
at Reagan National Airport. I invite my colleagues to glance up the 
river during twilight one day soon. There is a high probability that 
you will see the lights of no fewer than four aircraft, all lined up, 
waiting to land, one right after the other.
  I appreciate very much the earlier statements made by the 
distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain. The 
chairman pointed out that the Department of Transportation has 
indicated that safety will not be compromised through additional 
flights at Reagan National Airport. I remain concerned, however, 
regarding the current capabilities of the air traffic control tower at 
that airport. The air traffic controllers serving in that facility have 
been quite outspoken regarding the deficiencies they find with the 
aging and unreliable air traffic control equipment in the tower. 
Indeed, the situation has become so severe that our FAA Administrator, 
Ms. Jane Garvey, mandated that the equipment in that facility be 
replaced far sooner than was originally anticipated. Even so, the new 
equipment for that facility has, like so many other FAA procurements, 
suffered from development problems and extended delays. Just this past 
weekend, I know many of my colleagues noticed the Washington Post 
article discussing a further two-year delay in the FAA's deployment of 
equipment to minimize runway incursions--the very frightening 
circumstance through which taxiing aircraft or other vehicles 
unknowingly stray onto active runways.
  Given these concerns, Mr. President, I want to commend Senators 
Gorton and Rockefeller for negotiating a reasonable compromise on this 
issue. The Gorton-Rockefeller amendment will reduce by half the 
increased number of frequencies into Reagan National Airport than was 
originally sought. It will also reserve half of the additional slots 
for flights serving cities within the 1,250 mile perimeter. Most 
importantly, Mr. President, these additional slots within the perimeter 
will be reserved for flights to small communities, flights to 
communities without existing service to Reagan National Airport, and 
flights provided by either a new entrant airline, or an established 
airline that will provide new competition to the dominant carriers at 
Reagan National.
  As my colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, knows well, 
no state has endured the ravages of airline deregulation like West 
Virginia. We have experienced a very severe downturn in the quality, 
quantity and affordability of air service in our state. Fares for 
flights to and from our state have grown to ludicrous levels. A 
refundable unrestricted round-trip ticket between Reagan National 
Airport and Charleston, West Virginia, now costs $722. Conversely, Mr. 
President, I can buy the same unrestricted round-trip ticket to Boston, 
which is 100 miles farther away than Charleston, and pay less than half 
that amount. By targeting the additional slots to be provided inside 
the perimeter to underserved communities, the Gorton-Rockefeller 
amendment has taken a small but important step toward addressing this 
problem.
  At the present time, the largest airport in West Virginia does have 
some direct service to Reagan National. We face greater hurdles, 
frankly, in gaining direct access to LaGuardia Airport in New York, as 
well as improved service to Chicago O'Hare. The Gorton-Rockefeller 
amendment expands slots at those airports as well. As a member of the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I intend to diligently work 
with Senator Rockefeller, Secretary Slater and his staff, to see that 
West Virginia has a fair shot at the expanded flight opportunities into 
these slot controlled airports.
  Again, in conclusion, I want to rise in support of the Gorton-
Rockefeller amendment. It is a carefully crafted compromise that is a 
great improvement over the underlying committee bill, and gives 
appropriate attention to the needs of under-served communities.


                 Keeping Aviation Trust Fund on Budget

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I understand that the Senator from New 
Mexico and the Senator from Alabama had

[[Page S11912]]

filed four amendments that they were considering offering during Senate 
consideration of S. 82, the FAA reauthorization legislation. After 
discussions with them, with the managers of the bill and other 
interested Members, I understand the Members no longer feel it 
necessary to offer their amendments.
  Mr. DOMENICI. The Leader's understanding is correct. After 
discussions with the managers of the reauthorization bill, I am 
comfortable with the assurances of the Majority Leader and the 
distinguished Chairman of the Commerce Committee on their commitment to 
preserve the current budgetary treatment for aviation accounts in the 
conferenced bill.
  Mr. SHELBY. I, too, share the Senator's understanding, and would note 
that there is much to praise in both H.R. 1000 and S. 82 without regard 
to changing budgetary treatment of the aviation accounts. I would be 
very disappointed if the prospect of a multiyear reauthorization were 
frustrated by the House's intransigence on changing the budgetary 
treatment of the aviation accounts to the detriment of all other 
discretionary spending, including Amtrak, drug interdiction efforts of 
the Coast Guard, as well as many of the domestic programs funded in 
appropriations bills other than the one I manage as the Chairman of the 
Transportation appropriations subcommittee.
  According to the Administration, the budget treatment envisioned in 
H.R. 1000 would create an additional $1.1 billion in outlays, which if 
it were absorbed out of the DOT budget would mean: ``elimination of 
Amtrak capital funding, thereby making it impossible for Amtrak to make 
the capital investments needed to reach self-sufficiency; and severe 
reductions to Coast Guard, the Federal Railroad Administration, Saint 
Lawrence Seaway, the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of the 
Secretary, and the Research and Special Programs Administration 
funding, greatly impacting their operations.'' Clearly, firewalls or 
off-budget treatment for the aviation accounts is a budget buster that 
would only further exacerbate the current budget problems we face 
staying under the spending caps.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Alabama and the Chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee make a good point. There is more at stake here 
than just aviation. Our experience over the last two years demonstrates 
that mandated increases in certain transportation accounts makes it 
extraordinarily difficult to fund other transportation accounts. While 
aviation investment is critical to the continued growth, development 
and quality of life of New Jersey and the Northeast, so is the 
continued improvement of Amtrak service and an adequately funded Coast 
Guard. Taking care of one mode of transportation with a firewall belies 
the reality and the importance of providing adequate investment in 
other modes of transportation--not to mention investment in other 
social programs.
  Mr. LOTT. I share the concerns of the Senator from New Jersey and 
would mention that the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from 
Alabama have informed me on more than one occasion that if a change in 
the budgetary treatment of the aviation accounts, whether off-budget or 
a firewall, is included in the conference report, it would make it 
extraordinarily difficult to consider the conference report in the 
Senate. If that occurs the prospect of a multi-year aviation 
reauthorization may disappear and we may have to settle for a simple 
one-year extension of the Airport Improvement Program.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I associate myself with the remarks of my Leader and 
would also note that there has been much discussion by the proponents 
of changing the budgetary treatment of the FAA accounts because of the 
need to spend more from the airport and airways trust fund. I would 
like to set the record straight--for the last five years, we have spent 
more on the aviation accounts than the airport and airways trust fund 
has taken in. In addition, the Department of Transportation has 
estimated that we have spent in excess of $6 billion more on FAA 
programs than total receipts into the Airport and Airways Trust Fund 
over the life of the trust fund.

  Mr. GORTON. My colleagues have been very clear as to their position 
on this issue. As a member of all three of the interested committees, 
Budget, Commerce, and Appropriations, I appreciate this issue from all 
the different perspectives. In short, I believe that we need to spend 
more on aviation infrastructure investment, but that increased 
investment should have to compete with other transportation and other 
discretionary spending priorities. I think the record shows that 
Senator Shelby, Senator Stevens, as well as the Senator from New Mexico 
and the Senator from Arizona are strong advocates for the importance of 
investing in airport and aviation infrastructure. I share their concern 
that firewalling or taking the aviation trust fund off-budget would 
allow FAA spending to be exempt for congressional budget control 
mechanisms, providing aviation accounts with a level of protection that 
is not warranted and I will not support such a proposition in 
conference.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I appreciate the comment of the Senator from Washington 
and look forward to working with him on this important issue.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I, too, serve on more than one of the 
interested committees. On Commerce with the Leader, the Senator from 
Arizona, and the Senator from Washington, and on the Appropriations 
Committee with the Senator from New Mexico, the Senator from Alabama, 
and the Senator from Washington. No member's state relies on aviation 
more than does my state of Alaska. Yet, changing the budgetary 
treatment of the aviation accounts is, in my estimation, shortsighted 
and irresponsible. The FAA is to be commended, along with the airlines, 
for the level of safety they have contributed to achieving. However, 
the FAA is not known as the most efficient of agencies. Unfortunately, 
the FAA has had substantial problems on virtually every major, and 
minor, procurement and has been the subject of numerous audits and 
management reports that invariably call for increased accountability 
and oversight. Changing budgetary treatment cannot have other than a 
detrimental effect on the oversight efforts of the two committees of 
jurisdiction that I serve on. For that reason as well as the reasons 
mentioned by the Leader, the Senators from Alabama, New Mexico and New 
Jersey, I cannot support a change in budgetary treatment for the 
aviation accounts.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I hear and share the views of my 
colleagues on this issue. Clearly, I have been tasked by the Senate and 
the Leader with successfully completing a conference with the House on 
multi-year aviation reauthorization legislation. I, too, oppose any 
change in budgetary treatment of the aviation accounts.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I note that the Administration strongly opposes any 
provisions that would drain anticipated budget surpluses prior to 
fulfilling our commitment to save Social Security. The House bill asks 
us to do for aviation what isn't done for education, veterans' 
benefits, national defense, or environmental protection. As important 
as aviation investment is, it would be fiscally irresponsible of us to 
grant it a bye from the budget constraints we face with in funding 
virtually every other program.
  Mr. SHELBY. The assurances of my Leader and the distinguished 
Chairman of the Commerce Committee are all this Senator needs, and I 
withdraw my filed amendments.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will offer an amendment to give Reagan 
National and Dulles International Airports equitable treatment under 
Federal law that is enjoyed today by all of the major commercial 
airports.
  Congress enacted legislation in 1986 to transfer ownership of Reagan 
National and Dulles Airports to a regional authority which included a 
provision to create a Congressional Board of Review.
  Immediately upon passage of the 1986 Transfer Act, local community 
groups filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the board 
of review. The Supreme Court upheld the lawsuit and concurred that the 
Congressional Board of Review as structured as unconstitutional because 
it gave Members of Congress veto authority over the airport decisions. 
The Court ruled

[[Page S11913]]

that the functions of the board of review was a violation of the 
separation of powers doctrine.
  During the 1991 House-Senate conference on the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), I offered an amendment, which 
was adopted, to attempt to revise the Board of Review to meet the 
constitutional requirements.
  Those provisions were also challenged and again were ruled 
unconstitutional.
  In 1996, in another attempt to address the situation, the Congress 
enacted legislation to repeal the Board of Review since it no longer 
served any function due to several federal court rulings. In its place, 
Congress increased the number of federal appointees to the MWAA Board 
of Directors from 1 to 3 members.
  In addition to the requirement that the Senate confirm the 
appointees, the statute contains a punitive provision which denies all 
federal Airport Improvement Program entitlement grants and the 
imposition of any new passenger facility charges to Dulles 
International and Reagan National if the appointees were not confirmed 
by October 1, 1997.
  Regretfully, Mr. President, the Senate has not confirmed the three 
Federal appointees. Since October 1997, Dulles International and Reagan 
National, and its customers, have been waiting for the Senate to take 
action. Finally in 1998, the Senate Commerce Committee favorably 
reported the three pending nominations to the Senate for consideration, 
but unfortunately no further action occurred before the end of the 
session because these nominees were held hostage for other unrelated 
issues. Many speculate that these nominees have not been confirmed 
because of the ongoing delay in enacting a long-term FAA 
reauthorization bill.
  At the beginning of the 105th Congress in January 1997, Commerce 
Committee held hearings and approved the three nominees for floor 
consideration. Unfortunately, a hold was placed on them on the Senate 
floor at the very end of the Congress. All three nominees were 
renominated by the President in January 1999. Nothing has happened 
since.
  Mr. President, I am not here today to join in that speculation. I do 
want, however, to call to the attention of my colleagues the severe 
financial, safety and consumer service constraints this inaction is 
having on both Dulles and Reagan National.
  As the current law forbids the FAA from approving any AIP entitlement 
grants for construction at the two airports and from approving any 
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) applications, these airports have been 
denied access to over $146 million.
  These are funds that every other airport in the country receives 
annually and are critical to maintaining a quality level of service and 
safety at our Nation's airports. Unlike any other airport in the 
country, the full share of federal funds have been withheld from Dulles 
and Reagan National for over two years.
  These critically needed funds have halted important construction 
projects at both airports. Of the over $146 million that is due, 
approximately $161 million will fund long-awaited construction projects 
and $40 million is needed to fund associated financing costs.
  I respect the right of the Senate to exercise its constitutional 
duties to confirm the President's nominees to important federal 
positions. I do not, however, believe that it is appropriate to link 
the Senate's confirmation process to vitally needed federal dollars to 
operate airports.
  Also, I must say that I can find no justification for the Senate's 
delay in considering the qualifications of these nominees to serve on 
the MWAA Board. To my knowledge, no one has raised concerns about the 
qualifications of the nominees. We are neglecting our duties.
  For this reason, I am introducing an amendment today to repeal the 
punitive prohibition on releasing Federal funds to the airports until 
the Federal nominees have been confirmed.
  Airports are increasingly competitive. Those that cannot keep up with 
the growing demand see the services go to other airports. This is 
particularly true with respect to international services, and low-fare 
services, both of which are essential.
  As a result of the Senate's inaction, I provide for my colleagues a 
list of the several major projects that are virtually on hold since 
October, 1997. They are as follows:
  At Dulles International there are four major projects necessary for 
the airport to maintain the tremendous growth that is occurring there.
  Main terminal gate concourse: It is necessary to replace the current 
temporary buildings attached to the main terminal with a suitable 
facility. This terminal addition will include passenger hold rooms and 
airline support space. The total cost of this project is $15.4 million, 
with $11.2 million funded by PFCs.
  Passenger access to main terminal: As the Authority continues to keep 
pace with the increased demand for parking and access to the main 
terminal, PFCs are necessary to build a connector between a new 
automobile parking facility and the terminal. The total cost of this 
project is $45.5 million, with $29.4 million funded by PFCs.
  Improved passenger access between concourse B and main terminal: With 
the construction of a pedestrian tunnel complex between the main 
terminal and the B concourse, the Authority will be able to continue to 
meet passenger demand for access to this facility. Once this project is 
complete, access to concourse B will be exclusively by moving sidewalk, 
and mobile lounge service to this facility will be unnecessary. The 
total cost of this project is $51.1 million, with $46.8 million funded 
by PFCs.
  Increased baggage handling capacity: With increased passenger levels 
come increase demands for handling baggage. PFC funding is necessary to 
construct a new baggage handling area for inbound and outbound 
passengers. The total cost of this project is $38.7 million, with $31.4 
million funded by PFCs.
  At Reagan National there are two major projects that are dependent on 
the Authority's ability to implement passenger facility charges (PFCs).
  Historic main terminal rehabilitation: Even though the new terminal 
at Reagan National was opened last year, the entire Capital Development 
Program will not be complete until the historic main terminal is 
rehabilitated for airline use. This project includes the construction 
of nine air carrier gates, renovation of historic portions of the main 
terminal for continued passenger use and demolition of space that is no 
longer functional. The total cost of this project is $94.2 million with 
$20.7 million to be paid for by AIP entitlement grants and $36.2 
million to be funded with PFCs. Additional airfield work to accompany 
this project will cost $12.2 million, with $5.2 million funded by PFCs.
  Terminal connector expansion: In order to accommodate the increased 
passengers moving between Terminals B and C (the new terminal) and 
Terminal A, it is necessary to expand the ``Connector'' between the two 
buildings. The total cost of the project is $4.8 million, with $4.3 
million funded by PFCs.
  Mr. President, my amendment is aimed at ensuring that necessary 
safety and service improvements proceed at Reagan National and Dulles. 
Let's give them the ability to address consumer needs just like every 
other airport does on a daily basis.
  This amendment would not remove the Congress of the United States, 
and particularly the Senate, from its advise-and-consent role. It 
allows the money, however, which we need for the modernization of these 
airports, to flow properly to the airports. These funds are critical to 
the modernization program of restructuring them physically to 
accommodate somewhat larger traffic patterns, as well as do the 
necessary modernization to achieve safety-most important, safety-and 
greater convenience for the passengers using these two airports.
  Under the current situation these funds have been held up. It is over 
$146 million, which is more or less held in escrow, pending the 
confirmation by the Senate of the United States of three individuals to 
this board.
  For reasons known to this body, that confirmation has been held up. 
The confirmation may remain held up. But this amendment will let the 
moneys flow to the airports for this needed construction for safety and 
convenience. It is my desire that at a later

[[Page S11914]]

date, we can achieve the confirmation of these three new members to the 
board.

                          ____________________