[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1247-S1254]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    WENDELL H. FORD AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST 
                       CENTURY--CONFERENCE REPORT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
proceed to the consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 
1000 which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee on conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill, H.R. 
     1000, have agreed to recommend and do recommend to their 
     respective Houses this report, signed by a majority of the 
     conferees.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to 
the consideration of the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of today, March 8, 2000.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 60 
minutes of debate with 20 minutes under the control of the majority 
leader, 20 minutes under the control of the Democratic leader, and 20 
minutes under the control of the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 
Lautenberg.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I appear 
here today with my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator 
Rockefeller, to present to the Senate the

[[Page S1248]]

conference report on the Federal Aviation Administration 
reauthorization measure. The compromise reached in this legislation is 
not only fair but constructive. It will provide necessary increases 
especially in capital funds for our aviation infrastructure and does 
provide a reasonable balance with the needs of that system and our 
limited Federal resources.
  I went to the conference committee on this bill with a unique 
perspective because I sit on the Budget and Appropriations Committees 
as well as serving as the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. My 
duties on these committees allowed me to see the hard choices that must 
be made to stay within our tight budgets.
  The final agreement reached with Chairman Shuster in the House 
ensures the trust fund revenues will be used for aviation spending. I 
joined Senator Domenici in supporting the Senate position on this 
issue, a position that allows for expenditure of these revenues for 
their intended purposes without tying the hands of the Appropriations 
Committee. That was an integral part of the final passage, and I 
commend Senator Domenici for his hard work on this issue, together with 
the tremendous contributions we received from Senator Stevens.
  One issue with which I have some reservations is amending the Death 
on the High Seas Act. I am pleased that the resolution amends the 
statute to bring the anachronistic law more up to date by allowing the 
recovery of certain types of non-economic damages. The resolution 
removes the cap on these damages contained in the Senate bill. I am 
also pleased that we have clearly retained the prohibition on punitive 
damages, which are not designed to compensate and which are so often 
abused. I think the resolution is good insofar as it reflects the 
Senate approach of keeping most aviation accidents on the high seas 
within the statute, thereby providing some semblance of certainty and 
uniformity. I have reservations, however, about the change demanded by 
the House conferees retroactively to change, from three to twelve 
nautical miles, the distance from the U.S. shore at which the Death on 
the High Seas act applies. Those who have wanted to take commercial 
aviation accident cases on the high seas out of DOHSA altogether have 
argued that this will cure the unfairness of different recoveries based 
on the chance of the accident happening over land or over the high 
seas. I have strongly disagreed with that proposition. Eliminating 
DOHSA leaves you with a dizzying array of State, Federal, foreign, or 
perhaps, no, law about which lawyers can fight endlessly, further 
postponing recovery. I trust those who have demanded that we complicate 
the federal law retroactively to take TWA Flight 800 litigation out of 
the coverage of DOHSA have fully considered the effects of that change.
  My concerns with this issue are balanced with the positive aspects of 
this bill such as the removal of slot restrictions at Chicago O'Hare, 
Washington National, and the two New York airports. These provisions 
will improve competition, reduce fares, and provide additional service 
to small communities.
  Another provision which will stimulate competition and help to bridge 
the funding gap that currently exists is an increase in the cap on the 
passenger facility charge. This provision gets to the heart of my 
guiding philosophy, which is to give local officials more decision-
making power.
  Although I favor an increase in the cap on the PFC, I realize that 
this is just one piece of the puzzle. We must look at the issues of our 
national aviation system in a larger context if we are going to meet 
the capacity demands of the 21st century. We cannot rely on unlimited 
federal funding to solve all of our problems. We must stretch our 
finite resources as far as possible.
  A prime example of this is the modernization of the air traffic 
control system. This process has been ongoing for more than 15 years. 
We can no longer allow the program to continue the ``stops and starts'' 
of the past. Improvements must get on track, or, as the National Civil 
Aviation Review Commission warned us, the growing demand for air 
services combined with outdated equipment will soon bring gridlock and 
serious concerns about safety.
  The Federal Aviation Commission needs to spare no effort over the 
next few years to modernize the air traffic control system. All of this 
needs to be done right, and be done now, to ensure continued safety and 
efficiency in the aviation industry.
  Reforming the way in which the Federal Aviation Administration does 
business, and ensuring it is as efficient as possible, is a positive 
first step. This bill contains provisions, which I worked on with 
Senator Rockefeller, to move the Federal Aviation Administration in the 
direction of being a more business-like entity. Positive reforms, not 
just increased funding, are integral to achieving our goal.
  Although these reforms are a positive first step, I will continue to 
explore other possible options such as corporatization of the air 
traffic control system as the 2nd session of the 106th Congress 
continues. I believe we can learn from the work of countries such as 
Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, which have moved to privately run 
systems. The concerns of general aviation will be of paramount 
importance to me as this debate continues, and I welcome the input of 
all interested parties.
  In summary, this agreement will allow both sides to reach our common 
goal, which is to ensure that we continue to have the safest, most 
efficient aviation system well into the 21st century.
  I would like to take a minute to thank the Senate staff who worked 
tirelessly on this issue: Aviation subcommittee staff, Ann Choiniere, 
Mike Reynolds, Sam Whitehorn, and Julia Krauss ably tended the 
technical provisions of the bill. Wally Burnett with Senator Stevens, 
and Cheryle Tucker with Senator Domenici were vital in negotiations 
over budgetary issues.
  I also thank Jim Sartucci and Keith Hennessey from Senator Lott's 
staff for assisting with the final negotiations.
  Last but certainly not least are my own staff members. I thank Jeanne 
Bumpus for her diligent efforts on the Death on the High Seas Act, and 
Brett Hale, who is with me today, and who left his name out of these 
printed remarks. He deserves thanks for the hundreds and hundreds of 
hours he has put in on this bill from beginning to end.
  Finally, as I began, I want to say it has been a great pleasure to me 
to work with my friend from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, whose 
interest in this subject is very high and whose competence in coming up 
with correct answers is equally high.
  This bill is a true partnership, and I have enjoyed working with him 
on coming up with these solutions on that score.
  I ask unanimous consent a summary of the major issues included in the 
FAA conference report be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Summary of Major Issues Included in the FAA Conference Report


                        length of authorization

       4 years (2000-2003) except Research title.


                           aip authorization

       $2.475 billion in 2000.
       $3.2 billion in 2001.
       $3.3 billion in 2002.
       $3.4 billion in 2003.


                           F&E authorization

       $2.68 billion in 2000.
       $2.66 billion in 2001.
       $2.799 billion in 2002.
       $2.981 billion in 2003.


                             faa operations

       $6.6 billion in 2001.
       $6.886 billion in 2002.
       $7.357 billion in 2003.


                      re&d (3 year authorization)

       $224 million in 2000.
       $237 million in 2001.
       $249 million in 2002.


                    passenger facility charge (PFC)

       House provision, but would allow FAA to approve a PFC only 
     up to $4.50. Basically, it increases PFCs by $1.50. Medium or 
     large hub airports charging the higher PFC must give back 75% 
     of their entitlement.


                        airline customer service

       Plans to be submitted to DOT which in turn transmits a copy 
     to the authorizing committees. DOTIG to monitor the 
     implementation of each plan, evaluate and report on how each 
     airline is living up to its commitment. DOT IG status report 
     due to Congress on 6/15/00 and final report due 12/31/00. 
     Directs DOT to initiate a rulemaking within 30 days of 
     enactment to increase the domestic baggage liability limit; 
     penalty for violations of aviation consumer laws and 
     regulations are increased from $1100 to $2500 per

[[Page S1249]]

     violation; GAO directed to study ``hidden city'' and ``back 
     to back'' ticketing. The Conference also added a reference 
     preventing discrimination against the handicapped as one of 
     the responsibilities of the DOT consumer office. The DOTIG 
     final report will also include a comparison of the customer 
     service of airlines that submitted plans to DOT with those 
     that did not submit such plans.


  commission to ensure consumer information and choice in the airline 
                        industry (Travel Agents)

       Establishes a commission to study the financial condition 
     of travel agents, especially small travel agents. The 
     Commission should study whether the financial condition of 
     travel agents is declining, what effects this will have on 
     consumers, if any, and what, if anything, should be done 
     about it.


                           slots in new york

     New York specific provisions
       Slot restrictions are eliminated after January 1, 2007.
       In the interim, DOT is directed to provide exemptions to 
     any airline flying to the 2 New York airports if it will use 
     aircraft with 70 seats or less and will (1) provide service 
     to a small hub or non-hub that it did not previously serve, 
     (2) provide additional flights to a small hub or non-hub that 
     it currently serves, or (3) provide service with a regional 
     jet to a small hub or a non-hub as a replacement for a prop 
     plane.
       DOT is directed to grant exemptions to new entrant and 
     limited incumbents for service to New York.
       Exemptions are only for Stage 3 aircraft.
     General Provisions
       DOT must act on slot exemption requests within 60 days. 
     Exemptions may not be bought, sold, leased or otherwise 
     transferred. For purposes of determining whether an airline 
     qualifies as a new entrant or limited incumbents for 
     receiving slot exemptions, DOT shall count the slots and slot 
     exemptions of both that airline and any other airline that it 
     has a code-share agreement at that airport. The maximum 
     number of slots or slot exemptions that an airline can have 
     and still qualify as limited incumbent is raised from 12 to 
     20.


                        slots at chicago o'hare

     Chicago specific provisions
       In addition, slot restrictions at Chicago are eliminated 
     after July 1, 2002.
       On July 1, 2001, slot restrictions will apply only between 
     2:45 pm and 8:14 pm. DOT is directed to provide exemptions 
     from the slot rules to any airline flying to Chicago O'Hare 
     airport if it will use aircraft with 70 seats or less and 
     will (1) provide service to a small hub or non-hub that it 
     did not previously serve, (2) provide additional flights to a 
     small hub or non-hub that it currently serves, or (3) provide 
     service with a regional jet to a small hub or non-hub as a 
     replacement for a prop plane.
       DOT is also directed to grant 30 slot exemptions to new 
     entrants and limited incumbents for service to Chicago. These 
     new entrant exemptions must be granted within 45 days.
       Slots will not longer be needed in order to provide 
     international service at O'Hare. However, the Secretary may 
     limit access in those cases where the foreign country 
     involved does not provide the same kind of open access for 
     U.S. airlines. DOT is prohibited from withdrawing slots from 
     U.S. airlines in order to give them to foreign airlines. Any 
     slot previously withdrawn from U.S. airlines and given to a 
     foreign airline must be returned to the U.S. airline. Slots 
     held by U.S. airlines to provide international service can be 
     converted to domestic use.
       Exemptions are only for Stage 3 aircraft.
     General Provisions
       Same as described above for New York.


            slots and the perimeter rule at reagan national

       DOT is directed is grant 12 slot exemptions within the 
     perimeter, and 12 slot exemptions outside the perimeter. 
     These slots could go to more than one airline.
       Exemptions must be for flights between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. 
     There can be no more than 2 additional flights per hour.
       Of the flights within the perimeter, 4 must be to small 
     hubs or non-hubs and 8 must be to medium, small or non-hubs. 
     All requests for exemptions must be submitted within 30 days 
     of enactment. 15 days are allowed to comment. After that, 45 
     days are allowed for DOT to make a decision.
       Ten percent of the entitlement money at Reagan National 
     Airport must go to noise abatement. Priority shall be given 
     to applications from the 4 slot-controlled airports for noise 
     set-aside money. DOT shall do a study comparing noise at 
     these 4 airports now as compared to 10 years ago.
       The definition of limited incumbent air carrier includes 
     slots and slot exemptions held or operated by that carrier. 
     However, slots that are on a long-term lease for a period of 
     10 years or more, being used for international service, and 
     that the current holder releases and renounces any right to 
     subject to the terms of the lease shall not be counted as 
     slots either held or operated for the purposes of determining 
     whether the holder is a limited incumbent.
       Exemptions are only for Stage 3 aircraft.


                                  mwaa

       Extends the deadline for reauthorizing MWAA from 2001 to 
     2004. Also eliminates the requirement that the additional 
     federal Directors be appointed before MWAA can receive AIP 
     grants or impose a new PFC.


                                 dohsa

       The territorial sea for aviation accidents is extended from 
     3 nautical miles to 12 nautical miles. The affect of this is 
     that DOHSA will not apply to planes that crash into the ocean 
     within 12 miles from the shore of the U.S. The law governing 
     accidents that occur between a 3 nautical miles and 12 
     nautical miles from land will be the same as those that now 
     occur less than 3 nautical miles from the land.
       For those aviation accidents that occur more than 12 miles 
     form land, the DOHSA will continue to apply. However, in 
     those cases, the Act is modified as in the Senate bill 
     except that there is no $750,000 cap on damages.


                            Unruly Passenger

       Imposes fine of $25,000 on a person who assaults or 
     threatens to assault the crew or another passenger, or poses 
     a threat to the safety of the aircraft or its passengers. 
     Also requires the Justice Department to notify the House and 
     Senate authorizing Committees within 90 days as to whether it 
     plans to set up the program to deputize local law 
     enforcement.


                         animal transportation

       Modifies the Senate provision to ensure that airlines will 
     continue to be able to carry animals while information is 
     collected to determine whether there is a problem that 
     warrants strong legislative remedies. Toward this end, 
     scheduled airlines will be required to provide monthly 
     reports to DOT describing any incidents involving animals 
     that they carry.
       DOT and the Department of Agriculture must enter into a MOU 
     to ensure that DOA receives this information. DOT must 
     publish data on incidents and complaints involving animals in 
     its monthly consumer reports or other similar publications.
       In the meantime, DOT is directed to work with the airlines 
     to improve the training of employees so that (1) they will be 
     better able to ensure the safety of animals being flown and 
     (2) they will be better able to explain to passengers the 
     conditions under which their pets are being carried. People 
     should know that their pets might be in a cargo hold that may 
     not be air-conditioned or may differ from the passenger cabin 
     in other respects.


                       national parks overflights

       Commercial air tour operators must conduct commercial air 
     tours over national parks or tribal lands in accordance with 
     applicable air tour management plans (ATMP). Before beginning 
     air tours over a National Park or tribal land, a tour 
     operator must apply to the FAA for the authority to conduct 
     tours. No applications shall be approved until an ATMP is 
     developed and implemented. FAA shall make every effort to act 
     on an application within 24 months of receiving it. Priority 
     shall be given to applications from new entrant air tour 
     operators. Air tours may be conducted at a park without an 
     ATMP if the tour operator secures a letter of agreement from 
     the FAA and the park involved and the total number of flights 
     is limited to 5 flights in a 30 day period.
       FAA in cooperation with the Park Service shall establish an 
     ATMP for any park at which someone wants to provide 
     commercial air tours. The ATMP shall be developed with public 
     participation. It could ban air tours or establish 
     restrictions on them. It will apply within a half a mile 
     outside the boundary of the park. The plan should include 
     incentives to use quiet aircraft.
       Prior to the establishment of the ATMP, the FAA shall grant 
     interim authority to operators that are providing air tours. 
     This interim authority may limit the number of flights. 
     Interim operating authority may also be granted for new 
     entrants if (1) it is needed to ensure competition in the 
     provision of air tours over the park and (2) 24 months have 
     passed since enactment of this Act and no ATMP has been 
     developed for the park involved. Interim operating authority 
     should not be granted to new entrants if it will create a 
     safety or a noise problem.
       The above shall not apply to the Grand Canyon, tribal lands 
     abutting the Grand Canyon, or to flights over Lake Mead that 
     are on the way to the Grand Canyon.
       FAA shall establish standards for quiet aircraft within 1 
     year or explain to Congress why it will be unable to do so. 
     Quiet aircraft may get special routes for Grand Canyon air 
     tours and may not be subject to the cap on the number of 
     flights there.
       Air tours over the Rocky Mountain National Park are 
     prohibited.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the words of my friend from the State 
of Washington are not justified except if they are returned to him and 
to his staff.
  The process of working legislation is extraordinary. This has been a 
very long process, more or less a 2-year process. Working with Senator 
Slade Gorton from the State of Washington over the years has been a 
great privilege for me and continues on this bill, which is the Wendell 
H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, which 
is a long title, but we had to give it a long title in order to be able 
to give it an acronym, which is FAIR-21. FAIR, that is what the bill 
is.

[[Page S1250]]

 Wendell Ford, should he be listening, should be very proud.
  We have had half a dozen temporary extensions on this bill. It has 
been 2 years in the making. When Senator Gorton talks about the 
enormous number of hours spent by Sam Whitehorn of the committee staff, 
Kerry Ates of my own staff, and members of his own committee and 
personal staff, he is exactly right. It has been an extraordinary and 
frustrating process but a successful one.
  There are many Members of the Senate and the House to thank. It was 
one of those situations where you had the authorizing committees, the 
budget committees, the appropriations committees, in both Houses, 
coming to an agreement--which is very rare in something of this sort, 
and all in a fairly short period of time. Frankly, including obviously 
Senator Gorton, I think I really want to thank the majority leader, 
Senator Trent Lott, for stepping in in a most remarkable way, most 
forcefully, at a critical time, to bring the parties together and make 
sure we pushed toward a solution.
  In the end, I think we have achieved a bipartisan House-Senate 
compromise of which I, for one at least, am very proud. We have a final 
bill that will set us on an entirely new path in terms of the FAA, and 
in a larger sense for aviation in this country, which has enormous 
impact. For the aviation community, and those of us who work with 
them--and I thank them for their help on this bill, also; not all of 
them being happy about all aspects of it, but that is in the nature of 
things--hopefully this good economic news, of the passage of this bill, 
is, however, entirely overshadowed by fear that most of us have about 
the state of our system as it is now, of our aviation system 
particularly in regard to air traffic control and other matters in our 
infrastructure.
  At current levels, our system is already so overburdened we are 
suffocating from congestion and delays. The country suffers through it. 
Is there a popular uprising? There does not seem to be one. But the 
fact is, it is a suffocating situation, a dangerous situation. We are 
increasingly concerned about safety, with every single reason to be, 
given the doubling of the number of air passengers and many more cargo 
planes and passenger planes to be built in the future. Whatever you see 
today, try to double it in your mind and then figure the same number of 
runways. How on Earth are people going to accept a situation where 
delays are growing longer and it becomes more dangerous unless we do 
something about it? This bill does. Delays have increased by 50 
percent. Today, one in four flights is delayed more than 15 minutes. 
That is not what passengers want. That is not what airlines want.
  To be very blunt about it, if there is no change in the way we are 
doing business, we will come to a situation before the year 2015 where 
there will be, somewhere in this world, a major airplane crash every 7 
to 10 days. That is the course. It is a terrible course, a dangerous 
course, and one which this Congress cannot allow to go on and which 
this Congress, in fact, with this bill, does a great deal about.

  We have fallen behind. Unless we get started immediately in the 
effort to modernize our air traffic control system, to fix our 
airports, we stand a very good chance of never being able to catch up, 
never catching up to the curve, much less getting ahead of it. That is 
fundamentally what this bill, FAIR-21, is about.
  It is about fixing the system. It is about trying to get ahead of the 
growth curve with our most significant increase ever in airport and air 
traffic control funding, and some fundamental reforms in the way we do 
business in our system. It is about improving safety and service for 
the traveling public and supporting aviation employees under great 
stress in their challenging jobs. Senator Gorton and I have each seen 
that on many occasions. These people work under incredible tension all 
the time. They work with very old equipment.
  It is about increasing competition. It is about giving a leg up, 
finally, to small communities such as I have in my State, as does 
Senator Gorton, as does every Senator in his or her State--small 
communities that were left behind when we did airline deregulation 20 
years ago.
  So, FAIR-21, this bill, will provide $40 billion for the FAA in 
fiscal year 2001 until fiscal year 2003. It is a 25-percent increase in 
total aviation funding. The key investments will be fixing aviation 
infrastructure, to wit, airport funding will increase by 33 percent, 
and air traffic control modernization funding will increase by 40 
percent. That is so desperately needed. FAA funding operations will 
also increase by approximately 15 percent over the same period. We are 
beginning to nudge into the area to start fixing our problems.
  This bill represents the will of the Congress, hopefully, and the 
will of the American people, to take a dangerous situation and start to 
fix it. For the very first time, FAIR-21 establishes that all revenues 
and interest paid into the aviation trust fund by airline passengers, 
lo and behold, will be spent on aviation. That seems quite fair to me. 
That means that $33 billion of the $40 billion will be guaranteed from 
the trust fund, not taken off-budget, which this Senator would have 
liked to have seen but was not going to happen; so not taken off-budget 
but protected through points of order and with a strong commitment from 
the Appropriations Committee to fully fund all accounts. This was part 
of the magic of the process that Senator Trent Lott, Senator Gorton, 
and others worked out to make people satisfied.
  All told, this represents--and my colleagues should hear this--the 
biggest total increase in aviation investments ever. I know few 
problems receive that kind of boost unless the Congress perceives there 
is a crisis. What we learned over recent years about aviation was that 
a crisis was coming. I am thankful we have the foresight to take action 
now.
  To move beyond the funding issue for a moment, I want to point out a 
few of the key aviation law and policy changes contained in this bill 
which I think are very helpful and good:
  Whistle-blower protection for aviation and airline employees who 
report safety problems;
  A $1.50 increase on the cap of the passenger facility charge for 
airport projects, which is enormously helpful to local airports;
  An Air Service Development Program, with grants up to $500,000 each 
for innovative efforts to improve air service in small communities; in 
other words, small communities can do something and get a match;
  A ban on smoking everywhere, even internationally;
  Easing of the slots rule at O'Hare, LaGuardia, and Kennedy Airports. 
This carries with it some controversy. Compromises were made. Not 
everybody was happy. But resolution was reached;
  New criminal background checks and training for airport security 
personnel as the pressure on all of that continues to increase;
  Increased funding for the essential air service program is enormously 
important in my State of West Virginia and every single area where 
there are rural airports. The State of the Presiding Officer has its 
fair share of those;
  Finally, new and increased penalties for airline customer service 
violations. That goes along with the effort Senator Gorton and I led to 
have a passenger bill of rights, which the airlines could have first 
crack at, which seems to be working out very well but, on the other 
hand, we are watching very closely.
  We have had a lot of time to work on this bill and, in my view, it 
has gotten better and better during the process and reached a crescendo 
in the last several days. It is a bold conference report designed to 
protect our future. I hope my colleagues will join me and the Senator 
from the State of Washington in sending this bill to the President.
  So much of the work is done not just by Senators willing to 
compromise and House Members willing to compromise but, most 
importantly, by staff who worked through the night often to make sure 
things came out very well.
  When we began the effort to enact meaningful legislation to address 
the needs of our air transportation system, we knew it would be a 
difficult process. Even anticipating that, I can tell you that it has 
been more difficult than any of us could have imagined.
  This bill has been more than two years in the making, with nearly a 
half-dozen temporary extensions in the process. There are many Members 
in

[[Page S1251]]

the Senate and House to thank for all of the hard work and effort it 
took to bring this to a conclusion. Members on and off the conference 
committee have really rolled up their sleeves to work out a very 
difficult compromise. And above all others, the majority leader stepped 
in during these critical and delicate last few months to push us toward 
a final solution.
  In the end, we've achieved a bipartisan, House-Senate compromise that 
I am very proud of. We have a final bill that I believe will set us on 
an entirely new path for the FAA and aviation.
  Aviation in this country is at a crossroads. Aviation is a critical 
engine of economic development at the national and local levels, and it 
has the potential for unprecedented and incomprehensive growth over the 
next decade.
  The travel and tourism industry employs 1 in 17 Americans.
  Air travelers spend over $500 billion each year in the U.S. and 
generate more than $70 billion in federal, state and local taxes.
  Aviation is the only U.S. industry that has consistently enjoyed a 
positive trade balance.
  By 2009, enplanements are projected to increase to 1 billion people, 
from 650 million in 1999.
  In many respects this is good news--it is one of the great success 
stories of our booming economy. Yet, for the aviation community and 
those of us who work with them, this good news is entirely overshadowed 
by fears about the state of our system. At current traffic levels, our 
system is already so overburdened that we are suffocating from 
congestion and delays, and we are increasingly concerned about safety.
  Almost every week, another red flag goes up about the looming crisis 
in aviation.
  Scheduled flying times have increased 75 percent on the top 200 
routes in the nation.
  Delays have increased by 50 percent, and today one in four flights is 
delayed more than 15 minutes, at a cost to the economy of more than $4 
billion.
  Recent data shows a rise in runway incidents (so-called runway 
incursions), and we read too often about near-misses in the skies.
  If there is no change in the current accident rate before the year 
2015, there is expected to be a major airline accident somewhere in the 
world every 7-10 days.
  Yet, from 1998 to 1999, the FAA had to reduce safety inspections by 
10 percent and cut 5 percent of its security staff.
  All of us--the airlines, the airports, and the Congress--have had a 
difficult time keeping up with the pace of growth. The result is that, 
as a nation, we've fallen behind. Unless we get started immediately in 
the effort to modernize our traffic control system and fix our 
airports, we may never catch up.
  That's fundamentally what this bill, FAIR-21, is all about. It's 
about fixing the system and trying to get ahead of the growth curve--
with our most significant increase ever in airport and air traffic 
control funding and some fundamental reforms of our system.
  And it's about improving safety and service for the traveling public; 
supporting aviation employees in challenging jobs, increasing 
competition, and giving a leg up finally to small communities who were 
left behind in airline deregulation twenty years ago.
  FAIR-21 will provide $40 billion for the FAA for FY 2001-2003--a 25 
percent increase in total aviation funding. The key investments will be 
fixing aviation infrastructure--airport funding will increase by 33 
percent and air traffic control modernization funding will increase by 
40 percent. FAA operations funding also will increase, by approximately 
15 percent over the same period.

  For the first time, FAIR-21 establishes that all revenues and 
interest paid into the aviation trust fund by airline passengers will 
be spent on aviation. That means that $33 billion of the $40 billion 
bill will be guaranteed from the trust fund--not taken off-budget but 
protected through points of order and with a strong commitment from the 
Appropriations Committee to fully fund all accounts. The remaining $6.7 
billion would come from the General Fund, subject to appropriations.
  For fiscal year 2001, the bill fully meets the President's budget 
request for FAA operations and air traffic control equipment, and it 
exceeds the President's budget request for AIP by $1.2 billion.
  All told this represents the biggest total increase in aviation 
investments ever. I know that few programs receive that kind of boost--
unless a crisis exists. What we have learned about aviation is that a 
crisis is coming. And I'm thankful we have the foresight to take action 
now.
  To move beyond the funding issue for a moment, let me also highlight 
a few of the key aviation law and policy changes contained in this bill 
that I think are particularly important. I am very pleased that the 
bill contains: whistleblower protection for airline and aviation 
employees who report safety problems; a $1.50 increase in the cap on 
the passenger facility charge for airport projects; an Air Service 
Development program, with grants of up to $500,000 each for innovative 
efforts to improve air service in small communities; a ban on smoking 
on all flights to and from the U.S., including international flights; 
an easing of the slot rules at O'Hare, LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports; 
a focus on reducing the number of runway incursions that can result in 
serious accidents; new criminal background checks and training for 
airport security personnel; increased funding for the Essential Air 
Service program; and new and increased penalties for airline's customer 
service violations.
  We have had a lot of time to work on this bill, and in my view it has 
gotten better and better. It is a bold conference report designed to 
protect our future, and I hope my colleagues will join me in sending it 
on to the President for his signature.
  Before we end the debate this morning, I want to say a few things. 
Again, all of the staff from the Commerce Committee, my office, the 
offices of the other conferees, and the House staff, deserve our 
thanks. They spent months working on this bill. In fact, this bill was 
started almost 2 years ago. Countless hours, late nights, lots of 
missed family events. We owe all of them our thanks.
  I also want to thank, and I know Senator Hollings and others share 
this, Hans Ephramson-Abt. Many of you probably have encountered him. He 
is a gentleman, first and foremost, who has worked for years to help 
the families of victims of aviation disasters. The conference report 
changes the liability laws for accidents offshore, preserving the 
ability of people like the children of Montoursville, PA, who vanished 
in the TWA flight 800 tragedy. Hans lost his daughter, Alice, on KAL 
007, shot down off of Korea in September 1983. He has done a great 
service in helping others, and for that we all owe him a debt of 
gratitude.
  Finally, I want to say that we have had a long debate over the last 
several years about FAA reform. For now, that issue has been resolved. 
Over the next several years, working with Administrator Garvey, or her 
successor, we will look at other ways to improve the FAA. Today, the 
bill before you does many creative things for the FAA--giving it the 
tools to be more business-like, but retaining its crucial role as 
safety arbiter. The bill, for example, gives the FAA the ability to 
enter into long-term leases for satellite communications services, 
something that will save the FAA money. It establishes a public-private 
funding mechanism to expedite the installation of air traffic control 
equipment, with the priorities set by the private sector. It structures 
the FAA after corporate models, establishing one person to be 
accountable for air traffic control operations and plans. It 
establishes a Board to oversee those activities. The FAA, because of 
actions led by the Commerce Committee and Senator Lautenberg, today has 
procurement and personnel flexibility that no other governmental agency 
has. We have achieved a lot over the last several years, and with this 
bill, continue to make progressive changes to the FAA, without 
compromising safety. I know that there are some in the Administration 
that are not satisfied, and probably will never be satisfied, but this 
is a good bill and one that will do a lot for our aviation system. I 
urge my colleagues to fully support this bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that a more complete listing of staff who 
spent months working on this bill be printed in the Record.

[[Page S1252]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                            democratic staff

       Kevin Kayes, Moses Boyd, Sam Whitehorn, Ellen Doneski, 
     Julia Krauss, Jonathan Oakman, and Carl Bentzel.


                            republican staff

       Mike Reynolds, Ann Choiniere, Scott Verstandig, Jim 
     Sartucci, Keith Hennesy, Brett Hale.


                              budget staff

       Bill Hoagland, Cheryl Tucker, and Mitch Warren.


                          appropriations staff

       Wally Burnett and Peter Rogoff.


                         house republican staff

       Jack Shenendorf, Roger Norber, Sharon Barkaloo, Chris 
     Bertram, Dave Schaeffer, Adam Tsao, Rob Chamberlin and David 
     Balloff.


                         house democratic staff

       Dave Hymsfeld, Ward McCarriger, Stacy Soumbeniotis, Tricia 
     Loveland, Paul Feldman, who left last November, and Collen 
     Corr.

  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I yield the floor, Mr. President, and reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, how much time do the proponents have 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve and a half minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 5 of those minutes to the 
distinguished Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator from Iowa is 
recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the conference report before us has been 
a long time in the making. It is a comprehensive bill that successfully 
addresses many important aviation issues. Not the least of these is the 
eventual elimination of the so-called slot rules at three of our 
nation's airports, O'Hare, Kennedy and LaGuardia. It also adds 
additional slots at Reagan Washington National Airport. I support these 
measures.
  I congratulate Senator McCain, the Senate Commerce Committee 
Chairman, Senator Gorton, the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman, Senator 
Hollings, the full committee ranking member, and Senator Rockefeller, 
the subcommittee ranking member, for their efforts to bring about good 
public policy. This has not been an easy conference, and all of you 
have put forth a tremendous effort to see that it was concluded 
successfully. I wish to also thank their staffs.
  I also express my thanks and admiration to my good friend, Senator 
Domenici, our Budget Committee chairman. Of all the issues before the 
conference, the resolution of the budget issues was the most trying and 
complex. Senator Domenici and his staff worked tirelessly to seek a 
fair and adequate solution to this problem.
  I express my admiration for my friend and colleague, Senator Stevens, 
the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Stevens 
has played a key role in reaching an agreement on spending.
  The phase-out of the slot rule at O'Hare and LaGuardia will open a 
new era in aviation. Because it is a phase-out and not an immediate 
termination, that era should also give smaller airports a better chance 
for a piece of the economic pie at the national and international 
levels.
  While e-commerce may be all the rage currently, people still need to 
travel for business purposes. Direct human contact is still the premium 
way to do business, and air travel is the fastest way to accomplish 
that over long distances and tight time frames.
  This compromise follows the direction which my Iowa colleague, 
Senator Harkin, and I set forth early in the debate on the slot rule. 
We looked at the needs of the airports in Iowa, and came to the 
conclusion together that it was time for a change if our State was to 
maintain its economic momentum in the national and international 
marketplace. Iowa does not have a major hub airport that guarantees 
low-cost or frequent flights. Like most States, we have smaller 
airports that are greatly affected by the traffic into and out of the 
major hub airports. In this case those airports are O'Hare and 
LaGuardia.
  Our solution was to phase out the slot rule. The first step was to 
immediately give increased access to the hub airports by turboprop 
aircraft and regional jets. These are the aircraft that primarily serve 
our smaller airports. Giving them time before the slot rule is lifted 
for large airport-to-large airport competition should give the smaller 
airports time to establish the economic and market base needed to 
justify service. Otherwise, we would only see increased flights between 
major cities, to the exclusion of smaller airports.
  We received the support of a large number of Senators who were also 
concerned about the future of their small hub and nonhub airports. 
Together, all of us have been able to accomplish what was unthinkable 
just several years ago, the eventual elimination of the slot rule at 
those two airports. I deeply appreciate their faith and support to 
accomplish this.
  I also thank President Clinton for having the foresight and courage 
to recommend the elimination of the slot rule at these airports. He 
gave a legitimacy and momentum to the debate that would not have 
existed otherwise.
  The States attorneys general, lead by Iowa Attorney General Tom 
Miller, also played a significant part and should be thanked.
  Not everyone is entirely happy with the compromise solution in this 
conference report. I look upon that as ratification that it must be a 
pretty good compromise. I truly feel that the airlines were treated as 
fairly and equally as possible.
  Our Nation's airports will be receiving additional funds for their 
capital needs under this legislation. I know that these funds are much 
needed and will be put to good use. Iowa's airports have rehabilitation 
and expansion plans that will be enhanced by these additional funds. 
This includes increased disbursements from the Airports and Airways 
Trust Fund and the increase in the passenger facility charge, PFC. It 
is important to note that the PFC will not increase at an airport until 
local authorities have approved an increase. It is entirely within 
their realm to grant or deny this increase at the local level.
  However, I must again warn the Federal Aviation Administration that 
more money will not cure all of the problems facing the FAA and the 
aviation industry. Fundamental reform of the way the FAA does business 
and on a cultural level is necessary if we are to truly make the 
advances which are needed.
  As a budget conferee, I believe the budget compromise is the best we 
can do at this time. I shall work with Chairman Domenici to secure the 
necessary funds through the budget process.
  The biggest disappoint to me is the inclusion of a civil fine against 
airline employee whistle-blowers. While I am very pleased that whistle-
blower protection has been extended to the aviation industry, I feel 
that it is flawed due to the civil penalty. Such a penalty does not 
exist in other whistle-blower statutes. I will work to correct this 
situation.
  Whistle-blower protection adds another, much needed, layer of 
protection for the traveling public using our Nation's air 
transportation system. I am pleased to have worked with the Association 
of Flight Attendants AFL-CIO on this important, ground breaking 
legislation. They have worked tirelessly on this provision, and I know 
they will continue to work with me to correct this flaw. I call upon 
the airlines to do the same and seek the help of the public, also.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for this conference 
report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues who have worked 
so hard to get this bill to this point. It is not fun to oppose 
something that was reported out of the conference committee with such 
strong support.
  But I have a different responsibility given the fact that I serve 
both as the ranking member of the Budget Committee and the 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. In my view, this bill 
represents a missed opportunity to fully address the financing needs of 
our Nation's aviation system.
  To the degree the bill actually guarantees any real funding 
increases, it does so in a manner that I consider grossly unbalanced. 
Mr. President, if

[[Page S1253]]

you ask the average Senator if they are willing to fund aviation at the 
expense of the Coast Guard, I guarantee you they would say no. If you 
asked each Senator whether they were willing to fund aviation at the 
expense of Amtrak, I guarantee you most would say no. If you asked the 
average Senator whether or not they were willing to fund aviation at 
the expense of our federal highway safety efforts, they would say: 
Certainly not.
  But if this conference agreement becomes law, we run the very real 
risk of cutting back funds for NHTSA, the National Transportation 
Safety Board, Amtrak, the Coast Guard, and other areas just to boost 
funding for two aviation capital accounts by almost $2 billion next 
year. And those two aviation accounts don't even finance the core 
operations of the air traffic control system--the area where the FAA is 
facing its most difficult challenges.
  Our national transportation system needs investments in several 
areas, not just aviation. Look at what is happening with the Coast 
Guard. All of us salute the Coast Guard. We saw in the papers just 
yesterday that they do not have enough people to monitor cruise ships 
that are dumping their waste in the oceans. They do not have enough 
maintenance funding to keep their aircraft in the air. They do not have 
enough people to monitor the attempts by illegal immigrants to enter 
this country. They don't have enough money for pollution control, for 
fisheries enforcement, and for recruiting. But I don't hear my 
colleagues on the Commerce Committee, who have jurisdiction over the 
Coast Guard, advocating for a Coast Guard ``guarantee.''
  Mr. President, throughout my entire Senate career, I have led the 
fight for increased investment in transportation. My support for 
transportation started when I served as the Commissioner of the Port 
Authority of New York/New Jersey. At that time, I learned that you 
can't ignore the needs of one transportation mode in favor of another. 
Investments need to be made in a balanced way if you are going to avoid 
gridlock. You can't ignore the rail system or the highways to focus on 
aviation. You need to keep your eye on safety, not just construction. 
The requirement to reauthorize our aviation laws presented this 
Congress with a great opportunity to address the financing of our 
nation's aviation system in a comprehensive and bipartisan manner. 
Unfortunately, this bill misses the mark.
  This Conference Agreement took so long to produce because so many 
Members wanted to provide big funding increases for aviation without 
paying for them. Mr. President, the simple fact is that the revenue 
stream to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund is not adequate to fund the 
substantial funding increases for aviation that many members want. 
Because of that basic fact, the aviation conferees have been haggling 
for the last year over methods to develop a new mousetrap to produce 
those funding increases without adequate revenue. Over the last week, 
the Majority Leader and the majority members of the conference 
committee reached the agreement that is currently before us. It seeks 
to guarantee a 64 percent increase in airport grants, and a 30 percent 
increase in modernization funding. These so-called ``guaranteed'' 
increases come at a time when the Republican Majority is debating among 
itself whether to impose a hard freeze on discretionary spending at the 
current year's level, or provide for a minuscule 2.4 percent increase. 
The arithmetic is simple. The $1.9 billion or 47 percent increase that 
this bill seeks to ``guarantee'' for airport grants and modernization 
will either require cuts in the rest of the Transportation Department 
or the rest of the discretionary budget.

  I understand that the Chairman of the Budget Committee was a party to 
these negotiations. I am told that he is prepared to state that the 
Budget Resolution that he will propose fully funds the needs of these 
so-called aviation guarantees. While I have great respect for the 
Budget Committee Chairman, I have to say that I would like to know 
where the funding is coming from if he plans to impose a freeze on 
discretionary spending. That should be a concern to all Members, 
whether they care about the Coast Guard, Amtrak, education, health 
care, veterans benefits, agriculture, or anything else.
  Mr. President, one of the areas that will face greater budget 
austerity as a result of these so-called ``guaranteed'' increases is 
the operating budget in the FAA. The operating account pays for the 
operations of the air traffic control system. It pays the salary of 
every air traffic controller and every aviation inspector. It pays for 
security at our airports. It pays for the publication of every safety 
regulation. Three quarters of the operations budget goes just to pay 
the salaries of the people that keep the system safe every day. This 
account is where the FAA faces the most severe funding shortfall. So it 
is absurd that we are now going to pass a bill that will boost capital 
funding while subjecting the operations budget to even greater 
austerity. Due to existing shortfalls in its operating budget, the FAA 
just canceled all training activities except introductory training for 
air traffic controllers for the remainder of the year. We also have 
problems with new state-of-the-art equipment sitting in warehouses 
because the FAA doesn't have the operating funds to install them. There 
aren't even adequate operating funds to train our air traffic 
controllers how to use the equipment. FAA has had to delay the 
certification of new aircraft and new equipment. Those delays are 
hurting our U.S. aircraft manufacturers. The number of aviation safety 
inspectors is being allowed to trickle down and FAA can't afford to 
hire new inspectors to replace them. With that backdrop, the Republican 
Conferees on this bill produced a conference report that loaded all of 
the so-called ``guaranteed'' funding increases on capital investment 
programs and ignored the operations budget. Just two days ago, the FAA 
released its updated forecast for future aviation traffic. That 
forecast indicates that domestic airline traffic will increase more 
than 60 percent through 2011. That increased traffic will also put 
incredible pressure on the operation budget of the FAA. We will need 
more safety and security inspectors, not less. We will need better 
trained controllers and more of them. But the bill before us ignores 
those needs. This bill is simply lopsided and unbalanced. And in time, 
Mr. President, I believe the Members championing this bill will realize 
that they made a mistake. In fact, they may realize it sooner than they 
think.
  I am not sure, in the end, that all of these ``guaranteed'' funding 
increases will materialize. The point-of-order in the Senate that 
protects these funding guarantees is a 50-vote point-of-order. It will 
require 51 votes to waive that point-of-order. We all know that it is 
impossible to do anything in the Senate without 51 votes. So fiscal 
reality may require the Senate to revisit these guarantees sooner 
rather than later. It will only require a simple majority of the Senate 
to do so.
  Maybe that will not happen for a year or two. Maybe it will happen 
later this Spring. In my capacity as Ranking Member of the Senate 
Transportation Appropriations subcommittee, I will manage only one more 
Transportation Appropriations bill. But I promise that I am not going 
to silently watch the Amtrak budget, the Coast Guard budget, or the 
FAA's own operations budget get ravaged to pay for the so-called 
``guarantees'' provided in this bill. I will see to it that every 
Member here will have the opportunity to vote on whether we should shut 
down Amtrak lines, tie up Coast Guard ships, or lay off aviation 
inspectors, in order to pay for these guarantees.

  In summary, Mr. President, this bill represents a missed opportunity. 
This bill missed the opportunity to provide momentum for funding 
increases in the FAA across-the-board to address all the agency's 
shortfalls, including the operations budget. By loading all of the so-
called guaranteed funding on the capital accounts, it becomes plain as 
day, that the Airport and Airway Trust Fund is not adequate to fund all 
of our aviation needs. It will only be a matter of time before we have 
to consider a tax increase or new user fees in order to truly meet all 
of the FAA's needs.
  Mr. President, this bill is shortsighted. It was produced in the back 
room without Minority Members present, and I do not believe it 
represents a sustainable aviation policy for our nation. The funding 
provisions in this bill may not even be sustainable for the coming 
fiscal year. For that reason, I cannot support this bill.

[[Page S1254]]

  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I intend to use my leader time for 
purposes of making a couple of statements this morning. I would like 
first to voice my support for the conference report to H.R. 1000, 
which, as has already been noted, is the Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century.
  I hope our former colleague, Senator Wendell Ford, a dear and very 
special friend of mine who served as chairman and ranking member of the 
Senate Commerce Committee's Aviation Subcommittee for many years, is 
watching because this truly is a tribute to his dedication not only to 
aviation but to his country and to the Senate for a long time. It is a 
very appropriate designation for this legislation.
  The conference report we are considering today will help repair our 
aviation system for the skyrocketing number of passengers who will 
travel in the 21st century. It is also a fitting tribute to Senator 
Ford's vision that he expressed to us on many occasions as he was 
leading us on this and many other issues.
  I thank as well the majority leader, Senator Lott, for his 
persistence in providing leadership on this matter and in getting us to 
this point. I think the credit also must go to our distinguished 
subcommittee chairman and ranking member. It is clear they have the 
chemistry and the working relationship it takes to accomplish something 
of this complexity, and I pay tribute to both of them for their efforts 
and for their arduous work in getting us to this point. We ought to be 
celebrating this morning the accomplishments of something that many of 
us have been hoping to achieve for a long period of time. Were it not 
for their leadership and support, it would not have happened.
  I have been reminded oftentimes of the movie ``Groundhog Day'' with 
Bill Murray, with the Senate waking up once a year to consider the same 
FAA reauthorization bill. The Senate first began considering this bill 
in 1998 and passed S. 2279, the Wendell H. Ford National Air 
Transportation System Improvement Act, in September of that year. 
Although there was overwhelming support for that legislation in the 
Senate, House and Senate negotiators could not agree on a multiyear 
bill at that time.
  Last year, the Senate passed S. 82, the Air Transportation 
Improvement Act of 1999, in October. As my colleagues have recalled, 
this legislation was almost identical to the FAA reauthorization bill 
we approved the year before. Again, there was overwhelming support for 
the legislation in the Senate. However, House and Senate negotiators 
could not agree on a multiyear FAA reauthorization bill, just as they 
were unable to do the year before.
  As the Senate has considered and reconsidered the FAA reauthorization 
bill in recent years, the FAA has been operating for the most part 
under short-term extensions. I have mentioned on many occasions my view 
that this is no way to fund such an important Federal agency. Short-
term extension after short-term extension disrupts long-term planning 
at the FAA and airports around the country that rely on Federal funds 
to improve their facilities and enhance aviation safety. The only thing 
worse than passing a short-term extension is allowing funding for FAA 
programs to lapse altogether. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the 
Congress did when the House again refused to consider the 6-month 
extension the Senate passed on November 10 of last year. For the last 4 
months, funds for airport improvement projects have been tied up 
because Congress has been unable to forge an agreement on the FAA 
reauthorization bill.
  So today we begin to rectify that mistake and prepare for the 
increased demand that will be placed on our aviation system in the 21st 
century. This bill will authorize approximately $40 billion for 
aviation programs over the next 3 years. In fiscal year 2001, the bill 
will authorize $12.7 billion, an increase of $2.7 billion over current 
levels. In the next fiscal year, it will enhance aviation safety by 
authorizing $3.2 billion for airport improvement projects, $3.3 billion 
in fiscal year 2002, and $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2003.
  It will also allow airports to increase passenger facility charges 
from $3 to $4.50. This PFC increase is expected to generate $700 
million for much-needed construction projects that will improve 
airports in South Dakota and around the country, in every State.

  The conference report to the FAA reauthorization bill also includes a 
number of provisions that would encourage competition among the 
airlines and ensure quality air service for communities. For instance, 
it would authorize funding for a 4-year pilot program to improve 
commercial air service in small communities that have not benefited 
from deregulation.
  Specifically, the bill calls for the establishment of an Office of 
Small Community Air Service Development at the Department of 
Transportation (DOT) to work with local communities, states, airports 
and air carriers and develop public-private partnerships that bring 
commercial air service including regional jet service to small 
communities.
  We have often commented on how critical the Essential Air Service 
Program has been to small communities in South Dakota and around the 
country in their efforts to retain air service. The Small Community 
Aviation Development Program would give DOT the authority to provide up 
to $500,000 per year to as many as 40 communities that participate in 
the program and agree to pay 25 percent in matching funds. In addition, 
the legislation would establish an air traffic control service pilot 
program that would allow up to 20 small communities to share in the 
cost of building contract control towers.
  I am hopeful that South Dakota will have the opportunity to 
participate in the Small Community Aviation Development Program. I 
think it is one of the better features of this legislation. I commend 
my colleagues for their inclusion of it.
  Mr. President, I know some of our colleagues may oppose this bill 
because it would increase the number of flights at the four slot-
controlled airports. The proposal to increase the number of flights at 
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport has been particularly 
controversial, and I would again like to commend Senator Robb for being 
a strong advocate for his constituents in northern Virginia.
  I know some of our colleagues on the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Transportation will also oppose this bill because of the budgetary 
treatment of the aviation trust fund. I understand their concerns and 
look forward to working with them to ensure that Amtrak, Coast Guard, 
the National Transportation Safety Board, and FAA operations are 
adequately funded.
  Although there may be different provisions in this bill that each of 
us may find objectional, I hope my colleagues will join me in 
supporting H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and 
Reform Act for the 21st Century. Spring is just around the corner, and 
we cannot afford to delay construction on airport improvement projects 
any longer.
  It is unfair to FAA, it is unfair to airports in South Dakota and 
throughout the country, and it is unfair to passengers who rely on the 
aviation system for their travel needs.
  I encourage my colleagues to support the conference report to the FAA 
reauthorization bill.
  Again, I commend my colleagues, especially the chairman and ranking 
member, for their work on this bill. I hope we can pass it this 
afternoon on a bipartisan basis.

                          ____________________