[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1255-S1267]
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--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
I thank my friend from New Jersey for yielding time.
Mr. President, for the third time in as many years, I am forced to
express in this Chamber my strong opposition to a congressional
proposal to meddle with Virginia airports. I will have to oppose the
FAA conference report, most of which I strongly support and I believe
is long overdue because it breaks a promise to the people of Northern
Virginia--a promise that Congress would permit us to manage and develop
our own airports.
While I will again vote against this bill to protest congressional
interference in the operation of Virginia's airports, I would like to
make clear that I fully support FAA reauthorization and release of the
airport improvement funds. In fact, as someone who has long believed
that we need to substantially increase our investments in
transportation, I commend the conferees for crafting a conference
report which does just that.
Under this bill, annual funding for many airports in Virginia will
nearly
[[Page S1256]]
double, providing for critical safety improvement and expanding airport
capacity. Nonetheless, I will have to vote against the bill.
By forcing additional flights on Ronald Reagan Washington National
Airport, this measure breaks the 1986 agreement among the Congress with
Virginia and the local governments to leave National Airport alone and
to get Congress out of the business of managing airports.
Even at the time of the 1986 agreement, however, there was skepticism
that Congress would keep its word. In the words of then-Secretary of
Transportation William Coleman, ``National has always been a political
football.'' Perhaps he should have said: National will always be a
political football. I hope that is not the case. But I am dubious.
While I worked hard to oppose the addition of slots and expanding the
perimeter at National, I am not going to engage in any purely dilatory
tactics because I believe these issues should be decided on the merits.
In this case, I believe the merits are simple and compelling.
Increasing slots at National creates delays for the majority of the
people who use the airport and undermines the quality of life in
communities that are near the airport.
People have a right to expect their Government to keep its end of the
bargain. By injecting the Federal Government into the running of the
airports once again, this bill scuttles an agreement we made with this
region more than a decade ago and breaks a promise to the people who
live here.
Mr. President, I yield any time remaining on the side of those in
opposition.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I recognize the leader's time has been
utilized and not counted against the time prior to going into morning
business.
I ask unanimous consent that when the managers are finished and
morning business is taken up, I be allowed 10 minutes to introduce a
bill.
I yield for my friend from South Carolina who is seeking recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman,
Senator Rockefeller.
Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill, appropriately known as the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century, or FAIR-21. This legislation rightfully deserves this title
for two basic reasons: it represents a fair compromise and it honors
the former Chairman and later ranking Member of the Aviation
Subcommittee, Senator Ford.
Before commenting on the substantive provisions of the conference
agreement, I think it is essential to commend those who are responsible
for achieving the compromise we have before us. However, because of the
number of individuals who have been instrumental in forging this
agreement, engaging in this exercise is sort of like the Academy Awards
shows, where the winner gets to list all of the people he needs to
thank in 30 seconds. I believe FEDEX had a commercial a few years ago
with a fast talking person, and I shall try to do the same here. First,
I wish to commend Chairman Shuster, Congressman Oberstar, and Senators
Rockefeller and Gorton for their unflagging leadership in reaching this
agreement. I should note that Senator Lott left no stones unturned to
move this bill. As well, Senators Stevens and Domenici played pivotal
roles. All of the Conferees and their staff did their part to
accomplish an enormous task. After much hard work and many long hours
we have a good, strong bill, which addresses many of the most critical
aviation issues facing us today --the proper funding for the
modernization of our air traffic control system and airport
infrastructure.
Before explaining a little about the bill, I want to address one of
the concerns that has been raised. I know that Senator Lautenberg has
concerns about this bill and what it means for other programs. The
reality is that for years we have underfunded the FAA, despite the fact
that the Airport and Airways Trust Fund has acummulated an uncommitted
surplus, approximating $7-8 billion per year. The surplus is currently
at $13 billion. Essentially, we have used those monies to meet other
priorities. Today, we end that game, by making sure that all monies in
the Trust Fund go to aviation. We also recognize that if more is
needed, and it will be, then the general fund will be called upon. Bear
in mind that the FAA and its ATC system provide services not only to
the commerical and general aviation fleets, but also to our military.
The FAA also plays a key role in our national security by keeping our
skies and airports safe.
We know that when the Trust Fund was created in 1970, it was intended
solely for modernization/capital improvements. The preamble to the
statute was as valid then as it is today--it reads ``That the Nation's
airport and airways system is inadequate to meet the current and
projected growth in aviation. That substantial expansion and
improvement of airport and airway system is required to meet the
demands of interstate commerce, the postal service and national
defense''. In fact, to clarify that it was intended for capital only,
Congress in 1971 deleted the phrase ``administrative expenses'' as an
eligible item for spending. During the first years of the Trust Fund,
with one year's exception, no Trust Fund monies were spent on the
general operations of the FAA. In 1977, Congress allowed left over
funds to be used for salaries and expenses of the FAA. Today, we are
returning to the original intent--monies first for capital needs, with
any remaing funds to be used for other expenses. If a general fund is
needed, then it will be subject to appropriations.
We have little choice. There is no question we must invest in our
future. We must expand the system to keep it safe, and to make it more
efficient. There is one other point--modernization of the ATC system
involves not only Federal spending, but also a committment from the
private sector. As we move to a satellite-based system, the air
carriers and general aviation must make an investment in new technology
in the cockpit. Finally, it is my understanding that the Transportation
function 400 numbers in the Budget resolution will reflect the
agreement reached here today, which should quell some of the concerns
of my colleague from New Jersey.
Aviation is an integral part of the overall U.S. transportation
infrastructure and plays a critical role in our national economy. Each
day our air transportation system moves millions of people and billions
of dollars of cargo. 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. Continued economic expansion in the U.S.
and around the globe will continue to fuel the exponential growth in
domestic and international enplanements.
The FAA is forecasting that by 2009, enplanements are expected to
grow to more than 1 billion by 2009, compared to 650 million last year.
During this time, 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.
More people, more planes, more delays. Those are the headlines we
know are coming. We know today that the growth in air travel has placed
a strain on the aviation system and our own nerves as we travel. In
1998, 25% 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 have 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 more than $4
billion per year.
We cannot ignore the numbers. These statistics underscore the
necessity of
[[Page S1257]]
properly funding our investment--we must modernize our Air Traffic
Control system and expand our airport infrastructure. Gridlock in the
skies is a certainty unless the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system is
modernized. A system-wide delay increase of just a few minutes per
flight will bring commercial operations to a halt according to the
National Civil Aviation Review Commission and American Airlines.
According to a study by the White House Commission on Aviation Security
and Safety, dated January 1997, the modernization of the ATC system
should be expedited to completion by 2005 instead of 2015.
FAIR 21 would authorize the Facilities and Equipment (ATC equipment)
at $2.660 billion, $2.914 billion, and $2.981 billion for FY01-FY03,
respectively. This represents a 30% increase in funding. For the first
time ever, FAIR 21 links the spending in the Facilities and Equipment
account and the Airport Improvement Program to the monies in the
Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
As our skies and runways become more crowded than ever, it is crucial
that we redouble our commitment to safety. Passengers deserve the most
up to date in safety measures. FAIR-21 ensures that there will be money
available to pay for new runway incursion devices as well as windshear
detection equipment. The bill requires all large cargo airplanes
install collision avoidance equipment. In an effort to support the
ongoing improvements at civil and cargo airports, FAIR-21 increases
funding for the improvement of training for security screeners. We also
have provided whistleblower protection to aid in our safety efforts and
protect workers willing to expose safety problems.
FAIR 21 will allow airports to increase their passenger facility
charges from $3 to $4.50. This is a local choice and it is money which
an airport can use to encourage new entry, particularly at the 15
``fortress hubs'' where one carrier controls more than 50% of the
traffic. Logically, the air fares for the communities dependant upon
these hubs are much higher than usual. If given a choice, perhaps we
would have broken up the hubs. Instead, we have used the power of the
dollar and a half to require these hubs to develop ways to allow new
carriers to expand as to create the possibility of lower fares to
places like Charleston, SC. The extra buck and a half will go to expand
gates and terminal areas, as well as runways at these facilities.
Since 1996, we have struggled with how to develop meaningful reform
of the FAA. We have met the majority of the suggestions with the
exception of the recommendations to establish a fee system and to set
up a private corporation to run air traffic control. Instead, we chose
a more prudent path. The 1996 reauthorization bill established a 15
member Management Advisory Committee (MAC) appointed by the President
with Senate confirmation but no one has yet to be named. Jane Garvey,
the FAA Administrator, is doing a wonderful job, but she could have
used some help. To avoid this in the future, FAIR-21 establishes a
subcommittee of the MAC to oversee air traffic operations with the
appointments being made by the Secretary of Transportation rather than
the President. The bill also establishes a position for a chief
operating officer. Combined with other measures, and the funding
levels, we are on the right track.
I wish to say a word about our controllers, technicians and the FAA
workforce. I know that the bill as crafted does not guarantee a general
fund contribution to pay for the operations of the FAA. However, it
should be acknowledged that these folks work hard every day to keep us
flying safely. The safety of the nation is in their hands. They deserve
our support.
Finally but not least, in terms of Death on the High Seas, after much
input from the families of the victims of many of the air tragedies, we
have clarified the law and extending the borders of the United States
to 12 miles off shore for the purpose of determining claims. In the
case of an accident occurring 12 miles or within the shore, the Death
on the High Seas Act shall not apply. Rather, it is state, federal, and
any other applicable laws which shall apply. Death on the High Seas
shall apply only outside of 12 miles off shore.
Mr. President, let me commend Mr. Shuster, the chairman on the House
side. He stuck to his guns.
It has been a long struggle in the open and in the dark. I only
mention that because my colleague from New Jersey said this thing was
all agreed to in the dark. We have been in the dark and in the open and
everything else for 2 years on this struggle.
Mr. Shuster stuck to his guns, whereby those air travelers who obtain
the taxes that go into the airport and airways improvement fund are
finally being assured that money is going to be spent on the airport
and airways improvement.
Right to the point: We owe some $12 billion right this minute for
airport taxes that have been used for everything from Kosovo to food
stamps, and everything else but airport and airways improvement.
In fact, we now have some $l.95 billion to be expended this fiscal
year, 2000. We were unable to get those moneys, although they were in
the fund, supposedly--IOU slips, if you will. We are now able to spend
those moneys.
I have the same misgivings the ranking member of our subcommittee has
about the shortfalls in the operating budget. That is due to so-called
``unrealistic spending caps.'' That is a budget problem--not this
bill's problem. There is a problem with unrealistic spending caps.
There is state-of-the-art equipment sitting in warehouses, and that
is because we have been playing a sordid game of trying to call a
``deficit'' a ``surplus'' and grabbing any and all moneys we can to
play a game to make it look as if we are reducing spending. The fact is
the President submits his budget, and we in the Congress--this
Republican Congress, if you please--have been increasing spending over
and above what President Clinton has asked for during the past 7 or 8
years. We are not willing to pay for it. So we rob Social Security. We
rob the retirement of the military and civil service. We robbed the
highway funds, up until we finally got that straightened out under the
leadership of Mr. Shuster. Now we can hold onto our airport moneys and
do the job that is required of us.
I want to say to everyone involved that this has been a good 2-year
struggle to get us where we are. It is a good bill. It was developed in
a bipartisan way, with every consideration given to not only the budget
problems and concern the Senator from New Jersey has, but also my
concerns about overall air traffic.
We are moving finally in the right direction. I hope everybody will
vote in support of the conference report.
I yield back the remainder of our time.
amtrak and coast guard funding
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished majority
leader for joining me in this important discussion today. I thank him
for the vital role he played in shepherding the FAA authorization bill
through the conference committee. We have been without an authorization
bill for too long and this bill is a critical step in ensuring our
skies are absolutely safe and less congested. But, as the majority
leader well knows, aviation is not the only important piece of
transportation funding this bill may affect. I believe that my friend
agrees with me that, as important as aviation is to our country,
funding for Amtrak and the Coast Guard are also crucial, and in
enacting this bill, we by no means intend to give short-shrift to those
parts of our transportation budget. Isn't that right, Mr. Majority
Leader?
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me thank my friend from Massachusetts
for raising this issue here today. And he is absolutely right. Aviation
is not the only transportation account that may be impacted by this
bill. And it was certainly not the intention of the conferees to in any
way restrict funding for the Coast Guard or Amtrak.
The conference report includes a provision which reserves Airport and
Airways Trust Fund revenue and interest spending for aviation programs
with a majority point of order. Additionally, under another majority
point of order, the provision requires the authorized levels of funding
for the Airport Improvement Program and the Facilities and Equipment
accounts to be fully funded before the Operations and Research and
Development accounts are funded. While this latter provision is
[[Page S1258]]
not a statutory guarantee that general revenue will be spend on
aviation programs, it is a significant incentive. The bill thus
provides a reasonable assurance that aviation appropriations will reach
authorized levels, which would result in an approximately $2 billion
increase in aviation funding for fiscal year 2001.
My good friend from Massachusetts is concerned that spending for
other transportation priorities may be decreased as the appropriations
process increases aviation spending. Let me assure my good friend that
I expect adequate funding for the Coast Guard and Amtrak, as these
transportation priorities are important to the Nation and to my home
State of Mississippi. I intend to work with the chairmen of the Budget
and Appropriations Committees to ensure the Transportation
Appropriations account is increased so that these aviation program
increases do not come at the expense of other transportation programs.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am gratified to hear the majority
leader's commitment to Amtrak and the Coast Guard, as well as his
intention to work with the chairmen of the Budget and Appropriations
Committees to fully fund transportation needs at least for FY 2001, and
hopefully beyond. Both Amtrak and the Coast Guard are absolutely
necessary to my constituents. I would like to say a few words about the
importance of Amtrak nationwide. This country needs to include
passenger rail as part of its transportation mix in the 21st century.
We have done a good job ensuring our highways and, now, our skyways get
the funding and attention they deserve. Amtrak also needs some of that
attention. Passenger rail is critical if we are going to reduce
congestion on our highways and in the air, as well protect our
environment. People need a choice in transportation, and high speed
rail especially can be a viable option for many, not only in the
Northeast, but along corridors throughout the country.
On January 31, 2000, Amtrak launched Acela Regional--the first
electric train in history to serve Boston and New England. This is
literally a dream come true for all of us up and down the East Coast
who care about jobs, the economy and traffic congestion and the
environment. And in its first few weeks of operation, I understand that
bookings on Acela Regional are up as much as 45 percent over the
Northeast Direct line. This will be extremely helpful in my home state
of Massachusetts, as well as in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut,
Pennsylvania and Maryland, where airport and highway congestion often
reach frustrating levels. The more miles that are traveled on Amtrak,
the fewer trips taken on crowded highways and skyways.
Amtrak is not the only transportation priority we need to fully fund.
The Coast Guard performs a number of critical missions for our country
including search and rescue, environmental protection, marine safety,
fisheries enforcement, and drug trafficking. I can't imagine any of our
colleagues arguing that any one of these missions is unimportant or
should be less than fully funded. Perhaps my good friend will expand
upon the importance the Coast Guard's many missions.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to
address the needs of the Coast Guard. In a typical day the Coast Guard
will save 14 lives, seize 209 pounds of marijuana and 170 pounds of
cocaine, and save $2.5 million in property. The Coast Guard's duties
have also grown, as there are more commercial and recreational vessels
in our waters today than ever before in our Nation's history.
International trade has expanded greatly, and with it maritime traffic
has increased in our Nation's ports and harbors. Tighter border patrols
have forced drug traffickers to use the thousands of miles of our
country's coastlines as the means to introduce illegal drugs into our
Nation. The Coast Guard currently faces a number of readiness
shortfalls as it struggles to keep up with the increasing demands
placed upon this service. In order to continue this valuable service to
our Nation, the Congress must provide the funding to address personnel
shortages and to repair or replace the Coast Guard's aging ships and
aircraft. I am confident that with an increase in the transportation
budget, we can protect the Coast Guard and Amtrak, as well as make the
improvements air travel so desperately needs.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his helpful
reassurances. We have the same goal, and that is to have a safe,
efficient transportation system that includes rail, aviation, and
maritime sectors. His intention and willingness to make this happen
gives me every confidence that it will happen.
Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate today will take
action on the H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century. The Federal Aviation Administration
has been without a long-term authorization for some time, and airports
in my state need to be able to move forward with construction projects
soon.
There are three components of this bill that I strongly support: the
increase in funding for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), the
budgetary treatment of the Aviation Trust Fund, and a provision to
stabilize essential air service (EAS) in Dickinson, North Dakota.
I am very pleased that this conference report provides for $3.2
billion in 2001 for the AIP program, and that funding will increase by
$100 million each year. As air travel continues to increase, it is
important that we invest in our nation's airports to ensure the safety
of the traveling public and expand capacity for the future. This
program provides federal grants for airport development and planning
and these dollars are usually spent on capital projects supporting
operations such as runways, taxiways, and noise abatement. This
substantial increase in funding will go a long way in maintaining the
quality of air travel in North Dakota and across the country.
In addition to the increase in funding, the fact that we now have
long-term FAA reauthorization instead of the extensions our airports
have been operating under is an important improvement. Short-term
extensions had the effect of leaving airport managers and community
leaders unable to develop and move forward with airport improvement
projects. Because in North Dakota the construction season is short, the
ability to plan and schedule projects is critical to maintaining our
state's aviation system.
Secondly, this conference report contains a very important provision
for Dickinson, North Dakota. This legislation will allow this small
community to retain essential air service without paying a local share.
Currently, Dickinson and Fergus Falls, Minnesota are the only
communities with this requirement. EAS is vital to smaller communities,
and the difficulties encountered by many of the communities in
retaining EAS warrant increased federal attention. The report also
requires the Department of Transportation to report on retaining
essential air service, focusing that report on North Dakota. This is an
extremely serious problem in my state and I believe it needs greater
attention. The residents and businesses of small communities,
especially in a rural state like North Dakota, depend heavily on this
service and we need to find a way to consistently serve these small
markets.
Finally, I am pleased that conferees agreed to budgetary guarantees
of increased funding for aviation. The conference report provides for a
budget point of order against any legislation that fails to spend all
of the Airport and Airways Trust Fund (AATF) receipts and interest, and
does not appropriate the total authorized levels for capital programs
(AIP and Facilities and Equipment). After allocations to the capital
programs occur, remaining AATF funds can be used for general
operations, and can be augmented by monies from the general fund.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important and long
overdue legislation.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the FAA/AIP
reauthorization conference report, H.R. 1000. I commend Senators
Hollings, Rockefeller, Gorton, and McCain for their efforts.
This measure would lift the High Density Rule at several of the
nation's slot controlled airports, including Chicago's O'Hare
International Airport. I support this conference report with the
understanding that it puts safety above
[[Page S1259]]
all other issues and keeps a watchful eye on noise levels and the
environment around these airports.
This conference report also significantly increases funding for the
Essential Air Service and Airport Improvement Programs, ensuring that
Illinois airports will be able to complete important infrastructure
projects as well as gain greater access to valuable markets.
I fully understand that some opponents are attempting to portray a
High Density Rule lift as a safety issue. I agree that safety must be
paramount. The FAA is and always should be the final arbiter of safety.
And no matter what Congress does today, the FAA will continue to have
the authority to regulate air traffic and ensure that passenger and
community safety is never at risk.
Last fall, I received a letter from FAA Administrator Garvey, which
says in part, ``Let me assure you that if the High Density Rule is
lifted at Chicago or any other airport, safety will not be
compromised.'' The Administrator goes on to say, ``The FAA does not
control aircraft at high density airports any differently than at any
other commercial airport. We will continue to operate these airports
using all appropriate procedures and traffic management initiatives for
the safe and expeditious handling of air traffic. Safety is always our
highest priority.''
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association and specifically the
Chicago controllers support lifting the slot restrictions at O'Hare.
NATCA believes that O'Hare can handle the increased traffic without
sacrificing safety. I have had the opportunity to meet with the
controllers about this issue, and I believe they bring a unique and
important perspective to this debate.
It also should be noted that a 1995 U.S. Department of Transportation
(U.S. DoT) study concluded that lifting the High Density Rule would
have no impact on safety because air traffic control is implemented
independently of the slot restrictions.
Thus, the claim that this would undermine safety is unfounded.
I also take exception to the notion that Congress is getting ahead of
the FAA. Federal transportation officials have believed for some time
that the High Density Rule is outdated and inefficient and not an
appropriate safety mechanism. And our colleagues in the House voted
overwhelmingly last year to lift the slot restrictions, with the
support of the FAA.
Government reports tell us that O'Hare has been surpassed by
Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport as the world's busiest. This
raises the obvious question: if airports such as Atlanta and Dallas/Ft.
Worth and LAX in Los Angeles can operate safely and efficiently without
slot restrictions, why can't O'Hare?
The High Density Rule or slot restrictions were developed in the
late 1960s, to mitigate delays. However, with the dawn of state-of-the-
art air traffic control systems and improved flow control procedures,
the High Density Rule has outlived its usefulness.
Instead, the High Density Rule artificially limits access to O'Hare
and adversely affects smaller communities. In Illinois, three downstate
communities have totally lost service to O'Hare--Decatur, Mt. Vernon,
and Quincy--and one city, Moline, has already experienced a carrier
leaving solely because of the slot restrictions.
In my hometown of Springfield, Capital Airport has been battling for
years to attract and retain adequate service to O'Hare. Today, there
are more Chicago passengers than seats available.
When we look for this reason, all runways lead to the same place--the
High Density Rule. Carriers choose to move commuter operations to
Denver and Dallas/Ft. Worth rather than deal with the slot restrictions
at O'Hare. Communities pay the price through loss of access to key
domestic and international markets, lost jobs, diminished tourism and
stagnant economic development.
Bob O'Brien, the Capital Airport Executive Director of Aviation,
writes, ``The inability for the Springfield community to adequately
access Chicago and connect to other locations in the country or the
world impacts the movements of goods and services and, consequently, is
a major detriment to the retention and attraction of businesses. The
growth and viability of the local Springfield community is at risk. * *
* While our country's aviation system is among the best in the world,
it is compromised by an artificial `choke point' known as the High
Density Rule.''
I would like to ask, why is it that we should maintain a ``choke
point'' at a city which serves as the transportation hub of the nation?
Mark Hanna, Director of Aeronautics at Quincy's Baldwin Field,
writes, ``* * * Quincy community leaders believe the removal of the
current slot restrictions at O'Hare is critical in continuing this
vital service between Quincy and Chicago. * * * With your support of
providing relief from the current `High Density Slot Rule' at O'Hare,
we can maintain this valuable air service and increase its
marketability.''
Julie Moore, President of the Metro Decatur Chamber of Commerce says,
``That (O'Hare) air service is essential to the economic growth and
stability of our area.''
I understand the frustration that passengers have with flight delays.
As a frequent flier, going into or through O'Hare twice a week, I
experience it often. Will lifting the High Density Rule make the planes
run on time? Of course not. But will it worsen the delays? Not
necessarily. The FAA is working with its air traffic controllers and
the airlines to implement both short-term and long-term ways to reduce
delays in the air and on the ground including giving more authority to
a nationwide Command Center to control flow of aircraft and attempting
to decrease so-called ground-stops.
With regard to noise, according to data reported in U.S. DOT's 1995
study, the increase in population around O'Hare affected by noise due
to lifting the High Density Rule is very small when compared to the
decrease due to the transition to an all Stage 3 fleet in 2005. After
lifting the High Density Rule and shifting to a Stage 3 fleet, the
population exposed to very high noise levels should decrease.
Elimination of the High Density Rule also will provide scheduling
flexibility to the airlines and in so doing could reduce nighttime
noise.
At my insistence, the conferees have included several provisions that
will study the noise levels at the nation's slot-controlled airports
and compare them to pre-Stage 3 aircraft noise levels around these same
airports. The Secretary of Transportation also is required to study
noise, the environment, access to underserved communities, and
competition at O'Hare. Finally, O'Hare and the other slot-controlled
airports will receive priority consideration for Airport Improvement
Program funds for noise abatement and mitigation. This will help
improve and expand soundproofing efforts and noise monitoring.
Both U.S. DoT's 1995 study and a 1999 GAO review found that the High
Density Rule creates a barrier to entry and restricts airline
competition at the affected airports. According to GAO, fares are
higher at airports under the High Density Rule than at unrestricted
airports. U.S. DoT concluded that lifting the high density rule would
result in lower air fares and more competition.
According to a report conducted by Booz-Allen-Hamilton, allowing
O'Hare to fully develop would contribute $26 billion annually to the
greater Chicago economy. On the other hand, artificial constraints on
O'Hare's capacity could cost the region $7 billion to $8 billion.
Mr. President, the High Density Rule has had more than 30 years to
produce results. However, the only tangible results I've experienced
are artificial barriers to access and competition. I don't take lightly
the arguments raised by opponents of this amendment. In the past, I
have supported compromise language that would offer some limited
expansion of O'Hare. However, opponents have rejected even the
introduction of one new flight at O'Hare. I believe this position is
unrealistic and unfair to downstate Illinois communities that
desperately need Chicago O'Hare access. I will hold the FAA, the
airlines and these airports accountable to improve safety, reduce
delays and achieve greater access for underserved markets while
striving to protect the environment and limit airport noise.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, after months of negotiation, we have
reached an agreement and completed work on the Aviation Investment and
[[Page S1260]]
Reform Act of the 21st Century, the so-called AIR-21.
AIR-21 is a fair bill. It reflects a compromise on many of my
concerns about the budgetary treatment of our federal aviation
accounts. It also reflects some of my commitments, one of which is to
increase investment in aviation programs. I am a strong proponent of
safety, and this bill increases funding for safety programs, including
funds for air traffic control modernization. In addition, and very
important to the State of New Mexico, many of the programs within this
bill focus on and support small or rural airports. Finally, each of
these accomplishments are realized while budgetary discipline is
maintained.
In 2001, a total of $12.7 billion is authorized for aviation
programs. This represents an increase in budget resources of $2.7
billion over the 2000 levels. This is extremely generous to the FAA. In
fact, it exceeds the President's 2001 budget request by $1.5 billion.
Over the 2001 through 2003 time period, AIR-21 authorizes nearly $40
billion.
Before I outline the budgetary compromise, I would like to thank all
the Conferees--I especially appreciate the work and support of Senators
Stevens, Gorton, Grassley, Burns, Lott, and Lautenberg on the budget
issue. In addition, I applaud the leadership that Senators Gorton,
Lott, and McCain took on this bill.
One very controversial issue had to do with the correct budgetary
treatment for aviation programs. The provision contained in AIR-21
represents a compromise--both sides had to come together for this deal.
Similar to my offer last fall, AIR-21 guarantees annual funding from
the Airports and Airways Trust Fund equal to the annual receipts
deposited into the Trust Fund plus annual interest credited to the
Trust Fund, as estimated in the President's budget.
Based on the President's FY 2001 Budget, $10.5 billion will be
appropriated from the Trust Fund in 2001 for aviation programs. In
addition, just over $2 billion can be provided from the general fund.
For 2001 through 2003, over $33 billion will be guaranteed from the
trust fund for aviation programs, and more than $6 billion can be
provided from the general fund.
Further, the budget compromise provides that the Trust Funds will
first be available to fund the capital accounts--for airport
improvement program grants and facilities and equipment, including the
air traffic control modernization programs.
Before I finish, let me take one minute to discuss what this bill
doesn't do. AIR-21 does not take the Airports and Airways Trust Fund
off-budget. AIR-21 does not establish a budgetary firewall between
aviation programs and other discretionary programs. Further, it does
not lock-down general fund tax receipts for aviation programs. Finally,
it does not put FAA funding on auto-pilot and take the appropriators
out of the process.
In this way, budgetary discipline has prevailed and appropriate
congressional oversight is maintained. This is good policy for the
American people and the flying public.
Finally, this bill contains essentially, for the next three years, a
Federal mechanism not entirely unlike what has existed since the
Airports and Airways Trust Fund was established in 1972. As we move
into this new century, it may be that this funding mechanism and the
current government structure is not the most efficient or effective way
to provide the investments and services for this industry in the
future.
For example, at least 16 countries have taken action to respond to
the pressures that increasing enplanements have had on a system already
stressed by capacity constraints and increases in and longer delays.
These countries realized something that was made clear in a joint
Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing on February 3--that
increased funding levels will not solve the problems of our outdated
air traffic control system and will not make the system efficient.
Recognizing this, these countries have fundamentally reformed and
restructured their air traffic control systems. Most recently Canada
created a very successful nonprofit, private air traffic control
corporation sustained by user fees. Reformed air traffic control
systems have been successful. They have brought about major gains in
efficiency, reduced flight delays, reductions in operating costs, and
progress in technological upgrades. All of this was accomplished
without compromising safety.
Although this bill provides funding for FAA for three years, it is my
hope that we will continue to seriously evaluate and consider whether
services can more effectively and efficiently be delivered with a
change in structure--so that the gains realized in Canada, Britain,
Germany, Switzerland, and New Zealand can be achieved in the United
States.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Aircraft Safety Act
of 2000 is included in the conference report on the Air Transportation
Improvement Act, H.R. 1000. This measure is needed to safeguard United
States aircraft, workers and passengers from fraudulent, defective, and
counterfeit aircraft parts.
The problem of fraudulent, defective, and counterfeit aircraft parts
has grown dramatically in recent years. Since 1993, the Federal
Aviation Administration received 1,778 reports of suspected unapproved
parts, initiated 298 enforcement actions and issued 143 safety notices
regarding suspect parts. Moreover, the aircraft industry has estimated
that as much as $2 billion in unapproved parts may be sitting on the
shelves of parts distributors, airlines, and repair stations, according
to Congressional testimony.
Because a passenger airplane may contain as many as 6 million parts,
the growth of bogus aircraft parts raises serious public safety
concerns. And even small bogus parts could cause a horrific airplane
tragedy. For instance, on September 8, 1989, a charter flight carrying
55 people from Norway to Germany plunged 22,000 feet into the North Sea
after a tail section fastened with bogus bolts tore loose.
Given this potential threat to public safety, comprehensive laws are
needed to focus directly on the dangers posed by nonconforming,
defective, and counterfeit aircraft parts. But no such laws are on the
books right now. In fact, prosecutors today are forced to use a variety
of general criminal statutes to bring offenders to justice, including
prosecution for mail fraud, wire fraud, false statements and
conspiracy. These general criminal statutes may work well in some
situations in the aircraft industry, but often times they do not.
The Aircraft Safety Act would provide for a single Federal law
designed to crack down on the $45 billion fraudulent, defective, and
counterfeit aircraft parts industry. The Act focuses on stopping bogus
aircraft parts in three ways.
First, our bipartisan bill adds a new section to our criminal laws
defining fraud involving aircraft parts in interstate or foreign
commerce for the first time. The section sets out three new offenses to
outlaw the fraudulent exportation, importation, sale, trade,
installation, or introduction of nonconforming, defective, or
counterfeit aircraft parts. Under the new statute, it is a crime to
falsify or conceal any material fact, to make any fraudulent
representation, or to use any materially false documents or electronic
communication concerning any aircraft part.
Second, our bipartisan bill strengthens the criminal penalties
against aircraft parts pirates. A basic 15-year maximum penalty of
imprisonment and $500,000 maximum fine is set for all offenses created
by the new section. This is needed to end the light sentences that some
aircraft parts counterfeiters have received under the general criminal
statutes. In fact, in a 1994 case, a parts broker pleaded guilty to
trafficking in counterfeit aircraft parts, but only received a seven-
month sentence. Fraud involving aircraft parts is a serious crime that
deserves a serious penalty.
Third, our bipartisan bill provides courts with new tools to prevent
repeat offenders from re-entering the aircraft parts business and to
stop the flow of nonconforming, defective and counterfeit parts in the
marketplace. Under the new statute, courts may order unscrupulous
individuals to divest themselves of interests in businesses used to
perpetuate aircraft fraud. Courts may also, under the new statute,
direct the disposal of stockpiles and inventories of defective and
counterfeit aircraft parts to prevent their subsequent resale or entry
into commerce.
Indeed, Attorney General Reno, Defense Secretary Cohen,
Transportation
[[Page S1261]]
Secretary Slater, and NASA Administrator Goldin wrote to Senator Hatch
and me urging that Congress adopt this legislation. They wrote: ``If
enacted, this bill would give law enforcement a potent weapon in the
fight to protect the safety of the traveling public.'' As a result, the
Aircraft Safety Act is endorsed by the Department of Justice, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Defense, the
Department of Transportation and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration. I ask unanimous consent, that this letter be printed in
the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1)
Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, Senator Hatch, and I offered the Aircraft Safety Act as an
amendment during Senate consideration of S. 82, the Senate companion
bill. Our amendment was accepted by unanimous consent. I thank Senator
McCain, the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senator
Hollings, the Ranking Member of the Committee, for holding the Senate
position in conference with minor revisions and, thus, including our
amendment in the final bill.
I look forward to President Clinton signing the Aircraft Safety Act
of 2000 into law as part of the conference report on the Air
Transportation Improvement Act, H.R. 1000.
Exhibit 1
Office of the Attorney General
Washington, DC
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is proposed legislation, ``The
Aircraft Safety Act of 1999.'' This is part of the
legislation program of the Department of Justice for the
first session of the 106th Congress. This legislation would
safeguard United States aircraft, space vehicles, passengers,
and crewmembers from the dangers posed by the installation of
nonconforming, defective, or counterfeit parts in civil,
public, and military aircraft. During the 105th Congress,
similar legislation earned strong bi-partisan support, as
well as the endorsement of the aviation industry.
The problems associated with fraudulent aircraft and
spacecraft parts have been explored and discussed for several
years. Unfortunately, the problems have increased while the
discussions have continued. Since 1993, federal law
enforcement agencies have secured approximately 500 criminal
indictments for the manufacture, distribution, or
installation or nonconforming parts. During the same period,
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received 1,778
reports or suspected unapproved parts, initiated 298
enforcement actions, and issued 143 safety notices regarding
suspect parts.
To help combat this problem, an interagency Law
Enforcement/FAA working group was established in 1997.
Members include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);
the Office of the Inspector General, Department of
Transportation; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service;
the Office of Special Investigations, Department of the Air
Force; the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Department
of the Navy; the Customs Service, Department of the Treasury;
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the
FAA. The working group quickly identified the need for
federal legislation that targeted the problem of suspect
aircraft and spacecraft parts in a systemic, organized
manner. The enclosed bill is the product of the working
group's efforts.
Not only does the bill prescribe tough new penalties for
trafficking in suspect parts; it also authorizes the Attorney
General, in appropriate cases, to seek civil remedies to stop
offenders from re-entering the business and to direct the
destruction of stockpiles and inventories of suspect parts so
that they do not find their way into legitimate commerce.
Other features of the bill are described in the enclosed
section-by-section analysis.
If enacted, this bill would give law enforcement a potent
weapon in the fight to protect the safety of the traveling
public. Consequently, we urge that you give the bill
favorable consideration.
We would be pleased to answer any questions that you may
have and greatly appreciate your continued support for strong
law enforcement. The Office of Management and Budget has
advised us that, from the perspective of the Administration's
program, there is no objection to the submission of this
legislation proposal, and that its enactment would be in
accord with the problem of the President.
Sincerely,
Janet Reno,
Attorney General.
Rodney E. Slater,
Secretary of Transportation.
William S. Cohen,
Secretary of Defense.
Daniel S. Goldin,
Administrator, NASA.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased with the provisions of
the conference report concerning slots that provide for a two-step
process for the elimination of airline slots, landing and take off
rights at O'Hare, Kennedy, and LaGuardia Airports. Senator Grassley and
I proposed a similar method for the elimination of slots at those three
airports over a year ago.
I am very pleased that we have been able to work closely with
Chairman McCain, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Hollings, and others on
the development of this proposal. I am proud of the support that we
have received from a majority of the attorneys general led by Iowa's
own Attorney General Tom Miller. The U.S. Department of Transportation
deserves special praise for its initiative calling for the elimination
of the anticompetitive slot rule that was the starting point of our
proposal. Chairman Shuster and the House also deserve considerable
praise for their proposal to eliminate the slot rule at these airports
last June.
I want to especially commend Chairman McCain and his staff for
working so closely with us on this issue. He held a field hearing in
Des Moines on April 30 last year to hear firsthand how the current
system effects small and medium-sized cities. He has worked hard to
move forward a proposal which I believe will significantly increase
competition. That was not an easy task.
I also want to especially thank Senator Rockefeller and his staff for
their considerable efforts. Both Senators have shown a keen interest in
the problems unique to smaller cities where adequate service is the
paramount issue.
The phasing out of the slot requirements at these airports is an
important step toward eliminating a major barrier to airline
competition. And, by doing so in this two step process mitigates
against some of the long-term effects of the government-imposed slot
rule. Under current rules, most smaller airlines have, in effect, had a
far more difficult time competing, in part because of the slot rule.
The conference report allows small airlines to expanded access to all
four slot controlled airports to some degree. Not as much as our
original proposal. I would have liked to have seen a longer phase in of
the rule at O'Hare and broader provisions for limited incumbent--that
is newer and usually smaller airlines to provide additional, often
competitive service which will hopefully result in lower fares and
improved service in many markets. The final provisions are not as broad
as Senator Grassley and I initially proposed. But they are a genuine
and substantial improvement. This will help stimulate increased
competition and lower ticket prices. Unfortunately, at LaGuardia,
smaller airlines will not be able to establish service between their
hubs and LaGuardia. The number of flights to O'Hare by newer airlines
is limited. But, the measure provides some real opportunities to newer
often low cost carriers during the phase in period.
The measure allows a carrier to establish new service to O'Hare
without any restriction starting in May so long as the new service is
with aircraft with fewer than 70 seats. Cities like Sioux City in Iowa
and other small and medium sized cities around O'Hare will hopefully be
able to see service to O'Hare, important to many businesses and those
cities economy. And, an airline can also increase the frequency of
service to smaller cities so long as aircraft with fewer than 70 seats
are used. Recently, Burlington IA, was facing the loss of an important
round trip to O'Hare purely because of the slot rule. The Quad Cities
lost service by American Airlines last year because, in part, a limited
number of slots were available. There is some chance that both
decisions may be reversed now that slot restrictions will no longer
impact those decisions.
Timing of service to smaller cities will be more efficient and
carriers will be able to increase their frequency. I am very pleased
that the conferees approved a two for one rule, giving an additional
slot to airlines that upgrade an existing round trip turbojet service
to smaller cities with a regional jet. This provides an incentive to
provide improved service to smaller cities when it makes sense to do
it.
In the final step, after a shorter period than I would like at O'Hare
and a longer period than I think is best at
[[Page S1262]]
the New York Airports, the slot rules would be ended at O'Hare,
Kennedy, and LaGuardia Airports. In both cases I am hopeful that
competitive airlines might get a change to establish a foothold and
smaller cities would have established better service that will continue
in the long term.
Access to affordable air service is essential to efficient commerce
and economic development. Americans have a right to expect it. Airports
are paid for by the traveling public through taxes and by fees charged
by the Federal Government and local airport authorities.
Unfortunately, when deregulation came along in 1978, there was no
effective framework put in place to deal with anticompetitive
practices. Many of these practices have become business as usual. The
result has been increased air fares and decreased service to mid-size
and small communities.
The slot rule, originally put in place because of the limitations of
the air traffic control system has been an effective competition. The
DOT, improperly, I believe, literally gave the right to land and take
off to those who used these airports on January 21, 1986. That
effectively locked in the current users of those airports and locked
out effective competition. It gave away a public resource. Finally,
this bill phases out the slot rule and its anti-competitive effects and
its negative effects on smaller communities.
Lastly, I wanted to say a few words about the budget. Our airways
system has some very real problems. Capacity is limited. There are many
pressure points that create bottlenecks, slowing down traffic. We need
more gates, more runways and taxiways. We need better equipment and
computers as well as additional flight controllers in order to increase
the capacity of the system at a number of points. Long delays at our
nations airports decrease the efficiency of our entire economy. This
bill does provide for considerable increases in funds.
While many very necessary things are costly, some of the things that
can be done with the airways systems do not cost large sums. For
example, if pilots received written comments from flight controllers
rather than verbal commands, the efficiency of the system would improve
and the chance of errors would decrease. But, the culture of the system
is slow to change. This step is now moving toward a multiyear test and
then a multiyear implementation. Changes like this one should be
implemented more quickly.
If we are able to provide the considerable increases in funding the
airways system needs and for which this bill provides, we must see
reasonable levels of funding for domestic discretionary spending over
the coming years or the sums provided in this measure are not likely to
occur.
los angeles tech department of professional aviation
Mr. BREAUX. I wish to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from
South Carolina. The Department of Professional Aviation at Louisiana
Tech is one of the University's most successful departments. With the
expansion of the aviation industry in this nation, the University has
been in the process of expanding the physical infrastructure for the
Department of professional Aviation.
A new $6 million instructional facility has recently been constructed
on the campus and the University will also construct a new flight
operations facility at Ruston Regional Airport. While the State of
Louisiana and the University have financed the cost of building these
new facilities, the University is hopeful that it can receive federal
assistance for the purchase of newer and safer equipment, such as new
single-engine aircraft, a multiengine training aircraft, and a
multiengine turbine simulator.
As we consider this FAA reauthorization bill, I would like to know
whether this is something that would be appropriate for receiving
financial support from the FAA in the form of competitive grant funding
as part of its university research and air safety programs? I hope that
grant funding for this project can be obtained from the FAA.
Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and want to work
with him and the FAA on this project. Let me say to the gentleman that
I will work with him to determine what options may be available to
Louisiana Tech with respect to this matter.
Mr. BREAUX. I appreciate that clarification.
Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks
concerning the FAA reauthorization bill that is currently before the
Senate. Although I will vote in support of the bill, I feel compelled
to express my reservations concerning the mandatory budgetary
provisions that are included in this conference agreement. It should be
understood by all here today that these provisions should not be used
to reduce funding for other essential transportation programs, most
importantly Amtrak.
I realize the importance of passing this legislation that provides
necessary funding for aviation programs over the next three years. This
bill has been a long time coming and I understand it has been carefully
and diligently crafted between the conferees. I believe we need
additional funding for the improvement of our airports and to permit us
to take advantage of the best technologies to improve passenger safety.
However, I don't believe that other transportation programs such as
Amtrak should suffer as a result of the budgetary agreement that has
been included in this bill. I have long been a supporter of Amtrak and
am dedicated to making sure that the Federal Government lives up to its
promise to provide Amtrak with sufficient support to preserve passenger
rail service in this country and enable Amtrak to reach operating self-
sufficiency. Because of this I want to make it clear that I'm voting
for this FAA reauthorization bill with the understanding that the
Majority Leader, Senator Lott, and the Minority Leader, Senator
Daschle, have made assurances that they will protect Amtrak from
budgetary threats that may follow from this legislation.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am very supportive of the conference
agreement provisions which allow exemptions to the current perimeter
rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. I commend Chairman
McCain and leadership 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.
I have been involved and supportive of the effort to open up Reagan
National since the legislation was first introduced. While I would have
preferred to eliminate the perimeter rule altogether or have more slots
available for improved access to the West, the final agreement includes
12 slots. I want to reiterate that these limited exemptions must
benefit citizens throughout the West. Having said that, this same
limited number of exemptions must not be awarded solely or
disproportionately to one carrier or one airport. I expect that the DOT
will ensure that the maximum number of cities benefit from these 12
slots. I am particularly concerned that small and mid-size communities
in the West, especially in the northern tier have improved access
through hubs like Salt Lake City.
These limited exemptions to the perimeter rule from hubs like Salt
Lake City 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, the 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 improve 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
provisions 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
[[Page S1263]]
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 ward
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.
Again, Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman and his
colleagues 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 would like to include in the Record a letter
sent to Chairman McCain on this matter signed by seven western
Senators.
There being no objection, this letter was ordered to be printed in
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.
Robert F. Bennett.
Larry E. Craig.
Conrad Burns.
Craig Thomas.
Mike Crapo.
Max Baucus.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1000, the Air
Transportation Improvement Act. This measure will enhance the safety
and efficiency of our air transportation system, upon which the island
state of Hawaii depends upon so much. I am especially supportive of
title VIII, the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000.
Mr. President, title VIII of H.R. 1000 establishes a comprehensive
regulatory framework for controlling air tour traffic in and near units
of the National Park System. This legislation requires the Federal
Aviation Administration, in cooperation with the National Park Service
and with input from stakeholders, to develop an air tour management
plan, known as ATMP's, for parks currently or potentially affected by
air tour flights.
The ATMP process evaluates routes, altitudes, time restrictions,
limitations on, and other operating parameters to protect sensitive
park resources and to enhance the safety of air tour operations. An
ATMP could prohibit air tours at a park entirely, regulate air tours
within \1/2\ mile of park boundaries, regulate air tour operations that
affect tribal lands, and offer incentives for the adoption of quieter
air technology.
H.R. 1000 also creates an advisory group comprised of representatives
of the FAA, the Park Service, the aviation industry, the environmental
community, and tribes to provide advice, information, and
recommendations on overflight issues.
Through the ATMP process, this bill treats overflights issues on a
park-by-park basis. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, the
legislation establishes a fair and rational mechanism through which
environmental and aviation needs can be addressed in the context of the
unique circumstances that exist at individual national parks.
I am pleased that this procedural approach, in addition to
requirements for meaningful public consultation and a mechanism for
promoting dialog among diverse stakeholders, mirrors key elements of
legislation, the National Parks Airspace Management Act, that I
sponsored in several previous Congresses.
Mr. President, adoption of this bill is essential if we are to
address the detrimental impact of air tour activities on the National
Park System effectively. Air tourism has significantly increased in the
last decade, nowhere more so than over high profile units such as the
Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, and Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes
national parks. A 1994 Park Service study indicated that nearly a
hundred parks experienced adverse park impacts, and that number has
certainly increased since then. Such growth has inevitably conflicted
with the qualities and values that many park units were established to
promote.
Air tour operators often provide important emergency services while
enhancing park access for special populations like the physically
challenged and older Americans. Furthermore, air tour operators offer
an important source of income for local economies, notably tourism-
dependent areas such as Hawaii. However, unregulated overflights have
the potential to harm park ecologies, distress wildlife, and impair
visitor enjoyment of the park experience. Unrestricted air tour
operations also pose a safety hazard to air and ground visitors alike.
It is therefore vital that we develop a clear, consistent national
policy on this issue, one that equitably and rationally prioritizes the
respective interests of the aviation and environmental communities.
Congress and the Administration have struggled to develop such a policy
since enactment of the National Parks Overflights Act of 1987,
Congress' initial, but limited, attempt to address the overflights
issue. Title VIII of H.R. 1000 will finish where the 1987 act left off,
providing the FAA and Park Service with the policy guidance and
procedural mechanisms that are essential to balance the needs of air
tour operators with the imperative to preserve and protect our natural
resources.
Mr. President, the overflights provisions of this bill are the
product of good faith efforts on the part of many groups and
individuals. They include members of the National Parks Overflights
Working Group, whose consensus recommendations from the underpinnings
of this legislation; representatives of air tour and environmental
advocacy organizations such as Helicopter Association International and
the National Parks and Conservation Association; and, officials of the
FAA and Park Service.
However, title VIII is above all the product of the energy and vision
of Senator John McCain. As the author of the 1987 National Parks
Overflights Act, Senator McCain was the first to recognize the adverse
impacts of air tours on national parks, and the first to call for a
national policy to address this problem. Since then, he has employed
his moral authority and legislative skills to advance a constructive
solution on this subject. For his leadership in writing this bill and
for his long advocacy of park overflight issues, Senator McCain
deserves our lasting appreciation.
Mr. President, I am honored to have worked closely with Senator
McCain over the last few years to formulate an overflights bill that
promotes aviation safety, enhances the viability of legitimate air tour
operations, and protects national parks from the most egregious visual
and noise intrusions by air tour helicopters and other aircraft. Left
unchecked, air tour activities can undermine the very qualities and
resources
[[Page S1264]]
that give value to a park. I believe that the pending measure
reasonably and prudently balances these sometimes opposing
considerations, and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. President, I would like to
recognize the staff of the Commerce Committee for their hard work in
putting this legislation together. Ann Choiniere deserves mention for
her day-to-day management of the overflights issue. I would also like
to recognize former members of my own staff, Kerry Taylor, Bob Weir,
Steve Oppermann, and John Tagami, who made important contributions to
this issue. Steve in particular has served as an expert resource whose
tireless, and largely unheralded contribution has shaped the
overflights debate in a major way.
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the conference
report on Federal Aviation Reauthorization. I am pleased that
Congressional negotiators have reached an agreement providing needed
resources and investment for the federal aviation programs, while
maintaining budgetary discipline.
The final agreement maintains the FAA on-budget status but insures
that the money in the Trust Fund will be spent only on aviation
programs. The agreement provides a strong and enforceable guarantee to
ensure that FAA appropriations will be no less than the amounts paid
annually into the Trust Fund. The final agreement also permits the use
of general funds for aviation programs subject to the normal
appropriation process. This combination of Trust Fund and general fund
revenue will help to ensure that much needed construction and
maintenance are carried out as part of our nation's aviation program.
Part of the agreement reached by the conferees includes a provision
which addresses what I believe is a complicated and growing problem--
flight delays and cancellations.
The problem is not that delays and cancellations occur. Airlines must
maintain a tight schedule and that schedule can be greatly affected by
weather or equipment problems.
For travelers, it is a mystery whether these delays and cancellations
are caused by weather, equipment problems, or economic convenience.
Nobody knows. The airlines don't have to tell you. After you finally
reach your destination, there's a good chance that you'll never know
why you were stranded thousands of miles from home or why you missed
that important business meeting.
But flights also are canceled or delayed for economic reasons, not
just mechanical or weather-related problems. And when these economic
delays and cancellations occur, it's usually rural America that gets
the short end of the stick. For instance, if there are 40 people in
Denver waiting for a flight to Billings, MT and another 120 waiting to
go to San Francisco but only one plane is available, the flight to
Billings will be canceled. For the Airlines, its simple. It costs less
to put 30 people up in a hotel and send them on to Billings the next
day than it does to send 120 California-bound people to a hotel.
That is wrong. If flights are canceled for economic or other reasons,
passengers deserve to know the truth. It will also allow them to shop
around for the airline that has the best performance record. When you
only have a couple of flights into a town, as is the case with much of
rural America, cancellations are not just an inconvenience. There is an
economic impact as well.
As my home state of Montana, and our neighbors in North and South
Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho can attest, what business is going to
relocate to an area where flight service is not reliable?
Right now, Montana's economy needs work. Our state ranks near the
bottom of per-capita individual income. Other measures of economic
progress are also pretty low. Reliable air service doesn't guarantee
economic growth. But without it, workers and employers alike have a
difficult burden to bear.
That is why I am pleased that the conference report contains a
version of my amendment to require air carriers to more fully disclose
the cause of delays. The conference report creates a task force that
will modify Airline Service Quality Performance Reports to reflect the
reasons for such delays and cancellations, such as snow storms,
mechanical difficulties or economic reasons, like the one I just
mentioned. This task force will consist of representatives of airline
consumers and air carriers.
Currently, the ten largest airlines have to report monthly to the
Department of Transportation all flights that are more than 15 minutes
late to and from the 29 U.S. airports that make up at least 1 percent
of the nation's total domestic scheduled-service passenger
enplanements. This statistic includes cancellations. My provision will
broaden this reporting so that more passengers will have this
information.
I realize that simply reporting the reason will not stop the practice
of delaying flights or canceling them for economic reasons. Airlines
are a business. An industry. As such, they must make business decisions
that will keep their operation in the black.
But, if airlines have to start reporting the reasons for missed
connections and disrupted lives, consumers can start making their own
choices about which airline to fly. In the end I hope this information
will lead to more dependable service around the country, but especially
in rural America.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the conferees for their hard work
and diligent effort to accommodate the wide range of interests on this
long-awaited legislation.
I take this opportunity to make my position on the FAA conference
agreement perfectly clear. There are three areas which I want to
address. First, I am grateful to the conferees for the inclusion of my
amendment delinking federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds to
Reagan National and Dulles International Airports to the confirmation
of federal appointees to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority
(MWAA). This provision ensures the release of $144 million to allow for
critical safety and modernization plans to go forward. Second, I want
to express my regret that the provision raising the Passenger Facility
Charges (PFC) was included as part of the conference agreement. Lastly,
it was my strong preference that no new additional flights be allowed
into and out of Reagan National Airport. Despite my opposition, it was
the will of the Congress to increase the number of slots at Reagan
National. I will continue to oppose any increase in the number of
flights at Reagan National.
I am pleased with the inclusion of my 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.
As you know, Congress created the MWAA Board of Directors and charged
the Senate with the duty of confirming three federal appointments. In
addition to the requirement that the Senate confirm the appointees, the
statute contains a punitive provision which denies all federal AIP
entitlement grants and the imposition of any new passenger facility
charges (PFC) to Dulles International and Reagan National if the
appointees were not confirmed by October 1, 1997.
As the current law forbids the FAA from approving any AIP entitlement
grants for construction at the two airports and from approving any PFC
applications, these airports have been denied access to over $144
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 nearly three years.
These critically needed funds have halted important construction
projects at both airports. Of the over $144 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.
This amendment would not remove the Congress of the United States,
and particularly the Senate, from its advise-and-consent role. It
allows the
[[Page S1265]]
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.
Mr. President, my amendment is aimed at ensuring that necessary
safety and service improvements proceed at Reagan National and Dulles
and I am pleased with its inclusion.
Secondly, I wanted to express my profound regret that the conference
agreement includes any increase in PFC charges.
The current PFC cap is set at $3 per airport and passengers can
easily pay a total of $12 in taxes on a round trip flight. Already,
airline passengers are subjected to a 7.5% federal excise tax, the
$12.40 per passenger excise tax on air passenger arrivals, as well as
the 4.3 cents per gallon Aviation Trust Fund tax on aviation jet fuel.
Airline passengers can pay as much as 40% of their total ticket cost
just in taxes.
Providing better airport facilities is imperative but raising PFCs in
order to guarantee a revenue stream for aviation is like flying a jet
plane with less than adequate destination fuel. You'll get off the
ground but it will come at great cost.
Lastly, the conference agreement includes a provision that will allow
for an increase of 12 flights at Reagan National Airport. The original
Senate language included an unacceptable and astonishing number of 48
takeoffs and landings. I fought very hard to stem the tide as I had
innumerable environmental, clean-air and local control concerns and am
appreciative the conferees agreed to scale back the number of
additional slots to a less egregious number. In crafting this
agreement, I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate not to open
future discussion on this matter without appropriate deference being
made to my constituents in Virginia.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to
highlight an important provision in the Federal Aviation Administration
reauthorization conference report which provides more equitable
treatment for families of passengers involved in international aviation
disasters.
The devastating crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 on July 17,
1996 took the lives of 230 individuals. Perhaps the community hardest
hit by this tragedy was Montoursville, PA, which lost 16 students and 5
adult chaperones who were participating in a long-awaited Montoursville
High School French Club trip to France.
Last Congress it was brought to my attention by constituents,
including parents of the Montoursville children lost on TWA 800, that
their ability to seek redress in court was hampered by a 1920 shipping
law known as the Death on the High Seas Act, which was originally
intended to apply to the widows of seafarers, not the relatives of
jumbo-jet passengers who have perished during international air travel.
The Death on the High Seas Act states that where the death of a
person is caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring more
than one marine league--three miles--from U.S. shores, a personal
representative of a decedent can only sue for pecuniary loss sustained
by the decedent's wife, child, husband, parent, or dependent relative.
Therefore, the families of the victims of aviation accidents, such as
TWA 800, Swissair 111 and EgyptAir 990, all of which occurred more than
three miles offshore, were precluded from recovering non-pecuniary
damages such as loss of society or punitive damages, no matter how
great the wrongful act or neglect by an airline or airplane
manufacturer.
In the 105th Congress Representative McDade and I introduced
legislation to remove the application of the Death on the High Seas Act
from aviation incidents. Our legislation was not enacted into law, and
in the 106th Congress, Representative Sherwood and I again reintroduced
this measure. The House bill, H.R. 603, passed by an overwhelming
margin and was incorporated into the House FAA reauthorization bill.
The Senate version of the FAA bill included a provision allowing
victims' families to recover non-pecuniary damages, but with a cap of
$750,000, which I opposed.
On October 18, 1999, I was successful in convincing 15 of my
colleagues to join me in a letter to Chairman McCain urging the Senate
to accept the House provision in conference. Representative Sherwood
and I also worked closely with Chairman Shuster and his staff to press
our case before the conferees.
I am very pleased that the final provision agreed upon in the FAA
reauthorization conference report accomplishes the primary goal of our
free-standing legislation by extending the territorial seas of the
United States from three to twelve miles for the purpose of aviation
accidents after July 16, 1996. This effectively removes TWA 800--which
crashed roughly ten miles offshore--from coverage under the Death on
the High Seas Act. In addition, while the Death on the High Seas Act
will still apply to other aviation accidents which occurred beyond
twelve miles, such as Swissair 111 and EgyptAir 990, non-pecuniary
damages will now be recoverable for the first time.
Our success in this matter would not have been possible without the
work of many, and I would particularly like to recognize the efforts of
Hans Ephraimson-Abt, Frank Carven and Will and Kathy Rogers, all of
whom have lost loved ones as a result of tragedy in international air
travel. These individuals first brought this issue to my attention and
served as able advocates. I would also like to thank Dan Renberg and
Mark Carmel of my staff, who worked tirelessly on behalf of all the
victims' families. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues,
Chairman Shuster, Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings and Senator Gorton
for working with Representative Sherwood and myself to address this
matter.
This issue is not about large damage awards. It is about ensuring
access to justice and clarifying the rights of families of victims of
plane crashes. While nothing can ever completely take away the pain and
grief felt by those who lost loved ones in these tragedies, I am
hopeful that the victims' families are comforted with the knowledge
that some measure of fairness has been restored and the American civil
justice system is now more accessible.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the importance of
today's passage of H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment
and Reform Act for the 21st Century. Today is a great day for rural
America's air passengers. This legislation will bring much needed air
service to under served communities throughout the Nation. It will also
grant billions of dollars in federal funds to our Nation's airports for
upgrades, through the Airport Improvements Program (AIP).
Senator Slade Gorton, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce,
Subcommittee on Aviation, is to be commended for his superb leadership
on this complex and contentious measure. My friend and colleague from
the State of Washington proved himself pivotal earlier during floor
consideration of the Senate bill and during the conference with the
other body on this bill. Together with Chairman Domenici, Chairman
Stevens, and Senator Hollings, their joint efforts moved this bill to
today's passage.
Rural Americans are the biggest winners with the passage of H.R.
1000. Citizens of small and under served communities can look forward
to the day when they no longer have to travel hundreds of miles and
several hours to board a plane. This legislation provides incentives to
domestic air carriers and their affiliates to reach out to these people
and serve them conveniently near their homes. Many Americans will be
able to travel a reasonable distance to gain access to our Nation's
skies and, from there, anywhere they wish to go.
Mr. President, I also applaud the hard work of Senator Frist of
Tennessee, Senator Abraham of Michigan, and Senator Ashcroft of
Missouri, all members of the Senate Commerce Committee. Their
dedication to the flying public helped move the FAA conference when
agreements on contentious aviation issues were not met. They understand
the delays, inconvenience, and headache their constituents must endure
when flying--they get it. I firmly believe that without the engagement
of these three gentlemen the Senate would not be voting on H.R. 1000
[[Page S1266]]
today. The people of Tennessee, Michigan, and Missouri should be
extremely proud of their representation in Washington.
The major policy changes in H.R. 1000 led to hard fought, but honest
disagreements. I have enormous respect for the efforts of Chairmen
Domenici, Stevens, and Shuster, as well as House Ranking Member
Oberstar, as they diligently advocated for their committees'
jurisdictions. One thing was abundantly clear during the FAA
conference--my colleagues recognized our Nation's aviation needs and
made significant commitments to increase aviation funding. This honest
debate and willingness to work together to achieve common goals is what
makes it exciting to serve in Washington.
Mr. President, I am extremely proud of my colleagues. Since 1995, the
Republican majority has made infrastructure a top legislative priority.
Two years ago, my friends in the House and Senate successfully led an
effort to boost the amount of federal funding for highway construction
and improvements. History will reflect that this Congress also deeply
cared about our Nation's infrastructure. One of the main components of
H.R. 1000 directs the expense of all Airports and Airways Trust Fund
revenue and interest on aviation needs. Trust Fund revenue and interest
means that America's airports will get the improvements they
desperately need to take our aviation infrastructure into the 21st
Century.
Mr. President, no legislative initiation is ever possible without the
dedicated efforts of staff, and I want to take a moment to identify
those who worked hard to get FAA legislation through conference and to
the Senate for approval.
From the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation:
Marti Allbright; Lloyd Ator; Mark Buse; Ann Choiniere; Julia Kraus;
Michael Reynolds; Scott Verstandig; and Sam Whitehorn.
From the Senate Committee on the Budget: Beth Felder; Bill Hoagland;
Mary Naylor; Barry Strumpf; and Cheryle Tucker.
From the Senate Committee on Appropriations: Wally Burnett; Paul
Doerrer; Peter Rogoff; and Mitch Warren.
The following staff also participated on behalf of their Senators:
Chrystn Alston; Kerry Ates; Rich Bender; David Broome; Bob Carey; Steve
Browning; Jeanne Bumpus; John Conrad; Margaret Cummisky; Brett Hale;
Keith Hennessey; Ann Loomis; Randal Popelka; Mitch Rose; Lisa
Rosenberg; Greg Rothchild; Jim Sartucci; Lori Sharpe; Brad Van Dam; and
Andy Vermilye.
Mr. President, these individuals worked very hard on H.R. 1000, and
the Senate owes them a debt of gratitude for their dedicated service to
this country.
Mr. President, our Nation's small communities are a step closer to
receiving long-sought air service. Also, America's airports will be
enhanced. This is good for all Americans.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I think we are quite close to the end of
this debate. I wish to make only a few remarks, primarily in response
to those of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, who spoke in
opposition.
One reason this bill has taken so long to come before the Senate in
the final conference report was an objection I shared with the chairman
of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and the majority leader to
creating a new entitlement.
I do not believe, in the ultimate analysis, this bill does create a
new entitlement. It does say that all of the money collected by the
aviation passenger tax that has long been statutorily earmarked toward
aircraft, airport, and airline purposes ought to be spent on that
purpose. It does effectively guarantee that trust fund will be spent
for the purposes it was created. That, it seems to me, is a good thing
rather than a bad thing.
The Senator from New Jersey is correct in saying we will be required
in the future, as I think we ought to be, to appropriate general fund
money for aircraft purposes in the broadest sense. I suppose one can
call that a subsidy to air travel.
The Senator speaks of Amtrak. My figures indicate that the roughly 20
million Amtrak passengers each year are subsidized by the general
taxpayer to the extent of $28 per passenger per trip. Even if one
assumed this bill would essentially require spending $2.5 million a
year on the Federal Aviation Administration in general fund moneys over
and above the trust fund, and even if we attributed every one of those
dollars directly to the passengers of commercial aircraft, which of
course we should not, that would be roughly $4 a passenger, or one-
seventh the amount of subsidy to rail passengers.
The bottom line is that the Appropriations Committee still retains
authority to shift funds among various capital accounts that are within
the trust fund and still allow for a direct appropriation of whatever
amount the Senate desires for general fund purposes. It will make it
more difficult not to come up to authorized levels, but it does not
make it impossible.
We all agree that the needs of our air transportation system are
emergent and are large. This bill represents a major step forward to
funding an adequate amount and will still allow judgments to be made
between various forms of transportation and other needs of the country
in an appropriate fashion.
This is a good bill, and I believe it ought to be passed with an
overwhelmingly affirmative vote.
Has a rollcall vote been ordered on final passage?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GORTON. I think it appropriate to ask for 2 minutes prior to the
vote at 5 p.m. for summary conclusions on the bill, 1 minute on each
side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORTON. How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington State has 2
minutes remaining; the Senator from West Virginia has 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. GORTON. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I only make a couple of comments. I
indicated this is the largest increase in aviation spending in history.
I did that out of a sense of pride because of the urgency of the
situation we face. This is not money which is being spent for the sake
of money; it is money being spent so we will not walk into the disaster
we are now headed towards.
I remind my colleagues--the delays, the near misses, the pressure,
the outdated equipment, the insufficient time for preparation at work,
salaries, money for various purposes--we cannot take an air traffic
control system or modernize an FAA in the way they want to do it, we
cannot pay the many thousands of people who work to keep it safe in
this country, without spending money.
It has been said a number of times that the number of people who will
be flying in this country will be a billion in less than 10 years.
Cargo traffic on a worldwide basis, as well as in our country, will
increase exponentially. The number of planes flying in the skies will
increase by at least 50 percent in less than 10 years. Think about
that. We have the same number of runways; we have 20- to 30-year-old
computers trying to figure out what altitudes the planes are flying and
figure out how to separate them; we look at all the different tracking
systems we have in our aviation system and we would be embarrassed to
have that equipment in our own Senate offices. It is a crisis.
Therefore, it is a priority. We are talking about the saving of
American lives and lives across the world. Money must be spent.
It is not that other transportation is any less important. This
Senator benefits enormously from the services of Amtrak. An airplane
crash does something to the Nation's psychology. It can take 2 or 3
years for an airline to recover from an instant which costs lives. The
economic impact and, most importantly, the human impact and the
pressure on people who run the
[[Page S1267]]
aviation system to prevent these things from happening, to have safe
skies, is absolutely overwhelming. It is something which is not
recognized sufficiently by the American people and which we are,
happily, recognizing in this bill.
The Secretary of the Department of Transportation is happy with this
bill and will recommend to the President that he sign it. Jane Garvey,
the FAA Administrator--somebody in whom I have an enormous amount of
confidence, who has run Boston's airport by herself and knows the
situation cold--is very much in support of this.
After all, we have not taken anything off budget. The aviation trust
fund is still on budget. We have not built any firewalls. We have acted
in a responsible fashion. However, we have applied more money because
this is a particularly special crisis which, thank heavens, after a
number of years, Congress has finally recognized.
In my earlier remarks, I failed to mention Bud Shuster in the House,
the chairman of their committee, and Jim Oberstar, dear friends of many
years. What they and their colleagues have done is extraordinary. I
think we have a superb bill. It is not a perfect bill, but it is, as in
all things, the result of compromise. I think, generally speaking, we
have a bill of which to be extremely proud. I know the Senator from
West Virginia believes that very strongly.
Unless there are others who wish to speak, I hope our colleagues will
vote to pass this conference report when the time comes this afternoon.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe that uses the time of all the
people who wish to speak on the conference report. I ask unanimous
consent debate, other than the 2 minutes at 5 p.m., be concluded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak in
morning business for 12 minutes or thereabouts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________