[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 25 (Wednesday, March 8, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1294-S1295]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       THE FAA CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes at 
this time to congratulate the majority leader, Chairman John McCain, 
Senator Slade Gorton, Representative Bud Shuster, and everyone in 
Congress who has worked so hard to produce a conference report on the 
FAA. Many of my colleagues have discussed the importance of this bill 
to our national aviation infrastructure, so I will not repeat now their 
comments. It is my purpose to remark to the Senate how important this 
bill is to my State of Alaska.
  Mr. President, 75 percent of Alaska's communities are accessible only 
by air. We have enormous needs and, frankly, those needs have often 
taken a back seat to major metropolitan areas of the lower 48. It is my 
hope this bill will address some of those inequities, and I 
congratulate my Congressman, Don Young, for his hard work on this bill.
  We have 71 unlighted airports in Alaska. In an area where we spend 
half of our year in darkness, those airports are unlighted. One hundred 
and fifty airports in my State are less than 3,300 feet in length. More 
than half of our rural airports are without minimal passenger shelters. 
You reach the airport, get off the airplane, and there is literally 
nothing there. One hundred and seventy-six public use airports do not 
have basic instrument approach capability, and 194 locations in Alaska 
lack adequate communication, navigation, and surveillance.
  This bill does not address all of those needs, and I hope to work 
with the Members of the House and Senate on the Appropriations 
Committee to fill a few of those gaps. This is a classic case in which 
some congressional earmarking is appropriate because the national 
administration too often has

[[Page S1295]]

written off Alaska as a priority in matters relating to aviation.
  I am pleased my colleagues agreed with my proposal to increase the 
percentage of airport improvement program funds that flow to airports 
engaged in cargo operations. This modification will bring additional 
moneys, almost $6 million, to the Anchorage International Airport, 
which is now the busiest cargo airport in this Nation--Anchorage, AK.
  It is also encouraging to see the committee once again included my 
language to allow the Administrator of the FAA to modify regulations to 
take into account special circumstances in Alaska. Sometimes rules that 
appear to make sense in the lower 48 simply do not work in our north 
country. That is why the conference agreed to exempt Alaska from 
provisions that bar new landfills within 6 miles of an airport. This 
provision is literally unworkable in Alaska where most of our remote 
villages are surrounded by Federal refuges and, despite repeated 
efforts, we are not even allowed to build a road a mile long because of 
intervention of an alphabet soup type of Federal agency domination.
  That may sound strong, but it is literally true.
  Many of you may have heard I was concerned about a provision in the 
budget treatment section of the final compromise package on the FAA. 
That is true, and I would like to briefly discuss it.
  The practical effect of the provision that the House ultimately 
agreed to delete from this bill would have been to bar any Senate bill 
or conference report or budget resolution from being considered that 
did not slavishly adhere to the legislative structure or levels of 
funding in this bill. Such a provision amounted to an ultimatum to the 
Senate that presented an unwarranted intrusion into the legislative 
process. The provision would have given a small number of House Members 
the ability to completely derail an appropriations conference report, 
agreed to by the House and the Senate, on completely procedural 
grounds.
  This provision could have had severe and damaging unintended 
consequences. For example, the House insistence on the across-the-board 
cuts in last year's wrapup bill would have triggered that provision, 
and the omnibus bill would not have been in order on the floor of the 
House.
  The minority party in the House could have used this provision to 
oppose a transportation appropriations conference report, a 
supplemental conference report, or an omnibus bill if the guaranteed 
levels or program structures were modified in any fashion, pursuant to 
the waiver provisions contained in the law, even if such modification 
were made at the request of the leadership or of the authorization 
committees.
  The bottom line when considering this particular provision is that it 
is hard to predict the future. Budget constraints, shifting 
congressional priorities, administration priorities, and other aviation 
issues that emerge after enactment of a reauthorization bill often 
require modification of other legislative provisions. The (C)(3) 
provision that has been deleted failed to provide for such exigencies, 
and I am pleased the conferees have deleted it. I hope we will not face 
that proposal again.
  Beyond that, the budget treatment in the FAA reauthorization bill is 
challenging for the Appropriations and Budget Committees, but it is 
manageable. It will necessitate that the Senate and the House make some 
choices between discretionary priorities, transportation, and other 
priorities during the consideration of the budget and the funding bills 
for the year 2001. Above all, it will require the House and the Senate 
to agree to a budget at levels that will enable us to keep the mandates 
of the FAA reauthorization bill.
  This bill adds between $2.1 and $2.7 billion in aviation spending 
above the fiscal year 2000 levels. I support that. I support spending 
as much on aviation as we can afford. I am not unmindful of the 
pressure that this and other guaranteed spending will place on the 
budget, the Budget Committee, and the appropriations bills. We will 
have to all work together on these matters.
  Once again, I thank the members of the conference and my staff, 
including Steve Cortese, Wally Burnett, Paul Doerrer, Mitch Rose, and 
my legislative fellow Dan Elwell, for all of their work on this measure 
over the past year.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 
approximately 12 minutes on the Paez nomination. I don't know whether 
there is any agreement on that. Otherwise, I will do it in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________