[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 71 (Tuesday, June 4, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4934-S4938]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 3557

             (Purpose: To strike section 1004 of the bill)

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, Senator Stevens and I have an amendment to 
strike section 1004 of the bill. This section serves to cap the amount 
of loan guarantees that would be available to the Nation's airlines for 
the duration of the current fiscal year. The section also caps the 
total amount of loan guarantees available through the life of the 
program. These loan guarantees were first authorized in Public Law 107-
42, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, which 
was enacted to bail out the airlines just 11 days after the tragedies 
of September 11. The committee included the provision capping the 
volume of available loan guarantees for the sole reason of reducing the 
overall cost of the bill as determined by the Congressional Budget 
Office.
  The CBO estimates that section 1004 of the bill serves to lower the 
total cost of the bill in fiscal year 2002 by $393 million. A similar 
provision was included in the House version of the supplemental. There 
has been a lot of concern voiced by various Senators, to me and to 
Senator Stevens and especially Senator Hollings, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce.

  And the concern has been that the effect of this provision would 
especially be heavy on US Airways and other airlines. But that 
particular airline is hopeful it might receive a Federal loan guarantee 
in the current fiscal year. There may be reason to question whether any 
sizable new loan guarantees will be executed by the stabilization board 
within the current fiscal year, but it is not the desire or intent of 
the committee to work a hardship on US Airways or any other airline. US 
Airways is the principal air carrier serving my own State.
  Madam President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be 
read.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3557:
       Strike section 1004 of the bill.

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, that should read: the amendment as 
proposed by Mr. Byrd, on behalf of himself and Mr. Stevens.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Record will so reflect.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I am in support of the amendment 
offered by Senator Byrd for himself and for me. I ask that it be 
adopted. I understand the Senator from Arizona would like a rollcall 
vote. I have no objection to that. We join him in that request.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to amendment No. 3557.

[[Page S4935]]

  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time 
for the vote be set by the majority leader in consultation with the 
Republican leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Madam President, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the Senator from West Virginia. I thank him and Senator 
Stevens for moving forward quickly with the amendment to alleviate any 
question in the minds of the airline industry, but in particular, as 
Senator Byrd alluded, US Airways and US Airways employees. Over the 
last week, having been in my State of Pennsylvania, I have heard 
everywhere I go, traveling through the airports, the grave concern that 
employees of US Airways have with respect to this loan fund and the 
availability of the loan fund resources to help this company get 
through what is a very treacherous time in the company's history, 
treacherous in terms of trying to negotiate a very difficult 
environment for the airline industry generally but a much more 
complicated one for US Airways as a result of probably being more 
impacted by the events of 9/11 than any other airline in the country.
  I can tell you, after the events, they had no intention of ever 
having to access this fund. They were hoping they would survive on $1 
billion in cash, and they have burned through most of that as a result 
of the losses they have suffered over the past 7 or 8 months. Now under 
new leadership, they have a new vision for restructuring this company 
to try to make a go of it as a more efficient carrier.
  They will need, I have been told, these resources, these loans, and 
their application will probably be forthcoming within the next weeks or 
months. So this original provision in this bill which would have made 
this money unavailable until October 1 would have been certain death 
for this company. They have simply run out of money and no bank would 
have lent them the money. They are in the process now of negotiating 
with their employees. I can tell you, I have heard from employees--the 
folks on the lines, pilots, folks at the reservation desks, and the 
flight attendants--that the negotiations are vigorous, but there is a 
new spirit in the airline, and I am very excited about it. We have over 
25,000 employees of US Airways in Pennsylvania. It is a big deal in 
Pennsylvania.

  This amendment allows the program to continue. It will not remove 
money from the program. What it does not do is guarantee that US Air 
will get the loan guarantees. What it does is say that the program is 
still going to be here, and US Airways would be able to apply. But 
there is still the question of whether there will be sufficient 
reorganization of the airline so they can then go to the board and get 
this kind of loan.
  In the Senate, we have included the first step. I hope that provision 
will not be in the conference report. I know Senators Byrd and Stevens 
will work hard to make sure that occurs. I thank them for this 
amendment. I certainly fully support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate the statement of the Senator 
from Pennsylvania. We in Nevada, in Arizona, and in the Western United 
States have experience with this loan fund. We had an airline that had 
been going since the late 1950s. Because of what happened on September 
11--they had a large line of credit that was available. When September 
11 hit, it was gone. They could not recoup in time to stay in business 
had it not been for this loan program.
  I believe America West is the only airline that has received the 
actual approval of a loan. It has been lifesaving to the airline. The 
airline is now thriving and doing well, and they established direct 
flights from Washington National to Phoenix and Las Vegas. They are 
doing very well.
  I appreciate the statement of the Senator from Pennsylvania, and I am 
especially grateful to the managers of this bill for making this the 
first amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent the vote on the pending amendment occur at 
2:15 p.m. today and that no amendments to the language proposed to be 
stricken be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I find myself in support of the Byrd 
amendment. The reason I wanted a recorded vote is because we need to 
send a strong signal to the other body, when this bill goes to 
conference, that we cannot destroy the Aviation Loan Guarantee Program, 
which would have been the effect of this legislation.
  The question, of course, is why would the appropriators again take it 
upon themselves to make a fundamental policy change, which was recently 
authorized by a 98-to-0 vote in this body? The arrogance of the 
Appropriations Committee almost overwhelms me. This legislation was 
about to be emasculated--the Aviation Loan Guarantee Program--without a 
hearing before the Appropriations Committee that I know of, without any 
discussion on the floor of this body; it was going to be destroyed.
  The reason, obviously, we know--I will state the obvious--the Byrd 
amendment is now going to pass is because of the incredible outcry all 
over the country from employees, management, and from those who 
understand the absolute criticality of the aviation industry in this 
Nation.
  So I hope this amendment is passed by 100 to 0. But how they could 
take it upon themselves to fundamentally alter and micromanage the 
Aviation Loan Guarantee Program passed just 8 months ago, of course, 
without any consultation with the committee of jurisdiction over this 
program and which was responsible for the bill we passed just a few 
months ago creating the Aviation Loan Guarantee Program.
  Madam President, let me explain this program. The overarching purpose 
behind the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act was to 
address the financial condition of the airline industry. The tragic 
events that occurred on September 11, 2001, had far-reaching effects on 
the airline industry. Commercial air carriers were used as weapons of 
mass destruction with devastating results. The resulting Federal-
Government-ordered shutdown of the air transportation system resulted 
in a total loss of revenue for the airline industry for several days. 
This loss of revenue, through no fault of the airlines, mandated an 
appropriate shutdown of the airline industry and the resulting slowdown 
in air travel and issues regarding potential liability all lead to 
placing the airline industry in an extremely precarious financial 
situation.
  As a result, Congress acted quickly--through the authorizing 
committee, I might add--to stabilize the airline industry by setting 
forth assistance on three fronts. It offered a cash infusion to 
reimburse the airlines for losses ensuing from the Government shutdown 
of the airways. It offered loan guarantees to allow those carriers that 
lost the ability to obtain financing due to a more conservative lending 
market after the terrorist attacks to obtain Government-guaranteed 
loans. It offered a limitation on liability to address the problem 
faced by several airlines that were unable to obtain financing due to 
their perceived potential liability.
  The action taken by Congress was to ensure that all airlines--I 
emphasize ``all airlines''--were given an equal opportunity to return 
to their financial positions prior to September 11, 2001. In the 
interest of full disclosure, some of the airlines, prior to September 
11, 2001, were not in good shape. We all recognize that. But Congress 
believed it needed to act in an equitable manner to try to prevent the 
human catastrophe from becoming a severe economic one that could alter 
the Nation's transportation system, at a minimum.

  It was never our purpose, and still is not, to provide a taxpayer-
funded bailout for airlines that were doomed to fail even before the 
events of September 11. However, it was also not our

[[Page S4936]]

intention for the Federal Government to become the architect of a new 
aviation economy, effectively picking winners and losers and, in doing 
so, contributing to the further consolidation of the airline industry.
  Yet here we were with the appropriators attempting to circumvent the 
work of the authorizing committee and fundamentally altering the act's 
loan guarantee program because, after all, they know best.
  Under section 1004 of the supplemental measure, the Aviation Loan 
Guarantee Program would be limited to $429 million for this fiscal 
year. Interestingly, the only loan guarantee approved this year was for 
$429 million. In other words, no further loan guarantees can be issued 
this year, according to the appropriators' directive. There apparently 
is some report language that is intended to allow the board to continue 
to review and approve applications, but it would not be able to issue 
Federal credit instruments. We are told by the financial markets and 
the airlines this language may not deal with the appropriate issue. If 
the loan guarantees cannot actually be issued, then the financial 
markets may not be willing to extend credit.
  The bill then reduces the loan program from $10 billion to $4 
billion--a whopping 60-percent reduction by a stroke of the 
appropriators' pen. You might say $4 billion is a lot of money, and it 
is a lot of money; but my understanding is that there is grave concern 
in the industry that if the number of carriers that are expected to 
apply do so, a $4 billion level would not be sufficient and, in turn, 
there would be significant consequences throughout the airline 
industry.
  Let me be very clear. I do not support any particular airline's 
application under this program. It is the stabilization board's 
discretion to determine if a particular airline is eligible. But there 
are numerous applications currently pending, and if their applications 
are approved, they will need the loan guarantees this year.
  Let me note that the competition in the aviation industry has always 
been precarious. Since deregulation, national and regional competitive 
low-cost carriers have sprung up and are considered the driving force 
behind the benefits of airline deregulation. While some have failed, 
the entry of low fare competition has been shown to reduce fares and 
enhance service for the flying public. Any attempt by the Federal 
Government to predetermine which airline should survive and which 
should not would upset this precarious balance and could result in 
detrimental results for the traveling public.
  Effectively halting this program for the year and cutting it by 60 
percent is fundamentally wrong and would have had devastating 
consequences. We would be changing the rules midstream and impacting 
fundamental business decisions that companies made based on the 
existing rules. Let me say that this was avoidable. Any amount of due 
diligence or communication with the authorizing committee, or the 
stabilization board, would have alerted the appropriators that their 
actions could significantly alter the playing field in the airline 
industry.
  I believe in the free market perhaps even more so than others, but 
the events of September 11 were not foreseeable. We made a commitment 
to the airline industry that we would address their needs collectively, 
not piecemeal. Yet here we are, 8 months later, pulling the rug out 
from under them, and the financial markets are reacting and pulling 
back.
  This provision, I am sure, will be taken out with a vote that will 
take place this afternoon. But if airlines had gone under and Members 
lost service or, more importantly, low-cost competition, I do not think 
we could complain about the lost jobs in the economy or high airline 
fares because any Members supporting this provision would only have 
themselves to blame.
  I want to speak about the bill for the fiscal year 2002. Before the 
Memorial Day recess, I stated my strong opposition to moving to 
consideration of this supplemental appropriations bill without first 
providing sufficient time for a thorough review of its provisions to 
ensure that we are acting in a responsible manner.
  The bill before us today contains $31 billion in Federal spending. 
That is about $1.6 billion more than the House bill and $4.1 billion 
over the President's budget request. There is at least $3.1 billion in 
new spending above the President's request that is not paid for and 
will only add to our mounting deficits.
  The Government is already running a deficit of $66.5 billion for the 
first 7 months of the budget year, a reversal from the $165 billion 
surplus recorded for the same period a year ago. It does not take an 
economist to conclude that at the rate we are increasing spending, we 
will not only post a sizable deficit for the entire fiscal year but in 
the years to follow. The budget shortfall could total $100 billion or 
more, perhaps even approaching $150 billion.
  The bulk of this bill does contain provisions that have been 
designated as emergencies in response to the terrorist attacks of 
September 11, and I fully support them, but the story does not end 
there.
  Can anyone say with a straight face that everything in this bill, 
which is officially titled ``The 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act 
for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the 
United States,'' is directly related to this bill's stated purpose? For 
example, this bill provides $2 million in emergency funding for the 
planning and design of an alcohol collection storage facility for the 
Smithsonian; $10 million in emergency assistance for the State of Texas 
to provide assistance to agricultural producers with farming or 
ranching operations along the Rio Grande for economic losses; $6.5 
million in emergency assistance for flood control of the Mississippi 
River and tributaries: Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
  Regretfully, nonemergency porkbarrel spending continues unabated. For 
example, this bill contains $2.5 million provided in one of last year's 
appropriations bills dedicated for a cooperative agreement with the 
National Defense Center of Excellence for Research in Ocean Services to 
conduct coral mapping--coral mapping--in the waters of the Hawaiian 
Islands and the surrounding exclusive economic zone; $10 million for 
flood recovery efforts due to flooding in southern West Virginia, 
eastern Kentucky, and southwestern Virginia; of the $100 million for 
watershed and flood prevention operations, $73 million is for recovery 
activities related to disasters occurring during fiscal year 2002, up 
to and including flooding in Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Virginia, 
and West Virginia; and $50 million for building and facilities 
construction of the National Animal Disease Laboratory at Ames, IA. Let 
me repeat that one: $50 million for building and facilities 
construction of the National Animal Disease Laboratory naturally 
designated at Ames, IA.

  The surpluses we relied on last year have largely disappeared due to 
the recession, the war on terrorism, and the tax cuts enacted last 
year.
  It is unfortunate that in a time of war, my colleagues cannot curb 
their appetite for nonemergency, wasteful spending. At this moment, the 
national interest must prevail over State or local parochial concerns, 
but as the farm bill attests, this message has not gotten through to 
Congress.
  Let there be no doubt that this will be a long war. Therefore, we 
should not frivolously spend today as if there is no tomorrow. When 
tomorrow comes, we must have the fiscal resources to fight this war to 
victory.
  As a member of an authorizing committee, I have several concerns 
about this bill. One is the Aviation Loan Guarantee Program, which I 
have previously discussed.
  The bill takes $100 million out of the airport and airway trust fund 
to reimburse airports for costs associated with new security 
requirements imposed on or after September 11. There was no statutory 
authorization to use the trust fund for such purposes, and this funding 
was not requested by the President.
  Again, without authorization, we will shift $100 million out of the 
airport and airway trust fund to reimburse airports for costs 
associated with new security requirements imposed on or after September 
11.
  The reason there is no statutory authorization for this is that the 
airports are planning to use this money and have already probably 
designated a lot of it for airport improvements.

[[Page S4937]]

  The bill also provides $15 million to rehabilitate and extend the 
service life of the FAA's inventory of certain long-range radars. 
Although the Appropriations Committee asserts this appropriation is in 
response to a Department of Defense request, this funding has not been 
requested by the President and should not be included in this bill.
  Continued funding for these radars, which were scheduled to be 
decommissioned this year, is a significant policy change. It should be 
examined by the agency of jurisdiction and the FAA before funding is 
allocated.
  In the aftermath of September 11, Congress made a commitment to the 
airline industry that we would address their needs collectively, not 
piecemeal, as I described.
  This bill includes several other items that are more appropriately 
within the Senate Commerce Committee's jurisdiction. However, the 
relationship between funding these items and fighting the war on 
terrorism is also questionable.
  Under the Fisheries Finance Program account, this bill provides $5 
million for individual quota fishing loans and $19 million for 
traditional loans under the Direct Loan Program authorized by the 
Merchant Marine Act of 1926. These authorizations were not even 
considered by the Commerce Committee. With some limited exceptions, 
individual quota programs are not allowed under current law. Therefore, 
this funding will only help fisheries where a quota program already 
exists, such as a halibut fishery in Alaska.
  If someone can explain to me how fishing loans have anything to do 
with responding to the terrorist attacks on our Nation, as this bill 
suggests, please do so. I eagerly await the explanation.
  In fact, there is a moratorium on any new quota program being put in 
place before October 1. So there is not even a need for this 
authorizing provision. While this was included in the President's 
request, further investigation has shown that this provision is not 
needed.
  This bill also amends the Oceans Act of 2000 to extend the deadline 
of the ocean commission's report by an additional 11 months. The Oceans 
Act was drafted by the Commerce Committee, and any amendments to it 
should have originated there. But, again, the committee was not even 
consulted.
  Furthermore, this bill gives $55 million to Amtrak for ``emergency 
expenses.'' Of that amount, $23 million is earmarked for fleet 
overhauls and repairs, $20 million is earmarked for repairs of railcars 
damaged in a series of recent accidents, and $12 million is earmarked 
to cover security costs incurred by Amtrak since September 11. None of 
this funding was requested by the administration.
  Moreover, while the Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 1550, the 
Rail Security Act of 2001, that measure has yet to be considered by the 
full Senate. That bill is intended to address Amtrak security and 
emergency tunnel life safety needs.
  While funding for legitimate safety and security expenditures is 
appropriate, funding for fleet overhauls and repairs is not emergency 
funding. In fact, most of this funding, $43 million of the $55 million, 
is included in Amtrak's grant request for the next fiscal year, so the 
funding is obviously not an emergency that should be addressed as part 
of this bill.
  Overhauls of passenger equipment are a standard part of Amtrak's 
maintenance program. In fact, in Amtrak's grant request to Congress for 
fiscal year 2003, Amtrak describes overhauls as ``a basic level of 
maintenance to its fleet to ensure that repairs are made for normal 
wear and tear on nonsafety critical fleet components.'' Amtrak 
requested these funds for next year. Funds needed in a future year are 
not an emergency and should not be in this bill.
  Of the amount for damaged passenger equipment repairs which would 
cover 51 cars and 5 locomotives, most of the equipment damage was 
incurred years ago. In one case, it occurred over 10 years ago. How can 
a train or wreck more than 10 years ago constitute an emergency repair 
need? In fact, over half the money requested for emergency repairs is 
for equipment wrecked before 2001.
  The most egregious fact about this Amtrak funding is that to pay for 
a portion of it, the appropriators are rescinding $25 million from the 
State Department's budget for international peacekeeping activities. 
Get this: We are now taking $25 million from international 
peacekeeping, at a time when there are enormous problems and challenges 
throughout the world, to devote that money to routine repairs for 
Amtrak cars. Remarkable.
  These funds would otherwise be released with congressional passage of 
the State Department reauthorization bill to support worldwide 
peacekeeping activities. I find it impossible to understand how the 
appropriators can consider nonemergency funding for Amtrak to be a 
higher priority than funds for international peacekeeping already 
appropriated in fiscal year 2001.
  The bill provides $200 million to the Secretary of Transportation to 
make grants to improve security at our Nation's seaports. This funding 
would be in addition to the $93.3 million that was already provided in 
the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act 2002 that was enacted 
last fall.
  While the Senate has passed S. 1214, the Port and Maritime Security 
Act, to authorize $80 million annually for port security grants, that 
legislation has not yet been enacted.
  This bill provides $27.9 million for the deployment of Operation 
Safety Commerce, an unauthorized program that is intended to address 
security vulnerabilities associated with intermodal containers. I 
strongly support increased security at our Nation's seaports. This 
program is duplicative of other efforts currently underway at the 
Department of Transportation and U.S. Customs.
  The bill also directs pilot projects to be carried out involving, 
quote, the three largest container load centers in the United States, 
which are assumed by the appropriators to be the port centers of 
Seattle-Tacoma, New York-New Jersey, and Los Angeles-Long Beach. This 
directive fails to give any consideration to which ports are most 
vulnerable or pose a risk to national security.
  The bill provides $20 million for intercity bus security. While 
legislation has been approved by the Commerce Committee to authorize 
funding for intercity bus security, it has not been considered by the 
full Senate. This bill ensures that funding distributed under the 
highway trust fund for the upcoming fiscal year will be increased by at 
least $4.4 billion over the President's request for fiscal year 2003. I 
think we knew this funding would be provided even though the 
President's budget request actually fulfilled the requirements that so 
many Members voted for when the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century was passed in 1998. But why does this provision need to be 
included in this supplemental?

  A sample of other items under the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction 
that significantly exceed the President's request include the 
following: $85 million for emergency expenses resulting from the new 
homeland security activities and increased security standards at the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. Of that funding, 
the bill directs $40 million for a cyber-security initiative. The 
President requested $4 million for NIST; $281.7 million over the 
President's request for the Coast Guard's acquisition, construction and 
improvements account, but the appropriators have only provided a meager 
explanation of this allocation which after review could not total 
$281.7 million; $300 million over the President's request for 
transportation security administration; $745 million for emergency 
expenses for FEMA in response to the September 11 attack. The President 
requested $327 million, less than half the amount provided.
  A snapshot of items not requested by the President for the fiscal 
year 2002 supplemental includes the following: $450 million for 
election reform grants; $23.4 million to address critical mapping and 
charting backlog requirements with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, NOAA; and $3 million to enhance the National Water 
Level Observation Network. Even though it falls within the jurisdiction 
of the Commerce Committee, the Commerce Committee was not consulted and 
the provision's relation to emergency homeland security needs is 
suspect; $16 million for economic assistance to New England fishermen 
and fishing communities in response to unforeseen circumstances 
resulting from

[[Page S4938]]

a Federal court order which restricts the number of days fishermen can 
fish; $10 million for NOAA for such things as backup capability of 
satellite services and a supercomputer backup.
  The bill changes the Advanced Technology Program which currently 
imposes a ceiling of $60.7 million on the amount of new grants that can 
be awarded by the end of the fiscal year to establishing a floor of 
$60.7 million that can be awarded in any new grants by the end of the 
fiscal year; $1.725 million for the International Trade Administration. 
ITA has already received a substantial increase in funding during the 
last few appropriations cycles.
  The appropriators' practice of legislating on items within the 
jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee knows no bounds. This bill would 
prohibit the use of funds to implement, enforce, or otherwise abide by 
the memorandum of understanding between the Federal Trade Commission 
and the Department of Justice that was signed March 5, 2002.
  Again, the test whether we are acting responsibly is simple. Just 
read the title of the bill. This bill is the ``Further Recovery From 
and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States.'' Any item that 
is not for this purpose should not be in this bill.
  Using the guise of responding to the terrorist acts of September 11 
to spend Federal funds on items that obviously have nothing to do with 
fighting terrorism is war profiteering, pure and simple. Such actions 
do not help the war effort but only do a disservice to the honorable 
men and women who are on the front line fighting this war.
  Again, I am very pleased that one of our first actions is to remove 
one of the most egregious aspects of this bill, and that is the basic 
emasculation of the Aviation Loan and Stabilization Program. Why it was 
ever in the bill, of course, escapes my understanding. Perhaps it was 
going to be one of those deals that would be done, as is so often on 
these appropriations bills, in such a way that no one would notice, 
which is the general way that porkbarrel spending ends up enacted into 
law. So I am pleased we are going to act on it and, of course, we need 
to have a recorded vote on it to ensure that the will of the Senate is 
clearly expressed as this bill would go to conference with the other 
body.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, at the outset, let me say I agree with 
my distinguished colleague from Arizona about striking section 1004. 
The purpose for my seeking recognition has been to address that 
subject.
  The Congress acted promptly, after September 11, to provide for $10 
billion in loan guarantees because the airlines were hit in a very 
drastic manner. Obviously, after the attack on the World Trade Towers, 
the striking of the Pentagon, and the plane which went down in Somerset 
County, PA, my home State, air traffic stopped instantly. In fact, for 
several days you could not fly at all. The FAA grounded all the planes.
  With the closing of Reagan National Airport, a major airport in the 
United States, US Airways, which is hubbed in my State, Pennsylvania, 
was very heavily impacted. It was very difficult. So Congress acted to 
provide for $10 billion in loan guarantees.
  When this provision was put in section 1004, which limited the 
guarantees to $4 billion and not more than $429 million from being 
spent in fiscal year 2002, it sent shudders through the airline 
industry, including US Airways in Pennsylvania.
  US Airways is a great national and international carrier, very 
important for the United States generally, but of particular importance 
to Pennsylvania where there are some 17,000 US Airways employees, with 
hubs in Pittsburgh and in Philadelphia. When US Airways was having 
problems immediately after September 11, Mr. Stephen Wolf, Chairman of 
US Airways, called me and others in the Pennsylvania delegation to 
secure our help, which we provided. US Airways had not planned to make 
an immediate request for a loan but decided to defer until this summer 
when they are moving to reorganize the company.
  Yesterday, while I was traveling in Pennsylvania, I received a call 
that US Airways had asked me to introduce the amendment to strike 
section 1004. I immediately agreed to take the lead. Later in the day, 
I heard that the amendment would be authored by Senator Hollings, the 
chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator McCain, ranking member, 
with the Aviation Subcommittee chairs joining to give it the impact of 
the full Commerce Committee which has authorization and jurisdiction. I 
am pleased to note this morning that Senator Byrd, chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, and Senator Stevens, the ranking member, have 
undertaken the amendment, which shows how the issue has escalated in a 
very brief period of time.
  For a while it was very onerous and very worrisome. Last week, during 
the recess, I traveled the State. I was in Pittsburgh, where 11,000 of 
the 17,000 Pennsylvania employees work. There was great consternation 
as to what would happen to US Airways. When I was in Erie, there was a 
similar concern. There was a similar concern in Altoona, a concern in 
Allentown, a concern in Wilkes-Barre, and a concern in Scranton.
  That is good news indeed, and not just to US Airways, but also other 
carriers, with the expectation that United may be applying for a 
substantial loan guarantee of $2 billion, and US Airways at $1 billion. 
Had this loan guarantee not been available, it would have been at a 
particularly bad time to US Airways, which is trying to restructure the 
entire airline. There has been a very difficult situation regarding 
cashflow this year.
  I am very pleased to see this amendment has been offered by the 
chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. That has 
been done with their awareness of the tremendous impact it would have 
on the Nation when we had legislation to provide $10 billion in loan 
guarantees, that it should stand, and there had been reliance by the 
airline industry on those loan guarantees being available. So this 
amendment will obviously solve that problem.
  We still have to go to conference with the House, which, as I 
understand it, prohibits loan guarantees until fiscal year 2003, but 
would not reduce the overall amount of the loan guarantees available.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, in the absence of any other Senator in 
the Chamber, if no one is seeking recognition to talk about the bill, I 
ask unanimous consent I may proceed for up to 10 minutes as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________