Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 166 (Monday, November 17, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 166 (Monday, November 17, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14940-S14952]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

VISION 100--CENTURY OF AVIATION REAUTHORIZATION ACT--CONFERENCE
REPORT--Resumed

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the hour of 4:40
having arrived, the Senate will proceed to consideration of the
conference report to accompany H.R. 2115, which the clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Conference report to accompany H.R. 2115, an act to amend
title 49, United States Code, to reauthorize programs for the
Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 1 hour
equally divided for debate prior to a vote. The Senator from
Mississippi will control one-half hour, the Senator from New Jersey
will control one-half hour.
The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this is an important piece of legislation
that has been in the process all year now. As we know, the aviation
industry has had its difficulties since the events of 9/11 and the Iraq
war. Aviation across the board has struggled to comply with additional
security requirements and to become economically viable again. A lot of
changes are happening in the industry.
But Congress certainly has not been insensitive to the needs of this
industry. We passed legislation to be of assistance in, I guess, 6
weeks after the 9/11 events, and then earlier this year additional
assistance was provided to the airline industry as a result of losses
they were experiencing and expected to experience as a result of the
war in Iraq.
But they need the broader long-term Federal Aviation Administration
reauthorization. I consider this legislation to be the third leg of the
stool to give the aviation industry, as a whole, an opportunity to get
up and running, to provide service to the American people, and to,
frankly, see blue skies again. That is why this legislation is very
important.
If we do not extend this FAA reauthorization, there are certain parts
of the program that will either be deferred or will have to shut down.
So it is not insignificant that we are up against the wall in terms of
extending the Federal Aviation Administration legislation.
I emphasize, too, that this is not just about the agency. This is
about an important part of our economy. We are very mobile in America.
Transportation is such an important part of our economy. Americans are
flying all over the country, as we speak, on airlines and in general
aviation. They are in our airports. It is an important part of our
economy. It creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, when it is allowed
to function as it should. So we need to get this legislation passed.
It is, in my opinion, about safety in the aviation industry at our
airports, in general aviation, with the airlines. We need to make sure
the money is there for the aviation program, for the security that
needs to be put in place on the airplanes, in the airports, on the
perimeters. This is very important legislation. It is part of our
overall homeland security program.
I remind my colleagues that H.R. 2115, the FAA reauthorization bill,
is a 4-year $60 billion bill. This is a huge piece of legislation. We
need to get it done.
I would like to point out to my colleagues some of the impacts we see
as a result of this industry and what it means. First, aviation
generates more than $900 billion in GDP every year. Over the life of
this bill, the legislation is expected to create approximately 665,000
jobs; $14.2 billion in airport grant funding would create these 665,000
jobs. There would be 162,000 jobs in 2004 alone; $14.2 billion will be
used for security, safety, and capacity projects at airports; $13.3
billion would be to modernize the air traffic control system, and $500
million for the Essential Air Service program.
This is an important piece of legislation. A lot of money is
involved. It is not just about the big airports; this is about the
smaller airports. We do have good programs included here, including the
Essential Air Service, and also a program that allows communities to be
involved and participate with some funding of their own.
We have had an experimental program in place now for the last couple
years. This would extend that small community Essential Air Service
program. A number of communities around the country are very much
interested in having that opportunity.
It also provides new opportunities for flights out of Reagan National
Airport, 8 new flights inside and 12 new flights outside the perimeter.
So this is very important legislation in terms of the airports.
For the first time we actually make sure the regional airlines get
some assistance. When we passed the big legislation back in 2001, the
regional airlines were sort of left out. So we would get that done.
It provides for cost-effective programs that could save the taxpayers

[[Page S14941]]

$173 million per year. It has a huge impact on States all over the
country. I would like to show a chart to give you some idea of the
amount of money and the amount of jobs that would be affected by this
legislation. I have the list here. It is too small probably for most of
you to see, but I will just pick a couple of them: Alaska, $522
million, 24,000-plus jobs.
I see the Senator from Georgia, a very important terminal in Atlanta,
one of the most important in the country, $162.6 million; 7,722 jobs; a
smaller State, North Dakota, $59.2 million, 2,814 jobs.
The list is here. If you want to see how your State would be affected
with dollars and jobs, we have the information for you.
The question would be, Why has this taken so long? We passed it back
in May in the Senate. It passed the House. We went to conference. We
worked out an agreement on good legislation. But it did include some
language that became controversial. It did say there would not be
privatization of the air traffic control system, but it identified 69
sites in medium and small communities where contract hours could be
considered or could be actually put into place. So there was a
criticism about that.
After trying to work it out in a variety of ways, we went back to
conference and took that language out. So we basically went back to the
status quo. We don't say there won't be privatization of the air
traffic control system, and there won't be. We didn't say that, well,
these 69 contract areas might be considered for contract hours. We took
both of those out, thinking, well, we are ready to go now.
Strangely enough, that was not acceptable, either. So we have been
working in a bipartisan way to try to come up with some solution that
would satisfy both parties, all parties, and how this could be handled.
Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Rockefeller, Senator
Dorgan, and I sent a letter to the FAA Administrator, Marion Blakey,
last week saying we thought it would be appropriate to have a 1-year
moratorium on any effort of privatization. We have been working with
the administration on that issue since that time.
The administration, I believe, is willing to make a commitment to not
go forward for 1 year, for a moratorium, while GAO does a study of the
impact of privatization, and also so the Commerce Committee, chaired by
the Senator from Arizona, can have hearings on that matter. But they
want to be able to go forward with those things that are already
underway.
The net result for the air traffic controllers and for other unions
within the FAA would be a 1-year moratorium. However, where there is an
ongoing A-76 study, that would not be stopped. Now I am being told
maybe even that is not enough. I ask, how much is enough?
This is very important legislation that affects the economy of the
country and this industry. Are we going to let 1 or 2 groups decide we
will not have this $60 billion bill unless they get some guarantee on
something that is not going to happen, anyway? I don't believe that is
reasonable. I think we need to go forward and have this vote. Let the
American people see who wants to be of assistance to aviation, who
really wants to have safety in the skies.
Let me say to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, be
careful how you vote because this legislation provides funds for
security at airports. It changes who pays for the security costs and
where that money would go. The AIP, airport improvement program, which
was used for $500 million in security costs over the last couple of
years would not continue to be used for that purpose. It would go back
to being used for what it was originally intended--improvements at
terminals, runways, and aprons, but there would be a dedicated line of
money that would go to security. If you vote against this legislation,
and it continues to drag out indefinitely, and we don't get these
security funds to the proper place they are supposed to go--
particularly the airports--if we have another instance at an airport,
or with the airline industry, I would not want to be on record voting
against this very important legislation that has been developed over a
long period of time, in a bipartisan way.
Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. LOTT. Yes.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Lott for all the work he
did as chairman of the subcommittee on this issue. I know we don't have
a great deal of time. Is the Senator aware in this bill we have $14.2
billion for security and safety for AIP, $13 billion to modernize the
air traffic control system, $31 billion to operate--the list goes on
and on. There are billions of dollars, including drastically needed
improvements in security and essential air service.
I note the Senator from West Virginia, as long as I have been on the
committee, has sought money for essential air service. We also have
environmental provisions. These are all being held up on one issue on
which we have tried to reach some kind of compromise.
My question to the Senator from Mississippi is this: Let's suppose we
don't achieve cloture and we don't have 60 votes on this bill. What do
the opponents gain by that? It seems to me what they gain is sooner or
later we are going to extend the existing programs, which allows
further privatization of the towers and other aspects of our air
traffic control system, which is what they are fighting against. Yet
they will lose. Is this some kind of a statement being made or is this
reality? Is there anybody who believes we are going to shut down the
air traffic control system, shut down aviation in America if we don't
pass this bill? Either existing law will be extended or we are going to
pass this bill. Is that the Senator's assessment? I think our
colleagues ought to know what the consequences of this vote will be if
we fail to achieve cloture.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished chairman of the
subcommittee he has put his finger right on the heart of the problem.
There are funds that would not go out for security and airport
improvement if we don't pass this legislation. The alternative would
just be to extend the current law for, I don't know, 6 months. The
Senator is right that in that case the status quo is in place. As a
matter of fact, any privatization efforts that might be underway or
they want to do in that period could go forward. We had worked it out
where we had language both in the conference report and in a letter
that would say there would not be privatization of the air traffic
control system.
Finally, even other parts of the FAA would get a 1-year moratorium.
This is the classic example of where my colleagues in the Senate--
Democrats--seem to be hopelessly pursuing where the last rose lingers.
We have a whole bouquet in this bill. It is good for the American
people. It is going to be good for the industry and it will create
jobs. We are looking for this one last thorny rose we can claim and
say, well, we got it done. I note the House has already passed this
legislation and we are, I assume, sometime in the next month going to
complete our session of this year. We need to get this done. It would
be very positive for the industry and for the Congress for us to go
ahead and complete this action.
The Senator is absolutely right. The alternative, if we don't pass
this legislation, is the status quo, which would allow the
administration to do whatever they please in terms of privatization
under legislation Congress has previously passed.
I will make one other note. On this idea of contract towers, there
are mixed emotions on both sides of the aisle. It is not a Republican
or Democrat thing. But there have been hundreds of these contractors
put into place. Usually, they are supported by local congressmen and
senators--and, by the way, it is an idea that really exploded and was
used extensively during the Clinton administration. I am not being
critical. In many cases, it makes common sense. In many communities, if
you don't have the contract towers, you would not have anything.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why we haven't been able to
bring this to conclusion. I think it is time to vote and see who is for
getting this legislation done and who wants to preserve the status quo,
I guess, or have nothing, which would hold up funds to the tune of
billions for security and improvements at our airports.
Since the chairman is here, and I know Senator Lautenberg is waiting

[[Page S14942]]

to speak, I will reserve the remainder of my time. We will claim more
time after Senator Lautenberg has had a chance to speak.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. On my time, I ask the Senator from Mississippi just
one question, if the Senator is available. I want to put a question to
him.
Can the Senator tell me why Congressman Young from Alaska fought so
hard to take two of his airports off of the privatization possibility?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, on the time of the Senator, I am glad to
respond.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Take a short minute, if you will.
Mr. LOTT. I will give the Senator a direct answer. Senator Stevens
indicated that is what he wanted. I understand there are extenuating
circumstances with those two areas in Alaska. That varies from State to
State. In some States, they want contract towers for a particular site,
and in others not. I agree with the Senator on that. I think we should
not have excluded them.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, it is apparent the Congressman from
Alaska wants to make sure his people are safe when they are in and out
of that airport. He doesn't want to be privatized, and neither do I, or
most of the people in the Chamber.
I have great respect for the Senator from Mississippi. He and I will
agree on lots of things. When we don't, they are usually deep
disagreements. We all want the system to function. The Senator from
Arizona certainly understands aviation and how the system operates, but
he said something in his remarks that really struck me. No matter what
happens, this program is going to get funded. It is going to get funded
regardless of the action we take tonight. Why it is that the President
of the United States and his people decided to delay implementation of
this reauthorization, I will never know. This is kind of like a
Custer's last stand: We are going to teach you Democrats something.
Don't teach us; teach the American people how you care about them,
about their safety. Why, suddenly, are we so concerned about going
commercial? We took roughly 28,000 baggage handlers and said, you know
what. The private sector can't handle them. They mess up all the
inspections. They are terrible. We have to get them in Government hands
where we know things can be properly operated. But when it comes to the
FAA, the people who responded so heroically when the tragedy of 9/11
struck our country, no, then we want to put security on the cheap. We
want them to be operated by Acme Air, or whoever else it is.

The aviation industry has had a lot of difficulty. Much of that is
because our country had an overwhelming tragedy strike us on 9/11, and
so our citizens were afraid to travel. They were afraid to get up in an
airplane. Now they don't have to worry so much, except for shoulder-
guided missile launchers and except for terrorists constantly trying to
break through. And now, to make life easier, we are going to take the
FAA, the most well-trained group in the country, people who are on the
job 24/7, constantly, they are always there when we need them,
regardless of weather, regardless of what else happens--when those
airplanes struck the Trade Towers, we are now talking about my
neighborhood.
I saw the Trade Towers from my apartment house. I didn't see them
that day because I happened not to be there, but I notice their
absence. It is very clear. The people in the tower at Newark--I know
those guys and the ladies. I know them well. I have been up in that
tower many times. I used to be commissioner of the Port Authority of
New York and New Jersey. I know what goes on in towers. I know we used
to gauge rainfall with a pail outside. It wasn't that long ago. The
fact is, they could see the buildings burning, and when the order came
to take safer action, they did.
We are going to soon be voting cloture on the FAA conference report,
and it would have passed except for the fact there was an insert put in
after neither House had a Democrat in the conference--neither the
Senate nor the House of Representatives, neither had a Democrat in the
conference. Nevertheless, we are now suddenly delivered a program that
includes a recommendation from the White House, which neither body
acted upon, and when we voted overwhelmingly to preserve the no-
privatization view.
On June 24, 2002, just in the aftermath of 9/11, the President signed
an Executive order. So this issue has been in the works for some time.
We don't have to talk about who is delaying the movement of the
reauthorization bill. There it is. June 4, 2002: Section 1 of this
Executive order:

The first sentence of that order is amended by deleting ``
. . . an inherently governmental function.''

That is what the President of the United States said on June 4, 2002,
not too many months after 9/11 took place.
We took up the FAA bill in June. The Senate spoke loudly and clearly:
No privatization. The House also spoke loudly: No privatization. But in
the conference, the prohibitions disappeared. Conference leaders simply
dropped all the language dealing with privatization.
Why did the Members of the conference, sitting behind closed doors,
ignore the mandates for safety and security of our aviation system? If
you ask them, they say the White House said we had to; so the order.
Both Houses of Congress were clear. Both Houses spoke on the issue.
Both Houses said no privatization of air traffic controllers. But in
the conference, that commitment disappears. Why? Apparently in this
Congress, we pass bills in both Houses, and then the White House writes
the conference report.
It is presented graphically on this chart. House bill: No
privatization. Senate bill: No privatization of air traffic
controllers. White House position: Silence on privatization. Conference
bill: Silence on privatization. That is a coverup. What that means is
they can go ahead and do it any time they want to.

In this Congress, if the House and Senate agree on something and you
throw it out and allow the White House to write whatever they want, we
don't usually respond favorably to that happening. The stakes are high
because the safety and security of our families, our friends, and our
neighbors are at stake. The clearest evidence of this is how our air
traffic control system performed on September 11, 2001.
The first airplane struck one of the Trade Towers at 8:45 a.m. This
chart shows what the skies looked like at that time. The little light
green areas represent airplanes. You can barely see the ground. This
was 1 hour, and it was even more crowded than that. The order came out
to get the airplanes out of the sky, get them on the ground, get people
safely to someplace where they could call their families and let them
know what was happening.
One hour later, 5,000 airplanes were taken out of the sky, directed
to land at destinations that were not originally planned, and the
picture looks like this chart. It is a lot safer. If my family was
flying, I would have been very happy to hear they landed someplace,
whether it was in Wyoming or Arizona--anyplace else besides New Jersey.
I would have just been happy to know they were on the ground.
My State suffered major losses. Almost 700 people--691, to be exact--
from New Jersey lost their lives that day in the World Trade Center
attack. We are very sensitive to safety. We know this hits home. This
is no academic exercise for us. We know there are families tortured by
the loss of a father or mother or brother or sister. My oldest daughter
lost her best friend in that World Trade Center. They worked together
at one financial firm. My daughter went to law school, and this lady
went to a place called Kantor Fitzgerald. They lost 700 of their 1,000
employees.
These acts of terror utilizing our aviation system introduced a new
era of fear for the U.S. travelers.
September 11 also highlighted the heroic act of many public employees
who did their jobs, as they do every day, with skill, courage, and
professionalism. Emergency responders, rescuers, firefighters, police
officers, and other government employees aided people out of the
burning buildings. We heard of a historic incident where a couple of
policemen and firemen went into the buildings knowing very well their
lives were at stake. Unfortunately, they were right; their lives were
at stake, but they tried to save others.

[[Page S14943]]

As our aviation system was both under attack and being used as a
means of attack, it was the air traffic controllers who protected the
tens of thousands of Americans aboard aircraft at that time. The
snapshots we have seen tell us the picture quite precisely. Within an
hour of the time that the flights were ordered to the ground, the
Nation's air traffic controllers made unbelievable progress. We saw
that in the chart. Within an hour, numbers of those planes--huge
numbers--were successfully grounded.
I repeat, almost 5,000 aircraft were guided safely to the ground in a
matter of hours, a tremendous feat. All parts of the system worked
well, worked together, and worked safely to bring home those traveling
by plane that day. This included roughly 15,000 air controllers, 6,000
technicians, and 2,800 flight service station employees.
These people acted bravely and professionally. So why does President
Bush want to honor these heroes of 9/11 by firing them? I do not get
that at all. The administration plans to privatize our air traffic
control system.
I heard the distinguished Senator from Mississippi say there are no
plans, no, but just take away the safeguards and anything one wants can
be done. This conference report allows them to do exactly that. It is a
bad idea, truly disrespectful to the thousands of September 11 heroes
and disrespectful to all of those who worry about air travel when they
read about shoulder-fired weapons and even worse.
It is no coincidence that this important section of the FAA bill was
omitted without any Democratic input or debate. The American people do
not want safety and security on the cheap. They want air traffic
control to remain essentially a Government safety function, as it was
before President Bush signed that Executive order in 2002. That is why
the Senate voted on June 12 of this year--I remind my colleagues who
are in the Chamber, talking about who should vote for what--I want
everybody in this Chamber to feel like they can look in the mirror and
answer the question: What was the best thing I did for the safety and
the safeguarding of our airplanes and our passengers? That is to make
sure this system stays intact.
The Senate voted on June 12, a vote of 56 to 41--we do not have 56 on
this side--to ban this privatization. I remind my colleagues that
safety and security are not partisan issues. Eleven of my Republican
colleagues voted for safety and security. This conference report on the
FAA is not the first conference report produced on this bill. Conferees
produced an original conference report that was downright strange.
How much time do we have remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifteen and a half minutes remaining.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. For starters, it exempted the State of Alaska. Of
course, that has something to do with the fact the chairman of the
House Transportation Committee is from Alaska. He did not want his
airports privatized. He was very specific.
He said: Of course, the criticism of myself is that I exempted the
State of Alaska, and here is the reason for that. One, he describes
Juneau Field itself to be going under Capstone next year so it would
not be eligible to be contracted out. The Merrill Field is a real
complex issue. He winds up saying that the airplanes take off right
toward my hotel room every morning. I look out and there is one coming
right at me. It is an interesting experience and I want to make sure
everything is done right in that field.
He does not want Acme air controllers to be there perhaps in the
middle of a labor dispute or something like that. He wants to know that
the tried and trusted hand of the FAA as it is presently composed
continues. If he thinks that exempting Alaska is a good idea, let the
other States have an exemption, too. The other 49 should just as well
be exempt.
If the Chair would let me know when we have 10 minutes, I would like
to turn that time over to the Senator from West Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cornyn). The Senator will be so notified.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Privatizing the air traffic control system is a bad
idea for many reasons. We should heed the lessons of other countries
that tried this already: Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. All
of these attempts resulted in failures.
We should heed the lessons of the blackouts we experienced in the
Northeast this summer that shut down six major airports. Our air
traffic control system guided stranded flights safely to the ground.
I do not think it can be any clearer that air traffic control is a
vital Government safety and security function.
I sense my colleague from West Virginia would like to use his 10
minutes now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the sake of a flow back and forth, I
yield 5 minutes of our remaining time to the chairman of the full
committee.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield the time with unanimous consent that I regain
it and turn it over to my friend from West Virginia.
Mr. LOTT. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. First, when Air Force One takes the President down to his
ranch in Texas, guess what. Horrors, the plane lands at an airport with
a contract tower. When the Vice President travels to Jackson Hole, WY,
his plane lands at an airport with a contract tower. Perhaps the safety
concerns that always surrounds a President and Vice President have been
waived in this case.
One of the most respected men in Washington is Ken Mead. He is the
inspector general of the Department of Transportation. He did a study
on the issue of contract towers. I ask unanimous consent that his
letter and that of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers
Organization be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Department of Transportation,

Washington, DC, July 22, 2003.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Young: We understand that the House and
Senate Conferees may be meeting this week to discuss the
Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Reauthorization. One
issue that will no doubt be included in those deliberations
is the provision of the legislation that prohibits FAA from
contracting out any Air Traffic Control functions.
Specifically, we are concerned that this restriction would
eliminate even the option of expanding FAA's Contract Tower
Program to the 71 visual flight rule (VFR) towers still
operated by the FAA, regardless of how safely and cost
efficiently towers in the existing Contract Tower Program are
operated.
Based on our work, we think the Conferees should take into
account the track record of the 218 VFR towers in the
Contract Tower Program. Since 1998, we have conducted audits
of various aspects of the Contract Tower Program and have
found consistently that the program works well. We found that
contract towers provide cost-effective services that are
comparable to the quality and safety of FAA-operated towers.
For example, last year the level of operational errors at
contract towers was comparable to the level of operational
errors at FAA VFR towers. The Contract Tower Program also
provides services at towers that FAA would otherwise not have
staffed because they were too expensive to operate. In 2002,
we estimated that contracting out the VFR tower still
operated by FAA could save the agency about $780,000 per
tower each year. That translates into about $55 million in
annual savings if all 71 towers were contracted out.
Our point here is not that the 71 VFR towers still operated
by FAA should be converted to the Contract Tower Program, but
that the option should remain open. We do not support
expanding this option beyond the remaining 71 VFR towers
still operated by FAA. But in light of the sharp decline in
Aviation Trust Fund revenues and the most recent projections
of the Federal deficit, we think FAA needs the flexibility to
evaluate alternatives for ensuring its operations at all VFR
towers are conducted in the safest and most cost-effective
manner possible.
We urge the Conferees to consider preserving at least the
option of expanding the Contract Tower Program to the 71 VFR
towers still operated by the FAA.
If I can answer any questions or be of further assistance
in this or any other matter, please feel free to call me at
(202) 366-1959, or my Deputy, Todd J. Zinser, at (202) 366-
6767.
Sincerely,
Kenneth M. Mead,
Inspector General.

[[Page S14944]]

____
Professional Air Traffic

Controllers Organization,

Douglasville, GA, November 6, 2003.
Hon. Trent Lott,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Lott: I am writing to urge you to support the
conference report accompanying H.R. 2115, Vision 100--The
Century of Aviation Reauthorization Bill. Please make no
mistake; Labor is divided on this issue.
I am the National Representative for the Professional Air
Traffic Controllers Organization, PATCO/AFL-CIO, and
represent the air traffic controllers in 50 FAA contract air
traffic visual flight rule (VFR) control towers (ATC) across
the United States. I take exception to the National Air
Traffic Controllers Association position that the FAA
contract controllers are unsafe. The DOT Inspector General's
report released on September 5th states unequivocally the
safety benefits to the aviation community and the cost
savings to the American taxpayers of the Federal Contract
Tower Program. The FAA contract controllers are all FAA
certified, most have 15-20 years of experience and the large
majority are retired military and former FAA controllers. FAA
also closely monitors and oversees all FAA contract tower
operations.
H.R. 2115 will enhance aviation safety, security and
supports the Airport Improvement Program. The important issue
of expanding capacity to aid congested airports is also
addressed by the building of new runways and other projects,
all of this resulting in the creation of new jobs.
There are those who oppose this bill because they believe
it mandates privatization. It does not. The measure, as you
know, is now silent on the issue of privatization, leaving
the FAA with the management flexibility they have held for
decades to evaluate staffing at individual facilities and to
make appropriate decisions with regard to safety, efficiency,
and fiscal responsibility. Please support the conference
report accompanying H.R. 2115 and encourage your colleagues
to pass this legislation as quickly as possible.
Sincerely,
Jerry Tuso,
PATCO National Representative.

Mr. McCAIN. He says:

Since 1998, we have conducted audits of various aspects of
the Contract Tower Program and have found consistently that
the program works well. We found that contract towers provide
cost-effective services that are comparable in quality and
safety to FAA-operated towers.

The difference is it saves $170 million a year for the taxpayers. By
the way, I hope the Senator from New Jersey can get over the Alaska
issue. This is a fairly big bill. In all deep sympathy, I hope he can
get over two towers in Alaska as we consider this serious issue.
The process was not perfect. We probably should not have put this
provision in in conference. We did so at the urging of the
administration because there was the threat of a veto by the
administration. Ever since then, we have tried to reach some kind of an
agreement. We have agreed to have it language neutral. We have agreed
there would be a year-long moratorium while GAO and other studies are
conducted.
The Senator from Mississippi and I have spent literally hundreds of
hours trying to reach some accommodation to avoid a veto by the
President of the United States who flat out said that--guaranteed in
writing that we would have a veto--and at the same time try to satisfy
the legitimate concerns because of the position of Senator Lautenberg
and others who voted for the measure to which Senator Lautenberg
referred.
It seems to me we should have been able to come to some kind of an
agreement, including the commitment that we got from the
administration, or at least we would have held to, for an all-out
moratorium.
Now, if the Senator from New Jersey prevails on this vote, we have
previous authorization and privatization will go on. So the Senator
from New Jersey may feel great about it but the fact is that with the
compromises we offered, he would have been far better off. Instead, we
worry about two towers in Alaska.
The point is, we have tried. We have tried to address this issue,
which is a very small part of very large legislation, that has to do
with aviation security; it has to do with airports; it has to do with
all kinds of things. It is a massive bill and we are hung up on this
one aspect for which there is a refusal to compromise on the part of
the Senator from New Jersey, and I regret it. I deeply regret it
because we may lose this vote, although I hope Members realize the
consequences of the loss of this vote. Believe me, we are not going to
shut down aviation in the United States of America over this issue. We
are not going to allow that to happen. It is far too important to all
of America's citizens.
Again, I hope my colleagues will pay attention to the letter from Ken
Mead, the inspector general of the Department of Transportation, that
says clearly that the contract-operated towers are safe consistently,
they are cost effective, and their quality and safety is comparable to
FAA-operated towers.
I reserve the remainder of Senator Lott's time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, this is all odd, perplexing.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am sorry, but there was a unanimous
consent that was agreed to that the time would be turned back, and I
just want to make sure we divide it up properly. So I would like to be
able to recover the time and then just make a decision to hear our
chairman of the subcommittee. How much time is remaining on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve and a half minutes remain.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield up to 10 minutes to the Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I am grateful to my colleague from New Jersey for
that. But I am still perplexed. This is all kind of odd to me.
We could, I think, pass this whole thing, the entire authorization
bill. The chairman of the full committee and Senator Hollings and
Senator Lott, both of whom have spoken here, myself, the ranking member
on the Aviation Subcommittee, and Byron Dorgan--we wrote to FAA
Administrator Blakey and made a reasonable request, asking for an
extension on a certain part of this for a period of a year. We might
get that in the next 7 or 8. We might very well get it. The language
didn't appear to be quite proper at the time.
We do have the President's statement. As the Senator from New Jersey
pointed out, he specifically deleted ``an inherently governmental
function'' when it referred to air traffic performance-based
organizations.
I want to support the FAA conference report. I think virtually
everybody in the Senate would want to do it. It includes a lot of
things that are very important to me for West Virginia. West Virginia
is not at the center. We are not exactly a hub of jet aviation, but we
are served by many good airlines that do their best to help us. We all
know the issue of privatizing the air traffic control system has held
this whole thing up for months. It is perplexing, because it does not
seem to me to be that big an issue. Yet if we are simply to accede to
it, in language which is potentially very vague, we have no idea what
might happen.
That is why we sent this letter--my good friend and chairman, and I,
and the chairman of the full committee--to try to get this extended for
a year so we could look at it and go ahead and pass the rest of all
this.
But we have not gotten the letter. We still have 7\1/2\ minutes, if I
read the clock correctly. It could come in. Then we could all vote for
the entire conference report. But short of getting that letter and that
commitment, which we all signed on a bipartisan basis, then I think we
have to vote against cloture because it is entirely a matter of
employees being accountable to the public who maintain the airplanes,
who are the service stations that send them from one place to another.
That is accountability to the public. It is not accountability to the
bottom line. It is not a matter of contracting out. This is fundamental
safety.
If you ever go out to Herndon, VA, as I have, and you see the latest
technology and you see all the airplanes in the air at any given moment
in the United States of America, you can hardly see the country. There
are airplanes everywhere and they are all traveling. They have to be
guided. A lot of them are general aviation. Some of them are not,
obviously.
The inability of Congress to resolve this issue has created a very
significant uncertainty for our airports in particular. These are hard
times for aviation. I don't think it is the right time to add more
trouble in their life, more uncertainty in their life, less
predictability in their life, and the worry about less safety in their
life.

[[Page S14945]]

Last week we did attempt to resolve the main issue that held this up.
As I indicated, Senators McCain, Hollings, Lott, Dorgan, and myself did
send the FAA Administrator a very straightforward, honest letter and we
requested the FAA impose a 1-year moratorium on the actual contracting
out of any air traffic control functions, including flight
service stations, which provide enormously important information to
pilots. You can't do without them.

I have a little community in my State called Elkins, WV, which is
currently not served by commercial aviation, but it does have a
critically important flight service station that handles traffic for a
significant part of the Washington, DC metropolitan area that is at
risk of being contracted out--and will be.
Flight service stations such as these are absolutely vital security
links in our Nation's air traffic control system and they have to be
protected from privatization.
I come from a private enterprise background, and that has been
pointed out to me humorously, or not, but you just can't fool around
with public safety. You can't do it. Police officers are not contracted
out. I guess they are in Iraq, but they are not in this country. They
are public servants. Or you hire a private guard if you want to,
something of that sort, but basically, protection of public life and
public passage is in the hands of the Federal Government. And it should
be. It has always been there. People trust it. If you took it away, or
parts of it away, people would be stunned. I think they would be
stunned.
This Senator can only support cloture if the administration has made
a strong commitment to hold off any changes to the management of the
air traffic control system for a year. And we have still 4 minutes to
get that letter. Then we will vote for the conference report and I will
happily do so because I agree with the Senator from Mississippi, there
are lots of good things in it. But safety, unfortunately, is one of
those things you cannot compromise.
The Senator from Arizona spoke about Air Force One and Air Force Two.
I have never had any doubt they are well cared for. But there is a lot
of other general aviation that may not be quite as well tended to, and
we have to worry about that.
I don't think the conference report is going to pass the Senate if
this letter doesn't arrive. It is not just a case of where the perfect
is the enemy of the good but, rather, it is a fundamental debate over
the future of aviation and security. It is a huge subject. Aviation is
an enormous employer, creating enormous economic activity in our
country.
This is not the process we should have to use for the FAA conference
report. I would be the first to say that. It grieves me. This
legislation has always enjoyed bipartisan support.
I want to set the record straight for 1 second and then I will be
finished, on how this came about. When the Senate debated, as has been
said by the Senator from New Jersey, we debated this important
bipartisan bill. We had a bipartisan majority of Senators express
serious concerns over the executive branch's future plans for the
safety management of the air traffic control system as a whole. As the
Senator indicated, we voted 56 to 41 to impose restrictions on the
administration's proposal precisely to avoid the very outcome of the
conference report we are now facing, which is allowing the
administration to privatize functions of the air traffic control
system.
I will not get into the House of Representatives. They also had voted
to impose these safety restrictions. In the end, the majority of
conferees--we were never invited to be a part of, I was never invited
be a part of, but I have become accustomed to that because I was part
of the Medicare conference and I wasn't part of that, so my threshold
of expectations was low. But we had the will of both Chambers being
expressed. Unfortunately, the conferees bent to the desire of the
administration.
Congress has clearly spoken on its concerns over air traffic control
privatization. Let us use next year to develop policies and make the
system more secure, more safe, and more efficient. I urge my colleagues
to reject cloture unless we get a letter in the next minute and a half
which commits to this protection which I think we all want.
This is an enormous subject. I deeply regret we have come to this
point. There is no reason we should have, but we have. Assuming that
letter will not come, I will have to ask my colleagues to vote against
cloture.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before he leaves the Chamber, I thank the
Senator from West Virginia for his work on the Commerce Committee, and
specifically for his work and his cooperation on the development of
this legislation, both at the subcommittee and full committee level and
here in the Chamber of the Senate, and also for the tone of his
remarks. He wants to get this done and that is the attitude we should
all have. In fact, that has been my goal. I am trying to find a way we
can get a bill completed that has $60 billion in it, billions of
dollars for security for our airports and for the airline industry as a
whole and that the President will sign.
Is this about trying to win the point--the congressional position
will prevail and the President's position will prevail? How about
finding a position we can both live with? That is, fortunately or
unfortunately, how it works sometimes in a legislative body. That has
always been my attitude. I am not interested in making statements. We
came here to get things done. We need to get this legislation
completed. That is why we have been working feverishly to try to come
to a conclusion.
With regard to contract towers, we have one in Tupelo, MS. It works
fine.
I believe the record will show that the Senator from New Jersey has
over the years supported the concept of contract towers. As a matter of
fact, when he was chairman of the Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittee, in 1994, the number of contract towers grew from 14 in
1987 to 59 at the end of 1994--an increase of 300 percent while he was
subcommittee chairman.
I repeat again something I said: This is not a Republican idea. I am
not even sure it is a Democrat idea. But it is an idea that was used
effectively during Democratic administrations and Republican
administrations.
The 1994 Senate report says:

In light of the recent recommendations in the ``Report of
the National Performance Review'' which calls for converting
level I control towers to contract operations, the Committee
has provided an additional $1 million above the amount
requested for this program.

That was in the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee report in
1994.
Here is the most important language from the subcommittee chairman,
Senator Lautenberg.

The Committee believes this public/private sector program
(contract towers) has provided significant safety and
economic benefits to smaller communities at a reduced cost to
the Federal Government since its inception in 1982. The
Committee urges FAA to expand the programs where appropriate.

Now, all of a sudden, contract towers are something really heinous.
What is the difference in 1994 and 2003? We have done a lot more--I
think over 200 of them. I think most of them work just fine.
I do not know. We are doing a little revisionist history here.
I emphasize this: There is no language in this conference report that
would identify contract towers for Alaska, in or out. We took that out.
It is not here.
We also had language in the conference report that said we would not
have privatization of the air traffic control system.
Declare victory? Oh, no. That was a problem because it didn't apply
to all parts and all unions involved in FAA.
That is what this is really all about. It is about making sure that
every one of the unions that are involved in the Federal Aviation
Administration are excluded.
Again, we are, I guess, looking for the perfect here. All the talk is
about air traffic controllers, but as a matter of fact, it involves the
Federal Flight Weather Service people, it involves maintenance, it
involves everybody.
We can't have privatization of any part of the FAA, would be the
attitude of some. I just do not understand that language here.
So it is very important that we realize what is actually in this
conference

[[Page S14946]]

report and what is not. My guess is, Can you accept victory? Can you
accept victory? The administration has said they will put it in
writing; they would have supported it in legislation; no privatization
of air traffic control systems.
I ask the Senator from New Jersey. He addressed a question to me. I
address a question to the Senator from New Jersey. Will he accept a
commitment of a 1-year moratorium of no privatization of the air
traffic controllers?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. If the Senator from Mississippi would read that
infamous letter we are talking about, it says no actual privatization
will take place.
Mr. LOTT. That is my point.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. My goodness, we couldn't privatize it within a year
if we started today. That letter doesn't say what it is purported to
say.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, the FAA conference report before us this
evening is critical because it provides funding for crucial safety,
security and capacity projects at airports across the country.
I strongly believe that all Senators should support this cloture
vote--especially since it includes provisions to strengthen our
Nation's air service. However, a handful of Members on the other side
of the aisle have held this measure up due to inaccurate claims that
the administration wants to privatize our air traffic control system. I
would like to take a few minutes to set the record straight.
The objective of the FAA contract tower program is to reduce costs to
the Federal Government by contracting out the operation of low-activity
towers while providing a safe and efficient service to users of the
National Airspace System. Without the contract tower program, many
smaller airports would be left with no air traffic control services.
Since 1982, the FAA has used the contract tower program to provide
air traffic control services at low activity Visual Flight Rules towers
across the country.
In 1994, the Program was expanded to include the conversion of FAA
Level 1 Visual Flight Rule towers to contract operations. This
expansion was included in Vice President Gore's National Performance
Review and supported by Congress. The Department of Transportation's
Inspector General has publicly stated how important the contract tower
program is. This program makes sense because it allows the FAA to
realign its resources in a more efficient and effective manner; it has
a better safety rate than FAA towers; and, it saves taxpayer dollars.
All contract controllers are certified by FAA, and contract tower
facilities are monitored on a regular basis by the agency.
Additionally, the vast majority of contract controllers are former FAA
and military controllers. All contract controllers are subject to the
same training requirements and operating rules and procedures.
Presently, the FAA is operating 219 contract towers at airports
throughout the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam, and
Puerto Rico. The Contract Tower program cost for FY 2002 was $73.5
million. This program results in annual savings of over $54 million.
A recent audit by the Inspector General at the Department of
Transportation validated the cost savings, and found that contract
towers operate as safely and efficiently as FAA towers. Contract tower
locations are evaluated by the FAA under the same requirements as FAA
staffed towers.
Contract towers are staffed at the levels required under current
contracts. Contracts are required to submit monthly staffing reports--
which provides verification that they are in compliance with their FAA
approved staffing plans.
Several audits have commended the FAA's Contract Tower program for
oversight of contractors and strict monitoring of controller staffing
levels.
According to Department of Transportation Inspector General Kenneth
Mead, the contract tower program provides ``cost-effective services
that are comparable to the quality and safety of FAA-operated towers.''
Additionally, the National Transportation Safety Board--NTSB--supports
the contract tower program.
I find it hard to believe that a handful of Democrats know more than
NTSB or the inspector general when it comes to aviation safety.
There are many aspects of our Nation's aviations system. Nothing in
the FAA Conference Report would allow for privitization. Simply put,
under this bill the FAA would continue to exercise the authority it has
had since 1982.
A number of my colleagues have implied that this bill is an attempt
to contract out the job of Enroute Control Centers. Enroute controllers
are responsible for directing traffic across the United States--the
Contract Tower Program has nothing to do with these positions.
At Congressional hearings this year, DOT's inspector general stated
that with the sharp decline in revenues to the aviation trust fund and
the most recent projections of the federal deficit, the FAA needs the
flexibility to ensure VFR towers are conducted in the safest and most
cost-effective manner possible.
Wyoming's busiest commercial airport--Jackson Hole--operates under a
contract tower. The Jackson Airport handles over 63 percent of
Wyoming's commercial air traffic.
For those who question the safety of contract towers, I would like to
point out that Vice President Cheney and President Bush both use
contract towers when they fly to their respective home States. If the
contract towers are safe enough for the President and Vice President--I
believe they are safe enough for the American public.
I would like to quote Senator Lautenberg's floor statement during
consideration of the fiscal year 1994 Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act on October 4, 1993. He said:

The use of contract towers is an example of how we can
reduce the costs of Government services and achieve savings
over the long run. FAA estimates that the use of a contract
control tower saves $200,000 annually because of the
flexibility available in scheduling controller working hours
around changes in air traffic activity levels.

I ask unanimous consent that the Talon News article by Jeff Gannon
dated September 23, 2003 be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Talon News Sept. 23, 2003]

Daschle, Lautenberg Vow to Fight FAA Privatization They Supported in
1994

(By Jeff Gannon)

Washington (Talon News).--New Jersey Democrat Sen. Frank
Lautenberg is promising to hold up the Federal Aviation
Administration reauthorization bill over the subcontracting
of some air traffic control jobs. He cited safety concerns as
the basis for his opposition to the outsourcing of air
traffic control functions.
President Bush has threatened to veto a bill that does not
include language to allow the privatization that his
administration says will result in increased savings with no
reduction in safety. Democrats are challenging competitive
sourcing of thousands of federal jobs through insertion of
amendments into departmental appropriations bills that would
prohibit the practice.
Some are characterizing Lautenberg's opposition to the
privatization as political, since he championed a similar
program in 1994.
Geoffrey Segal, the Director of Government Reform Policy
for the Reason Foundation, told Talon News, ``The change in
position clearly is pandering to special interests, in this
case NATCA (National Air Traffic Controllers Association),
who have aggressively stepped up their lobbying efforts to
fight competition in the FAA.''
Segal pointed out that, while serving as chairman of the
Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, Lautenberg
supported the part of Vice President Al Gore's program for
``reinventing government'' that included the changes now
being proposed by President Bush.
Segal continued his criticism of Lautenberg, saying, ``The
flip-flop in position is pure partisan politics--it's reform
when proposed by a Democrat, but it's trading safety and
security for profits when it's a Republican proposal.''
Lautenberg was quoted in the Washington Post in 1994,
saying, ``The [Clinton] administration's proposal to
privatize the air traffic control system is consistent with
the desire to bring more efficiency and reform to government
and should be reviewed seriously.''
On the Senate floor in 1993, the New Jersey Democrat
declared, ``I strongly endorse the FAA's contract tower
program for level 1 (the smallest) control towers. . . . The
use of contract towers is an example of how we can reduce the
costs of Government services and achieve savings over the
long run.''
Lautenberg justified his support of privatization by
saying, ``FAA estimates that the use of a contact tower saves
$200,000 annually because of the flexibility available in
scheduling controller working hours around changes in air
traffic activity levels.''

[[Page S14947]]

At the time, South Dakota Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) praised
Lautenberg's efforts, saying, ``I would like to compliment
the Senator from New Jersey for once again doing a masterful
job in providing the Senate with an appropriations bill that
recognizes the importance of our transportation systems to
the health of our economy and fairly balances the competing
demands for improved transportation services throughout the
United States.''
Daschle continued his complimentary assessment of the
privatization provision, saying, ``I am grateful that report
directs the FAA to include the Aberdeen (South Dakota)
Airport in the FAA's contract tower program.''
Lind Hall Daschle, the senator's wife, was a deputy
administrator for the FAA from 1993 until 1997.
The Reason Foundation's Segal summarized his assessment of
the political motivation of the Senate Democrats by saying,
``Of course, the larger picture is that both Sens. Lautenberg
and Daschle supported bringing competition to government,
however, as part of President Bush's plan to do the same,
both senators are outspoken opponents of the plan. It seems
that competition in Aberdeen is good for Sen. Daschle's
constituents but not for American taxpayers.''
FAA officials have suggested that unless action is taken by
the September 30 expiration of the current authorization, it
would begin to furlough non-essential personnel. Marion C.
Blakey, the agency's administrator, predicts more dire
consequences. The New York Times quotes her as saying, ``We
see ourselves on the brink of closing the doors.''
A temporary reauthorization measure is being proposed to
break the impasse and to avoid a shutdown of the FAA. Two
Republicans, Sens. Trent Lott (R-MS) and John McCain (R-AZ),
indicated they would oppose any short-term extension and
intend to continue work on the full four-year bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues and the American
public see that under the Clinton administration the Contract Tower
Program was okay but it's not today--under a Republican administration.
This conference report includes many important provisions for our
aviation system. It includes billions in funding for the Airport
Improvement Program; provides continuation of the Essential Air Service
and Small Community Air Service programs; funds FAA operations, air
traffic control facilities and equipment; extends War Risk Insurance to
March 2008; and it provides streamlining for airport capacity, safety
and security projects.
Secretary Norman Mineta has stated that ``passage of this legislation
offers millions of American travelers the assurance that the Nation's
aviation system will remain the safest, most efficient and most
competitive in the world.'' The facts speak for themselves. The
Contract Tower Program provides cost effective, quality and safe air
traffic control services to smaller airports.
I urge my colleagues to support cloture on this important bill.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the tragedy of September 11 has been
seared into all our memories. We will never forget the sudden massive
loss of lives, and the realization that our country was now extremely
vulnerable to terrorist attack. We remember the extraordinary courage
of the passengers on the fourth plane who prevented the terrorists from
completing their murderous mission. We also remember the extraordinary
courage of the firefighters, police officers, and other rescue workers
at the sites of the attacks, and millions of our fellow citizens who
reached out to help the families of the victims.
We remember as well the extraordinary performance of the air traffic
controllers, who took on the incredible challenge of protecting the
whole aviation network and ensuring the safety of the public on that
tragic day and in the days that followed. Their professionalism and
patriotism inspired us all.
So why in the world is the administration now attempting to undermine
those brave citizens? We must defend them instead, because the air
traffic controllers are defending us and defending the safety of the
American flying public.
Over and over again we see the problems in the administration's
privatization policy throughout the Federal Government. We have been
fighting other battles to correct those policies and make them fair for
Federal employees.
But we must be especially careful with these policies when they
affect homeland security. We all know what a disaster it was when
private companies screened bags at our airports. Now, Federal workers
are doing the job better, and Americans are feeling safer.
Both the House and the Senate specifically voted to protect air
traffic controllers and keep these vital safety jobs as part of the
Federal workforce. Yet now, because of a shameful veto threat from the
White House, the House and Senate Republican leadership have yielded to
and agreed to a privatization of these jobs. That change is
unacceptable.
In fact, the Senate bill contained even stronger protections than the
House bill. The Senate voted 56 to 41 to approve Senator Lautenberg's
amendment to protect not just air traffic controllers, but also systems
specialists and flight service station controllers from privatization.
I commend my colleague from New Jersey for his continued leadership in
this important battle.
The FAA reauthorization bill now before us defies the will of the
majority in both the House and the Senate. It undermines the safety of
our aviation system, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on
cloture.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the U.S. air traffic control system works
miraculously well. It is a public system that is admired around the
world. American air traffic controllers safely and efficiently guide 9
million flights a year with more than 600 million passengers.
When it comes to the safety of air travel, the American people demand
perfection, and rightfully so. That is why the Federal Aviation
Administration has set a goal of reducing air traffic fatalities to
near zero. This challenge has become increasingly complex as flights
have increased to meet the growing needs of the traveling public. There
isn't much room for error.
Unfortunately, the administration and House Republican leaders are
backing a plan that compromises passenger safety by privatizing the air
traffic control system. This flawed and misguided plan is contained in
the conference report on this FAA bill. It is opposed by 71 percent of
Americans.
Earlier this summer, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives
both voted in their respective FAA bills to maintain air traffic
control as a public function and prevent it from being privatized. That
is the will of Congress.
Instead of affirming that the safety of air travelers is the
responsibility of the United States Government, members of the
conference committee, at the urging of the administration, passed an
initial conference report that allowed for immediate privatization of
69 air traffic control towers.
This brazen attempt at privatization was met with such opposition
that the House was forced to recommit the bill to conference. However,
once recommitted, the House simply stripped language in the conference
report dealing with privatization. No conference committee meetings
were held. The bill was passed along party lines. And our Republican
friends say this is the status quo.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The House and Senate passed
language to prohibit privatization in response to an Executive order by
the administration to privatize the air traffic control system.
Put simply, the conference report allows the FAA to privatize any air
traffic control functions at its whim. This policy creates a puzzling
contradiction. Our Government has declared that your luggage is
important enough to be screened by trained Federal workers, but once
you are up in the sky, with your life in the balance, the
administration apparently feels that your safety isn't as important as
your suitcase.

Any meaningful legislation must follow the mandate of the Senate and
House bills and refrain from trying to privatize our air traffic
control system.
If the House attempts to force privatization of our Nation's air
traffic control system, it will only delay funding of essential airport
infrastructure and security programs. That would be irresponsible and
even reckless.
We urge our colleagues to work with us to craft a revised FAA bill
that honors the overwhelming sentiment in Congress against
privatization of air traffic control operations and maintenance, that
protects the U.S. aviation industry from unfair foreign competition and
maintains Federal support of the essential air service, and a bill that
ensures that our Nation's flight attendants receive mandatory
antiterrorism training.

[[Page S14948]]

Let's move forward by passing a straight 6-month extension of all FAA
programs that will provide the necessary time to work through these
issues. An extension bill, introduced by Senators Rockefeller,
Lautenberg, and Daschle, will provide a vehicle for the Congress to get
the process and substance of the FAA bill right.
I am confident that both Chambers of Congress will reassert their
intent to block privatization, protect the integrity of essential air
service, continue the ban on cabotage, and train flight attendants as
mandated under existing legislation.
Americans entrust their lives every day to our air traffic
controllers. Now they are trusting us to protect their safety.

faa privatization

Mr. REID. Our friends of the other side of the aisle suggest that
President Bush has no plans to privatize the air traffic control
system. They point out that the President hasn't privatized any towers
in the past 3 years. Then why is the President threatening to veto this
bill if it includes language to prohibit privatization? Why is the
President delaying the funding for essential airport construction
projects? Does this make any sense to the Senator?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Unfortunately, certain Senate conferees to the FAA
bill decided to remove all barriers to privatizing our national air
traffic control system. But both the Senate and the House voted to put
these barriers in the bill as a response to President Bush's actions,
including the issuance of an Executive order, to move towards
privatizing air traffic control. And the President feels so strongly
about privatizing that he has forced conference leaders not to take any
actions in the bill. And this is not agreeable to those of us concerned
about the safety impacts of the President's plan. To my dismay, this
ideological crusade by the White House has held up passage of the
legislation for over 3 months, and I am disappointed that some of my
colleagues are willing to sacrifice safety for this zeal to privatize.
Mr. REID. Our colleagues also point out that President Clinton
privatized 116 of the current 219 contract towers. Isn't it
inconsistent for Democrats to argue privatization when it was a common
practice under the Clinton administration?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Between 1994 and 2000, the FAA did contract out 130
small FAA towers. These were ``level I towers''--generally with less
than 25 operations per hour and operating under ``visual flight
rules''--that is, without radar equipment. I also note that the current
list of 219 towers constitutes a small fraction of overall air traffic
in the United States. While exploring ways to modernize air traffic
control equipment for the entire national system, the Clinton
administration proposed a Federal corporation to take over air traffic
operations. While I initially was willing to consider this proposal, it
was rapidly determined to be a poor idea, and the President eventually
made the determination that air traffic control is an inherently
governmental function. So during reauthorization of the FAA bill in
1996 and 2000, we agreed to FAA management reforms, to give FAA the
flexibility it needs to act as a better manager, not privatization. In
the end, the President and the Congress agreed that air traffic control
is an inherently governmental function, and recognized that it was not
wise to pursue privatization. Unfortunately, the Bush administration
reversed the Clinton administration's executive order last year,
reclassifying air traffic control functions so that privatization could
proceed. And this was after September 11. In summary, the Clinton
administration did not support privatization, while the Bush
administration does support privatization.
Mr. REID. You mentioned that the Bush administration reversed the
Executive order issued by the Clinton administration establishing air
traffic control as an inherently governmental function. Did the Bush
administration have second thoughts about that after September 11,
2001?
Mr. LAUTENBERG. I say to Senator Reid, this may be hard to believe,
but the Bush administration issued their Executive order after
September 11. I find that especially troubling in light of the
incredible and even heroic performance by the Federal employees of our
Nation's air traffic control system on September 11. The security of
the Nation's airlines became so important that we felt the need to
federalize baggage screening. But somehow, this administration still
wants to privatize the air traffic control system.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I have serious concerns about several
provisions found in the FAA reauthorization conference report. Before
the Senate passed S. 824, the FAA reauthorization bill, we expressly
prohibited additional privatization of air traffic controllers. We also
eliminated a proposed cost-sharing requirement for local communities
that participate in the essential air service program. This requirement
would have placed an insurmountable burden on many remote communities
struggling to maintain commercial air service.
Our colleagues in the House responded similarly to these issues. When
the Senate and House bills went to conference, neither Chamber's
legislation permitted privatization of air traffic controllers, nor did
either bill contain an essential air service cost-share requirement.
Therefore, I was surprised and disappointed to learn that the final
conference report allows both.
I am also very concerned about the provisions in this bill affecting
the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA. While not actually an
amendment to NEPA, these provisions are more likely to lead to extended
conflict, litigation and confusion--far from a streamlined result. In
addition, the Department of Transportation has neither the authority
nor the expertise to determine the environmental impact of various
alternatives to a project under environmental statutes such as the
Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act. Other Federal entities,
such as the Army Corps of Engineers or the Fish and Wildlife Service
who have specific statutory mandates, must evaluate alternatives under
Federal law when their jurisdiction is invoked.
For example, regulations governing wetlands permits under section 404
of the Clean Water Act require the Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate
several factors such as ``fish and wildlife values,'' ``water
quality,'' ``conservation,'' and ``aesthetics'' in determining whether
a permit is in the public's interest. The Clean Water Act imposes
specific substantive standards on the Corps' decision and prohibits the
Corps from issuing a permit to fill a wetland if there is a less
damaging practicable alternative. Under current law, the Corps has the
authority to supplement NEPA documents with additional information in
order to fulfill its legal responsibility. The legal obligations of
these other agencies have not been repealed by the language in this
bill, nor should they be.
There is ample authority contained in the existing NEPA statute and
regulations for coordination among Federal agencies in performing
required environmental reviews. The confusing statutory directions
contained in this bill are both unnecessary and counterproductive if
the desired result is efficient project completion.
Given its current content, I cannot support this conference report.
Just last year, Congress determined that, for security reasons,
airport passenger screeners should be Federal employees. Why would we
treat air traffic controllers differently? They play an equally
important role in ensuring the safety of our air travelers.
Our air traffic control network safely guides more than 700 million
passengers a year. In addition, the ATC network provides a crucial
national security service by coordinating the national air space for
military aircraft as well as for commercial aircraft. As we saw
immediately following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
ATC system must be prepared to respond quickly and efficiently in
emergency situations.
In order to best ensure the safety of air travel in this country, our
air traffic control network must remain a Federal responsibility. This
bill permits privatization of air traffic control towers around the
country.
I am also very concerned that the essential air service cost-share
language found its way back into this legislation. The EAS program was
created in 1978, when Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act,
reflecting Congress's

[[Page S14949]]

belief that deregulation should not result in the elimination of
airport service in rural communities. In my home State of Vermont, the
Rutland State Airport depends on this program to maintain commercial
service in and out of the Rutland region.
For many cash-strapped EAS communities, the local match required by
the cost-share provision in this bill is insurmountable. Mandatory
cost-shares will mean the end of commercial air service in many
economically depressed rural areas. If we adopt this provision, we have
essentially defeated the goal of the EAS program.
Both the House and the Senate acted on these two provisions earlier
this year. The FAA conference report reverses the positions that a
majority of our Members agreed to on the House and Senate floors.
Rather than endorse the flaws found in this legislation, I urge my
colleagues to support S. 1618, Senator Rockefeller's short-term
extension of the Federal Aviation Administration programs. This bill
provides the additional time we need to work out a long-term
reauthorization package that represents the positions of a majority of
Members of both Houses of Congress.
(At the request of Mr. Daschle, the following statement was ordered
to be printed in the Record.)
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like the record to reflect
my opposition to the Vision 100--Century of Flight conference report.
The final bill does not include any prohibition against privatizing the
air traffic control system, an issue that has serious safety and
national security implications. I voted in favor of the Lautenberg
amendment in June and will oppose ending debate today because passage
of this bill without language protecting ATC from privatization will
make our aviation system less secure and more vulnerable to terrorist
attacks.
After the September 11 attacks it was obvious that the Federal
Government needed to assume a greater role in aviation security.
Although we passed legislation that made baggage and passenger
screening a federal responsibility--legislation that the administration
supported--the President signed an executive order that designated air
traffic control as a ``commercially competitive'' enterprise. This is a
strange dichotomy. The President seems to believe that, in the realm of
aviation security, airport security and air traffic control are
mutually exclusive. I fail to see how these issues are mutually
exclusive and am disturbed at the administration's efforts to undermine
the protections that were originally included in both the House and
Senate bills.
Mr. President, if this bill passes without a prohibition on
privatization, the executive order signed by the President will stand
and he will be able to contract out the Nation's ATC to the lowest
bidder. I cannot imagine a worse policy for our Nation. This work
should only be performed by well trained and experienced Federal
workers. These men and women perform a valuable service to their
country and their jobs should not be shipped out to a private entity. I
urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I oppose the motion to close debate on
the FAA reauthorization bill.
While I strongly support the bill's authorized funding for
infrastructure and operations for our Nation's aviation system, I am
troubled that this bill still gives the Administration too much leeway
to privatize our Nation's air traffic control, ATC, system.
We know this administration is eager to privatize government jobs
even when it costs more money and does not improve productivity. We
also know that air traffic control involves special considerations like
safety, cost and flight delays.
That's why both the House and Senate passed amendments to the FAA
bill to explicitly limit the administration's ability to privatize FAA-
controlled towers. I voted for the Lautenberg Amendment in June, and it
passed the Senate 56-41.
You would have thought that the White House would recognize that it
was on the wrong side of this bipartisan issue. But instead of
accepting this reality, the White House pressured the members of the
conference committee to remove the limiting language during the first
conference. Regrettably, a majority on the conference committee
followed the White House's request.
In its place, the conferees added new language that goes even further
in supporting privatization. That new language would allow 69 of
current FAA controlled towers to be eligible for privatization. Eleven
of those towers are among the 50 busiest in the nation, including
Boeing Field in Seattle.
The conferees then presented that proposal, only to realize that it
faced strong opposition in both Houses of Congress.
The conferees were forced to take their first report back for further
deliberation. Their second conference report, which is before us today,
dropped the expanded privatization provision. However, it did not
reinstate the initial language that both chambers supported, which
would explicitly limit the administration's ability to privatize our
air traffic control system.
Given the administration's disregard for congressional intent, I
believe that this limiting language is critical.
As ranking Member of the Transportation, Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Subcommittee, I have supported some
privatization of ATC, but only at low-traffic airports that would
otherwise not have a tower.
This is not just a process or philosophical issue but raises
questions about benefits, safety and cost. The countries that have
privatized their ATC systems--Canada, Australia and the U.K.--have seen
increased flight delays and--in the case of Great Britain--an increase
in ``near misses'' that could result in accidents. In addition, this
private control requires more resources than government-run systems.
It is important to note that the Lautenberg amendment would have
allowed the government to continue to provide private air traffic
control to smaller airports.
Senator Rockefeller has offered a simple 6-month extension of AIR-21,
which will allow us to reexamine this issue and put together a package
that reflects the will of Congress and the people.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this conference report.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I discuss why I am voting against cloture
on the FAA Reauthorization bill.
This bill includes some very good provisions, including funding for
our Nation's airports and two provisions that I was able to include in
this bill--certification of flight attendant anti-terrorism training
and allowing trained cargo pilots to carry guns in the cockpit.
However, these good provisions do not make up for the threat to the
safety of air travel that this bill will cause.
On June 12, 2003, Senator Lautenberg's amendment to the FAA bill
passed 56 to 41. His amendment, which I supported, would have prevented
the Administration from privatizing the U.S. air traffic control
system. The House bill had a similar provision.
However, during the conference process the provisions in both bills
were ignored. This summer, Republican conference leaders filed a
conference report that specifically sanctioned privatization at up to
69 airports, some of which are the busiest in the country in terms of
flight operations. For instance, Van Nuys airport in California is the
eighth busiest airport in the country in terms of flight operations.
When that clearly did not have the support of the Congress, the
conference report was rewritten, and the privatization language was
dropped. But, the language prohibiting privatization was not
reinserted, and the administration has indicated it intends to go
forward.
Privatizing the controllers is a bad idea. The system is not broken,
and we should not try to ``fix'' it. Our air traffic controllers did a
valiant job after the terrorist attacks on September 11 by closing air
space and by landing all of the planes safely. We should not mess with
success.
Safety must be a top priority in air travel. Privatization puts that
safety at risk.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today the Federal Aviation
Administration reauthorization conference report comes before the full
Senate. I plan to vote against cloture on the conference report to
accompany H.R. 2115 because it would permit the contracting out of
certain air traffic controller positions currently filled by Federal
Government employees.

[[Page S14950]]

I do not support efforts to contract out air traffic controller
positions because these positions are vital to our national security. I
regret that the FAA conference report does not include language passed
by both the Senate and the House--which I supported--that would have
prohibited the administration from contracting out these important
positions.
I support the funding for airports and airline industries in our
country that this bill contains and it is not my intention to slow down
funding for airports or airlines. However, the safety of Americans must
outweigh the possibility of airlines and airports being temporarily
inconvenienced.
Supporters of this legislation will argue that airport construction
projects will be delayed if we do not pass this bill soon. However, how
can the lives of Americans be compared to the value of construction
projects? Airport projects are certainly important, but the lives of
Americans are worth a slight delay in the passage of this bill.
Safety is one of the most important elements of this bill for me and
for Wisconsin residents. I have been contacted by a number of
constituents from my home State of Wisconsin who stated their
opposition to the contracting out of air traffic controller positions.
I share their concerns and I am not prepared to vote for cloture on a
bill that does not contain adequate safeguards to ensure passenger
safety.
The contracting out of air traffic controller positions would be a
major mistake with potentially life-threatening consequences. In recent
years, other countries have attempted to privatize their air traffic
control systems only to encounter major problems, with increases in
``near-misses'' of airplanes or actual airplane crashes. Furthermore,
in attempting to privatize their air traffic control systems, other
countries have experienced increased delays and higher costs and fees
for passengers. With our economy in its current condition, higher costs
and fees are the last thing that consumers want or deserve.
In Canada, where air traffic control privatization was established in
1998, the Canadian Transportation Safety Board found that under-
staffing at some towers has been a major concern and may have
contributed to near mid-air collisions. According to the London Daily
Telegraph in Great Britain, flight delays caused by air traffic control
increased by 20 percent since the system there was outsourced. More
importantly, the UK Airport Board found that ``near miss'' plane crash
incidents had risen to their highest levels in a decade. We cannot and
must not take that risk here in the United States.
Those supporting this bill as it presently stands argue that the
legislation needs to be passed immediately and should not be held up
because of the privatization debate. The safety of Americans is no
minor issue. The bill as it currently stands puts many American lives
at risk, as demonstrated by the increased danger of air collisions that
we have seen in other countries.
This conference report also fails to address an important issue
regarding flight attendants. This issue is an important one following
the events of September 11, 2001. Since that tragic event in our
Nation's history, cockpit doors have been reinforced, some pilots have
been trained and certified to carry firearms and marshals have been
added to some flights. Pilots have also been directed to remain in the
cockpit during a highjacking, leaving flight attendants alone in the
cabin with only minimal training on how to work with a marshal or
respond alone to such an event. The provision that was not included in
the legislation before us seeks to protect flight attendants by making
it mandatory that the Transportation Security Administration issue
minimum training standards for flight attendant self-defense training
within one year.
The current legislation states that the Transportation Security
Administration ``may'' issue minimum training standards for flight
attendant self-defense training. This is simply not enough to protect
the flight attendants or the flying public.
For the above reasons I regret that I cannot vote for cloture.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. How much time is left on our side, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes 32 seconds.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. On the majority side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes on the majority side.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I have listened, and if I were not
experienced I would be shocked at what is being said. Get over Alaska.
What do you care about Alaska? I care about my family. I even care
about the other guy's family.
Why was FAA started in the first place?
June 30, 1956: TWA Flight 2 collided with United Flight 17 killing
128 people. The record shows that one probable cause of the accident
was insufficiency of the en route traffic control advisory.
They can trivialize it on the other side all they want--smile and
smirk. But the fact is that Don Young was the smartest of them all. And
why didn't we hear from the Republican side when the vote was taking
place in June? We had 11 Republicans vote with us. I did not hear the
cry that: We are not going to be able to fund this. We are going to be
able to fund it.
Senator Rockefeller and I proposed a compromise in S. 1618, which was
an FAA temporary extension act. Let us get it all out there. But no,
the other side persists in getting this thing through by one hook or
another.
The fact is that by any sense of one's decency, don't throw FAA into
the same pot out of which we dug the baggage screeners. It is
ridiculous to have this kind of a debate.
Sure, we can prove Air Force One can land anyplace. We know the
President lands it all over in fundraising, for goodness' sake. We see
that airplane going out there. But that is a different situation than
the one we are talking about when we have pilots who can occasionally
make mistakes even when aided by the guidance of the FAA controllers.
They know exactly what to do with the weather, they know what wind
sheer looks like, and they know all of the conditions. And I am not the
pilot. Senator McCain is the pilot in this room.
The fact is it is safety; that is what I am concerned about. I am not
interested in protecting anybody's turf except the families who fly
every day across this country and the people who want to know they are
going to get there in a timely and safe fashion. With the scares we
suddenly see coming out, and shoulder-fired missiles, and here--oh, no;
we don't have to talk about safety; let us talk about process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield whatever time remains to Senator
McCain who will wrap up. Any time he doesn't use I would like to
retain.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I will be brief.
The letter says:

Let me be absolutely clear. The administration has no plans
to privatize the Nation's air traffic control system.

I would resist and join in efforts to prevent that.
It is very interesting: Baggage screeners? Could the Senator from New
Jersey be talking about TSA talking about baggage screeners? That is an
interesting depiction. They are required to be make sure there is
security in our airports, I inform my colleague.
We are talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs here. We are
talking about safety. We are talking about improved security. We know
what needs to be done to improve security at our airports. That is in
this bill. These come from the recommendations of the TSA and the
Department of Homeland Security. They are vital.
If the Senator from New Jersey is interested in safety, then he will
support the passage of this bill because it enhances in a broad variety
of ways the safety of the airports in America. It is vital we implement
these safety procedures.
If they were not interested, Vice President Gore's National
Performance Review in 1994, recommendation No. 9 for Department of
Transportation, recommended converting 99 FAA staff control towers to
contract operations. I wonder if the Vice President had that in mind at
the time this process began.
The important point is we tried very hard to come to some agreement.
I

[[Page S14951]]

don't think this has been a good process, but we made offer after
offer. We have pressured the administration to come up with other
offers. But the reality we were faced with was the threat of a
Presidential veto. So we tried to reach accommodation. Obviously, that
has not been enough.
But I assure my colleagues that if we don't pass this legislation, we
will be back to the status quo, and the status quo--because we are not
going to let this authorization die--will be continued privatization of
towers in America, a program which has been a successful experiment.
I thank Senator Rockefeller for his hard work on this issue. I
appreciate it. Especially, I thank Senator Lott for the many hours he
put in trying to get this very important legislation passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 2 minutes.
Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which Senator
McCain referred a moment ago from administrator Marion C. Blakely be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration,
Washington, DC, November 17, 2003.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation,
Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I have received your November 13, 2003,
letter regarding the issue of contracting our functions
performed by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees.
It is unfortunate that the recent debate on FAA's pending
reauthorization bill, Vision 100--The Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act has led some to confuse maintaining the
status quo of the FAA's Contract Tower Program with
privatizing our nation's air traffic control system. Let me
be absolutely clear: the Administration has no plans to
privatize the nation's air traffic control system.
I welcome and respect the Committee's duty to perform
oversight of the FAA. I look forward to participating in the
hearings you described, as there are many misconceptions as
to the FAA's plans with respect to competitive sourcing that
I would like to correct. In the meantime, if the legislation
is enacted in its current form, you have my commitment that
during the current fiscal year the FAA will not contract out
any air traffic separation and control function currently
performed by the FAA. Further, during that period, the FAA
will not convert any Visual Flight Rule (VFR) tower to a
contract tower.
I look forward to working with the Committee on the
important challenges facing the Federal Aviation
Administration. The Conference Report contains many
provisions which will provide us with important tools to
enhance aviation safety, security, and capacity. I hope that
my assurances to the Committee will allow us to move forward
on this important piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Marion C. Blakey,
Administrator.

Mr. LOTT. Let me read from part of that letter. She acknowledges the
letter the bipartisan group sent her last week, dated November 13,
regarding contracting out functions performed by the Federal Aviation
Administration employees.

It is unfortunate that the recent debate on FAA's pending
reauthorization bill, Vision 100--the Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act has led to some confusing maintaining the
status quo of FAA's Contract Tower Program with privatizing
our nation's air traffic control system. Let me be absolutely
clear: The Administration has no plans to privatize the
nation's air traffic control system.
I welcome and respect the Committee's duty to perform
oversight of the FAA. I look forward to participating in the
hearings you describe, as there are many misconceptions as to
the FAA's plans with respect to competitive sourcing that I
would like to correct. In the meantime, if the legislation is
enacted in its current form, you have my commitment that
during the current fiscal year the FAA will not contract out
any air traffic separation and control function currently
performed by the FAA. Further, during that period, the FAA
will not convert any Visual Flight Rule (VFR) tower to a
contract tower.

What more can you ask? This is a letter from the Administrator,
responding to our letter assuring us of those things we have been
asking. They are not going to contract the air traffic control system,
and they are not going to convert the visual flight rule tower to a
contract tower.
I urge my colleagues, for the safety of the American people, for the
importance of jobs in the economy, to vote for cloture. Let's pass this
legislation and move it to the President for his signature.
Have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays are mandatory under the
rule.
Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.

cloture motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the conference
report to accompany H.R. 2115, the Flight 100-Century of
Aviation Reauthorization Act.
Bill Frist, John McCain, Conrad Burns, Ben Nighthorse
Campbell, Wayne Allard, Jeff Sessions, Mike Crapo,
Larry E. Craig, Kay Bailey Hutchison, John E. Sununu,
George Allen, Saxby Chambliss, Rick Santorum, Norm
Coleman, Craig Thomas, Pat Roberts, Trent Lott.

Mr. CORNYN. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been
waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
conference report to accompany H.R. 2115 shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett),
the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
Bunning), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator
from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Sununu) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yes.''
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine),
the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from
Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 45, nays 43, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 453 Leg.]

YEAS--45

Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Burns
Campbell
Chafee
Chambliss
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stevens
Talent
Thomas
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--43

Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Byrd
Cantwell
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Daschle
Dayton
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Frist
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Specter
Stabenow
Wyden

NOT VOTING--12

Bennett
Brownback
Bunning
Corzine
Dodd
Edwards
Graham (FL)
Graham (SC)
Gregg
Kerry
Lieberman
Sununu
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 45, the nays are
43. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by
which cloture failed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That motion is entered.
Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the information of colleagues, we will
have no more rollcall votes tonight. For my colleagues' planning
purposes, we will come in tomorrow morning at 9:30 and have two cloture
votes beginning at 10:30 tomorrow morning. Tonight, we

[[Page S14952]]

will continue with the debate for which we will get unanimous consent
in a moment. I encourage our colleagues to participate and to stay for
this debate for which we will propound a unanimous consent request at
this juncture.
Again, we will have no more rollcall votes tonight. We will have two
cloture votes at 10:30 tomorrow morning.

____________________