[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 23958-23972]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             AIR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT ACT--Continued

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the benefit of my colleagues, we are 
nearing the end as far as amendments are concerned. We will be ready 
within about 20 minutes to a half hour to complete an amendment by 
Senator Dorgan. We are in the process of working on it. We have several 
amendments by Senator Hatch that we are trying to get so we can work 
those out. We have no report yet from Senator Hutchison on whether or 
not she wants an amendment. So if Senator Hutchison, or her staff, is 
watching, we would like to get that resolved. There is a modification 
of an amendment by Senator Baucus.
  Other than that, we will be prepared to move to the previous 
unanimous consent agreement concerning debate on the Robb amendment and 
vote on that, followed by final passage. I believe we are nearing that 
point. So as we work out the final agreements on these amendments, I 
hope that within 10 or 15 minutes we will be able to complete action on 
that and be prepared to move to the Robb amendment debate and then 
final passage.
  Mr. President, in the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1898, As Modified

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Baucus, I send a 
modification to the desk and ask that it be accepted.

[[Page 23959]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The modification will be accepted.
  The amendment (No. 1898), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       (  ) Airline Quality Service Reports.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall modify the Airline Service Quality 
     Performance reports required under part 234 of title 14, Code 
     of Federal Regulations, to more fully disclose to the public 
     the nature and source of delays and cancellations experienced 
     by air travelers. Such modifications shall include a 
     requirement that air carriers report delays and cancellations 
     in categories which reflect the reasons for such delays and 
     cancellations. Such categories and reporting shall be 
     determined by the Administrator in consultation with 
     representatives of airline passengers, air carriers, and 
     airport operators, and shall include delays and cancellations 
     caused by air traffic control.


                           Amendment No. 1927

       (Purpose: To amend title 18, United States Code, with 
     respect to the prevention of frauds involving aircraft or 
     space vehicle parts in interstate or foreign commerce.)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Hatch and others, I 
send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN], for Mr. Hatch, Mr. 
     Leahy, and Mr. Thurmond, proposes an amendment numbered 1927.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today I am proud to offer the Aircraft 
Safety Act of 1999 as an amendment to S. 82, the Air Transportation 
Improvement Act. I join with Senator Leahy and Senator Thurmond in 
proposing this amendment, which will provide law enforcement with a 
potent weapon in the fight to protect the safety of the traveling 
public. This is one piece of legislation which could truly help save 
hundreds of lives.
  Current federal law does not specifically address the growing problem 
of the use of unapproved, uncertified, fraudulent, defective or 
otherwise unsafe aviation parts in civil, military and public aircraft. 
Those who traffic in this potentially lethal trade have thus far been 
prosecuted under a patchwork of Federal criminal statutes which are not 
adequate to deter the conduct involved. Most subjects prosecuted to 
date have received little of no jail time, and relatively minor fines 
have been assessed. Moreover, law enforcement has not had the tools to 
prevent these individuals from reentering the trade or to seize and 
destroy stockpiles of unsafe parts.
  While the U.S. airline industry can take pride in the safety record 
they have achieved thus far, trade in fraudulent and defective aviation 
parts is a growing problem which could jeopardize that record. These 
suspect parts are not only readily available throughout the country, 
they are being installed on aircraft as we speak. This problem will 
continue to grow as our fleet of commercial and military aircraft 
continues to age. Safe replacement parts are vital to the safety of 
this fleet. When you consider that one Boeing 747 has about 6 million 
parts, you begin to understand the potential for harm caused by the 
distribution of fraudulent and defective parts.
  Where do these parts come from? Some are used or scrap parts which 
should be destroyed, or have not been properly repaired. Others are 
simply counterfeit parts using substandard materials unable to 
withstand the rigors imposed through daily use on a modern aircraft. 
Some are actually scavenged from among the wreckage and broken bodies 
strewn about after an airplane crash. For example, when American 
Airlines Flight 965 crashed into a mountain in Columbia in 1995, it 
wasn't long before some of the parts from that aircraft wound up back 
in the United States and resold as new by an unscrupulous Miami dealer 
who had obtained them through the black market.
  While the danger to passengers and civilians on the ground is 
substantial, this danger also jeopardizes the courageous men and women 
of our armed forces. The Army is increasingly buying commercial off-
the-shelf aircraft and parts for their growing small jet and piston-
engine passenger and cargo fleets. The Department of Defense will buy 
196 such aircraft by 2005 and virtually every major commercial 
passenger aircraft is in the Air Force fleet, although the military 
designation is different. In addition, there are dozens of specially 
configured commercial aircraft that have frame modifications to serve 
special missions, such as reconnaissance and special operations forces. 
The safety of all of these vehicles is dependent on the quality of the 
parts used to repair them and keep them flying.
  The amendment we have proposed will criminalize: (1.) The knowing 
falsification or concealment of a material fact relating to the 
aviation quality of a part; (2.) The knowing making of a fraudulent 
misrepresentation concerning the aviation quality of a part; (3.) the 
export, import, sale, trade or installation of any part where such 
transaction was accomplished by means of a fraudulent certification or 
other representation concerning the aviation quality of a part; (4.) An 
attempt or conspiracy to do the same.
  The penalty for a violation will be up to 15 years in prison and a 
fine of up to $250,000, however, if that part is actually installed, 
the violator will face up to 25 years and a fine of $500,000. And if 
the part fails to operate as represented and serious bodily injury or 
death results, the violator can face up to life in prison and a 
$1,000,000 fine. Organizations committing a violation will be subject 
to fines of up to $25,000,000.
  In addition to the enhanced criminal penalties created, the 
Department of Justice may also seek reasonable restraining orders 
pending the disposition of actions brought under the section, and may 
also seek to remove convicted persons from engaging in the business in 
the future and force the destruction of suspect parts. Criminal 
forfeiture of proceeds and facilitating property may also be sought. 
The Attorney General is also given the authority to issue subpoenas for 
the purpose of facilitating investigations into the trafficking of 
suspect parts, and wiretaps may be obtained where appropriate.
  This amendment is supported by Attorney General Reno, Secretary 
Slater, Secretary Cohen and NASA Administrator Goldin, and OMB has 
indicated that this amendment is in accord with the President's 
program. I ask my fellow Senators to join with Senators Leahy, Thurmond 
and me in supporting this important piece of legislation.
  I ask unanimous consent that relevant material, including a copy of 
the amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is proposed legislation, ``The 
     Aircraft Safety Act of 1999.'' This is part of the 
     legislative program of the Department of Justice for the 
     first session of the 106th Congress. This legislation would 
     safeguard United States aircraft, space vehicles, passengers, 
     and crewmembers from the dangers posed by the installation of 
     nonconforming, defective, or counterfeit parts in civil, 
     public, and military aircraft. During the 105th Congress, 
     similar legislation earned strong bi-partisan support, as 
     well as the endorsement of the aviation industry.
       The problems associated with fraudulent aircraft and 
     spacecraft parts have been explored and discussed for several 
     years. Unfortunately, the problems have increased while the 
     discussions have continued. Since 1993, federal law 
     enforcement agencies have secured approximately 500 criminal 
     indictments for the manufacture, distribution, or 
     installation of nonconforming parts. During that same period, 
     the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received 1,778 
     reports of suspected unapproved parts, initiated 298 
     enforcement actions, and issued 143 safety notices regarding 
     suspect parts.
       To help combat this problem, an interagency Law 
     Enforcement/FAA working group was established in 1997. 
     Members include the Federal Bureau of Investigation

[[Page 23960]]

     (FBI); the Office of the Inspector General, Department of 
     Transportation; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service; 
     the Office of Special Investigations, Department of the Air 
     Force; the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Department 
     of the Navy; the Customs Service, Department of the Treasury; 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the 
     FAA. The working group quickly identified the need for 
     federal legislation that targeted the problem of suspect 
     aircraft and spacecraft parts in a systemic, organized 
     manner. The enclosed bill is the product of the working 
     group's efforts.
       Not only does the bill prescribe tough new penalties for 
     trafficking in suspect parts; it also authorizes the Attorney 
     General, in appropriate cases, to seek civil remedies to stop 
     offenders from re-entering the business and to direct the 
     destruction of stockpiles and inventories of suspect parts so 
     that they do not find their way into legitimate commerce. 
     Other features of the bill are described in the enclosed 
     section-by-section analysis.
       If enacted, this bill would give law enforcement a potent 
     weapon in the fight to protect the safety of the traveling 
     public. Consequently, we urge that you give the bill 
     favorable consideration.
       We would be pleased to answer any questions that you may 
     have and greatly appreciate your continued support for strong 
     law enforcement. The Office of Management and Budget has 
     advised us that, from the perspective of the Administration's 
     program, there is no objection to the submission of this 
     legislative proposal, and that its enactment would be in 
     accord with the program of the President.
           Sincerely,
     Janet Reno,
       Attorney General.
     Rodney E. Slater,
       Secretary of Transportation.
     William S. Cohen,
       Secretary of Defense.
     Daniel S. Goldin,
       Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration.
       Enclosures.
                                  ____


                          Proposed Legislation

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America, in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Aircraft Safety Act of 
     1999.''

     SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF FRAUDS INVOLVING AIRCRAFT OR 
                   SPACEVEHICLE PARTS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN 
                   COMMERCE.

       (a) Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end of section 31 the following:
       `` `Aviation quality' means, with respect to aircraft or 
     spacevehicle parts, that the item has been manufactured, 
     constructed, produced, repaired, overhauled, rebuilt, 
     reconditioned, or restored in conformity with applicable 
     standards specified by law, regulation, or contract.
       `` `Aircraft' means any civil, military, or public 
     contrivance invented, used, or designed to navigate, fly, or 
     travel in the air.
       `` `Part' means frame, assembly, component, appliance, 
     engine, propeller, material, part, spare part, piece, 
     section, or related integral or auxiliary equipment.
       `` `Spacevehicle' means a man-made device, either manned or 
     unmanned, designed for operation beyond the earth's 
     atmosphere.
       `` `State' means a State of the United States, the District 
     of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession 
     of the United States.''.
       (b) Chapter 2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following--

     ``Sec. 38. Fraud involving aircraft or spacevehicle parts in 
       interstate or foreign commerce

       ``(a) Offenses.--Whoever, in or affecting interstate or 
     foreign commerce, knowingly--
       ``(1) falsifies or conceals a material fact; makes any 
     materially fraudulent representation; or makes or uses any 
     materially false writing, entry, certification, document, 
     record, data plate, label or electronic communication, 
     concerning any aircraft or spacevehicle part;
       ``(2) exports from or imports or introduces into the United 
     States, sells, trades, installs on or in any aircraft or 
     spacevehicle any aircraft or spacevehicle part using or by 
     means of fraudulent representations, documents, records, 
     certifications, depictions, data plates, labels or electronic 
     communications; or
       ``(3) attempts or conspires to commit any offense described 
     in paragraph (1) or (2), shall be punished as provided in 
     subsection (b).
       ``(b) Penalties.--The punishment for an offense under 
     subsection (a) is as follows:
       ``(1) If the offense relates to the aviation quality of the 
     part and the part is installed in an aircraft or 
     spacevehicle, a fine of not more than $500,000 or 
     imprisonment for not more than 25 years, or both;
       ``(2) If, by reason of its failure to operate as 
     represented, the part to which the offense is related is the 
     probable cause of a malfunction or failure that results in 
     serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to or the 
     death of any person, a fine of not more than $1,000,000 or 
     imprisonment for any term of years or life, or both;
       ``(3) If the offense is committed by an organization, a 
     fine of not more than $25,000,000; and
       ``(4) In any other case, a fine under this title or 
     imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both.
       ``(c) Civil Remedies.--(1) The district courts of the 
     United States shall have jurisdiction to prevent and restrain 
     violations of this section by issuing appropriate orders, 
     including, but not limited to: ordering any person convicted 
     of an offense under this section to divest himself of any 
     interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise, or to 
     destroy, or to mutilate and sell as scrap, aircraft material 
     or part inventories or stocks; imposing reasonable 
     restrictions on the future activities or investments of any 
     such person, including, but not limited to, prohibiting 
     engagement in the same type of endeavor as used to perpetrate 
     the offense, or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any 
     enterprise, making due provisions for the rights and 
     interests of innocent persons.
       ``(2) The Attorney General may institute proceedings under 
     this subsection. Pending final determination thereof, the 
     court may at any time enter such restraining orders or 
     prohibitions, or take such other actions, including the 
     acceptance of satisfactory performance bonds, as it shall 
     deem proper.
       ``(3) A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the 
     United States in any criminal proceeding brought by the 
     United States under this section shall estop the defendant 
     from denying the essential allegations of the criminal 
     offense in any subsequent civil proceeding brought by the 
     United States.
       ``(d) Criminal forfeiture.--(1) The court, in imposing 
     sentence on any person convicted of an offense under this 
     section, shall order, in addition to any other sentence and 
     irrespective of any provision of State law, that the person 
     shall forfeit to the United States--
       ``(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any 
     proceeds such person obtained, directly or indirectly, as a 
     result of such offense; and
       ``(B) any property used, or intended to be used, in any 
     manner or part, to commit or facilitate the commission of 
     such offense.
       ``(2) The forfeiture of property under this section, 
     including any seizure and disposition thereof, and any 
     proceedings relating thereto, shall be governed by the 
     provisions of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse 
     Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. Sec. 853), 
     except for subsection (d) of that section.
       ``(e) Construction with Other Laws.--This Act shall not be 
     construed to preempt or displace any other remedies, civil or 
     criminal, provided by Federal or State law for the fraudulent 
     importation, sale, trade, installation, or introduction of 
     aircraft or spacevehicle parts into commerce.
       ``(f) Territorial Scope.--This section applies to conduct 
     occurring within the United States or conduct occurring 
     outside the United States if--
       ``(1) The offender is a United States person; or
       ``(2) The offense involves parts intended for use in U.S. 
     registry aircraft or spacevehicles; or
       ``(3) The offense involves either parts, or aircraft or 
     spacevehicles in which such parts are intended to be used, 
     which are of U.S. origin.
       ``(g) Authorized Investigative Demand Procedures.--
       ``(1) Authorization.--(A) In any investigation relating to 
     any act or activity involving an offense under this section, 
     the Attorney General may issue in writing and cause to be 
     served a subpoena--
       ``(i) requiring the production of any records (including 
     any books, papers, documents, electronic media, or other 
     objects or tangible things), which may be relevant to an 
     authorized law enforcement inquiry, that a person or legal 
     entity may possess or have care, custody, or control; and
       ``(ii) requiring a custodian of records to give testimony 
     concerning the production and authentication of such records.
       ``(B) A subpoena under this subsection shall describe the 
     objects required to be produced and prescribe a return date 
     within a reasonable period of time within which the objects 
     can be assembled and made available.
       ``(C) The production of records shall not be required under 
     this section at any place more than 500 miles distant from 
     the place where the subpoena for the production of such 
     records is served.
       ``(D) Witnesses summoned under this section shall be paid 
     the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the 
     courts of the United States.
       ``(2) Service.--A subpoena issued under this section may be 
     served by any person who is at least 18 years of age and is 
     designated in the subpoena to serve it. Service upon a 
     natural person may be made by personal delivery of the 
     subpoena to him. Service may be made upon a domestic or 
     foreign corporation or upon a partnership or other 
     unincorporated association which is subject

[[Page 23961]]

     to suit under a common name, by delivering the subpoena to an 
     officer, to a managing or general agent, or to any other 
     agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service 
     of process. The affidavit of the person serving the subpoena 
     entered on a true copy thereof by the person serving it shall 
     be proof of service.
       ``(3) Enforcement.--In the case of contumacy by or refusal 
     to obey a subpoena issued to any person, the Attorney General 
     may invoke the aid of any court of the United States within 
     the jurisdiction of which the investigation is carried on or 
     of which the subpoenaed person is an inhabitant, or in which 
     he carries on business or may be found, to compel compliance 
     with the subpoena. The court may issue an order requiring the 
     subpoenaed person to appear before the Attorney General to 
     produce records, if so ordered, or to give testimony 
     concerning the production and authentication of such records. 
     Any failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by 
     the court as a contempt thereof. All process in any such case 
     may be served in any judicial district in which such person 
     may be found.
       ``(4) Immunity from civil liability.--Notwithstanding any 
     Federal, State, or local law, any person, including officers, 
     agents, and employees, receiving a summons under this 
     section, who complies in good faith with the summons and thus 
     produces the materials sought, shall not be liable in any 
     court of any State or the United States to any customer or 
     other person for such production or for nondisclosure of that 
     production to the customer.''.
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     2 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

``38. Fraud involving aircraft of space vehicle parts in interstate of 
              foreign commerce.''.

     SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       Section 2516(1)(c) of title 18, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``section 38 (relating to aircraft parts 
     fraud),'' after ``section 32 (relating to destruction of 
     aircraft or aircraft facilities),''.
                                  ____


                      Section-by-Section Analysis

     SECTION 1.

       This section states the short title of the legislation, the 
     ``Aircraft Safety Act of 1999.''

     SECTION 2. PREVENTION OF FRAUDS INVOLVING AIRCRAFT OR 
                   SPACEVEHICLE PARTS IN INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN 
                   COMMERCE.

       This section, whose primary purpose is to safeguard U.S. 
     aircraft and spacecraft, and passengers and crewmembers from 
     the dangers posed by installation of nonconforming, 
     defective, or counterfeit frames, assemblies, components, 
     appliances, engines, propellers, materials, parts or spare 
     parts into or onto civil, public, and military aircraft. 
     Thus, even though the section is cast as an amendment to the 
     criminal law, it is a public safety measure.
       The problems associated with nonconforming, defective, and 
     counterfeit aircraft parts have been explored and discussed 
     in a number of fora for several years. For example, in 1995, 
     the Honorable Bill Cohen, then Chairman of the Senate 
     Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the 
     District of Columbia (now Secretary of Defense), said: 
     ``Airplane parts that are counterfeit, falsely documented or 
     manufactured without quality controls are posing an increased 
     risk to the flying public, and the federal government is not 
     doing enough to ensure safety.'' Similarly, Senator Carl 
     Levin, in a 1995 statement before the same Subcommittee, 
     said: ``A domestic passenger airplane can contain as many as 
     6 million parts. Each year, about 26 million parts are used 
     to maintain aircraft. Industry has estimated that as much as 
     $2 billion in unapproved parts are now sitting on the shelves 
     of parts distributors, airlines, and repair stations.''
       Notwithstanding increased enforcement efforts, the 
     magnitude of the problem is increasing: according to the June 
     10, 1996, edition of Business Week magazine, ``Numerous FAA 
     inspectors . . . say the problem of substandard parts has 
     grown dramatically in the past five years. That's partly 
     because the nation's aging airline fleet needs more repairs 
     and more parts to keep flying--increasing the opportunities 
     for bad parts to sneak in. And cash-strapped startups 
     outsource much of their maintenance, making it harder for 
     them to keep tabs on the work.'' According to Senator Levin's 
     1995 statement, ``over the past five years, the Department of 
     Transportation Inspector General and the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation have obtained 136 indictments, 98 convictions, 
     about $50 million in criminal fines, restitutions and 
     recoveries in cases involving unapproved aircraft parts. . . 
     . The bad news is that additional investigations are underway 
     with no sign of a flagging market in unapproved parts.''
       Yet, no single Federal law targets the problem in a 
     systemic, organized manner. Prosecutors currently use a 
     variety of statutes to bring offenders to justice. These 
     statutes include mail fraud, wire fraud, false statements and 
     conspiracy, among others. While these prosecutorial tools 
     work well enough in many situations, none of them focus 
     directly on the dangers posed by nonconforming, defective, 
     and counterfeit aircraft parts. Offenders benefit from this 
     lack of focus, often in the form of light sentences. One 
     incident reveals the inherent shortcomings of such an 
     approach.
       ``In 1991, a mechanic at United [Airlines] noticed 
     something odd about what were supposed to be six Pratt & 
     Whitney bearing-seal spacers used in P&W's jet engines--
     engines installed on Boeing 727s and 737s and McDonnell-
     Douglas DC-9s world-wide. The spacers proved to be 
     counterfeit, and P&W determined that they would have 
     disintegrated within 600 hours of use, compared with a 
     20,000-hour service life of the real part. A spacer failure 
     in flight could cause the total failure of an engine. 
     Investigators traced the counterfeits to a broker who 
     allegedly used unsuspecting small toolmakers and printers to 
     fake the parts, as well as phony Pratt & Whitney boxes and 
     labels. The broker . . . pled guilty to trafficking in 
     counterfeit goods and received a seven-month sentence in 
     1994.'' (June 10, 1996, Edition of Business Week Magazine.)
       Given the potential threat to public safety, a focused, 
     comprehensive law is needed to attack this problem.
       Prevention of Frauds Involving Aircraft or Spacecraft Parts 
     in Interstate or Foreign Commerce remedies the problems noted 
     above by amending Chapter Two of Title 18, United States 
     Code. Chapter Two deals with ``Aircraft and Motor Vehicles,'' 
     and currently contains provisions dealing with the 
     destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities, and violence 
     at international airports but says nothing about fraudulent 
     trafficking in nonconforming, defective, or counterfeit 
     aircraft parts.
       Subsection (a) builds on the existing framework of Chapter 
     Two by adding some relevant definitions to Section 31. The 
     subsection defines ``aviation quality,'' when used with 
     respect to aircraft or aircraft parts, to mean aircraft or 
     parts that have been manufactured, constructed, produced, 
     repaired, overhauled, rebuilt, reconditioned, or restored in 
     conformity with applicable standards, specified by law, 
     regulation, or contract. The term is used in Section 38(b) of 
     the Act, which sets forth the maximum penalties for violation 
     of the offenses prescribed by Section 38(a). If the 
     misrepresentation or fraud that leads to a conviction under 
     Section 38(a) concerns the ``aviation quality'' of an 
     aircraft part, then Section 38(b)(2) enhances the maximum 
     punishment by 10 years imprisonment and doubles the potential 
     fine.
       This subsection also defines ``aircraft.'' This definition 
     essentially repeats the definition of aircraft already 
     provided in Section 40102 of Title 49.
       ``Part'' is defined to mean virtually all aircraft 
     components and equipment.
       ``Spacevehicle'' is defined to mean any man-made device, 
     manned or unmanned, designed for operation beyond the earth's 
     atmosphere and would include rockets, missiles, satellites, 
     and the like.
       Subsection (b) adds a totally new Section 38 to Chapter Two 
     of Title 18. Subsection 38(a)(1)-(3) sets out three new 
     offenses designed to outlaw the fraudulent exportation, 
     importation, sale, trade, installation, or introduction of 
     nonconforming, defective, or counterfeit aircraft or aircraft 
     parts into interstate or foreign commerce. This is 
     accomplished by making it a crime to falsify or conceal any 
     material fact, to make any materially fraudulent 
     representation, or to use any materially false documentation 
     or electronic communication concerning any aircraft or 
     spacecraft part, or to attempt to do so.
       The three provisions, overlap to some extent but each 
     focuses upon a different aspect of the problem to provide 
     investigators and prosecutors with necessary flexibility. All 
     are specific intent crimes; that is, all require the accused 
     to act with knowledge, or reason to know, of his fraudulent 
     activity.
       Proposed subsection (b) prescribes the maximum penalties 
     that attach to the offenses created in Subsection (a). A 
     three-pronged approach is taken in order to both demonstrate 
     the gravity of the offenses and provide prosecutors and 
     judges alike with flexibility in punishing the conduct at 
     issue. A basic 15-year imprisonment and $250,000 fine maximum 
     punishment is set for all offenses created by the new 
     section; however, the maximum punishment may be escalated if 
     the prosecution can prove additional aggravating 
     circumstances. If the fraud that is the subject of a 
     conviction concerns the aviation quality of the part at issue 
     and the part is actually installed in an aircraft or 
     spacevehicle, then the maximum punishment increases to 25 
     years imprisonment and a $500,000 fine. If, however, the 
     prosecution is able to show that the part at issue was the 
     probable cause of a malfunction or failure leading to an 
     emergency landing or mishap that results in the death or 
     injury of any person, then the maximum punishment is 
     increased to life imprisonment and a $1 million fine. 
     Finally, if a person other than an individual is convicted, 
     the maximum fine is increased to $25 million.
       New subsection (c) authorizes the Attorney General to seek 
     appropriate civil remedies, such as injunctions, to prevent 
     and restrain violations of the Act. Part of the difficulty

[[Page 23962]]

     in stopping the flow of nonconforming, defective, and 
     counterfeit parts into interstate or foreign commerce is the 
     ease with which unscrupulous individuals and firms enter and 
     re-enter the business; ``Moreover, even when they are caught 
     and punished, these criminals can conceivably go back to 
     selling aircraft parts when their sentences are up.'' (See, 
     1995 Statement of Senator Joe Lieberman before the Senate 
     Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management and the 
     District of Columbia.) In addition to providing a way to 
     maintain the status quo and to keep suspected defective or 
     counterfeit parts out of the mainstream of commerce during an 
     investigation, this provision adds important post-conviction 
     enforcement tools to prosecutors. The ability to bring such 
     actions may be especially telling in dealing with repeat 
     offenders since a court may, in addition to imposing 
     traditional criminal penalties, order individuals to divest 
     themselves of interests in businesses used to perpetuate 
     related offenses or to refrain from entering the same type of 
     business endeavor in the future. Courts may also direct the 
     disposal of stockpiles and inventories of parties not shown 
     to be genuine or conforming to specifications to prevent 
     their subsequent resale or entry into commerce. It is 
     envisioned that the prosecution would seek such relief only 
     when necessary to ensure aviation safety.
       Proposed subsection (d) provides for criminal forfeiture 
     proceedings in cases arising under new section 38 of Title 
     18.
       Proposed subsection (e) discusses how the Act is to be 
     construed with other laws relating to the subject of 
     fraudulent importation, sale, trade, installation, or 
     introduction of aircraft or aircraft parts. The section makes 
     clear that other remedies, whether civil or criminal, are not 
     preempted by the Act and may continue to be enforced. In 
     particular, the Act is not intended to alter the jurisdiction 
     of the U.S. Customs Service, which is generally responsible 
     for enforcing the laws governing importation of goods into 
     the United States.
       Proposed subsection (f) deals with the territorial scope of 
     the Act. To rebut the general presumption against the 
     extraterritorial effect of U.S. criminal laws, this section 
     provides that the Act will apply to conduct occurring both in 
     the United States and beyond U.S. borders. Clearly the U.S. 
     will apply the law to conduct occurring outside U.S. 
     territory only when there is an important U.S. interest at 
     stake. If, however, an offender affects the safety of U.S. 
     aircraft, spacevehicles, or is a U.S. person, this section 
     would provide for subject matter jurisdiction even if the 
     offense is committed overseas.
       Subsection (g) of new section 38 authorizes administrative 
     subpoenas to be issued in furtherance of the investigation of 
     offenses under this section. Under this provision, the 
     Attorney General or designee may issue written subpoenas 
     requiring the production of records relevant to an authorized 
     law enforcement inquiry pertaining to offenses under the new 
     section. Testimony concerning the production and 
     authentication of such records may also be compelled. The 
     subsection also sets forth guidance concerning the service 
     and enforcement of such subpoenas and provides civil immunity 
     to any person who, in good faith, complies with a subpoena 
     issued pursuant to the Section.
       The subsection is modeled closely on an analogous provision 
     found in Section 3486(a)(1) of Title 18, pertaining to health 
     care fraud investigations. Like the health care industry, the 
     aviation industry--including the aviation-parts component of 
     the industry--is highly regulated since the public has an 
     abiding interest in the safe and efficient operation of all 
     components of the industry. The public also has concomitant 
     interest in access to the records and related information 
     pertaining to the industry since, often, the only evidence of 
     possible violations of law may be the records of this 
     regulated industry. Thus, companies and individuals doing 
     business in this industry are in the public limelight by 
     choice and have reduced or diminished expectations of privacy 
     in their affairs relating to how that business is conducted. 
     In such situations, strict probable cause requirements 
     regarding the production of records, documents, testimony, 
     and related materials make enforcement impossible. This 
     provision recognizes this but also imposes some procedural 
     rigor and related safeguards so that the administrative 
     subpoena power is not abused in this context. The provisions 
     rquires the information sought to be relevant to the 
     investigation, reasonably specific, and not unreasonably 
     burdensome to meet.

     SECTION 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

       This section would add the new offenses created by the Act 
     to the list of predicate offenses for which oral, wire, and 
     electronic communications may be authorized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment has been agreed to by both 
sides. There is no further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1927) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2240

(Purpose: To preserve essential air services at dominated hub airports)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Dorgan, I send an 
amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Dorgan, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2240.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. PRESERVATION OF ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE AT DOMINATED HUB 
                   AIRPORTS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 417 is amended by 
     adding at the end thereof the following:

     ``Sec. 41743. Preservation of basic essential air service at 
       dominated hub airports

       ``(a) In General.--If the Secretary of Transportation 
     determines that extraordinary circumstances jeopardize the 
     reliable and competitive performance of essential air service 
     under this subchapter from a subsidized essential air service 
     community to and from an essential airport facility, then the 
     Secretary may require the air carrier that has more than 50 
     percent of the total annual enplanements at that essential 
     airport facility to take action to enable an air carrier to 
     provide reliable and competitive essential air service to 
     that community. Action required by the Secretary under this 
     subsection may include interline agreements, ground services, 
     subleasing of gates, and the provision of any other service 
     to facility necessary for the performance of satisfactory 
     essential air service to that community.
       ``(b) Essential Airport Facility Defined.--In this section, 
     the term `essential airport facility' means a large hub 
     airport (as defined in section 41731) in the contiguous 48 
     states at which 1 air carrier has more than 50 percent of the 
     total annual enplanements at that airport.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Dorgan for this amendment. 
Senator Dorgan has been, for at least 10 years I know, deeply concerned 
about this whole issue of essential air service. Although essential air 
service has increased funding, still we are not having medium-sized and 
small markets being served as they deserve.
  I thank Senator Dorgan for the amendment.
  It has been agreed to by both sides. I don't believe there is any 
further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2240) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the modified Baucus 
amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1898), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President. All we have now remaining is 
the managers' amendment, which will be arriving shortly. Then I will 
have a request on behalf of the leader for FAA passage, and the 
parliamentary procedures for doing so.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I wonder if I might use a few moments 
while the manager is waiting to give general observations. I am totally 
in favor of the bill. I just want to talk generally about the Airport 
and Airways Trust Fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  Over the last several years, there has been a lot of talk and support 
on the House side for the idea of changing the budgetary status of the 
Airport and Airways Trust Fund. In fact, the House's FAA 
Reauthorization bill, the so-called AIR-21, would take the Airport and 
Airways Trust Fund off-budget. Some say the House's real intent is to 
create a new budgetary firewall for aviation, similar to those created 
for the highway and mass transit trust funds under the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
  I've been hearing distant, low rumbles from a minority of my 
colleagues on this side of the Capitol. They, too, would like an off-
budget status or firewall for the Aviation Trust Fund.
  Let me reiterate my response to these proposals--These proposals are 
dangerous and fiscally irresponsible. They undermine the struggle to 
control spending, reduce taxes, and balance the budget.

[[Page 23963]]

  Taking the Aviation Trust Fund off-budget would allow FAA spending to 
be exempt from all congressional budget control mechanisms. It would 
provide aviation with a level of protection now provided only to Social 
Security. Important spending control mechanisms such as budget caps, 
pay-as-you-go rules, and annual congressional oversight and review 
would no longer apply.
  A firewall scenario has very similar problems. A firewall would 
prevent the Appropriations Committee from reducing trust fund spending, 
even if the FAA was not ready to spend the money in a given year. If 
the Appropriations Committee wanted to increase FAA spending above the 
firewall, it would have to come from the discretionary spending cap, a 
very difficult choice given the tight discretionary caps through 2002.
  These proposals would also create problems in FAA management and 
oversight. Both an off-budget or firewall status would reduce 
management and oversight of the FAA by taking trust fund spending out 
of the budget process. Placing the FAA and the trust fund on autopilot 
by locking-up funding would result in fewer opportunities to review and 
effect needed reforms. This is very dangerous. There would be little 
leverage to induce the FAA to strive for higher standards of 
performance. Now is the time for more management and oversight by both 
the Authorizing and Appropriations committee, not less.
  The Budget Enforcement Act and other budget laws were created to keep 
runaway spending in check. I oppose, as we all should, budgetary 
changes that would make it more difficult to control spending, weaken 
congressional oversight, create a misleading federal budget, and 
violate the spirit of the law.
  Some of my colleagues object to the building of money in the Aviation 
Trust Fund. They contend that all of the revenues should be spent on 
airport improvements. They say that all of the aviation related user 
taxes should be dedicated to aviation, and should not be used for other 
spending programs, deficit reduction, or tax cuts.
  On the contrary, total FAA expenditures have far exceeded the 
resources flowing into the trust fund. Since the trust fund was created 
in 1971 to 1998, total expenditures have exceeded total tax revenues by 
more than $6 billion.
  This is because the Aviation Trust Fund resources have been 
supplemented with General Revenues. The purpose of the General Fund 
contribution is that the federal government should reimburse the FAA 
for the direct costs of public-sector use of the air traffic control 
system. The FAA estimated in 1997 that the public-sector costs incurred 
on the air traffic control system is 7.5 percent.
  In 1999, a total of 15 percent of federal aviation funding came from 
the General Fund. Since the creation of the Aviation Trust Fund, the 
General Fund subsidy for the FAA is 38 percent of all spending. This 
far exceeds the 7.5 percent public-sector costs that FAA estimated. 
Therefore, over the life of the trust fund, the public sector has 
subsidized the cost of the private-sector users of the FAA by $46 
billion.
  Let this Congress not make the fiscally irresponsible decision to 
insulate aviation spending from any fiscal restraint imposed by future 
budget resolutions; to make aviation spending off-limits to 
Congressional Appropriations Committees. Let us not grant aviation a 
special budgetary privilege, and make it more difficult for future 
Congresses and Administrations to enact major reforms in airport and 
air traffic control funding and operations.
  Taking the Aviation Trust Funds off-budget or creating a firewall--
these proposals are not fit to fly!
  I yield the floor. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Mexico.


                           Amendment No. 2265

   (Purpose: To make available funds for Georgia's regional airport 
                          enhancement program)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Coverdell.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Coverdell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2265.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the Manager's substitute 
     amendment, insert the following:

     SEC.   . AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR GEORGIA'S REGIONAL AIRPORT 
                   ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM.

       Of the amounts made available to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for the fiscal year 2000 under section 48103 
     of title 49, United States Code, funds may be available for 
     Georgia's regional airport enhancement program for the 
     acquisition of land.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, there is no further debate on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2265) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I know of no further amendments to be 
offered to S. 82 other than the managers' package.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the debate and 
vote in relation to the Robb amendment. I further ask unanimous consent 
that following the vote in relation to the Robb amendment, the 
managers' amendment be in order, and following its adoption, the bill 
be advanced to third reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I wonder whether I could ask my 
colleague, how long will the debate be on the Robb amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN. According to the previous unanimous consent amendment, 
there was 5 minutes for Senators Bryan, Warner, Robb, and 5 minutes for 
me. I don't intend to use my 5 minutes because I know that the Senator 
from Nevada can far more eloquently state the case.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I shall not object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the unanimous-consent 
request is agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to ask for the yeas and nays on passage of the House bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I now ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, therefore, two back-to-back votes will 
occur within a short period of time, the last in the series being final 
passage of the FAA bill.
  I thank all Senators for their cooperation.
  Before I move on to the debate on the part of Senator Bryan, Senator 
Robb, Senator Warner, and myself, I will ask that the Chair appoint 
Republican conferees on this side of the aisle as follows: Senators 
McCain, Stevens, Burns, Gorton, and Lott; and from the Budget 
Committee, Senators Domenici, Grassley, and Nickles.
  I hope the other side will be able to appoint conferees very shortly 
as well so that we can move forward to a conference on the bill. I 
understand the Democratic leader has not decided on the conferees. But 
we have decided ours.
  I see the Senator from Nevada.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 2259

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to accommodate the 
distinguished Senator from Arizona, the chairman. The Senator from 
Nevada would like to use 2 minutes of his time at this point and 
reserve the remainder.
  I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by our distinguished 
colleague from Virginia. I do so because the effect of his amendment 
would leave us with the perimeter rule unchanged.

[[Page 23964]]

  Very briefly, the perimeter rule is a rule enacted by statute by the 
Congress of the United States which prohibits flights originating from 
Washington National to travel more than 1,250 miles and prohibits any 
flights originating more than 1,250 miles from Washington National from 
landing here.
  The General Accounting Office has looked at this and has found that 
it is anticompetitive. It tends to discriminate against new entrants 
into the marketplace, and it cannot be justified by any rational 
standard.
  As is so often the case, a page of history is more instructive than a 
volume of logic. The history of this dates back to 1986 when there was 
difficulty in getting long-haul carriers to move to Washington Dulles. 
At that point in time, the perimeter rule, which was then something 
like 750 miles, was put into effect to force air service for long-haul 
carriers out of Dulles. As we all know, that is no longer the case. 
Dulles has gone to a multibillion-dollar expansion and the original 
basis for the rule no longer exists.
  The effect, unfortunately, of the amendment offered by the 
distinguished Senator from Virginia is to leave that perimeter rule in 
place unchanged. The Senator from Arizona has recommended a compromise. 
He and I would prefer to abolish the rule in its entirety. Yielding to 
the reality of the circumstances, he has provided a compromise to 
provide for 24 additional slots: 12 to be made available for carriers 
that would serve outside of the perimeter; that is, beyond the 1,250 
miles, and 12 within the 1,250 miles.
  This is a very important piece of legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to defeat it on the basis that it is anticompetitive, 
unnecessary, and no longer serves any useful purpose.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in light of the fact that Senator Warner 
just arrived and Senator Robb has not arrived, I ask unanimous consent 
that we stand in a quorum call for approximately 5 minutes, and that 
will give Senator Warner time to collect his thoughts. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield 3 minutes of my time to the Senator from West 
Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, each Member of the Senate will vote 
on the Robb amendment as they see fit. I want to simply make a 
philosophical statement, which I made earlier but will make it again.
  The fact that passengers, planes, parcels, international flight 
activities, planes in the air, and planes on the ground are either 
going to be doubling, tripling, or quadrupling over the next 10 years 
is obviously not now in effect but has everything to do with the future 
of what it is that our airports are willing to accept and what it is 
that those who live around our airports are willing to accept.
  To stop aviation growth, to stop aviation traffic, passengers, 
packages, new airlines, and new international flight activity is to try 
to stop the Internet. It is something you might wish for, but it is not 
going to happen. In fact, it is not something we wish for because it is 
good economic activity. Ten million people work for the airline 
aviation industry, and many of those people work in and around the 
airports where those airplanes land and take off.
  My only point is, we cannot expect to have progress in this country 
without there being a certain inconvenience that goes along with it. We 
have become accustomed to having our cake and eating it, too, and that 
is having our airports but then having a relatively small number of 
flights landing or a slotted number, in the case of four of our major 
airports, landing, but then the thought of others landing becomes very 
difficult.
  Atlanta, Newark, and many other large airports do not have any slots 
at all. The people who live around them survive. They hear the noise. 
They do not like it. The noise mitigation is getting much better as 
technology improves, and the safety technology, if the Congress will 
give the money, will get even better than it is. It is virtually a 
perfect record.
  I simply make the observation that slots are a difficult subject. 
They are very controversial because people prefer quietness to noise. 
But in a world that grows more complex in commerce, in which the 
standard of living is increasing enormously, one cannot have the 
convenience of travel, the convenience of packages, the convenience of 
letters, the convenience of getting around internationally, and the 
convenience of many new airplanes and expect to have everything the way 
it was 30 years ago hold until this day.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and the chairman of the committee and 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
counted against my time under a quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I just attended a ceremony at the 
Department of Defense, at which time the President signed the 
authorization bill for the Armed Forces of the United States for the 
year 2000. I was necessarily delayed in returning to the floor. My 
colleague, Senator Robb, accompanied me, and he will be here 
momentarily. We worked together on this amendment, as we worked 
together on this project from the inception, a project basically to try 
to get National Airport and Dulles Airport into full operation.
  Our aim all along has been to let modernization go forward and, to 
the extent we can gain support in this Chamber, limit any increase in 
the number of flights. We do this because of our concerns regarding 
safety, congestion, and other factors. I say ``other factors'' because 
at the time the original legislation was passed whereby we 
defederalized these airports and allowed a measure of control by other 
than Federal authorities, giving the State of Virginia, the State of 
Maryland, and the District of Columbia a voice in these matters, it was 
clear that Congress should not micromanage these two airports.
  We went through a succession of events to achieve this objective, and 
we are here today hopefully to finalize this legislation--and I have 
already put in an amendment to allow the modernization to go forward--
and to do certain other things in connection with the board, to let the 
board be appointed.
  Now we come to the question of the increased flights, and I support 
the amendment by my distinguished colleague.
  I want to cover some history.
  My remarks today will focus on the unwise provisions included in this 
bill which tear apart the perimeter and high density rules at Reagan 
National Airport. These rules have been in effect--either in regulation 
or in statute--for nearly 30 years. Since 1986, these rules have been a 
critical ingredient in providing for significant capital investments 
and a balance in service among this region's three airports--Dulles 
International, Reagan National, and Baltimore-Washington International.
  First and foremost, I believe these existing rules have greatly 
benefitted the traveling public--the consumer.
  Mr. President, to gain a full understanding of the severe impact 
these increased slot changes will have on our

[[Page 23965]]

regional airports, one must examine the recent history of these three 
airports.
  Prior to 1986, Dulles and Reagan National were federally owned and 
managed by the FAA. The level of service provided at these airports was 
deplorable. At National, consumers were routinely subject to traffic 
gridlock, insufficient parking, and routine flight cancellations and 
delays. Dulles was an isolated, underutilized airport.
  For years, the debate raged within the FAA and the surrounding 
communities about the future of Reagan National. Should it be improved, 
expanded or closed? This ongoing uncertainty produced a situation where 
no investments were made in National and Dulles and service continued 
to deteriorate.
  A national commission, now known as the Holton Commission, was 
created in 1984. It was led by former Virginia Governor Linwood Holton 
and former Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole and charged with 
resolving the longstanding controversies which plagued both airports. 
The result was a recommendation to transfer federal ownership of the 
airports to a regional authority so that sorely needed capital 
investments to improve safety and service could be made.
  I was pleased to have participated in the development of the 1986 
legislation to transfer operations of these airports to a regional 
authority. It was a fair compromise of the many issues which had 
stalled any improvements at both airports over the years.
  The regulatory high density rule was placed in the statute so that 
neither the FAA nor the Authority could unilaterally changes it. The 
previous passenger cap at Reagan National was repealed, thereby ending 
growth controls, in exchange for a freeze on slots. Lastly, the 
perimeter rule at 1,250 miles was established.
  For those interested in securing capital investments at both 
airports, the transfer of these airports under a long-term lease 
arrangement to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority gave MWAA 
the power to sell bonds to finance the long-overdue work. The Authority 
has sold millions of dollars in bonds which has financed the new 
terminal, rehabilitation of the existing terminal, a new control tower 
and parking facilities at Reagan National.
  These improvements would not have been possible without the 1986 
Transfer Act which included the high density rule, and the perimeter 
rule. Limitations on operations at National had long been in effect 
through FAA regulations, but now were part of the balanced compromise 
in the Transfer Act.
  For those who feared significant increases in flight activity at 
National and who for years had prevented any significant investments in 
National, they were now willing to support major rehabilitation work at 
National to improve service. They were satisfied that these guarantees 
would ensure that Reagan National would not become another ``Dulles or 
BWI''.
  Citizens had received legislative assurances that there would be no 
growth at Reagan National in terms of permitted scheduled flights 
beyond on the 37-per-hour-limit. Today, unless the Robb amendment is 
adopted, we will be breaking our commitments.
  These critical decisions in the 1986 Transfer Act were made to fix 
both the aircraft activity level at Reagan National and to set its role 
as a short/medium haul airport. These compromises served to insulate 
the airport from its long history of competing efforts to increase and 
to decrease its use.
  Since the transfer, the Authority has worked to maintain the balance 
in service between Dulles and Reagan National. The limited growth 
principle for Reagan National has been executed by the Authority in all 
of its planning assumptions and the Master Plan. While we have all 
witnessed the transformation of National into a quality airport today, 
these improvements in terminals, the control tower and parking 
facilities were all determined to meet the needs of this airport for 
the foreseeable future based on the continuation of the high density 
and perimeter rules.
  These improvements, however, have purposely not included an increase 
in the number of gates for aircraft or aircraft capacity.
  Prior to the 1986 Transfer Act, while National was mired in 
controversy and poor service, Dulles was identified as the region's 
growth airport. Under FAA rules and the Department of Transportation's 
1981 Metropolitan Washington Airports Policy, it was recognized that 
Dulles had the capacity for growth and a suitable environment to 
accommodate this growth.
  Following enactment of the Transfer Act, plans, capital investments 
and bonding decisions made by the Authority all factored in the High 
Density and Perimeter rules.
   Mr. President, I provide this history on the issues which stalled 
improvements at the region's airports in the 1970s and 1980s because it 
is important to understanding how these airports have operated so 
effectively over the past 13 years.
  Every one of us should ask ourselves if the 1986 Transfer Act has met 
our expectations. For me, the answer is a resounding yes. Long-overdue 
capital investments have been made in Reagan National and Dulles. The 
surrounding communities have been given an important voice in the 
management of these airports. We have seen unprecedented stability in 
the growth of both airports. Most importantly, the consumer has 
benefited by enhanced service at Reagan National.
  For these reasons, I have opposed an increase in slots at Reagan 
National. There is no justification for an increase of this size. It is 
not recommended by the administration, by the airline industry, by the 
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority or by the consumer.
  The capital improvements made at Reagan National since the 1986 
Transfer Act have not expanded the 44 gates or expanded airfield 
capacity. All of the improvements that have been made have been on the 
land side of the airport. No improvements have been made to accommodate 
increased aircraft capacity. Expanding flights at Reagan National will 
simply ``turn back the clock'' at National to the days of traffic 
gridlock, overcrowded terminal activity and flight delays--all to the 
detriment of the traveling public.
  This ill-advised scheme is sure to return Reagan National to an 
airport plagued by delays and inconvenience. This proposal threatens to 
overwhelm the new facilities, just as the previous facilities were 
overwhelmed.
   Mr. President, it is completely inappropriate for Congress to act as 
``airport managers'' to legislate new flights. Those decisions should 
be made by the local airport authority with direct participation by the 
public in an open process. Today, we will be preventing local 
decisionmaking.
  I know that my colleagues readily cite a recent GAO report that 
indicates that new flights at Reagan National can be accommodated. This 
report, however, plainly includes an important disclaimer. That 
disclaimer states:

       This study did not evaluate the potential congestion and 
     noise that could result from an increase in operations at 
     Reagan National. Ultimately, . . . the Congress must balance 
     the benefits that additional flights may bring to the 
     traveling public against the local community's concerns about 
     the effect of those flights on noise, the environment, and 
     the area's other major airports.

  Surely, we cannot make this important decision in a vacuum. 
Determining how many flights serve Reagan National simply by measuring 
how quickly we can clear runway space is not sound policy.
  For these reasons I urge the adoption of the Robb amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes allocated to the Senator have 
expired.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in support of Senator Robb's 
amendment to strike the exceptions to the high-density slot limit and 
the flight perimeter rule at Reagan National Airport.
  I have serious concerns about increasing the number of flights and 
granting exemptions to the 1,250 mile nonstop perimeter rule at Ronald 
Reagan Washington National Airport. In my judgment, the bill provisions 
creating new slots at DCA and allowing

[[Page 23966]]

for nonstop flights beyond the airport's existing 1,250 mile perimeter 
are fundamentally flawed for four reasons: first, they contravene 
longstanding federal policy; second, they undermine regional airport 
plans and programs; third these provisions will not have any 
significant impact on service for most consumers or competition in the 
Washington metropolitan region; and finally the provisions will subject 
local residents to an unwarranted increase in overflight noise.
  First, the slot and perimeter rules have been in place for more than 
thirty years. And they were codified in the 1986 legislation that 
created the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority. Both rules were 
pivotal in reaching the political consensus among federal, regional, 
state, and local interests that allowed for passage of the 1986 
legislations. The rules, as codified, were designed to carefully 
balance the benefits and impacts of aviation in the Washington 
metropolitan area. The bill now before us would overturn more than 
thirty years of federal policies and upset the balance struck in 1986.
  Second, the slot and perimeter rules are among the most fundamental 
air traffic management and planning tools available to the Metropolitan 
Washington Airports Authority. The Washington-Baltimore regional 
airport system plan and Reagan National Airport's master plan both rely 
on the slot and perimeter rules. By eliminating these tools, the bill 
before us would inappropriately override the authority and control 
vested in the Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority and would 
affect local land use plans. One of the main purposes of the 1986 
Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Act was to remove the 
federal government from the business of micro managing the operation of 
National Airport. The bill before us puts the federal government right 
back in the business of making decisions about daily operations and 
local community impacts--issues that should be left to local decision-
makers.
  Third, if the Washington region were not served by two other 
airports, Dulles and BWI, specifically designed to handle the kind of 
long-haul commercial jet operations never intended to use National, 
then the argument that the slot and perimeter rules are somehow 
inherently ``anti-competitive,'' might have some validity. However, 
because consumers have access to so many choices, the rules do not 
injure competition in the Washington-Baltimore region. Far from being 
an anemic market, the Washington-Baltimore market today is one of the 
healthiest and most competitive markets in the country. Consumers can 
choose between three airports and a dizzying number of flights and 
flight times. Indeed, GAO recently reported that even if the perimeter 
rule were removed ``only a limited number of passengers will switch'' 
from Dulles or BWI to National, underscoring my contention that the 
proposed new slots will yield no significant benefit to local consumers 
or otherwise improve the local market.
  Finally, let me address the very important issue of noise, which is 
of principal concern to my constituents. Anyone who lives in the flight 
path of National Airport knows what a serious problem aircraft noise 
poses to human health and even performing daily activities. Citizens 
for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise (CAAN), a coalition of citizens and 
civic associations which has been working for more than 14 years to 
reduce aircraft noise in the Washington metropolitan area, has analyzed 
data from a recent Metropolitan Washington Airport Authority report 
which shows that between 31% and 53% of the 32 noise monitoring 
stations in the region have a day-night average sound level which is 
higher than the 65 decibel level that has been established by the EPA 
and the American National Standards Institute as the threshold above 
which any residential living is incompatible. New slots will add to the 
noise problem.
  Mr. President, I support this amendment because I believe Congress 
should defer to the FAA and local airport officials on this issue. I 
also believe that Congress should not be asking hundreds of thousands 
of local residents to tolerate more aircraft noise merely to benefit a 
handful of frequent flyers and fewer than a handful of airlines. I urge 
my colleagues to support the amendment as well.
  Mr. ROBB addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The junior Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my senior colleague. He and I were 
away from the Senate floor for the signing of the defense authorization 
bill, which was the work of my colleague from Virginia and the 
committee he chairs. I thank him for his kind comments.
  Very simply, this amendment is about a 1986 agreement, on which the 
senior Senator from Virginia and I both worked, as well as many others. 
It was an agreement between the Federal Government and the local 
governments and the State governments involved to make sure that we 
addressed the serious concerns that were then holding up any progress 
on improvements on National Airport.
  At that time, we recognized that the two airports, Dulles Airport and 
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, work in tandem; they should 
be viewed as a single airport. Together, they serve consumers and the 
Washington region well. It was agreed that a local authority would best 
manage the airports, just as all other airports across the nation.
  In this particular case, if we were to approve an increase in flights 
at National Airport, we would be breaking that deal.
  We would also increase the delay and increase the disruption to local 
communities. Most importantly, we would be going back on a deal--we 
would be reneging on a deal that was made so the Federal Government 
would stay out of the business of trying to micromanage the only two 
airports in the area.
  I hope the Members will respect the agreement that this body, the 
Federal Government, and the State governments and the local governments 
entered into in 1986, and move to strike the additional slots that are 
in an otherwise meritorious bill.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Virginia yield the 
remainder of the time? You have 2 minutes left.
  Mr. ROBB. Unless my senior colleague has additional remarks or the 
Senator from Arizona, I would yield back.
  Mr. WARNER. I have no additional remarks. My colleague has handled 
it. Our statements are very clear. We have worked together now for 
these many months. We did our very best on behalf of our State for this 
issue.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona has no more time.
  Mr. ROBB. The Senator from Virginia yields back any time remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada has 2 minutes 55 
seconds.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, it is tempting to engage my colleagues in 
debate, both of whom are good friends, but I shall refrain from doing 
so, knowing the merits of this will result in the rejection of this 
amendment; therefore, I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the Robb 
amendment. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  Excuse me. The yeas and nays have not been ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The question is on 
agreeing to the Robb amendment No. 2259. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Chafee) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 37, nays 61, as follows:

[[Page 23967]]



                      [Rollcall Vote No. 310 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Bayh
     Biden
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Robb
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--61

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Inhofe
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Chafee
     Mack
       
  The amendment (No. 2259) was rejected.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. 
Lautenberg, has inserted--
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. May we have 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will forgive me. I am 
asking for order, and I am going to insist on it. I want to help the 
Chair to get order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is entitled to be heard.
  Mr. BYRD. I hope the Chair will break that gavel so that Senators 
will hear him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senators in the well holding 
conversations please take them out.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.


                     Amendments Nos. 2266 and 1921

  (Purpose: To make technical changes and other modifications to the 
                         substitute amendment)

(Purpose: To improve the safety of animals transported on aircraft, and 
                          for other purposes)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey has insisted 
on his rights, which he has as a Senator, to propose an amendment, for 
which he seeks half an hour of discussion, followed by a vote on his 
amendment. He has another amendment which he has agreed to include in 
the managers' package, which is agreeable to both sides.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Lautenberg amendment No. 1921 
concerning pets be included in the managers' package and that the 
package be accepted at this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCAIN. I add to that unanimous consent request that immediately 
following that, the Senator from New Jersey be recognized for half an 
hour, and following this half hour we will vote on his second 
amendment, and that be immediately followed by final passage.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I am not going to object. But I will 
try to wrap that up in less than half an hour to move the process.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments (Nos. 2266 and 1921) were agreed to.
  (The text of the amendments is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the underlying Gorton 
amendment No. 1892 is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1892) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that no further 
amendments be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor. I thank the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  As a courtesy to the Senator from New Jersey, all those having 
conversations will please take them off the floor.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, there is still a fair amount of 
commotion in the Chamber, and if I might ask that the Chamber be in 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is entitled to be heard.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I hate to talk above the din, but I 
will take the liberty of doing so if that competition continues to 
exist.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is no reason the Senator from New 
Jersey has to insist on order. I ask that the Chair get order in the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If each Senator holding a conversation could 
give the Senator from New Jersey their attention or take the 
conversation out of the Chamber, it would be appreciated.
  The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the keeper of sanity in the Senate, the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia, for his ever available 
courtesy.


                           Amendment No. 1922

 (Purpose: To state requirements applicable to air carriers that bump 
                       passengers involuntarily)

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1922.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of title IV, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 454. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO AIR CARRIERS THAT BUMP 
                   PASSENGERS INVOLUNTARILY.

       (a) In General.--If an air carrier denies a passenger, 
     without the consent of the passenger, transportation on a 
     scheduled flight for which the passenger has made a 
     reservation and paid--
       (1) the air carrier shall provide the passenger with a one-
     page summary of the passenger's rights to transportation, 
     services, compensation, and other benefits resulting from the 
     denial of transportation;
       (2) the passenger may select comparable transportation (as 
     defined by the air carrier), with accommodations if needed, 
     or a cash refund; and
       (3) the air carrier shall provide the passenger with cash 
     or a voucher in the amount that is equal to the value of the 
     ticket.
       (b) Delays in Arrivals.--If, by reason of a denial of 
     transportation covered by subsection (a), a passenger's 
     arrival at the passenger's destination is delayed--
       (1) by more than 2 hours after the regularly schedule 
     arrival time for the original flight, but less than 4 hours 
     after that time, then the air carrier shall provide the 
     passenger with cash or an airline voucher in the amount equal 
     to twice the value of the ticket; or
       (2) for more than 4 hours after the regularly schedule 
     arrival time for the original flight, then the air carrier 
     shall provide the passenger with cash or an airline voucher 
     in the amount equal to 3 times the value of the ticket.
       (c) Delays in Departures.--If the earliest transportation 
     offered by an air carrier to a passenger denied 
     transportation as described in subsection (a) is on a day 
     after the day of the scheduled flight on which the passenger 
     has reserved and paid for seating, then the air carrier shall 
     pay the passenger the amount equal to the greater of--

[[Page 23968]]

       (1) $1,000; or
       (2) 3 times the value of the ticket.
       (d) Relationship of Benefits.--
       (1) General and delay benefits.--Benefits due a passenger 
     under subsection (b) or (c) are in addition to benefits due a 
     passenger under subsection (a) with respect to the same 
     denial of transportation.
       (2) Delay benefits.--A passenger may not receive benefits 
     under both subsection (b) and subsection (c) with respect to 
     the same denial of transportation. A passenger eligible for 
     benefits under both subsections shall receive the greater 
     benefit payable under those subsections.
       (e) Civil Penalty.--An air carrier that fails to provide a 
     summary of passenger's rights to one or more passengers on a 
     flight when required to do so under subsection (a)(1) shall 
     pay the Federal Aviation Administration a civil penalty in 
     the amount of $1,000.
       (f) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Airline ticket.--The term ``airline ticket'' includes 
     any electronic verification of a reservation that is issued 
     by the airline in place of a ticket.
       (2) Value.--The term ``value'', with respect to an airline 
     ticket, means the value of the remaining unused portion of 
     the airline ticket on the scheduled flight.
       (3) Without consent of the passenger.--The term ``without 
     consent of the passenger'', with respect to a denial of 
     transportation to a passenger means a passenger, is denied 
     transportation under subsection (a) for reasons other than 
     weather or safety.

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I first want to thank the managers of 
the bill and acknowledge their hard work. The distinguished Senator 
from Arizona and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia have 
performed an extremely arduous task to get this bill to the place that 
it is. I don't enjoy holding the work back. I don't think I am doing 
that. By some quirk in the process, our amendment was not offered at an 
earlier time because of a procedural mixup. I thank them. I commend 
them for their understanding. I know they want to see this bill get 
into law. It is very important that we do.
  I offer an amendment on an issue that is, unfortunately, becoming 
more and more of a problem for American travelers. That is the 
experience of reserve paid passengers being bumped from overbooked 
airline flights.
  I have talked to Members, and I speak from direct personal experience 
where airlines said: Sorry, seats are filled--even though you have 
arrived on time, paid for your reservation--that is life, and we are 
sorry, and you can get there by going first to Boston, or Cincinnati, 
or what have you.
  Our skies are more crowded than ever. People need to move quickly 
between different cities to do business and also to attend to a wide 
variety of personal functions. As this need has grown, people who fly 
find themselves increasingly at the mercy of the airlines. The airlines 
are not quite as user friendly as they used to be when they were 
scraping to get the revenues and the profits. They do not always treat 
their customers as they should.
  They are pretty good. I give them credit. But in 1998, almost 45,000 
customers--44,797, to be precise--were bumped from domestic flights on 
the 10 largest carriers; 45,000 people to whom word was given, well, 
you have lost your seat, and maybe you can get to your business 
appointment tomorrow; maybe you can miss the flight you were going to 
take to India; or maybe the funeral that was going to be held that you 
were going to attend can be held over for a couple of days until you 
get there.
  Mr. President, it is not pleasant news when it happens. This year, 
the numbers have increased. For the first 6 months, 29,213 customers 
have been involuntarily bumped. If the trend continues, this year over 
58,000 people could be involuntarily bumped--paid for, reserved, and 
just not able to get on the airplane.
  People with a paid reservation have a right to expect a seat on the 
flight they booked. But too often they discover that having a ticket 
doesn't mean much when they get to the gate.
  For the first half of the year, the number of people bumped from 
airlines has increased. Nothing ruins a business trip or a vacation 
more thoroughly than being bumped from a flight. It is sometimes 
impossible to make up for the lost hours and the frustration of 
rearranging longstanding business or personal plans.
  The airlines ought not to be able to act as an elitist business. They 
have to treat their customers with respect, just as any other seller of 
services or products would have to do. They are the only business I 
know of that deliberately oversells their products.
  Can you imagine, if you go to your doctor and you have an 
appointment, it is urgent that you see him, and you get bumped because 
someone else took your place; or you go to buy furniture, you paid for 
it, for 3 months you want to go down and see the final product, and 
they say, sorry, someone else took your place.
  The airlines have a unique position. They also are users of a 
commodity that belongs to the American people; that is, our airspace. 
They use our airports that are paid for by others. They have lots of 
community services that accompany this process of handling passengers. 
When people hold a valid ticket to a sporting event or a concert, they 
know when they get there they are going to have a seat. They deserve 
the same assurances when they try to fly.
  Current practices don't go far enough. There are regulations, but 
they don't have the teeth to get the airlines to respect passengers who 
hold paid for and reserved tickets. The regulations are out of date. 
They don't provide incentives for the airlines to pay attention to this 
overbooking problem. The amount of compensation has not been increased 
for those who are bumped since the early 1980s. The dollar amounts are 
not enough to have any impact on the airlines and their decisions to 
overbook flights.
  I do not want to see them flying with empty seats. I do not think 
that is a good idea. People ought not to take advantage and make two, 
three, and four reservations and then do not show up. But the airlines 
are smart enough to figure out a different way to do it. Perhaps they 
will have to have some kind of a deposit on a reservation that is 
honored as part of the cost of the ticket. If not, then it becomes a 
reminder to the passenger, as well as to the airline, as well as a 
benefit to the airline, that they lost their seat.
  While there are regulations now, we need to make this a matter of 
statutory law so the airlines step up to this serious issue. The Senate 
needs to send a strong message to the airlines that it cannot treat our 
constituents as second-class citizens when they fly. We need to put 
strong measures into law to protect consumers, and that is what this 
amendment does.
  Very simply, my amendment is not out to get the airlines. It is to 
make sure that people are treated fairly, and we are going to have a 
chance to see whether my colleagues agree with me.
  My amendment will make the airlines act more responsibly by allowing 
travelers who are bumped from a flight to first choose between 
alternative travel plans or receiving a full refund. Every traveler who 
is bumped will receive cash or a travel voucher at least equal to the 
amount they paid for the flight. The amount of compensation would 
increase based on how long the person is delayed from his or her 
destination.
  If a passenger is delayed more than 2 hours, he or she would receive 
200 percent of the value of his or her ticket. If a passenger cannot 
depart that day, then he or she would receive 300 percent of the value 
of the ticket, or $1,000, whichever is greater. This will remind the 
airlines they have, after all, already sold that seat. They have 
already gotten the income from that seat.
  My amendment would also require the airlines to disclose these rights 
to passengers in a one-page, simple-language summary. The burden should 
not be on the customer to read up on the latest Federal regulation or 
law to know their rights.
  My goal is not to sponsor a ticket giveaway. The goal is to hold the 
airlines accountable when they put profits ahead of respect and service 
for their customers.
  I will cut short my presentation. I ask my colleagues to recognize on 
what we are voting. We are voting on whether or not a passenger who 
gets bumped is entitled to compensation for being refused that flight 
or whether we are

[[Page 23969]]

going to protect the airline's ability to continue to sell more than 
one person the same seat and hope they will be able to get away with 
it.
  That, Mr. President, concludes my comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I see the majority leader on the floor. It 
is the intention of the two leaders to finish debate on this, have a 
vote on this amendment, and then have final passage by voice vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the yeas and nays.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I object.
  Mr. McCAIN. On final passage.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the Lautenberg amendment.
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I want to speak a moment to my 
colleagues. The Senator from New Jersey has indicated he wants to send 
a strong message to the airlines. I do, too. In fact, over a period of 
a number of months, a number of us have negotiated a strong message. 
What we did not do, however, is prescribe exactly what it was that 
would take place with each and every one of the problems. We forced 
them to report to us through the Department of Transportation with the 
inspector general monitoring and watching.
  I have no objection to part of what is in this amendment, but what 
the Senator from New Jersey gets into is the most careful kind of 
mandating: If it is more than 2 hours late, such and such; if it is 4 
hours late, such and such penalty. It goes on. Sometimes it is three 
times the value of the ticket--it just depends for what it might be.
  In other words, it is precisely the opposite of what we approached 
the airlines to negotiate with in a very hard fashion. For example, 
they are going to have to reply to us on notification of known delays, 
cancellations, diversions, and a lot of other subjects, and they are 
going to have to do it within a prescribed amount of time, to which 
they have agreed.
  We are going to increase penalties for consumer violations under 
which this amendment falls. I say to the Senator, I do not have any 
problem with him putting forward the purpose of his amendment. I do 
have a problem and urge my colleagues to have a problem with 
prescribing exactly how much would be paid according to which number of 
hours and how long the delay was. That is what we have tried to avoid.
  The Senator, from the beginning, has not been for that approach, but 
that approach is what we have agreed to with the airlines. I ask the 
Senator if he will be willing to take out on page 2, from line 9 
through page 3, line 6--if he will be willing to modify his amendment 
to that extent?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I believe under the unanimous consent 
agreement, it is now time for the vote on the Lautenberg amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I agree with the exception of one 
thing that happened I am sure was inadvertent. As I understood it, the 
unanimous consent agreement did not call for rebuttal in any way. Since 
the distinguished Senator from West Virginia chose to rebut, I would 
like to make a couple of sentences to respond to that, and I assume 
there will be no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. Is there objection? 
The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, GAO has reviewed voluntary customer 
service plans and the GAO concluded many of the new measures that the 
airlines volunteered to do were already required in law or regulation. 
The problem is the voluntary customer service plan says nothing on the 
topic of involuntary bumping. Whatever there is already on the books 
does not do it.
  I hope my colleagues will support this reminder to the airlines that 
they have to take better care of the passengers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, following the Lautenberg vote, I ask 
unanimous consent that H.R. 1000 be discharged from the Commerce 
Committee, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, all 
after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 82, as amended, 
be inserted in lieu thereof, the bill be read a third time, and a voice 
vote then occur on passage of H.R. 1000. Finally, I ask consent that 
following the vote, S. 82 be placed back on the calendar.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the Lautenberg amendment.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1922. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Mack) and 
the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 68, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 311 Leg.]

                                YEAS--30

     Baucus
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--68

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Chafee
     Mack
       
  The amendment (No. 1922) was rejected.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and 
move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the importance of 
today's passage of S. 82, the Federal Aviation Administration 
Reauthorization bill. Today is a great day for rural America's air 
passengers. This legislation, now known as the Air Transportation 
Improvement Act of 1999, will bring much needed air service to under 
served communities throughout the Nation. It will grant billions of 
dollars in federal funds to our Nation's small airports for upgrades, 
through the Airport Improvements Program (AIP).
  Senator McCain, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and 
Transportation, is to be commended for his superb leadership on this 
complex and contentious measure. Together with Senator Hollings, their 
joint efforts moved this bill through the committee, to the Senate 
floor, and to conference.
  Also, Senator Slade Gorton's leadership role in this legislation was 
vital. My friend and Colleague from the State of Washington proved 
himself pivotal earlier during S. 82 floor consideration. His 
counterpart, Senator Jay Rockefeller, should also be commended for his 
efforts to move this bill forward.
  Rural Americans are the biggest winners with the passage of S. 82. 
Citizens of under served communities will no longer have to travel 
hundreds of miles and several hours to board a plane.

[[Page 23970]]

This legislation gives incentives to domestic air carriers and its 
affiliates to reach out to these people and serve them conveniently 
near their homes. Many Americans will be able to travel a reasonable 
distance to gain access to our Nation's skies and, from there, anywhere 
they wish to go.
  I also applaud the hard work of Senator Frist of Tennessee. He added 
provisions to S. 82 to expand small community air service. His 
dedicated efforts ensured that under served cities like Knoxville, 
Chattanooga and Bristol/Johnson are now in a position to receive 
additional or expanded air service. Likewise, his efforts will ensure 
that several under served regions in my home state of Mississippi, such 
as Gulfport-Biloxi, Tupelo, or Jackson, will become eligible to compete 
for more flights.
  The major policy changes in S. 82 led to hard fought, but honest 
disagreements. I have enormous respect for the efforts of Senators John 
Warner and Charles Grassley as they diligently advocated for their 
constituents and their respective states. This honest debate and 
willingness to work together to achieve common goals is what makes it 
exciting to serve in the United States Senate.
  Throughout the last twelve months, my home state of Mississippi has 
received federal support from the AIP to make needed physical 
improvements. A portion of these funds went to the Meridian Airport 
Authority to rehabilitate the taxiway pavement. Other funds were 
allocated to the John C. Stennis International Airport in Hancock 
County to extend and light existing taxiways. These enhancements are 
needed. And this bill will ensure that the AIP will continue 
uninterrupted for the next three years. AIP's reauthorization within S. 
82 will allow Mississippi to continue to receive funds for essential 
enhancements for the upcoming year. I look forward to working with the 
airport authorities in my home state to make sure that the right 
improvements are made at the right airports. This is essential to 
aviation safety and economic growth.
  S. 82, through the Gorton-Rockefeller amendment, begins the process 
of evaluating current Air Traffic Control (ATC) management problems and 
implements initial change to begin to address these problems. I hope 
the Gorton/Rockefeller amendment will be a starting point for an 
intensive review of the ATC system next year. The delays experienced 
this past summer will return until a long-term solution to the Nation's 
ATC problems is implemented.
  Once my Colleagues initiate ATC review, I encourage them to include 
all relevant stakeholders in this issue including officials from the 
general aviation community, Department of Defense, commercial airlines 
industry, and airports. Likewise, I hope the Senate will review other 
models of air traffic management, such as Nav Canada and others to 
examine ways that other countries are addressing this matter.
  No legislative initiation is ever possible without the dedicated 
efforts of staff, and I want to take a moment to identify those who 
worked hard to prepare S. 82 for consideration by the full Senate.
  From the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation: 
Marti Allbright; Lloyd Ator; Mark Buse; Ann Choiniere; Julia Kraus; 
Michael Reynolds; Ivan Schlager; Scott Verstandig; and Sam Whitehorn.
  The following staff also participated on behalf of their Senators: 
David Broome; Steve Browning; Jeanne Bumpus; John Conrad; Brett Hale; 
Amy Henderson; Ann Loomis; Randal Popelka; Jim Sartucci; and Lori 
Sharpe.
  These individuals worked very hard on S. 82, and the Senate owes them 
a debt of gratitude for their dedicated service to this legislation.
  Mr. President, our Nation's small communities are a step closer to 
receiving long-sought air service. Also, America's smaller, yet 
important airstrips and airports will be enhanced. This is good for all 
Americans.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would like to voice my support for S. 
82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act. I would also like to take 
this opportunity to commend Senator McCain, the Chairman of the Senate 
Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the Ranking Member of that 
committee, for their leadership and their willingness to accommodate 
many of our colleagues who raised concerns about various provisions in 
the bill.
  I would also like to thank Senator Gorton, the Chairman of the 
Aviation Subcommittee, and Senator Rockefeller, the Ranking Member of 
that committee. They truly have been tireless advocates for improving 
aviation safety, security and system capacity. I would also like to 
thank the Majority Leader, Senator Lott, for the cooperation he has 
shown on this bill and for recently leading the way on another aviation 
bill that allowed the FAA to release FY99 funds for airport 
construction projects. Finally, I would like to thank all of my 
colleagues for their willingness to allow timely Senate consideration 
of this must-pass legislation.
  If it seems like the Senate has already considered legislation bill 
to authorize programs at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
including the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), that is because it 
has. More than a year ago, the Senate passed S. 2279, the Wendell H. 
Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act. Although there 
was overwhelming support for this legislation in the Senate last year, 
House and Senate negotiators could not agree on a multi-year FAA 
authorization bill. In October of last year, Congress passed a six-
month authorization of the FAA instead. The FAA has been operating 
under short-term extensions ever since.
  Mr. President, this is no way to fund the FAA. Short-term extension 
after short-term extension disrupts long-term planning at the FAA and 
at airports around the country that rely on federal funds to improve 
their facilities and enhance aviation safety. Perhaps the only thing 
worse than passing a short-term extension is allowing the AIP program 
to lapse all together. Unfortunately, that is exactly what Congress did 
before the August recess when the House failed to pass a 60-day 
extension previously approved by the Senate. Almost two months later, 
Congress passed a bill authorizing the FAA to release $290 million for 
airport construction projects just before the funds were set to expire 
at end of the fiscal year.
  Airports around the country came within one day of losing federal 
funds they need for construction projects. The numerous short-term 
extensions could have been avoided if Congress would have simply passed 
a multi-year FAA preauthorization bill. We had our chance last year, 
and we have had more than enough time to carry out that responsibility 
this year. The Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 82, the Air 
Transportation Improvement Act of 1999 on February 11--almost eight 
months ago. As my colleagues know, this legislation is almost identical 
to S. 2279, the Wendell H. Ford National Air Transportation System 
Improvement Act.
  With the amendment offered by the managers of the bill, S. 82 would 
authorize programs at the FAA including the AIP program through FY02. 
Specifically, it would provide more than $2.4 billion a year for 
airport construction projects and more than $2 billion a year for 
facilities and equipment upgrades. It would also provide between $5.8 
billion and $6.3 billion for the FAA's operations in FY00 through FY02.
  S. 82 includes a number of provisions to encourage competition among 
the airlines and quality air service for communities. For instance, it 
would authorize $80 million for a four-year pilot program to improve 
commercial air service in small communities that have not benefitted 
from deregulation. Specifically, the bill calls for the establishment 
of an Office of Small Community Air Service Development at the 
Department of Transportation (DoT) to work with local communities, 
states, airports and air carriers and develop public-private 
partnerships that bring commercial air service including regional jet 
service to small communities.

[[Page 23971]]

  I have often commented about how critical the Essential Air Service 
Program has been to small communities in South Dakota and around the 
country to retain air service. Although the Small Community Aviation 
Development Program would not provide a similar per passenger subsidy, 
it would give DoT the authority to provide up to $500,000 per year to 
as many as 40 communities that participate in the program and agree to 
pay 25 percent in matching funds. In addition, the legislation would 
establish an air traffic control service pilot program that would allow 
up to 20 small communities to share in the cost of building contract 
control towers. I am hopeful that South Dakota will have the 
opportunity to participate in the Small Community Aviation Development 
Program.
  Mr. President, some have suggested that we should use S. 82 as a 
vehicle to reform the air traffic control (ATC) system. Due to a number 
of factors, including bad weather, flight delays reached record levels 
this summer. Last month, Senator Rockefeller noted on the Senate floor 
that air traffic control delays increased by 19 percent from January to 
July of this year and by 36 percent from May to June when compared to 
the same time periods last year. The Air Transport Association 
estimates that the cost of air traffic control delays is $4.1 billion 
annually.
  The Administrator of the FAA, Jane Harvey, recently announced a 
number of short-term plans to reduce air traffic control delays. 
Ensuring aviation safety must always be the FAA's top priority. But I 
think Administrator Harvey should be commended for working with the 
airlines to determine ways to reduce air traffic control delays while 
maintaining the FAA's commitment to safety. Although these short-term 
improvements may help reduce flight delays, Administrator Harvey and 
Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater, insist that more must be 
done to modernize the AT for the long-term.
  Last week, Senators Rockefeller and Gorton introduced a bill with a 
package of ATC improvements, and I am pleased that they plan to offer 
this proposal as an amendment to Air Transportation Improvement Act. 
Their proposal would create a Chief Operating Officer position with 
responsibility for funding and modernizing the ATC system. It would 
also create public-private joint ventures to purchase air traffic 
control equipment. Under their proposal, FAA seed money would be 
leveraged with money from the airports and airlines to purchase and 
field ATC modernization equipment more quickly. Although more may need 
to be done to improve the ATC system in the future, I think the plans 
announced by Administrator Harvey and the amendment offered by Senators 
Rockefeller and Gorton are steps in the right direction.
  Mr. President, I know some of our colleagues oppose provisions in 
that bill that would increase the number of flights at the four slot-
controlled airports. The proposal to increase the number of flights at 
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport has been particularly 
controversial, and I would like to commend Senator Robb for being a 
strong advocate for his constituents in Northern Virginia. Although the 
amendment offered by the managers of the bill would reduce the increase 
from 48 to 24 new flights into Ronald Reagan Washington National 
Airport, I understand from Senator Robb that many Virginians continue 
to find that increase objectionable. I know my distinguished colleague 
from Virginia will continue to make persuasive arguments against the 
increase, and I look forward to that debate.
  Although there may be different provisions in this bill that each of 
us of may find objectionable, I hope my colleagues will join me in 
supporting S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act. We simply 
cannot continue to fund the FAA and the AIP program with short-term 
extensions. It is unfair to the FAA, and it is unfair to airports in 
South Dakota and throughout the country. I encourage my colleagues to 
support S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I have filed an amendment dealing with child 
exploitation which I will not press at this time. However, during the 
conference on the FAA bill, I intend to pursue the matter further. It 
is my understanding that Senator McCain will be willing to entertain 
soon an amendment during conference. Is that correct?
  Mr. McCAIN. That is correct.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, the Senate struck the portion of the 
Gorton slots amendment concerning O'Hare Airport and inserted a portion 
of the language that had appeared in last years measure. I understand 
that was not done because the Chairman and Senator Rockefeller 
supported the substance of the change. I understand there was a concern 
with the filing of over 300 amendments on the issue. It was clear that 
we would have had difficulty finishing the bill if the Senate was 
forced to consider those amendments. Now we can move this measure to 
conference. I am hopeful that we will see the slot rule eliminated in 
two phases in the conference. I believe that the O'Hare elements of the 
Gorton Amendment are solid and would be an excellent position for the 
Senate to push for, given that the House has proposed to eliminate 
slots at O'Hare.
  We need a two-step elimination of the slot rule to provide time for 
mitigation against the adverse effects of the rule. These include: the 
need to provide for improved turboprop service for our small cities, 
the need to provide for regional jets for our mid-sized cities, the 
need to provide for balance between the major carriers and we need an 
ability to provide for new entrant carriers to competitively compete. I 
am pleased that Senator Grassley is expected to be a conferee on the 
entire measure.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I agree with the remarks of my fellow 
Senator from Iowa. We need to eliminate the slot rule which is 
detrimental to the air service for cities in Iowa and throughout the 
Midwest. But, the elimination of slots does need to be done in the 
proper way. Otherwise the major carriers will absorb all of the 
capacity of the airport, not [providing sufficient service for small 
and medium sized cities. We need to provide for service by new entrant 
carriers that can provide for real competition on the price of tickets, 
increased ability to provide for turboprops so our smaller cities can 
have proper service, and regional jets for improved service to mid 
sized cities. While I am pleased with the action by the House, I do 
believe that it is important that the conferees support the content of 
the original Gorton proposal.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do agree with the comments of both 
Senators from Iowa about the need to eliminate the slot rule in two 
phases at O'Hare. As I stated this morning, I am a supporter of the 
Gorton slot amendment before its modification by Senator Fitzgerald. I 
intend to do what I can to have the conference report on the bill 
contain the provisions of that measure regarding O'Hare which I believe 
is good policy.
  Providing for a 40 month first phase during which regional jets and 
turboprop aircraft to airports with under two million enplanements, as 
well as exemption of new entrant carriers, all under the limitations 
set out in the original amendment would be exempt from the slot rule is 
crucial. These are key elements of a first phase in the elimination of 
slots at O'Hare. I will also support the increased service provisions 
that allow for improved service in conference.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I fully agree with Senators Harkin 
and Grassley and Chairman McCain. It is very important that service to 
small and mid-sized cities be improved. I believe that the Gorton slot 
provisions as originally proposed was good policy that I intend to 
support in conference. Both Senators Harkin and Grassley have worked 
hard toward the development of the slot amendment concerning O'Hare and 
the New York Airports and their interest is well noted and I intend to 
do what I can in conference to provide for a mechanism along the lines 
that they proposed be agreed to in the conference.

[[Page 23972]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The question is on the 
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will 
report H.R. 1000 by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1000) to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to reauthorize programs of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration, and for other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, all after the 
enacting clause of H.R. 1000 is stricken and the text of S. 82, as 
amended, is inserted in lieu thereof. The question is on third reading 
of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill (H.R. 1000), as amended, was ordered to a third reading and 
was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The bill (H.R. 1000), as amended, was passed, as follows:
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. S. 82 is returned to the calendar.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I thank the Presiding Officer. I want 
to thank some folks because this is important to do. I thank Senators 
Hollings, Gorton, McCain, Daschle, Majority Leader Lott, and Senator 
Dodd, obviously, on the slot question. I thank very much Senators 
Schumer, Durbin, Harkin and Robb for their cooperation.
  On the Democratic Commerce staff, I thank Sam Whitehorn, Kevin Kayes, 
Julia Kraus and Kerry Ates, who works with me; and on the GOP Commerce 
staff, Ann Choiniere and Michael Reynolds; and on Senator Gorton's 
staff, Brett Hale. They have all done wonderful work and I thank them.
  Mr. CRAPO addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.

                          ____________________