[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2177-2188]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 2177]]

    WENDELL H. FORD AVIATION INVESTMENT AND REFORM ACT FOR THE 21ST 
                 CENTURY--CONFERENCE REPORT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank my friend from New Jersey for yielding time.


  Mr. President, for the third time in as many years, I am forced to 
express in this Chamber my strong opposition to a congressional 
proposal to meddle with Virginia airports. I will have to oppose the 
FAA conference report, most of which I strongly support and I believe 
is long overdue because it breaks a promise to the people of Northern 
Virginia--a promise that Congress would permit us to manage and develop 
our own airports.
  While I will again vote against this bill to protest congressional 
interference in the operation of Virginia's airports, I would like to 
make clear that I fully support FAA reauthorization and release of the 
airport improvement funds. In fact, as someone who has long believed 
that we need to substantially increase our investments in 
transportation, I commend the conferees for crafting a conference 
report which does just that.
  Under this bill, annual funding for many airports in Virginia will 
nearly double, providing for critical safety improvement and expanding 
airport capacity. Nonetheless, I will have to vote against the bill.
  By forcing additional flights on Ronald Reagan Washington National 
Airport, this measure breaks the 1986 agreement among the Congress with 
Virginia and the local governments to leave National Airport alone and 
to get Congress out of the business of managing airports.
  Even at the time of the 1986 agreement, however, there was skepticism 
that Congress would keep its word. In the words of then-Secretary of 
Transportation William Coleman, ``National has always been a political 
football.'' Perhaps he should have said: National will always be a 
political football. I hope that is not the case. But I am dubious.
  While I worked hard to oppose the addition of slots and expanding the 
perimeter at National, I am not going to engage in any purely dilatory 
tactics because I believe these issues should be decided on the merits. 
In this case, I believe the merits are simple and compelling.
  Increasing slots at National creates delays for the majority of the 
people who use the airport and undermines the quality of life in 
communities that are near the airport.
  People have a right to expect their Government to keep its end of the 
bargain. By injecting the Federal Government into the running of the 
airports once again, this bill scuttles an agreement we made with this 
region more than a decade ago and breaks a promise to the people who 
live here.
  Mr. President, I yield any time remaining on the side of those in 
opposition.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I recognize the leader's time has been 
utilized and not counted against the time prior to going into morning 
business.
  I ask unanimous consent that when the managers are finished and 
morning business is taken up, I be allowed 10 minutes to introduce a 
bill.
  I yield for my friend from South Carolina who is seeking recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished chairman, 
Senator Rockefeller.
  Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Federal Aviation 
Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill, appropriately known as the 
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
Century, or FAIR-21. This legislation rightfully deserves this title 
for two basic reasons: it represents a fair compromise and it honors 
the former Chairman and later ranking Member of the Aviation 
Subcommittee, Senator Ford.
  Before commenting on the substantive provisions of the conference 
agreement, I think it is essential to commend those who are responsible 
for achieving the compromise we have before us. However, because of the 
number of individuals who have been instrumental in forging this 
agreement, engaging in this exercise is sort of like the Academy Awards 
shows, where the winner gets to list all of the people he needs to 
thank in 30 seconds. I believe FEDEX had a commercial a few years ago 
with a fast talking person, and I shall try to do the same here. First, 
I wish to commend Chairman Shuster, Congressman Oberstar, and Senators 
Rockefeller and Gorton for their unflagging leadership in reaching this 
agreement. I should note that Senator Lott left no stones unturned to 
move this bill. As well, Senators Stevens and Domenici played pivotal 
roles. All of the Conferees and their staff did their part to 
accomplish an enormous task. After much hard work and many long hours 
we have a good, strong bill, which addresses many of the most critical 
aviation issues facing us today --the proper funding for the 
modernization of our air traffic control system and airport 
infrastructure.
  Before explaining a little about the bill, I want to address one of 
the concerns that has been raised. I know that Senator Lautenberg has 
concerns about this bill and what it means for other programs. The 
reality is that for years we have underfunded the FAA, despite the fact 
that the Airport and Airways Trust Fund has acummulated an uncommitted 
surplus, approximating $7-8 billion per year. The surplus is currently 
at $13 billion. Essentially, we have used those monies to meet other 
priorities. Today, we end that game, by making sure that all monies in 
the Trust Fund go to aviation. We also recognize that if more is 
needed, and it will be, then the general fund will be called upon. Bear 
in mind that the FAA and its ATC system provide services not only to 
the commerical and general aviation fleets, but also to our military. 
The FAA also plays a key role in our national security by keeping our 
skies and airports safe.
  We know that when the Trust Fund was created in 1970, it was intended 
solely for modernization/capital improvements. The preamble to the 
statute was as valid then as it is today--it reads ``That the Nation's 
airport and airways system is inadequate to meet the current and 
projected growth in aviation. That substantial expansion and 
improvement of airport and airway system is required to meet the 
demands of interstate commerce, the postal service and national 
defense''. In fact, to clarify that it was intended for capital only, 
Congress in 1971 deleted the phrase ``administrative expenses'' as an 
eligible item for spending. During the first years of the Trust Fund, 
with one year's exception, no Trust Fund monies were spent on the 
general operations of the FAA. In 1977, Congress allowed left over 
funds to be used for salaries and expenses of the FAA. Today, we are 
returning to the original intent--monies first for capital needs, with 
any remaing funds to be used for other expenses. If a general fund is 
needed, then it will be subject to appropriations.
  We have little choice. There is no question we must invest in our 
future. We must expand the system to keep it safe, and to make it more 
efficient. There is one other point--modernization of the ATC system 
involves not only Federal spending, but also a committment from the 
private sector. As we move to a satellite-based system, the air 
carriers and general aviation must make an investment in new technology 
in the cockpit. Finally, it is my understanding that the Transportation 
function 400 numbers in the Budget resolution will reflect the 
agreement reached here today, which should quell some of the concerns 
of my colleague from New Jersey.
  Aviation is an integral part of the overall U.S. transportation 
infrastructure and plays a critical role in our national economy. Each 
day our air transportation system moves millions of people and billions 
of dollars of cargo. The U.S. commercial aviation industry recorded its 
fifth consecutive year of traffic growth, while the general aviation 
industry enjoyed a banner year in shipments and aircraft activity at 
FAA air traffic facilities. Continued economic expansion in the U.S. 
and around the globe will continue to fuel the exponential growth in 
domestic and international enplanements.

[[Page 2178]]

  The FAA is forecasting that by 2009, enplanements are expected to 
grow to more than 1 billion by 2009, compared to 650 million last year. 
During this time, total International passenger traffic between the 
United States and the rest of the world is projected to increase 82.6 
percent. International passenger traffic carried on U.S. Flag carriers 
is forecast to increase 94.2 percent. These percentages represent a 
dramatic increase in the actual number of people using the air system.
  More people, more planes, more delays. Those are the headlines we 
know are coming. We know today that the growth in air travel has placed 
a strain on the aviation system and our own nerves as we travel. In 
1998, 25% of flights by major air carriers were delayed. MITRE, the 
FAA's federally-funded research and development organization, estimates 
that just to maintain delays at current levels in 2015, a 60% increase 
in airport capacity will be needed. As many of you may know, and 
perhaps have experienced first hand, delays reached an all-time high 
this summer. These delays are inordinately costly to both the carriers 
and the traveling public; in fact, according to the Air Transport 
Association, delays cost the airlines and travelers more than $4 
billion per year.
  We cannot ignore the numbers. These statistics underscore the 
necessity of properly funding our investment--we must modernize our Air 
Traffic Control system and expand our airport infrastructure. Gridlock 
in the skies is a certainty unless the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system 
is modernized. A system-wide delay increase of just a few minutes per 
flight will bring commercial operations to a halt according to the 
National Civil Aviation Review Commission and American Airlines. 
According to a study by the White House Commission on Aviation Security 
and Safety, dated January 1997, the modernization of the ATC system 
should be expedited to completion by 2005 instead of 2015.
  FAIR-21 would authorize the Facilities and Equipment (ATC equipment) 
at $2.660 billion, $2.914 billion, and $2.981 billion for FY01-FY03, 
respectively. This represents a 30% increase in funding. For the first 
time ever, FAIR 21 links the spending in the Facilities and Equipment 
account and the Airport Improvement Program to the monies in the 
Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
  As our skies and runways become more crowded than ever, it is crucial 
that we redouble our commitment to safety. Passengers deserve the most 
up to date in safety measures. FAIR-21 ensures that there will be money 
available to pay for new runway incursion devices as well as windshear 
detection equipment. The bill requires all large cargo airplanes 
install collision avoidance equipment. In an effort to support the 
ongoing improvements at civil and cargo airports, FAIR-21 increases 
funding for the improvement of training for security screeners. We also 
have provided whistleblower protection to aid in our safety efforts and 
protect workers willing to expose safety problems.
  FAIR-21 will allow airports to increase their passenger facility 
charges from $3 to $4.50. This is a local choice and it is money which 
an airport can use to encourage new entry, particularly at the 15 
``fortress hubs'' where one carrier controls more than 50% of the 
traffic. Logically, the air fares for the communities dependant upon 
these hubs are much higher than usual. If given a choice, perhaps we 
would have broken up the hubs. Instead, we have used the power of the 
dollar and a half to require these hubs to develop ways to allow new 
carriers to expand as to create the possibility of lower fares to 
places like Charleston, SC. The extra buck and a half will go to expand 
gates and terminal areas, as well as runways at these facilities.
  Since 1996, we have struggled with how to develop meaningful reform 
of the FAA. We have met the majority of the suggestions with the 
exception of the recommendations to establish a fee system and to set 
up a private corporation to run air traffic control. Instead, we chose 
a more prudent path. The 1996 reauthorization bill established a 15 
member Management Advisory Committee (MAC) appointed by the President 
with Senate confirmation but no one has yet to be named. Jane Garvey, 
the FAA Administrator, is doing a wonderful job, but she could have 
used some help. To avoid this in the future, FAIR-21 establishes a 
subcommittee of the MAC to oversee air traffic operations with the 
appointments being made by the Secretary of Transportation rather than 
the President. The bill also establishes a position for a chief 
operating officer. Combined with other measures, and the funding 
levels, we are on the right track.
  I wish to say a word about our controllers, technicians and the FAA 
workforce. I know that the bill as crafted does not guarantee a general 
fund contribution to pay for the operations of the FAA. However, it 
should be acknowledged that these folks work hard every day to keep us 
flying safely. The safety of the nation is in their hands. They deserve 
our support.
  Finally but not least, in terms of Death on the High Seas, after much 
input from the families of the victims of many of the air tragedies, we 
have clarified the law and extending the borders of the United States 
to 12 miles off shore for the purpose of determining claims. In the 
case of an accident occurring 12 miles or within the shore, the Death 
on the High Seas Act shall not apply. Rather, it is state, federal, and 
any other applicable laws which shall apply. Death on the High Seas 
shall apply only outside of 12 miles off shore.
  Mr. President, let me commend Mr. Shuster, the chairman on the House 
side. He stuck to his guns.
  It has been a long struggle in the open and in the dark. I only 
mention that because my colleague from New Jersey said this thing was 
all agreed to in the dark. We have been in the dark and in the open and 
everything else for 2 years on this struggle.
  Mr. Shuster stuck to his guns, whereby those air travelers who obtain 
the taxes that go into the airport and airways improvement fund are 
finally being assured that money is going to be spent on the airport 
and airways improvement.
  Right to the point: We owe some $12 billion right this minute for 
airport taxes that have been used for everything from Kosovo to food 
stamps, and everything else but airport and airways improvement.
  In fact, we now have some $l.95 billion to be expended this fiscal 
year, 2000. We were unable to get those moneys, although they were in 
the fund, supposedly--IOU slips, if you will. We are now able to spend 
those moneys.
  I have the same misgivings the ranking member of our subcommittee has 
about the shortfalls in the operating budget. That is due to so-called 
``unrealistic spending caps.'' That is a budget problem--not this 
bill's problem. There is a problem with unrealistic spending caps.
  There is state-of-the-art equipment sitting in warehouses, and that 
is because we have been playing a sordid game of trying to call a 
``deficit'' a ``surplus'' and grabbing any and all moneys we can to 
play a game to make it look as if we are reducing spending. The fact is 
the President submits his budget, and we in the Congress--this 
Republican Congress, if you please--have been increasing spending over 
and above what President Clinton has asked for during the past 7 or 8 
years. We are not willing to pay for it. So we rob Social Security. We 
rob the retirement of the military and civil service. We robbed the 
highway funds, up until we finally got that straightened out under the 
leadership of Mr. Shuster. Now we can hold onto our airport moneys and 
do the job that is required of us.
  I want to say to everyone involved that this has been a good 2-year 
struggle to get us where we are. It is a good bill. It was developed in 
a bipartisan way, with every consideration given to not only the budget 
problems and concern the Senator from New Jersey has, but also my 
concerns about overall air traffic.
  We are moving finally in the right direction. I hope everybody will 
vote in support of the conference report.
  I yield back the remainder of our time.

[[Page 2179]]




                     amtrak and coast guard funding

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished majority 
leader for joining me in this important discussion today. I thank him 
for the vital role he played in shepherding the FAA authorization bill 
through the conference committee. We have been without an authorization 
bill for too long and this bill is a critical step in ensuring our 
skies are absolutely safe and less congested. But, as the majority 
leader well knows, aviation is not the only important piece of 
transportation funding this bill may affect. I believe that my friend 
agrees with me that, as important as aviation is to our country, 
funding for Amtrak and the Coast Guard are also crucial, and in 
enacting this bill, we by no means intend to give short-shrift to those 
parts of our transportation budget. Isn't that right, Mr. Majority 
Leader?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me thank my friend from Massachusetts 
for raising this issue here today. And he is absolutely right. Aviation 
is not the only transportation account that may be impacted by this 
bill. And it was certainly not the intention of the conferees to in any 
way restrict funding for the Coast Guard or Amtrak.
  The conference report includes a provision which reserves Airport and 
Airways Trust Fund revenue and interest spending for aviation programs 
with a majority point of order. Additionally, under another majority 
point of order, the provision requires the authorized levels of funding 
for the Airport Improvement Program and the Facilities and Equipment 
accounts to be fully funded before the Operations and Research and 
Development accounts are funded. While this latter provision is not a 
statutory guarantee that general revenue will be spend on aviation 
programs, it is a significant incentive. The bill thus provides a 
reasonable assurance that aviation appropriations will reach authorized 
levels, which would result in an approximately $2 billion increase in 
aviation funding for fiscal year 2001.
  My good friend from Massachusetts is concerned that spending for 
other transportation priorities may be decreased as the appropriations 
process increases aviation spending. Let me assure my good friend that 
I expect adequate funding for the Coast Guard and Amtrak, as these 
transportation priorities are important to the Nation and to my home 
State of Mississippi. I intend to work with the chairmen of the Budget 
and Appropriations Committees to ensure the Transportation 
Appropriations account is increased so that these aviation program 
increases do not come at the expense of other transportation programs.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am gratified to hear the majority 
leader's commitment to Amtrak and the Coast Guard, as well as his 
intention to work with the chairmen of the Budget and Appropriations 
Committees to fully fund transportation needs at least for FY 2001, and 
hopefully beyond. Both Amtrak and the Coast Guard are absolutely 
necessary to my constituents. I would like to say a few words about the 
importance of Amtrak nationwide. This country needs to include 
passenger rail as part of its transportation mix in the 21st century. 
We have done a good job ensuring our highways and, now, our skyways get 
the funding and attention they deserve. Amtrak also needs some of that 
attention. Passenger rail is critical if we are going to reduce 
congestion on our highways and in the air, as well protect our 
environment. People need a choice in transportation, and high speed 
rail especially can be a viable option for many, not only in the 
Northeast, but along corridors throughout the country.
  On January 31, 2000, Amtrak launched Acela Regional--the first 
electric train in history to serve Boston and New England. This is 
literally a dream come true for all of us up and down the East Coast 
who care about jobs, the economy and traffic congestion and the 
environment. And in its first few weeks of operation, I understand that 
bookings on Acela Regional are up as much as 45 percent over the 
Northeast Direct line. This will be extremely helpful in my home state 
of Massachusetts, as well as in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, 
Pennsylvania and Maryland, where airport and highway congestion often 
reach frustrating levels. The more miles that are traveled on Amtrak, 
the fewer trips taken on crowded highways and skyways.
  Amtrak is not the only transportation priority we need to fully fund. 
The Coast Guard performs a number of critical missions for our country 
including search and rescue, environmental protection, marine safety, 
fisheries enforcement, and drug trafficking. I can't imagine any of our 
colleagues arguing that any one of these missions is unimportant or 
should be less than fully funded. Perhaps my good friend will expand 
upon the importance the Coast Guard's many missions.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to 
address the needs of the Coast Guard. In a typical day the Coast Guard 
will save 14 lives, seize 209 pounds of marijuana and 170 pounds of 
cocaine, and save $2.5 million in property. The Coast Guard's duties 
have also grown, as there are more commercial and recreational vessels 
in our waters today than ever before in our Nation's history. 
International trade has expanded greatly, and with it maritime traffic 
has increased in our Nation's ports and harbors. Tighter border patrols 
have forced drug traffickers to use the thousands of miles of our 
country's coastlines as the means to introduce illegal drugs into our 
Nation. The Coast Guard currently faces a number of readiness 
shortfalls as it struggles to keep up with the increasing demands 
placed upon this service. In order to continue this valuable service to 
our Nation, the Congress must provide the funding to address personnel 
shortages and to repair or replace the Coast Guard's aging ships and 
aircraft. I am confident that with an increase in the transportation 
budget, we can protect the Coast Guard and Amtrak, as well as make the 
improvements air travel so desperately needs.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his helpful 
reassurances. We have the same goal, and that is to have a safe, 
efficient transportation system that includes rail, aviation, and 
maritime sectors. His intention and willingness to make this happen 
gives me every confidence that it will happen.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate today will take 
action on the H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and 
Reform Act for the 21st Century. The Federal Aviation Administration 
has been without a long-term authorization for some time, and airports 
in my state need to be able to move forward with construction projects 
soon.
  There are three components of this bill that I strongly support: the 
increase in funding for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), the 
budgetary treatment of the Aviation Trust Fund, and a provision to 
stabilize essential air service (EAS) in Dickinson, North Dakota.
  I am very pleased that this conference report provides for $3.2 
billion in 2001 for the AIP program, and that funding will increase by 
$100 million each year. As air travel continues to increase, it is 
important that we invest in our nation's airports to ensure the safety 
of the traveling public and expand capacity for the future. This 
program provides federal grants for airport development and planning 
and these dollars are usually spent on capital projects supporting 
operations such as runways, taxiways, and noise abatement. This 
substantial increase in funding will go a long way in maintaining the 
quality of air travel in North Dakota and across the country.
  In addition to the increase in funding, the fact that we now have 
long-term FAA reauthorization instead of the extensions our airports 
have been operating under is an important improvement. Short-term 
extensions had the effect of leaving airport managers and community 
leaders unable to develop and move forward with airport improvement 
projects. Because in North Dakota the construction season is short, the 
ability to plan and schedule projects is critical to maintaining our 
state's aviation system.
  Secondly, this conference report contains a very important provision 
for

[[Page 2180]]

Dickinson, North Dakota. This legislation will allow this small 
community to retain essential air service without paying a local share. 
Currently, Dickinson and Fergus Falls, Minnesota are the only 
communities with this requirement. EAS is vital to smaller communities, 
and the difficulties encountered by many of the communities in 
retaining EAS warrant increased federal attention. The report also 
requires the Department of Transportation to report on retaining 
essential air service, focusing that report on North Dakota. This is an 
extremely serious problem in my state and I believe it needs greater 
attention. The residents and businesses of small communities, 
especially in a rural state like North Dakota, depend heavily on this 
service and we need to find a way to consistently serve these small 
markets.
  Finally, I am pleased that conferees agreed to budgetary guarantees 
of increased funding for aviation. The conference report provides for a 
budget point of order against any legislation that fails to spend all 
of the Airport and Airways Trust Fund (AATF) receipts and interest, and 
does not appropriate the total authorized levels for capital programs 
(AIP and Facilities and Equipment). After allocations to the capital 
programs occur, remaining AATF funds can be used for general 
operations, and can be augmented by monies from the general fund.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important and long 
overdue legislation.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the FAA/AIP 
reauthorization conference report, H.R. 1000. I commend Senators 
Hollings, Rockefeller, Gorton, and McCain for their efforts.
  This measure would lift the High Density Rule at several of the 
nation's slot controlled airports, including Chicago's O'Hare 
International Airport. I support this conference report with the 
understanding that it puts safety above all other issues and keeps a 
watchful eye on noise levels and the environment around these airports.
  This conference report also significantly increases funding for the 
Essential Air Service and Airport Improvement Programs, ensuring that 
Illinois airports will be able to complete important infrastructure 
projects as well as gain greater access to valuable markets.
  I fully understand that some opponents are attempting to portray a 
High Density Rule lift as a safety issue. I agree that safety must be 
paramount. The FAA is and always should be the final arbiter of safety. 
And no matter what Congress does today, the FAA will continue to have 
the authority to regulate air traffic and ensure that passenger and 
community safety is never at risk.
  Last fall, I received a letter from FAA Administrator Garvey, which 
says in part, ``Let me assure you that if the High Density Rule is 
lifted at Chicago or any other airport, safety will not be 
compromised.'' The Administrator goes on to say, ``The FAA does not 
control aircraft at high density airports any differently than at any 
other commercial airport. We will continue to operate these airports 
using all appropriate procedures and traffic management initiatives for 
the safe and expeditious handling of air traffic. Safety is always our 
highest priority.''
  The National Air Traffic Controllers Association and specifically the 
Chicago controllers support lifting the slot restrictions at O'Hare. 
NATCA believes that O'Hare can handle the increased traffic without 
sacrificing safety. I have had the opportunity to meet with the 
controllers about this issue, and I believe they bring a unique and 
important perspective to this debate.
  It also should be noted that a 1995 U.S. Department of Transportation 
(U.S. DoT) study concluded that lifting the High Density Rule would 
have no impact on safety because air traffic control is implemented 
independently of the slot restrictions.
  Thus, the claim that this would undermine safety is unfounded.
  I also take exception to the notion that Congress is getting ahead of 
the FAA. Federal transportation officials have believed for some time 
that the High Density Rule is outdated and inefficient and not an 
appropriate safety mechanism. And our colleagues in the House voted 
overwhelmingly last year to lift the slot restrictions, with the 
support of the FAA.
  Government reports tell us that O'Hare has been surpassed by 
Atlanta's Hartsfield International Airport as the world's busiest. This 
raises the obvious question: if airports such as Atlanta and Dallas/Ft. 
Worth and LAX in Los Angeles can operate safely and efficiently without 
slot restrictions, why can't O'Hare?
  The High Density Rule or slot restrictions were developed in the late 
1960s, to mitigate delays. However, with the dawn of state-of-the-art 
air traffic control systems and improved flow control procedures, the 
High Density Rule has outlived its usefulness.
  Instead, the High Density Rule artificially limits access to O'Hare 
and adversely affects smaller communities. In Illinois, three downstate 
communities have totally lost service to O'Hare--Decatur, Mt. Vernon, 
and Quincy--and one city, Moline, has already experienced a carrier 
leaving solely because of the slot restrictions.
  In my hometown of Springfield, Capital Airport has been battling for 
years to attract and retain adequate service to O'Hare. Today, there 
are more Chicago passengers than seats available.
  When we look for this reason, all runways lead to the same place--the 
High Density Rule. Carriers choose to move commuter operations to 
Denver and Dallas/Ft. Worth rather than deal with the slot restrictions 
at O'Hare. Communities pay the price through loss of access to key 
domestic and international markets, lost jobs, diminished tourism and 
stagnant economic development.
  Bob O'Brien, the Capital Airport Executive Director of Aviation, 
writes, ``The inability for the Springfield community to adequately 
access Chicago and connect to other locations in the country or the 
world impacts the movements of goods and services and, consequently, is 
a major detriment to the retention and attraction of businesses. The 
growth and viability of the local Springfield community is at risk. * * 
* While our country's aviation system is among the best in the world, 
it is compromised by an artificial `choke point' known as the High 
Density Rule.''
  I would like to ask, why is it that we should maintain a ``choke 
point'' at a city which serves as the transportation hub of the nation?
  Mark Hanna, Director of Aeronautics at Quincy's Baldwin Field, 
writes, ``* * * Quincy community leaders believe the removal of the 
current slot restrictions at O'Hare is critical in continuing this 
vital service between Quincy and Chicago. * * * With your support of 
providing relief from the current `High Density Slot Rule' at O'Hare, 
we can maintain this valuable air service and increase its 
marketability.''
  Julie Moore, President of the Metro Decatur Chamber of Commerce says, 
``That (O'Hare) air service is essential to the economic growth and 
stability of our area.''
  I understand the frustration that passengers have with flight delays. 
As a frequent flier, going into or through O'Hare twice a week, I 
experience it often. Will lifting the High Density Rule make the planes 
run on time? Of course not. But will it worsen the delays? Not 
necessarily. The FAA is working with its air traffic controllers and 
the airlines to implement both short-term and long-term ways to reduce 
delays in the air and on the ground including giving more authority to 
a nationwide Command Center to control flow of aircraft and attempting 
to decrease so-called ground-stops.
  With regard to noise, according to data reported in U.S. DOT's 1995 
study, the increase in population around O'Hare affected by noise due 
to lifting the High Density Rule is very small when compared to the 
decrease due to the transition to an all Stage 3 fleet in 2005. After 
lifting the High Density Rule and shifting to a Stage 3 fleet, the 
population exposed to very high noise levels should decrease. 
Elimination of the High Density Rule also will provide scheduling 
flexibility to the airlines

[[Page 2181]]

and in so doing could reduce nighttime noise.
  At my insistence, the conferees have included several provisions that 
will study the noise levels at the nation's slot-controlled airports 
and compare them to pre-Stage 3 aircraft noise levels around these same 
airports. The Secretary of Transportation also is required to study 
noise, the environment, access to underserved communities, and 
competition at O'Hare. Finally, O'Hare and the other slot-controlled 
airports will receive priority consideration for Airport Improvement 
Program funds for noise abatement and mitigation. This will help 
improve and expand soundproofing efforts and noise monitoring.
  Both U.S. DoT's 1995 study and a 1999 GAO review found that the High 
Density Rule creates a barrier to entry and restricts airline 
competition at the affected airports. According to GAO, fares are 
higher at airports under the High Density Rule than at unrestricted 
airports. U.S. DoT concluded that lifting the high density rule would 
result in lower air fares and more competition.
  According to a report conducted by Booz-Allen-Hamilton, allowing 
O'Hare to fully develop would contribute $26 billion annually to the 
greater Chicago economy. On the other hand, artificial constraints on 
O'Hare's capacity could cost the region $7 billion to $8 billion.
  Mr. President, the High Density Rule has had more than 30 years to 
produce results. However, the only tangible results I've experienced 
are artificial barriers to access and competition. I don't take lightly 
the arguments raised by opponents of this amendment. In the past, I 
have supported compromise language that would offer some limited 
expansion of O'Hare. However, opponents have rejected even the 
introduction of one new flight at O'Hare. I believe this position is 
unrealistic and unfair to downstate Illinois communities that 
desperately need Chicago O'Hare access. I will hold the FAA, the 
airlines and these airports accountable to improve safety, reduce 
delays and achieve greater access for underserved markets while 
striving to protect the environment and limit airport noise.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, after months of negotiation, we have 
reached an agreement and completed work on the Aviation Investment and 
Reform Act of the 21st Century, the so-called AIR-21.
  AIR-21 is a fair bill. It reflects a compromise on many of my 
concerns about the budgetary treatment of our federal aviation 
accounts. It also reflects some of my commitments, one of which is to 
increase investment in aviation programs. I am a strong proponent of 
safety, and this bill increases funding for safety programs, including 
funds for air traffic control modernization. In addition, and very 
important to the State of New Mexico, many of the programs within this 
bill focus on and support small or rural airports. Finally, each of 
these accomplishments are realized while budgetary discipline is 
maintained.
  In 2001, a total of $12.7 billion is authorized for aviation 
programs. This represents an increase in budget resources of $2.7 
billion over the 2000 levels. This is extremely generous to the FAA. In 
fact, it exceeds the President's 2001 budget request by $1.5 billion. 
Over the 2001 through 2003 time period, AIR-21 authorizes nearly $40 
billion.
  Before I outline the budgetary compromise, I would like to thank all 
the Conferees--I especially appreciate the work and support of Senators 
Stevens, Gorton, Grassley, Burns, Lott, and Lautenberg on the budget 
issue. In addition, I applaud the leadership that Senators Gorton, 
Lott, and McCain took on this bill.
  One very controversial issue had to do with the correct budgetary 
treatment for aviation programs. The provision contained in AIR-21 
represents a compromise--both sides had to come together for this deal.
  Similar to my offer last fall, AIR-21 guarantees annual funding from 
the Airports and Airways Trust Fund equal to the annual receipts 
deposited into the Trust Fund plus annual interest credited to the 
Trust Fund, as estimated in the President's budget.
  Based on the President's FY 2001 Budget, $10.5 billion will be 
appropriated from the Trust Fund in 2001 for aviation programs. In 
addition, just over $2 billion can be provided from the general fund. 
For 2001 through 2003, over $33 billion will be guaranteed from the 
trust fund for aviation programs, and more than $6 billion can be 
provided from the general fund.
  Further, the budget compromise provides that the Trust Funds will 
first be available to fund the capital accounts--for airport 
improvement program grants and facilities and equipment, including the 
air traffic control modernization programs.
  Before I finish, let me take one minute to discuss what this bill 
doesn't do. AIR-21 does not take the Airports and Airways Trust Fund 
off-budget. AIR-21 does not establish a budgetary firewall between 
aviation programs and other discretionary programs. Further, it does 
not lock-down general fund tax receipts for aviation programs. Finally, 
it does not put FAA funding on auto-pilot and take the appropriators 
out of the process.
  In this way, budgetary discipline has prevailed and appropriate 
congressional oversight is maintained. This is good policy for the 
American people and the flying public.
  Finally, this bill contains essentially, for the next three years, a 
Federal mechanism not entirely unlike what has existed since the 
Airports and Airways Trust Fund was established in 1972. As we move 
into this new century, it may be that this funding mechanism and the 
current government structure is not the most efficient or effective way 
to provide the investments and services for this industry in the 
future.
  For example, at least 16 countries have taken action to respond to 
the pressures that increasing enplanements have had on a system already 
stressed by capacity constraints and increases in and longer delays. 
These countries realized something that was made clear in a joint 
Budget and Appropriations Committee hearing on February 3--that 
increased funding levels will not solve the problems of our outdated 
air traffic control system and will not make the system efficient.
  Recognizing this, these countries have fundamentally reformed and 
restructured their air traffic control systems. Most recently Canada 
created a very successful nonprofit, private air traffic control 
corporation sustained by user fees. Reformed air traffic control 
systems have been successful. They have brought about major gains in 
efficiency, reduced flight delays, reductions in operating costs, and 
progress in technological upgrades. All of this was accomplished 
without compromising safety.
  Although this bill provides funding for FAA for three years, it is my 
hope that we will continue to seriously evaluate and consider whether 
services can more effectively and efficiently be delivered with a 
change in structure--so that the gains realized in Canada, Britain, 
Germany, Switzerland, and New Zealand can be achieved in the United 
States.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Aircraft Safety Act 
of 2000 is included in the conference report on the Air Transportation 
Improvement Act, H.R. 1000. This measure is needed to safeguard United 
States aircraft, workers and passengers from fraudulent, defective, and 
counterfeit aircraft parts.
  The problem of fraudulent, defective, and counterfeit aircraft parts 
has grown dramatically in recent years. Since 1993, the Federal 
Aviation Administration received 1,778 reports of suspected unapproved 
parts, initiated 298 enforcement actions and issued 143 safety notices 
regarding suspect parts. Moreover, the aircraft industry has estimated 
that as much as $2 billion in unapproved parts may be sitting on the 
shelves of parts distributors, airlines, and repair stations, according 
to Congressional testimony.
  Because a passenger airplane may contain as many as 6 million parts, 
the growth of bogus aircraft parts raises serious public safety 
concerns. And even small bogus parts could cause a horrific airplane 
tragedy. For instance, on September 8, 1989, a charter flight carrying 
55 people from Norway to Germany plunged 22,000 feet into the North

[[Page 2182]]

Sea after a tail section fastened with bogus bolts tore loose.
  Given this potential threat to public safety, comprehensive laws are 
needed to focus directly on the dangers posed by nonconforming, 
defective, and counterfeit aircraft parts. But no such laws are on the 
books right now. In fact, prosecutors today are forced to use a variety 
of general criminal statutes to bring offenders to justice, including 
prosecution for mail fraud, wire fraud, false statements and 
conspiracy. These general criminal statutes may work well in some 
situations in the aircraft industry, but often times they do not.
  The Aircraft Safety Act would provide for a single Federal law 
designed to crack down on the $45 billion fraudulent, defective, and 
counterfeit aircraft parts industry. The Act focuses on stopping bogus 
aircraft parts in three ways.
  First, our bipartisan bill adds a new section to our criminal laws 
defining fraud involving aircraft parts in interstate or foreign 
commerce for the first time. The section sets out three new offenses to 
outlaw the fraudulent exportation, importation, sale, trade, 
installation, or introduction of nonconforming, defective, or 
counterfeit aircraft parts. Under the new statute, it is a crime to 
falsify or conceal any material fact, to make any fraudulent 
representation, or to use any materially false documents or electronic 
communication concerning any aircraft part.
  Second, our bipartisan bill strengthens the criminal penalties 
against aircraft parts pirates. A basic 15-year maximum penalty of 
imprisonment and $500,000 maximum fine is set for all offenses created 
by the new section. This is needed to end the light sentences that some 
aircraft parts counterfeiters have received under the general criminal 
statutes. In fact, in a 1994 case, a parts broker pleaded guilty to 
trafficking in counterfeit aircraft parts, but only received a seven-
month sentence. Fraud involving aircraft parts is a serious crime that 
deserves a serious penalty.
  Third, our bipartisan bill provides courts with new tools to prevent 
repeat offenders from re-entering the aircraft parts business and to 
stop the flow of nonconforming, defective and counterfeit parts in the 
marketplace. Under the new statute, courts may order unscrupulous 
individuals to divest themselves of interests in businesses used to 
perpetuate aircraft fraud. Courts may also, under the new statute, 
direct the disposal of stockpiles and inventories of defective and 
counterfeit aircraft parts to prevent their subsequent resale or entry 
into commerce.
  Indeed, Attorney General Reno, Defense Secretary Cohen, 
Transportation Secretary Slater, and NASA Administrator Goldin wrote to 
Senator Hatch and me urging that Congress adopt this legislation. They 
wrote: ``If enacted, this bill would give law enforcement a potent 
weapon in the fight to protect the safety of the traveling public.'' As 
a result, the Aircraft Safety Act is endorsed by the Department of 
Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of 
Defense, the Department of Transportation and the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration. I ask unanimous consent, that this letter be 
printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1)
  Mr. LEAHY. The distinguished Chairman of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, Senator Hatch, and I offered the Aircraft Safety Act as an 
amendment during Senate consideration of S. 82, the Senate companion 
bill. Our amendment was accepted by unanimous consent. I thank Senator 
McCain, the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Senator 
Hollings, the Ranking Member of the Committee, for holding the Senate 
position in conference with minor revisions and, thus, including our 
amendment in the final bill.
  I look forward to President Clinton signing the Aircraft Safety Act 
of 2000 into law as part of the conference report on the Air 
Transportation Improvement Act, H.R. 1000.

                               Exhibit 1


                                Office of the Attorney General

                                                    Washington, DC
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed is proposed legislation, ``The 
     Aircraft Safety Act of 1999.'' This is part of the 
     legislation program of the Department of Justice for the 
     first session of the 106th Congress. This legislation would 
     safeguard United States aircraft, space vehicles, passengers, 
     and crewmembers from the dangers posed by the installation of 
     nonconforming, defective, or counterfeit parts in civil, 
     public, and military aircraft. During the 105th Congress, 
     similar legislation earned strong bi-partisan support, as 
     well as the endorsement of the aviation industry.
       The problems associated with fraudulent aircraft and 
     spacecraft parts have been explored and discussed for several 
     years. Unfortunately, the problems have increased while the 
     discussions have continued. Since 1993, federal law 
     enforcement agencies have secured approximately 500 criminal 
     indictments for the manufacture, distribution, or 
     installation or nonconforming parts. During the same period, 
     the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received 1,778 
     reports or suspected unapproved parts, initiated 298 
     enforcement actions, and issued 143 safety notices regarding 
     suspect parts.
       To help combat this problem, an interagency Law 
     Enforcement/FAA working group was established in 1997. 
     Members include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); 
     the Office of the Inspector General, Department of 
     Transportation; the Defense Criminal Investigative Service; 
     the Office of Special Investigations, Department of the Air 
     Force; the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, Department 
     of the Navy; the Customs Service, Department of the Treasury; 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and the 
     FAA. The working group quickly identified the need for 
     federal legislation that targeted the problem of suspect 
     aircraft and spacecraft parts in a systemic, organized 
     manner. The enclosed bill is the product of the working 
     group's efforts.
       Not only does the bill prescribe tough new penalties for 
     trafficking in suspect parts; it also authorizes the Attorney 
     General, in appropriate cases, to seek civil remedies to stop 
     offenders from re-entering the business and to direct the 
     destruction of stockpiles and inventories of suspect parts so 
     that they do not find their way into legitimate commerce. 
     Other features of the bill are described in the enclosed 
     section-by-section analysis.
       If enacted, this bill would give law enforcement a potent 
     weapon in the fight to protect the safety of the traveling 
     public. Consequently, we urge that you give the bill 
     favorable consideration.
       We would be pleased to answer any questions that you may 
     have and greatly appreciate your continued support for strong 
     law enforcement. The Office of Management and Budget has 
     advised us that, from the perspective of the Administration's 
     program, there is no objection to the submission of this 
     legislation proposal, and that its enactment would be in 
     accord with the problem of the President.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Janet Reno,
                                                 Attorney General.
                                                 Rodney E. Slater,
                                      Secretary of Transportation.
                                                 William S. Cohen,
                                             Secretary of Defense.
                                                 Daniel S. Goldin,
                                              Administrator, NASA.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am very pleased with the provisions of 
the conference report concerning slots that provide for a two-step 
process for the elimination of airline slots, landing and take off 
rights at O'Hare, Kennedy, and LaGuardia Airports. Senator Grassley and 
I proposed a similar method for the elimination of slots at those three 
airports over a year ago.
  I am very pleased that we have been able to work closely with 
Chairman McCain, Senator Rockefeller, Senator Hollings, and others on 
the development of this proposal. I am proud of the support that we 
have received from a majority of the attorneys general led by Iowa's 
own Attorney General Tom Miller. The U.S. Department of Transportation 
deserves special praise for its initiative calling for the elimination 
of the anticompetitive slot rule that was the starting point of our 
proposal. Chairman Shuster and the House also deserve considerable 
praise for their proposal to eliminate the slot rule at these airports 
last June.
  I want to especially commend Chairman McCain and his staff for 
working so closely with us on this issue. He held a field hearing in 
Des Moines on April 30 last year to hear firsthand how the current 
system effects small and medium-sized cities. He has worked hard to 
move forward a proposal which I believe will significantly increase 
competition. That was not an easy task.
  I also want to especially thank Senator Rockefeller and his staff for

[[Page 2183]]

their considerable efforts. Both Senators have shown a keen interest in 
the problems unique to smaller cities where adequate service is the 
paramount issue.
  The phasing out of the slot requirements at these airports is an 
important step toward eliminating a major barrier to airline 
competition. And, by doing so in this two step process mitigates 
against some of the long-term effects of the government-imposed slot 
rule. Under current rules, most smaller airlines have, in effect, had a 
far more difficult time competing, in part because of the slot rule.
  The conference report allows small airlines to expanded access to all 
four slot controlled airports to some degree. Not as much as our 
original proposal. I would have liked to have seen a longer phase in of 
the rule at O'Hare and broader provisions for limited incumbent--that 
is newer and usually smaller airlines to provide additional, often 
competitive service which will hopefully result in lower fares and 
improved service in many markets. The final provisions are not as broad 
as Senator Grassley and I initially proposed. But they are a genuine 
and substantial improvement. This will help stimulate increased 
competition and lower ticket prices. Unfortunately, at LaGuardia, 
smaller airlines will not be able to establish service between their 
hubs and LaGuardia. The number of flights to O'Hare by newer airlines 
is limited. But, the measure provides some real opportunities to newer 
often low cost carriers during the phase in period.
  The measure allows a carrier to establish new service to O'Hare 
without any restriction starting in May so long as the new service is 
with aircraft with fewer than 70 seats. Cities like Sioux City in Iowa 
and other small and medium sized cities around O'Hare will hopefully be 
able to see service to O'Hare, important to many businesses and those 
cities economy. And, an airline can also increase the frequency of 
service to smaller cities so long as aircraft with fewer than 70 seats 
are used. Recently, Burlington IA, was facing the loss of an important 
round trip to O'Hare purely because of the slot rule. The Quad Cities 
lost service by American Airlines last year because, in part, a limited 
number of slots were available. There is some chance that both 
decisions may be reversed now that slot restrictions will no longer 
impact those decisions.
  Timing of service to smaller cities will be more efficient and 
carriers will be able to increase their frequency. I am very pleased 
that the conferees approved a two for one rule, giving an additional 
slot to airlines that upgrade an existing round trip turbojet service 
to smaller cities with a regional jet. This provides an incentive to 
provide improved service to smaller cities when it makes sense to do 
it.
  In the final step, after a shorter period than I would like at O'Hare 
and a longer period than I think is best at the New York Airports, the 
slot rules would be ended at O'Hare, Kennedy, and LaGuardia Airports. 
In both cases I am hopeful that competitive airlines might get a change 
to establish a foothold and smaller cities would have established 
better service that will continue in the long term.
  Access to affordable air service is essential to efficient commerce 
and economic development. Americans have a right to expect it. Airports 
are paid for by the traveling public through taxes and by fees charged 
by the Federal Government and local airport authorities.
  Unfortunately, when deregulation came along in 1978, there was no 
effective framework put in place to deal with anticompetitive 
practices. Many of these practices have become business as usual. The 
result has been increased air fares and decreased service to mid-size 
and small communities.
  The slot rule, originally put in place because of the limitations of 
the air traffic control system has been an effective competition. The 
DOT, improperly, I believe, literally gave the right to land and take 
off to those who used these airports on January 21, 1986. That 
effectively locked in the current users of those airports and locked 
out effective competition. It gave away a public resource. Finally, 
this bill phases out the slot rule and its anti-competitive effects and 
its negative effects on smaller communities.
  Lastly, I wanted to say a few words about the budget. Our airways 
system has some very real problems. Capacity is limited. There are many 
pressure points that create bottlenecks, slowing down traffic. We need 
more gates, more runways and taxiways. We need better equipment and 
computers as well as additional flight controllers in order to increase 
the capacity of the system at a number of points. Long delays at our 
nations airports decrease the efficiency of our entire economy. This 
bill does provide for considerable increases in funds.
  While many very necessary things are costly, some of the things that 
can be done with the airways systems do not cost large sums. For 
example, if pilots received written comments from flight controllers 
rather than verbal commands, the efficiency of the system would improve 
and the chance of errors would decrease. But, the culture of the system 
is slow to change. This step is now moving toward a multiyear test and 
then a multiyear implementation. Changes like this one should be 
implemented more quickly.
  If we are able to provide the considerable increases in funding the 
airways system needs and for which this bill provides, we must see 
reasonable levels of funding for domestic discretionary spending over 
the coming years or the sums provided in this measure are not likely to 
occur.


          los angeles tech department of professional aviation

  Mr. BREAUX. I wish to enter into a colloquy with the Senator from 
South Carolina. The Department of Professional Aviation at Louisiana 
Tech is one of the University's most successful departments. With the 
expansion of the aviation industry in this nation, the University has 
been in the process of expanding the physical infrastructure for the 
Department of professional Aviation.
  A new $6 million instructional facility has recently been constructed 
on the campus and the University will also construct a new flight 
operations facility at Ruston Regional Airport. While the State of 
Louisiana and the University have financed the cost of building these 
new facilities, the University is hopeful that it can receive federal 
assistance for the purchase of newer and safer equipment, such as new 
single-engine aircraft, a multiengine training aircraft, and a 
multiengine turbine simulator.
  As we consider this FAA reauthorization bill, I would like to know 
whether this is something that would be appropriate for receiving 
financial support from the FAA in the form of competitive grant funding 
as part of its university research and air safety programs? I hope that 
grant funding for this project can be obtained from the FAA.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I appreciate the gentleman's comments and want to work 
with him and the FAA on this project. Let me say to the gentleman that 
I will work with him to determine what options may be available to 
Louisiana Tech with respect to this matter.
  Mr. BREAUX. I appreciate that clarification.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to make a few remarks 
concerning the FAA reauthorization bill that is currently before the 
Senate. Although I will vote in support of the bill, I feel compelled 
to express my reservations concerning the mandatory budgetary 
provisions that are included in this conference agreement. It should be 
understood by all here today that these provisions should not be used 
to reduce funding for other essential transportation programs, most 
importantly Amtrak.
  I realize the importance of passing this legislation that provides 
necessary funding for aviation programs over the next three years. This 
bill has been a long time coming and I understand it has been carefully 
and diligently crafted between the conferees. I believe we need 
additional funding for the improvement of our airports and to permit us 
to take advantage of the best technologies to improve passenger safety.

[[Page 2184]]

  However, I don't believe that other transportation programs such as 
Amtrak should suffer as a result of the budgetary agreement that has 
been included in this bill. I have long been a supporter of Amtrak and 
am dedicated to making sure that the Federal Government lives up to its 
promise to provide Amtrak with sufficient support to preserve passenger 
rail service in this country and enable Amtrak to reach operating self-
sufficiency. Because of this I want to make it clear that I'm voting 
for this FAA reauthorization bill with the understanding that the 
Majority Leader, Senator Lott, and the Minority Leader, Senator 
Daschle, have made assurances that they will protect Amtrak from 
budgetary threats that may follow from this legislation.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am very supportive of the conference 
agreement provisions which allow exemptions to the current perimeter 
rule at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. I commend Chairman 
McCain and leadership on creating a process which I believe fairly 
balances the interests of Senators from States inside the perimeter and 
those of us from western States without convenient access to Reagan 
National.
  I have been involved and supportive of the effort to open up Reagan 
National since the legislation was first introduced. While I would have 
preferred to eliminate the perimeter rule altogether or have more slots 
available for improved access to the West, the final agreement includes 
12 slots. I want to reiterate that these limited exemptions must 
benefit citizens throughout the West. Having said that, this same 
limited number of exemptions must not be awarded solely or 
disproportionately to one carrier or one airport. I expect that the DOT 
will ensure that the maximum number of cities benefit from these 12 
slots. I am particularly concerned that small and mid-size communities 
in the West, especially in the northern tier have improved access 
through hubs like Salt Lake City.
  These limited exemptions to the perimeter rule from hubs like Salt 
Lake City will improve service to the Nation's capital for dozens of 
western cities beyond the perimeter--while ensuring that cities inside 
the perimeter are not adversely impacted by new service. This is a fair 
balance which is consistent with the overall intent of the bill to 
improve air service to small and medium-sized cities.
  Throughout this bill, the goal has been to improve air service for 
communities which have not experienced the benefits of deregulation to 
the extent of larger markets. The provision relating to improve access 
to Reagan National Airport is no different. Today, passengers from many 
communities in the West are forced to double or even triple connect to 
fly to Reagan National. My goal is to ensure that not just large city 
point-to-point service will benefit, but that passengers from all 
points west of the perimeter will have better options to reach 
Washington, DC, via Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. This 
provisions is about using this restricted exemption process to spread 
improved access throughout the West--not to limit the benefits to a few 
large cities which already have a variety of options.
  Let me be clear, according to the language contained in this 
provision, if the Secretary receives more applications for additional 
slots than the bill allows, DOT must prioritize the applications based 
on quantifying the domestic network benefits. Therefore, DOT must 
consider and ward these limited opportunities to western hubs which 
connect the largest number of cities to the national air transportation 
network. In a perfect world, we would not have to make these types of 
choices and could defer to the marketplace. This certainly would be my 
preference. However, Congress has limited the number of choices thereby 
requiring the establishment of a process which will ensure that the 
maximum number of cities benefit from this change in policy.
  Again, Mr. President, I would like to commend the chairman and his 
colleagues for their efforts to open the perimeter rule and improve 
access and competition to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. As 
a part of my statement I would like to include in the Record a letter 
sent to Chairman McCain on this matter signed by seven western 
Senators.
  There being no objection, this letter was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, August 23, 1999.
     Hon. John McCain,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McCain: We are writing to commend you on your 
     efforts to improve access to the western United States from 
     Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. We support 
     creating a process which fairly balances the interests of 
     states inside the perimeter and those of western states 
     without convenient access to Reagan National.
       These limited exemptions to the perimeter rule will improve 
     service to the nation's capital for dozens of western cities 
     beyond the perimeter--while at the same time ensuring that 
     cities inside the perimeter are not adversely impacted by new 
     service. This is a fair balance which is consistent with the 
     overall intent of the bill to improve air service to small- 
     and medium-sized cities.
       The most important aspect of your proposal is that the 
     Department of Transportation must award these limited 
     opportunities to western hubs which connect the largest 
     number of cities to the national transportation network. In 
     our view, this standard is the cornerstone of our mutual goal 
     to give the largest number of western cities improved access 
     to the Nation's capital. We trust that the Senate bill and 
     Conference report on FAA reauthorization will reaffirm this 
     objective.
       In a perfect world, we would not have to make these types 
     of choices. These decisions would be better left to the 
     marketplace. However, Congress has limited the ability of the 
     marketplace to make these determinations. Therefore, we must 
     have a process which ensures that we spread improved access 
     to Reagan National throughout the West.
       We look forward to working with you as the House and Senate 
     work to reconcile the differences in the FAA reauthorization 
     bills.
           Sincerely,
     Orrin G. Hatch.
     Robert F. Bennett.
     Larry E. Craig.
     Conrad Burns.
     Craig Thomas.
     Mike Crapo.
     Max Baucus.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise in support of H.R. 1000, the Air 
Transportation Improvement Act. This measure will enhance the safety 
and efficiency of our air transportation system, upon which the island 
state of Hawaii depends upon so much. I am especially supportive of 
title VIII, the National Parks Air Tour Management Act of 2000.
  Mr. President, title VIII of H.R. 1000 establishes a comprehensive 
regulatory framework for controlling air tour traffic in and near units 
of the National Park System. This legislation requires the Federal 
Aviation Administration, in cooperation with the National Park Service 
and with input from stakeholders, to develop an air tour management 
plan, known as ATMP's, for parks currently or potentially affected by 
air tour flights.
  The ATMP process evaluates routes, altitudes, time restrictions, 
limitations on, and other operating parameters to protect sensitive 
park resources and to enhance the safety of air tour operations. An 
ATMP could prohibit air tours at a park entirely, regulate air tours 
within \1/2\ mile of park boundaries, regulate air tour operations that 
affect tribal lands, and offer incentives for the adoption of quieter 
air technology.
  H.R. 1000 also creates an advisory group comprised of representatives 
of the FAA, the Park Service, the aviation industry, the environmental 
community, and tribes to provide advice, information, and 
recommendations on overflight issues.
  Through the ATMP process, this bill treats overflights issues on a 
park-by-park basis. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, the 
legislation establishes a fair and rational mechanism through which 
environmental and aviation needs can be addressed in the context of the 
unique circumstances that exist at individual national parks.
  I am pleased that this procedural approach, in addition to 
requirements for meaningful public consultation and a mechanism for 
promoting dialog

[[Page 2185]]

among diverse stakeholders, mirrors key elements of legislation, the 
National Parks Airspace Management Act, that I sponsored in several 
previous Congresses.
  Mr. President, adoption of this bill is essential if we are to 
address the detrimental impact of air tour activities on the National 
Park System effectively. Air tourism has significantly increased in the 
last decade, nowhere more so than over high profile units such as the 
Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, and Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes 
national parks. A 1994 Park Service study indicated that nearly a 
hundred parks experienced adverse park impacts, and that number has 
certainly increased since then. Such growth has inevitably conflicted 
with the qualities and values that many park units were established to 
promote.
  Air tour operators often provide important emergency services while 
enhancing park access for special populations like the physically 
challenged and older Americans. Furthermore, air tour operators offer 
an important source of income for local economies, notably tourism-
dependent areas such as Hawaii. However, unregulated overflights have 
the potential to harm park ecologies, distress wildlife, and impair 
visitor enjoyment of the park experience. Unrestricted air tour 
operations also pose a safety hazard to air and ground visitors alike.
  It is therefore vital that we develop a clear, consistent national 
policy on this issue, one that equitably and rationally prioritizes the 
respective interests of the aviation and environmental communities. 
Congress and the Administration have struggled to develop such a policy 
since enactment of the National Parks Overflights Act of 1987, 
Congress' initial, but limited, attempt to address the overflights 
issue. Title VIII of H.R. 1000 will finish where the 1987 act left off, 
providing the FAA and Park Service with the policy guidance and 
procedural mechanisms that are essential to balance the needs of air 
tour operators with the imperative to preserve and protect our natural 
resources.
  Mr. President, the overflights provisions of this bill are the 
product of good faith efforts on the part of many groups and 
individuals. They include members of the National Parks Overflights 
Working Group, whose consensus recommendations from the underpinnings 
of this legislation; representatives of air tour and environmental 
advocacy organizations such as Helicopter Association International and 
the National Parks and Conservation Association; and, officials of the 
FAA and Park Service.
  However, title VIII is above all the product of the energy and vision 
of Senator John McCain. As the author of the 1987 National Parks 
Overflights Act, Senator McCain was the first to recognize the adverse 
impacts of air tours on national parks, and the first to call for a 
national policy to address this problem. Since then, he has employed 
his moral authority and legislative skills to advance a constructive 
solution on this subject. For his leadership in writing this bill and 
for his long advocacy of park overflight issues, Senator McCain 
deserves our lasting appreciation.
  Mr. President, I am honored to have worked closely with Senator 
McCain over the last few years to formulate an overflights bill that 
promotes aviation safety, enhances the viability of legitimate air tour 
operations, and protects national parks from the most egregious visual 
and noise intrusions by air tour helicopters and other aircraft. Left 
unchecked, air tour activities can undermine the very qualities and 
resources that give value to a park. I believe that the pending measure 
reasonably and prudently balances these sometimes opposing 
considerations, and urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Before I conclude my remarks, Mr. President, I would like to 
recognize the staff of the Commerce Committee for their hard work in 
putting this legislation together. Ann Choiniere deserves mention for 
her day-to-day management of the overflights issue. I would also like 
to recognize former members of my own staff, Kerry Taylor, Bob Weir, 
Steve Oppermann, and John Tagami, who made important contributions to 
this issue. Steve in particular has served as an expert resource whose 
tireless, and largely unheralded contribution has shaped the 
overflights debate in a major way.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to support the conference 
report on Federal Aviation Reauthorization. I am pleased that 
Congressional negotiators have reached an agreement providing needed 
resources and investment for the federal aviation programs, while 
maintaining budgetary discipline.
  The final agreement maintains the FAA on-budget status but insures 
that the money in the Trust Fund will be spent only on aviation 
programs. The agreement provides a strong and enforceable guarantee to 
ensure that FAA appropriations will be no less than the amounts paid 
annually into the Trust Fund. The final agreement also permits the use 
of general funds for aviation programs subject to the normal 
appropriation process. This combination of Trust Fund and general fund 
revenue will help to ensure that much needed construction and 
maintenance are carried out as part of our nation's aviation program.
  Part of the agreement reached by the conferees includes a provision 
which addresses what I believe is a complicated and growing problem--
flight delays and cancellations.
  The problem is not that delays and cancellations occur. Airlines must 
maintain a tight schedule and that schedule can be greatly affected by 
weather or equipment problems.
  For travelers, it is a mystery whether these delays and cancellations 
are caused by weather, equipment problems, or economic convenience. 
Nobody knows. The airlines don't have to tell you. After you finally 
reach your destination, there's a good chance that you'll never know 
why you were stranded thousands of miles from home or why you missed 
that important business meeting.
  But flights also are canceled or delayed for economic reasons, not 
just mechanical or weather-related problems. And when these economic 
delays and cancellations occur, it's usually rural America that gets 
the short end of the stick. For instance, if there are 40 people in 
Denver waiting for a flight to Billings, MT and another 120 waiting to 
go to San Francisco but only one plane is available, the flight to 
Billings will be canceled. For the Airlines, its simple. It costs less 
to put 30 people up in a hotel and send them on to Billings the next 
day than it does to send 120 California-bound people to a hotel.
  That is wrong. If flights are canceled for economic or other reasons, 
passengers deserve to know the truth. It will also allow them to shop 
around for the airline that has the best performance record. When you 
only have a couple of flights into a town, as is the case with much of 
rural America, cancellations are not just an inconvenience. There is an 
economic impact as well.
  As my home state of Montana, and our neighbors in North and South 
Dakota, Wyoming and Idaho can attest, what business is going to 
relocate to an area where flight service is not reliable?
  Right now, Montana's economy needs work. Our state ranks near the 
bottom of per-capita individual income. Other measures of economic 
progress are also pretty low. Reliable air service doesn't guarantee 
economic growth. But without it, workers and employers alike have a 
difficult burden to bear.
  That is why I am pleased that the conference report contains a 
version of my amendment to require air carriers to more fully disclose 
the cause of delays. The conference report creates a task force that 
will modify Airline Service Quality Performance Reports to reflect the 
reasons for such delays and cancellations, such as snow storms, 
mechanical difficulties or economic reasons, like the one I just 
mentioned. This task force will consist of representatives of airline 
consumers and air carriers.
  Currently, the ten largest airlines have to report monthly to the 
Department of Transportation all flights that

[[Page 2186]]

are more than 15 minutes late to and from the 29 U.S. airports that 
make up at least 1 percent of the nation's total domestic scheduled-
service passenger enplanements. This statistic includes cancellations. 
My provision will broaden this reporting so that more passengers will 
have this information.
  I realize that simply reporting the reason will not stop the practice 
of delaying flights or canceling them for economic reasons. Airlines 
are a business. An industry. As such, they must make business decisions 
that will keep their operation in the black.
  But, if airlines have to start reporting the reasons for missed 
connections and disrupted lives, consumers can start making their own 
choices about which airline to fly. In the end I hope this information 
will lead to more dependable service around the country, but especially 
in rural America.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the conferees for their hard work 
and diligent effort to accommodate the wide range of interests on this 
long-awaited legislation.
  I take this opportunity to make my position on the FAA conference 
agreement perfectly clear. There are three areas which I want to 
address. First, I am grateful to the conferees for the inclusion of my 
amendment delinking federal Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds to 
Reagan National and Dulles International Airports to the confirmation 
of federal appointees to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority 
(MWAA). This provision ensures the release of $144 million to allow for 
critical safety and modernization plans to go forward. Second, I want 
to express my regret that the provision raising the Passenger Facility 
Charges (PFC) was included as part of the conference agreement. Lastly, 
it was my strong preference that no new additional flights be allowed 
into and out of Reagan National Airport. Despite my opposition, it was 
the will of the Congress to increase the number of slots at Reagan 
National. I will continue to oppose any increase in the number of 
flights at Reagan National.
  I am pleased with the inclusion of my amendment to give Reagan 
National and Dulles International Airports equitable treatment under 
Federal law that is enjoyed today by all of the major commercial 
airports.
  As you know, Congress created the MWAA Board of Directors and charged 
the Senate with the duty of confirming three federal appointments. In 
addition to the requirement that the Senate confirm the appointees, the 
statute contains a punitive provision which denies all federal AIP 
entitlement grants and the imposition of any new passenger facility 
charges (PFC) to Dulles International and Reagan National if the 
appointees were not confirmed by October 1, 1997.
  As the current law forbids the FAA from approving any AIP entitlement 
grants for construction at the two airports and from approving any PFC 
applications, these airports have been denied access to over $144 
million.
  These are funds that every other airport in the country receives 
annually and are critical to maintaining a quality level of service and 
safety at our Nation's airports. Unlike any other airport in the 
country, the full share of federal funds have been withheld from Dulles 
and Reagan National for nearly three years.
  These critically needed funds have halted important construction 
projects at both airports. Of the over $144 million that is due, 
approximately $161 million will fund long-awaited construction projects 
and $40 million is needed to fund associated financing costs.
  I respect the right of the Senate to exercise its constitutional 
duties to confirm the President's nominees to important federal 
positions. I do not, however, believe that it is appropriate to link 
the Senate's confirmation process to vitally needed federal dollars to 
operate airports.
  This amendment would not remove the Congress of the United States, 
and particularly the Senate, from its advise-and-consent role. It 
allows the money, however, which we need for the modernization of these 
airports, to flow properly to the airports. These funds are critical to 
the modernization program of restructuring them physically to 
accommodate somewhat larger traffic patterns, as well as do the 
necessary modernization to achieve safety-most important, safety-and 
greater convenience for the passengers using these two airports.
  Mr. President, my amendment is aimed at ensuring that necessary 
safety and service improvements proceed at Reagan National and Dulles 
and I am pleased with its inclusion.
  Secondly, I wanted to express my profound regret that the conference 
agreement includes any increase in PFC charges.
  The current PFC cap is set at $3 per airport and passengers can 
easily pay a total of $12 in taxes on a round trip flight. Already, 
airline passengers are subjected to a 7.5% federal excise tax, the 
$12.40 per passenger excise tax on air passenger arrivals, as well as 
the 4.3 cents per gallon Aviation Trust Fund tax on aviation jet fuel. 
Airline passengers can pay as much as 40% of their total ticket cost 
just in taxes.
  Providing better airport facilities is imperative but raising PFCs in 
order to guarantee a revenue stream for aviation is like flying a jet 
plane with less than adequate destination fuel. You'll get off the 
ground but it will come at great cost.
  Lastly, the conference agreement includes a provision that will allow 
for an increase of 12 flights at Reagan National Airport. The original 
Senate language included an unacceptable and astonishing number of 48 
takeoffs and landings. I fought very hard to stem the tide as I had 
innumerable environmental, clean-air and local control concerns and am 
appreciative the conferees agreed to scale back the number of 
additional slots to a less egregious number. In crafting this 
agreement, I strongly urge my colleagues in the Senate not to open 
future discussion on this matter without appropriate deference being 
made to my constituents in Virginia.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to 
highlight an important provision in the Federal Aviation Administration 
reauthorization conference report which provides more equitable 
treatment for families of passengers involved in international aviation 
disasters.
  The devastating crash of Trans World Airlines Flight 800 on July 17, 
1996 took the lives of 230 individuals. Perhaps the community hardest 
hit by this tragedy was Montoursville, PA, which lost 16 students and 5 
adult chaperones who were participating in a long-awaited Montoursville 
High School French Club trip to France.
  Last Congress it was brought to my attention by constituents, 
including parents of the Montoursville children lost on TWA 800, that 
their ability to seek redress in court was hampered by a 1920 shipping 
law known as the Death on the High Seas Act, which was originally 
intended to apply to the widows of seafarers, not the relatives of 
jumbo-jet passengers who have perished during international air travel.
  The Death on the High Seas Act states that where the death of a 
person is caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring more 
than one marine league--three miles--from U.S. shores, a personal 
representative of a decedent can only sue for pecuniary loss sustained 
by the decedent's wife, child, husband, parent, or dependent relative. 
Therefore, the families of the victims of aviation accidents, such as 
TWA 800, Swissair 111 and EgyptAir 990, all of which occurred more than 
three miles offshore, were precluded from recovering non-pecuniary 
damages such as loss of society or punitive damages, no matter how 
great the wrongful act or neglect by an airline or airplane 
manufacturer.
  In the 105th Congress Representative McDade and I introduced 
legislation to remove the application of the Death on the High Seas Act 
from aviation incidents. Our legislation was not enacted into law, and 
in the 106th Congress, Representative Sherwood and I again reintroduced 
this measure. The House bill, H.R. 603, passed by an overwhelming 
margin and was incorporated into the House FAA reauthorization bill. 
The Senate version of the FAA bill included a provision allowing 
victims'

[[Page 2187]]

families to recover non-pecuniary damages, but with a cap of $750,000, 
which I opposed.
  On October 18, 1999, I was successful in convincing 15 of my 
colleagues to join me in a letter to Chairman McCain urging the Senate 
to accept the House provision in conference. Representative Sherwood 
and I also worked closely with Chairman Shuster and his staff to press 
our case before the conferees.
  I am very pleased that the final provision agreed upon in the FAA 
reauthorization conference report accomplishes the primary goal of our 
free-standing legislation by extending the territorial seas of the 
United States from three to twelve miles for the purpose of aviation 
accidents after July 16, 1996. This effectively removes TWA 800--which 
crashed roughly ten miles offshore--from coverage under the Death on 
the High Seas Act. In addition, while the Death on the High Seas Act 
will still apply to other aviation accidents which occurred beyond 
twelve miles, such as Swissair 111 and EgyptAir 990, non-pecuniary 
damages will now be recoverable for the first time.
  Our success in this matter would not have been possible without the 
work of many, and I would particularly like to recognize the efforts of 
Hans Ephraimson-Abt, Frank Carven and Will and Kathy Rogers, all of 
whom have lost loved ones as a result of tragedy in international air 
travel. These individuals first brought this issue to my attention and 
served as able advocates. I would also like to thank Dan Renberg and 
Mark Carmel of my staff, who worked tirelessly on behalf of all the 
victims' families. Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues, 
Chairman Shuster, Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings and Senator Gorton 
for working with Representative Sherwood and myself to address this 
matter.
  This issue is not about large damage awards. It is about ensuring 
access to justice and clarifying the rights of families of victims of 
plane crashes. While nothing can ever completely take away the pain and 
grief felt by those who lost loved ones in these tragedies, I am 
hopeful that the victims' families are comforted with the knowledge 
that some measure of fairness has been restored and the American civil 
justice system is now more accessible.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise to recognize the importance of 
today's passage of H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment 
and Reform Act for the 21st Century. Today is a great day for rural 
America's air passengers. This legislation will bring much needed air 
service to under served communities throughout the Nation. It will also 
grant billions of dollars in federal funds to our Nation's airports for 
upgrades, through the Airport Improvements Program (AIP).
  Senator Slade Gorton, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, 
Subcommittee on Aviation, is to be commended for his superb leadership 
on this complex and contentious measure. My friend and colleague from 
the State of Washington proved himself pivotal earlier during floor 
consideration of the Senate bill and during the conference with the 
other body on this bill. Together with Chairman Domenici, Chairman 
Stevens, and Senator Hollings, their joint efforts moved this bill to 
today's passage.
  Rural Americans are the biggest winners with the passage of H.R. 
1000. Citizens of small and under served communities can look forward 
to the day when they no longer have to travel hundreds of miles and 
several hours to board a plane. This legislation provides incentives to 
domestic air carriers and their affiliates to reach out to these people 
and serve them conveniently near their homes. Many Americans will be 
able to travel a reasonable distance to gain access to our Nation's 
skies and, from there, anywhere they wish to go.
  Mr. President, I also applaud the hard work of Senator Frist of 
Tennessee, Senator Abraham of Michigan, and Senator Ashcroft of 
Missouri, all members of the Senate Commerce Committee. Their 
dedication to the flying public helped move the FAA conference when 
agreements on contentious aviation issues were not met. They understand 
the delays, inconvenience, and headache their constituents must endure 
when flying--they get it. I firmly believe that without the engagement 
of these three gentlemen the Senate would not be voting on H.R. 1000 
today. The people of Tennessee, Michigan, and Missouri should be 
extremely proud of their representation in Washington.
  The major policy changes in H.R. 1000 led to hard fought, but honest 
disagreements. I have enormous respect for the efforts of Chairmen 
Domenici, Stevens, and Shuster, as well as House Ranking Member 
Oberstar, as they diligently advocated for their committees' 
jurisdictions. One thing was abundantly clear during the FAA 
conference--my colleagues recognized our Nation's aviation needs and 
made significant commitments to increase aviation funding. This honest 
debate and willingness to work together to achieve common goals is what 
makes it exciting to serve in Washington.
  Mr. President, I am extremely proud of my colleagues. Since 1995, the 
Republican majority has made infrastructure a top legislative priority. 
Two years ago, my friends in the House and Senate successfully led an 
effort to boost the amount of federal funding for highway construction 
and improvements. History will reflect that this Congress also deeply 
cared about our Nation's infrastructure. One of the main components of 
H.R. 1000 directs the expense of all Airports and Airways Trust Fund 
revenue and interest on aviation needs. Trust Fund revenue and interest 
means that America's airports will get the improvements they 
desperately need to take our aviation infrastructure into the 21st 
Century.
  Mr. President, no legislative initiation is ever possible without the 
dedicated efforts of staff, and I want to take a moment to identify 
those who worked hard to get FAA legislation through conference and to 
the Senate for approval.
  From the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation: 
Marti Allbright; Lloyd Ator; Mark Buse; Ann Choiniere; Julia Kraus; 
Michael Reynolds; Scott Verstandig; and Sam Whitehorn.
  From the Senate Committee on the Budget: Beth Felder; Bill Hoagland; 
Mary Naylor; Barry Strumpf; and Cheryle Tucker.
  From the Senate Committee on Appropriations: Wally Burnett; Paul 
Doerrer; Peter Rogoff; and Mitch Warren.
  The following staff also participated on behalf of their Senators: 
Chrystn Alston; Kerry Ates; Rich Bender; David Broome; Bob Carey; Steve 
Browning; Jeanne Bumpus; John Conrad; Margaret Cummisky; Brett Hale; 
Keith Hennessey; Ann Loomis; Randal Popelka; Mitch Rose; Lisa 
Rosenberg; Greg Rothchild; Jim Sartucci; Lori Sharpe; Brad Van Dam; and 
Andy Vermilye.
  Mr. President, these individuals worked very hard on H.R. 1000, and 
the Senate owes them a debt of gratitude for their dedicated service to 
this country.
  Mr. President, our Nation's small communities are a step closer to 
receiving long-sought air service. Also, America's airports will be 
enhanced. This is good for all Americans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I think we are quite close to the end of 
this debate. I wish to make only a few remarks, primarily in response 
to those of the distinguished Senator from New Jersey, who spoke in 
opposition.
  One reason this bill has taken so long to come before the Senate in 
the final conference report was an objection I shared with the chairman 
of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and the majority leader to 
creating a new entitlement.
  I do not believe, in the ultimate analysis, this bill does create a 
new entitlement. It does say that all of the money collected by the 
aviation passenger tax that has long been statutorily earmarked toward 
aircraft, airport, and airline purposes ought to be spent on

[[Page 2188]]

that purpose. It does effectively guarantee that trust fund will be 
spent for the purposes it was created. That, it seems to me, is a good 
thing rather than a bad thing.
  The Senator from New Jersey is correct in saying we will be required 
in the future, as I think we ought to be, to appropriate general fund 
money for aircraft purposes in the broadest sense. I suppose one can 
call that a subsidy to air travel.
  The Senator speaks of Amtrak. My figures indicate that the roughly 20 
million Amtrak passengers each year are subsidized by the general 
taxpayer to the extent of $28 per passenger per trip. Even if one 
assumed this bill would essentially require spending $2.5 million a 
year on the Federal Aviation Administration in general fund moneys over 
and above the trust fund, and even if we attributed every one of those 
dollars directly to the passengers of commercial aircraft, which of 
course we should not, that would be roughly $4 a passenger, or one-
seventh the amount of subsidy to rail passengers.
  The bottom line is that the Appropriations Committee still retains 
authority to shift funds among various capital accounts that are within 
the trust fund and still allow for a direct appropriation of whatever 
amount the Senate desires for general fund purposes. It will make it 
more difficult not to come up to authorized levels, but it does not 
make it impossible.
  We all agree that the needs of our air transportation system are 
emergent and are large. This bill represents a major step forward to 
funding an adequate amount and will still allow judgments to be made 
between various forms of transportation and other needs of the country 
in an appropriate fashion.
  This is a good bill, and I believe it ought to be passed with an 
overwhelmingly affirmative vote.
  Has a rollcall vote been ordered on final passage?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It has not.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. I think it appropriate to ask for 2 minutes prior to the 
vote at 5 p.m. for summary conclusions on the bill, 1 minute on each 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GORTON. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington State has 2 
minutes remaining; the Senator from West Virginia has 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. GORTON. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I only make a couple of comments. I 
indicated this is the largest increase in aviation spending in history. 
I did that out of a sense of pride because of the urgency of the 
situation we face. This is not money which is being spent for the sake 
of money; it is money being spent so we will not walk into the disaster 
we are now headed towards.
  I remind my colleagues--the delays, the near misses, the pressure, 
the outdated equipment, the insufficient time for preparation at work, 
salaries, money for various purposes--we cannot take an air traffic 
control system or modernize an FAA in the way they want to do it, we 
cannot pay the many thousands of people who work to keep it safe in 
this country, without spending money.
  It has been said a number of times that the number of people who will 
be flying in this country will be a billion in less than 10 years. 
Cargo traffic on a worldwide basis, as well as in our country, will 
increase exponentially. The number of planes flying in the skies will 
increase by at least 50 percent in less than 10 years. Think about 
that. We have the same number of runways; we have 20- to 30-year-old 
computers trying to figure out what altitudes the planes are flying and 
figure out how to separate them; we look at all the different tracking 
systems we have in our aviation system and we would be embarrassed to 
have that equipment in our own Senate offices. It is a crisis. 
Therefore, it is a priority. We are talking about the saving of 
American lives and lives across the world. Money must be spent.
  It is not that other transportation is any less important. This 
Senator benefits enormously from the services of Amtrak. An airplane 
crash does something to the Nation's psychology. It can take 2 or 3 
years for an airline to recover from an instant which costs lives. The 
economic impact and, most importantly, the human impact and the 
pressure on people who run the aviation system to prevent these things 
from happening, to have safe skies, is absolutely overwhelming. It is 
something which is not recognized sufficiently by the American people 
and which we are, happily, recognizing in this bill.
  The Secretary of the Department of Transportation is happy with this 
bill and will recommend to the President that he sign it. Jane Garvey, 
the FAA Administrator--somebody in whom I have an enormous amount of 
confidence, who has run Boston's airport by herself and knows the 
situation cold--is very much in support of this.
  After all, we have not taken anything off budget. The aviation trust 
fund is still on budget. We have not built any firewalls. We have acted 
in a responsible fashion. However, we have applied more money because 
this is a particularly special crisis which, thank heavens, after a 
number of years, Congress has finally recognized.
  In my earlier remarks, I failed to mention Bud Shuster in the House, 
the chairman of their committee, and Jim Oberstar, dear friends of many 
years. What they and their colleagues have done is extraordinary. I 
think we have a superb bill. It is not a perfect bill, but it is, as in 
all things, the result of compromise. I think, generally speaking, we 
have a bill of which to be extremely proud. I know the Senator from 
West Virginia believes that very strongly.
  Unless there are others who wish to speak, I hope our colleagues will 
vote to pass this conference report when the time comes this afternoon.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I believe that uses the time of all the 
people who wish to speak on the conference report. I ask unanimous 
consent debate, other than the 2 minutes at 5 p.m., be concluded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may speak in 
morning business for 12 minutes or thereabouts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________