T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, when I travel across Washington state, one of the first topics I hear about from local businesses and high-tech companies is their need for people with high-tech skills. A Poulsbo company, Paladin Data, has taken their efforts to find skilled employees to a new level by donating is time and resources to train teachers in some of Washington state's public schools. For its commitment to working with teachers, improving student learning and expanding their skills, I am pleased to present Paladin Data with one of my `Innovation in Education' Awards. Several years ago, seven school districts in Kitsap, Mason, and Pierce Counties developed the West Sound School-to-Career Consortium which provides approximately 14,000 students with high-tech classes. This year Paladin Data will begin its first year of a three-year project that provides high-tech training to teachers involved with the West Sound School-to-Career program. Paladin data is also contributing $50,000 in matching funds to a state grant of $100,000 to provide needed curriculum materials and onsite teacher training in either a Paladin facility in Poulsbo or at a designated school district site. Moreover, each school district will determine what training their teachers will receive based on the needs of their district and their students. Paladin is giving our teachers more information and skills that they can take back to their classrooms and shows teachers what skills employers are looking for in perspective employees, giving their students a leg up on the competition. Paladin's involvement is not only improving the education of our students, but also giving them an accurate picture of what skills they need well-before they enter the job market. The Washington Software Alliance reports that over 64,000 computer- related jobs are currently unfilled in the State of Washington--all for lack of properly trained workers. I find it encouraging to see companies like Paladin Data, that are contributing to our booming economy, are taking an active role in ensuring the quality education of our children. I am proud to acknowledge Paladin Data System Systems Corporation's commitment to education and I look forward to hearing about more companies making a contribution to our children's future.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, for too many years I have worked in support of repealing the unfair Annual Earnings Test on Social Security. Incredibly, working seniors currently forfeit one dollar of Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn over the earnings limit of $17,000. If an American spends a lifetime paying into the Social Security system with the guarantee that he or she will get their money when he or she turns 62 or 65 years old, no one should be able to take those benefits away simply because the beneficiary wants to keep working. Why should the federal government be discouraging those seniors who want to keep on working from doing so? As our country faces increasing demands for labor, we can ill afford to deprive ourselves of the skills and experience America's seniors have to offer. The federal government shouldn't be in the position of discouraging anyone from working: seniors should be allowed to make their own decisions. Over the past few weeks, I have listened to and read the comments of numerous Washington state seniors who lose a portion of their hard- earned Social Security benefits simply because they do not wish to retire or stop working. I have been listening to these same comments for many years, and I can honestly say that today it looks as if common sense will finally prevail and a solution will pass the House and the Senate. Importantly, President Clinton recently changed his position on this issue and now says he will sign this legislation to abolish the Earnings Test. I will cast my vote for abolishing this unfair tax. Repeal of the Social Security Earnings Test is a victory for seniors and every generation of Americans.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, two weekends ago I had the pleasure of joining a unique group of volunteers and high school students in Enumclaw, WA, in the first steps toward restoring a forested wetland on Newaukum Creek. This project is sponsored by the city of Enumclaw and the Mid-Puget Sound Fisheries Enhancement Group (MPSFEG). MPSFEG and the city of Enumclaw have entered into an agreement for the group to remove nonnative vegetation and plan various native wetland species. The group will monitor the project for 3 years to ensure success of the project. MPSFEG's Troy Fields and Fiona McNair were kind enough to explain the challenges facing Newaukum creek salmon, and how restoring such wetlands will increase water quality and habitat, and therefore increase the chances of young fish surviving. MPSFEG is joined in this effort by a group of enterprising students from Enumclaw High school, led by their teacher Mike Buck. Mr. Buck has used many different sites in the watershed including this one as an outdoor laboratory for his science classes. Projects have included water quality and stream insect monitoring and restoration. Mike's approach to teaching is unique, and one that I am wholly impressed with. He has taken it upon himself to involve these young people in science-based restoration projects where they can best witness the results of their efforts--in their own backyard. It is for this reason that I was proud to award Mike Buck with an Innovation in Education award for excellence and creativity in hands-on science learning. This project is yet another example of why decisions affecting our children's education should be made locally, not in Washington DC. No federal bureaucrat could understand the difficult prospects Newaukum Creek salmon face in their return home to spawn. And no federal bureaucrat could successfully turn that challenge into an educational opportunity that also works for returning salmon as Mike Buck has. Therefore, I propose to my colleagues here in the Senate that this successful venture is further proof that local educators will be able to make the best decisions about the unique needs of their students.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I am delighted to recognize the extraordinary efforts of one of my constituents, Ms. Tina Noble, to help women in her community market themselves to potential employers through the `Dress for Success' program. For her efforts, Tina Noble is one of the Washington Women 2000 ``Power of One'' Award recipients. Dress for Success provides professional clothing for low-income women as they transition into the workplace. Many times these women are single mothers, trying to gain financial independence. Tina Noble, together with her small army of volunteers has helped over 500 women in the Seattle area get suited up for new jobs since she began the Seattle chapter of Dress for Success in 1998. In addition to her community service, Tina is also a hero to her family as a wife and mother of three children. Tina is a wonderful example of the tremendous difference that one person can make in her community. I applaud Tina's efforts to help other women dress for and find success in the workplace. She is a most deserving recipient of the ``Power of One'' award.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, today I am delighted to honor the achievements of a remarkable Washingtonian for her work in preserving the culture and traditions of the Pacific Northwest. For all her efforts, Upper Skagit elder Vi Hilbert is one of the Washington Women 2000 ``Power of One'' Award recipients. A native speaker of Lushootseed, Vi has worked tirelessly to preserve the indigenous language of the Puget Sound area as well as the stories and history of the Pacific Northwest tribes. In 1983, Vi founded Lushootseed Research which is a non-profit organization to preserve the Lushootseed language through audio and printed materials as well as education. Vi taught Lushootseed language and literature classes at the University of Washington for 15 years. In addition to preserving her own native tongue, Vi has served to preserve art, artifacts and cultural heritage of tribes from all of the Pacific Northwest. She serves on the advisory board for the Burke Museum and the Seattle Art Museum and is an active board member of United Indians of All Tribes and Tillicum Village. On behalf of all of us who treasure the heritage of the Pacific Northwest, I thank Vi for all her efforts. She is a tremendous example of the ``Power of One.''

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, during the course of the last 2 weeks, the health committee has been dealing with the vitally important subject of education and has been engaged over a period of many hours in the writing of a bill extending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of the United States. That writing process, in my view, has been highly constructive. It has also been ignored by the press of the United States and, therefore, by most of the people of the United States. It does not deserve that fate. Education is a vitally important subject, and the Federal role in education, a role that has increased markedly over the course of the last several decades, is at a crossroads in the course of that debate-- a debate which I hope next month will proceed to the floor of the Senate. This is truly a defining moment in our history in Congress. We have an opportunity to greatly improve and change the direction of Federal Government funding for schools all across the United States of America. We get this opportunity only once every 4 to 6 years, when the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act comes before us. I am convinced we will do that job best by listening to our constituents who have an immediate concern with education--an immediate concern because they are the parents of our public school students, an immediate concern because they are teachers in our schools, and an immediate concern because they are principals or elected school board members in those schools; in other words, people whose lives revolve around the education of the next generation of American young people. I am going to try to do my part during the course of the recess over the next 10 days by once again spending a considerable amount of my time visiting schools in the State of Washington in Bellingham, Mount Vernon, Spokane, and Colfax, carrying on a tradition I have used increasingly over the course of the last 3 or 4 or 5 years. What I found during those visits is that each school is different from every other school. They are united only in the concern of the people who work in those schools for the future of our children. Some of those schools need more teachers. Some need teachers who are better paid to compete with outside opportunities. Some need more classroom space. Some need better teaching for the teachers. Others need more computers. But different as those needs are, present Federal policy says here is what you must do with the money we provide you in literally dozens and perhaps hundreds of different narrow categorical functions, each of which requires a bureaucracy in Washington, DC, to look over applications and to run audits, and each of which requires a corresponding bureaucracy in our States and in our local school districts to ask for the money and to account for how it is spent. I have proposed, and a majority of the members of the health committee are now proposing, to add to this Federal formula a bill that I call Straight A's to inject what I consider to be some common sense in the way in which we help our schools in Washington, DC. Straight A's will give to States all across the United States an opportunity to change from a process of accountability to a performance accountability. Instead of spending their time filling out forms to show that they have spent their money exactly as Congress has dictated, a State which elects to come under Straight A's will be able to take one to two dozen of these narrow categorical aid programs, combine them into one, and get rid of all the forms and most of this process accountability on the basis of one's promise. That promise is: Let us do what we think best for our kids, and we will do a better job. Our kids will do better. We will have standardized tests in our States and we will prove they are doing better, because we are allowed to make more of our own decisions or you can cancel the whole thing and take it back. It is as simple as that. It is the provision of trust in people who are putting their lives and their years into the education of our kids, the people who know our kids' names, rather than a group in the Department of Education in Washington, DC, or in this body which so often seems to feel it can and should act as one nationwide school board. I have heard a lot from the defenders of the status quo over the course of the last 3 years. One of the first who criticized my earlier proposal said: My gosh, if we let them do that, they will spend all the money on swimming pools. Another said it might be football helmets. All of them had one common thought: We don't dare let our educators and our school board members make up their minds; They would make mistakes; We know more than they do; We know more than the people in your hometown, Mr. President, in Kansas, or my people in the State of Washington, or the constituents of the Senator from the State of Virginia. Somehow we know the cure for 17,000 school districts across the United States. The biggest of the present Federal programs is title I, originally passed 35 years ago to narrow the gap between underprivileged children and privileged children. The gap has not narrowed in that 35 years. Is it not time we give some of our States and some of our school districts the opportunity to say they think they can do it better? We think those right on the ground in our schools can do it better than taking direction from the Senate, the House, the White House, and the Department of Education in Washington, DC. That is the opportunity we 100 Members of the Senate are going to be given very soon, I am convinced, by the action of a committee under the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Jeffords, and other dedicated members of that committee. I am disappointed the work they have been doing for the past couple of weeks has not gotten wider publicity and attention than it has received. I am now convinced that committee is going to present the most profound reform, the most hopeful new direction in the field of Federal education policy than we have received in a generation. All 100 Members are going to have an opportunity to make those changes ourselves. I look forward to that opportunity. I congratulate the committee for the work it has already done.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the nomination of U.S. District Court Judge Richard Paez to the Ninth Circuit Court is, to put it mildly, controversial. His nomination has now been before the Senate for almost 4 years, a period of time close to a dubious record. He deserves a vote, and at least serious consideration of an affirmative vote, for that reason alone. The President nominates, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints judges to the Federal courts. That constitutional system allows Senators as much latitude to approve or disapprove judicial nominations on the basis of the nominee's judicial and political philosophies as it does to the President in making those nominations. In my view, however, that senatorial prerogative does not extend to rejecting Presidential nominees solely on the ground that a Senator would have chosen someone else. If a nominee clearly falls within a fairly broad philosophical mainstream and is otherwise competent, he or she should probably be confirmed. In my view, Judge Paez falls within that broad mainstream. I have considered carefully the objections of colleagues whose views I greatly respect. But I have also considered the views of Republicans and conservatives from California and who know Judge Paez best--including Congressman Rogan. Their views persuade me to vote to confirm Judge Paez to the Ninth Circuit. The nomination of Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit, however, seems to me to create too great a risk that we are confirming someone for a lifetime appointment to the most influential circuit court in the country, who falls on the far side of the philosophical divide I described in my remarks on Judge Paez. Ms. Berzon has a relatively narrow scope of private practice in a highly ideological field, and has been active and ideological in the expression of her political views. Ms. Berzon also has no judicial experience, and so has no record by which to determine whether her ideological activism will be curtailed once she is on the bench. It certainly is possible that it would be. It is also possible that it will not. Given the concerns of many, including my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee who voted against her confirmation, that the Ninth Circuit already is ideologically unbalanced, I simply am not willing to take this risk. I see no clear reason to consent, in constitutional terms, to her nomination.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. GORTON. How much time remains?

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.

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.

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 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?

Mr. GORTON. I yield the floor.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I am here to address the issue of pipeline safety, an issue that people in most communities, cities, and towns do not concern themselves with unless, regretfully, a tragedy occurs, such as the one that took place in Bellingham, WA, last June. The devastating liquid pipeline explosion that rocked the city of Bellingham and took the lives of three young boys rightfully served as a wakeup call and focused our attention on the need for pipeline safety reform. While pipelines continue to be the safest means of transporting liquid fuels and gas, and though accidents may be infrequent on the more than 2 million miles of mostly invisible pipelines in the United States, Bellingham has shown us that pipelines do pose potential dangers that we ignore at our peril. In testifying on the Bellingham incident before a House committee last fall, I commented that while Congress had an obligation substantively to revise the Pipeline Safety Act in response to the clarion call for Bellingham, proposals for specific changes to the law seemed premature at that time. State and local officials in Washington State, as well as citizens groups, environmentalists, and various Federal oversight bodies, were just beginning to examine the accident and its causes. The Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, has primary jurisdiction over this bill in the Senate, and last year I implored the chairman, Senator McCain, and other committee members to make the reauthorization a top priority. Last week, at my request, the Commerce Committee scheduled the first Senate hearing on the topic of pipelines. The field hearing to address the Bellingham incident and the State's response to it will be held in Bellingham, WA, next Monday, March 13. I encourage my colleagues from the Senate Commerce Committee to come to Bellingham next Monday to hear firsthand testimony from the families of the victims and from local officials whose lives have been transformed by this tragedy. Theirs is a story which compels us to action. The families and the community will never forget what happened last June 10, nor should we in Congress. It is our duty to take the lessons learned in Bellingham and adopt tougher safety measures that will allow us to prevent future tragedies. This hearing will, I hope, serve as guide as we debate the reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act. And while a number of the studies and operational reviews commissioned after the accident are still incomplete, including those of the National Transportation Safety Board, on the cause of the accident in Bellingham and the report of the General Accounting Office as to the performance of the Office of Pipeline Safety, other reviews are complete. Primary among these is the report of the Fuel Accident Prevention and Response Team, a task force convened by Governor Gary Locke and charged with reviewing Federal, State and local laws and practices affecting pipeline accident prevention and response. A significant contributor to this report was Mayor Mark Asmundson of Bellingham, whose efforts to learn from, educate others about, and rationally apply the lessons of that tragedy have been commendable. The Fuel Accident Team recommended changes in law and practice at the Federal, State, and local levels. It revealed that there is a lot that can be done by State and local officials that is not being done, particularly in the area of emergency preparedness, public education, and adoption of appropriate set-back requirements to keep development away from lines. The Fuel Accident Team also found, however, that at least with respect to interstate pipelines, State and local officials are limited by Federal law from regulating many of the safety aspects of these lines, and that only the Federal Government can adopt or enforce requirements for inspection, emergency flow restriction devices, operator training, leak detection, corrosion prevention, maximum pressure, and other safety measures relevant to the safe construction, maintenance, and operation of pipelines. While there may be good arguments that pipelines should be managed systemically and why inconsistent State standards could erode rather than promote safety, these arguments are fatally undermined by the absence of meaningful Federal standards. To tell State and local governments, as the Pipeline Safety Act effectively does, that they cannot require internal inspections of pipelines passing through their communities, under their schools and homes and senior centers, when a Federal requirement for internal inspections is years overdue, strikes me as the worst kind of Federal conceit. Amending the Pipeline Safety Act to relax Federal preemption and allow States to exceed minimum Federal safety standards was the first recommendation of Washington's Fuel Accident Team. Despite this recommendation, I understand that the administration's proposal for the reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act will move in exactly the opposite direction, that is, it will propose to eliminate even the vague authority under which the Office of Pipeline Safety has appointed four States as its agents for purposes of inspecting interstate liquid pipelines. The purported reason for further disempowering States is, I understand, OPS's perception that a system of inconsistent standards is unsafe, OPS's perception that a system of inconsistent standards is unsafe, and that States already have their hands full with regulating intrastate pipelines, which are far more extensive than interstate lines. But what if the States disagree with this attitude, which, in the absence of meaningful Federal standards is tantamount to saying that ``no standards are better than anything States can come up with''? Yes, the interstate nature of some pipelines gives the Federal Government the option of regulating them and preempting States from doing so. If the Federal Government is not going to do its job, however, why should we prevent States from assuming responsibility for something as important as pipeline safety? To its credit, in response to the Bellingham incident the Office of Pipeline Safety has proposed to complete a rulemaking on ``pipeline integrity'' by the end of this year. This rulemaking, years overdue, is not only supposed to address requirements for internal inspection and the use of emergency flow restriction devices in highly populated and environmentally sensitive areas, but to adopt a systemic approach to pipeline safety that focuses not just on specific tests but on making sure that pipeline operators are accurately assessing risks, collecting and properly analyzing relevant data, and exercising sound judgment. Following the June 10 accident last year, the city of Bellingham conditioned the resumption of operations of a portion of the pipeline on the Olympic Pipe Line Company's adherence to certain process management standards borrowed from OSHA regulations applicable to oil refineries. This emphasis on a process management approach is, I believe, sound and should, I believe, be incorporated into any new Federal safety standards. Once meaningful Federal standards for pipelines are in place, debate about whether or not safety is advanced by allowing States to adopt and enforce stricter, but inconsistent standards, can begin. Even then, however, and certainly until then, I support the proposals in the legislation cosponsored in the House and Senate by all of the Washington delegation members to prescribe procedures for States to assume greater authority in the regulation of pipeline safety. Both H.R. 3558 and S. 2004 would permit States to apply for more regulatory authority from the Department of Transportation, which is charged with reviewing the proposals to ensure that states have the necessary resources and that the Balkanization of pipeline regulation will not degrade safety. I look forward to working with my colleagues from Washington to ensure that the following principles, many of which are reflected in the current S. 2004, are contained in the reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act. First, I support efforts to allow States greater authority to adopt and enforce safety standards for interstate pipelines, particularly is light of the absence of meaningful Federal standards. This increase in authority should be accompanied by an increase in grants to States to carry out pipeline safety activities. Second, I agree with Senator Murray that we need to improve the collection and dissemination of information about pipelines to the public and to local and State officials responsible for preventing and responding to pipeline accidents. We also need to ensure that operators are collecting information necessary accurately to assess risks and to respond. The public should be informed about where pipelines are located, what condition they are in, when they fail--we need to lower the threshold for reporting failures--and why they fail. We should ensure that relevant information is gathered and made available over widely accessible means like the Internet. Third, in addition to providing an explicit mechanism for States to seek additional regulatory authority over interstate pipelines, Federal legislation should adopt some mechanism for ensuring that meaningful standards for pipeline testing, monitoring, and operation are adopted at the national level. Congress has directed the DOT to do some of this in the past. But as the Inspector General noted, some of the rulemakings are years overdue. To the extent that lack of funding can account for some of the delay we should ensure sufficient appropriations to allow OPS to complete the necessary rulemakings and develop the technology needed to conduct reliable tests of pipelines. While I am reluctant to have Congress, rather than experts, prescribe specific testing and monitoring requirements, and while I fully appreciate the need for flexible testing regimes that recognize the differences among pipelines facing variable risks as well as the need for dynamic standards that advance with knowledge and technology, I am sympathetic to the position that specific mandates may be necessary in the face of inaction on the part of OPS. Congress has repeatedly asked OPS to conduct rulemakings and been ignored. As a consequence I can understand those who have lost patience and are prepared to put specific testing and operational prescriptions into Federal statute. In addition to ensuring that OPS complies with years-old statutory mandates, I support the Inspector General's recommendation that OPS act upon, either to reject or accept, the recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board. I don't pretend to know whether NTSB's recommendations, that have been accumulating for years, will advance safety. It is unacceptable, however, that OPS should simply ignore them. Fourth, I have heard from citizens' groups who support the creation of a model oversight oil spill advisory panel in Washington State. I see a real value in creating such a body, and empowering it with meaningful authority to comment on and influence State and Federal action or inaction. Such an advisory panel can continue to focus needed attention on the issue of pipeline safety when the painful memory of June 10 begins, for many, at the same time mercifully and regretfully, to fade.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, how much time do the proponents have remaining?

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 5 of those minutes to the distinguished Senator from Iowa.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I appear here today with my friend and colleague from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, to present to the Senate the conference report on the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization measure. The compromise reached in this legislation is not only fair but constructive. It will provide necessary increases especially in capital funds for our aviation infrastructure and does provide a reasonable balance with the needs of that system and our limited Federal resources. I went to the conference committee on this bill with a unique perspective because I sit on the Budget and Appropriations Committees as well as serving as the chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. My duties on these committees allowed me to see the hard choices that must be made to stay within our tight budgets. The final agreement reached with Chairman Shuster in the House ensures the trust fund revenues will be used for aviation spending. I joined Senator Domenici in supporting the Senate position on this issue, a position that allows for expenditure of these revenues for their intended purposes without tying the hands of the Appropriations Committee. That was an integral part of the final passage, and I commend Senator Domenici for his hard work on this issue, together with the tremendous contributions we received from Senator Stevens. One issue with which I have some reservations is amending the Death on the High Seas Act. I am pleased that the resolution amends the statute to bring the anachronistic law more up to date by allowing the recovery of certain types of non-economic damages. The resolution removes the cap on these damages contained in the Senate bill. I am also pleased that we have clearly retained the prohibition on punitive damages, which are not designed to compensate and which are so often abused. I think the resolution is good insofar as it reflects the Senate approach of keeping most aviation accidents on the high seas within the statute, thereby providing some semblance of certainty and uniformity. I have reservations, however, about the change demanded by the House conferees retroactively to change, from three to twelve nautical miles, the distance from the U.S. shore at which the Death on the High Seas act applies. Those who have wanted to take commercial aviation accident cases on the high seas out of DOHSA altogether have argued that this will cure the unfairness of different recoveries based on the chance of the accident happening over land or over the high seas. I have strongly disagreed with that proposition. Eliminating DOHSA leaves you with a dizzying array of State, Federal, foreign, or perhaps, no, law about which lawyers can fight endlessly, further postponing recovery. I trust those who have demanded that we complicate the federal law retroactively to take TWA Flight 800 litigation out of the coverage of DOHSA have fully considered the effects of that change. My concerns with this issue are balanced with the positive aspects of this bill such as the removal of slot restrictions at Chicago O'Hare, Washington National, and the two New York airports. These provisions will improve competition, reduce fares, and provide additional service to small communities. Another provision which will stimulate competition and help to bridge the funding gap that currently exists is an increase in the cap on the passenger facility charge. This provision gets to the heart of my guiding philosophy, which is to give local officials more decision- making power. Although I favor an increase in the cap on the PFC, I realize that this is just one piece of the puzzle. We must look at the issues of our national aviation system in a larger context if we are going to meet the capacity demands of the 21st century. We cannot rely on unlimited federal funding to solve all of our problems. We must stretch our finite resources as far as possible. A prime example of this is the modernization of the air traffic control system. This process has been ongoing for more than 15 years. We can no longer allow the program to continue the ``stops and starts'' of the past. Improvements must get on track, or, as the National Civil Aviation Review Commission warned us, the growing demand for air services combined with outdated equipment will soon bring gridlock and serious concerns about safety. The Federal Aviation Commission needs to spare no effort over the next few years to modernize the air traffic control system. All of this needs to be done right, and be done now, to ensure continued safety and efficiency in the aviation industry. Reforming the way in which the Federal Aviation Administration does business, and ensuring it is as efficient as possible, is a positive first step. This bill contains provisions, which I worked on with Senator Rockefeller, to move the Federal Aviation Administration in the direction of being a more business-like entity. Positive reforms, not just increased funding, are integral to achieving our goal. Although these reforms are a positive first step, I will continue to explore other possible options such as corporatization of the air traffic control system as the 2nd session of the 106th Congress continues. I believe we can learn from the work of countries such as Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, which have moved to privately run systems. The concerns of general aviation will be of paramount importance to me as this debate continues, and I welcome the input of all interested parties. In summary, this agreement will allow both sides to reach our common goal, which is to ensure that we continue to have the safest, most efficient aviation system well into the 21st century. I would like to take a minute to thank the Senate staff who worked tirelessly on this issue: Aviation subcommittee staff, Ann Choiniere, Mike Reynolds, Sam Whitehorn, and Julia Krauss ably tended the technical provisions of the bill. Wally Burnett with Senator Stevens, and Cheryle Tucker with Senator Domenici were vital in negotiations over budgetary issues. I also thank Jim Sartucci and Keith Hennessey from Senator Lott's staff for assisting with the final negotiations. Last but certainly not least are my own staff members. I thank Jeanne Bumpus for her diligent efforts on the Death on the High Seas Act, and Brett Hale, who is with me today, and who left his name out of these printed remarks. He deserves thanks for the hundreds and hundreds of hours he has put in on this bill from beginning to end. Finally, as I began, I want to say it has been a great pleasure to me to work with my friend from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, whose interest in this subject is very high and whose competence in coming up with correct answers is equally high. This bill is a true partnership, and I have enjoyed working with him on coming up with these solutions on that score. I ask unanimous consent a summary of the major issues included in the FAA conference report be printed in the Record.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this morning the Senate will begin 1 hour of debate on the conference report to accompany the Federal Aviation Administration bill. Following that debate, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:30 a.m. with the time under the control of Senators Brownback and Durbin. Following morning business, the Senate will begin consideration of the Export Administration Act with amendments to the bill expected to be offered. As a reminder, there will be three stacked votes at 5 p.m. The first vote will be on the conference report to accompany the Federal Aviation Administration bill, to be followed by the two cloture votes with respect to the Berzon and Paez nominations. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I object.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this bill provides a generous contribution to the future of aviation in the 21st century. It significantly reforms the operations of the Federal Aviation Administration. It represents the collective wisdom of the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Commerce Committee, the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on Aviation, and the majority and minority leaders of this Senate. We do not have many bills such as this. I commend it to my colleagues for passage.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak in morning business for not to exceed 10 minutes.

Mr. GORTON. I am delighted to. I amend my unanimous consent request to include the request of the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor of S. 2004, the Pipeline Safety Act of 2000 introduced earlier this year by my colleague from Washington State, Senator Murray.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next vote in this series be limited to 10 minutes in length.