T. Gorton

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. The Senator from Arizona said he wants to get back to the issues involved. I assume the Senator from Kentucky would agree with me that reasonable Members can differ on questions of high public policy, on the way in which we finance political campaigns, on how the Constitution of the United States with its unequivocal demand that Congress shall pass no law respecting the freedom of speech should be interpreted; that all of these are appropriate matters for debate, but that they are far better debated upon the merits, and, in general, accusations of a corrupt system, and rather specific examples pointed at individual Members without the slightest degree of proof, without evidence at all that they were related in any respect whatsoever to this matter--that these are separate questions but they are related questions when the proposition----

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I have followed the Senate's consideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty with great interest, and am impressed particularly with the statement made last Thursday by Senator Lugar--whose experience and knowledge on matters of foreign affairs and national security is highly respected by both Republicans and Democrats. I associate myself completely with his views. I agree with Senator Lugar that this treaty is unverifiable, jeopardizes our national security by eliminating our ability to modernize and increase the safety of our existing weapons, and will fail to achieve its principal goal: to provoke a roll call of countries that the simple phrase ``rogue nations'' conjures up in the minds of all Americans (North Korea, Iraq, and Iran, as well as China, Russia, India, and Pakistan) to refrain from engaging in nuclear testing. First, I join Senator Lugar in expressing my regret that the Senate is considering the treaty at this time. It has been my strong preference that consideration of the treaty take place after the election of the next President. President Clinton's record on this treaty has been one of political maneuvering and a legacy quest, with shockingly little attention dedicated to how this treaty serves our nation's security and foreign policy objectives. But the timing of the debate and its duration are both the results of demands by the President and Senate Democratic leader. My support for allowing a new President, should he or she support the treaty, to make his case to the Senate based upon its merits and that administration's broad foreign policy goals, however, does not mean I am not fully prepared to vote against the treaty if the vote takes place at this time. Senator Lugar presented a thoughtful and well-reasoned, though devastating, indictment of the treaty: the treaty will prevent the United States from ensuring the reliability, effectiveness and safety of our nation's nuclear deterrent, which means we will not be able to equip our existing weapons with the most modern safety and security measures available; the treaty is not verifiable--not only due to our simple technical inability effectively to monitor for tests, but due to the lack of agreement on what tests are permitted or not permitted under the treaty and the cumbersome, international bureaucracy that must be forged to conduct an inspection if tests are suspected; and, most importantly, that the treaty is unenforceable, lacking any effective means to respond to nations that violate the Treaty's conditions. As Senator Lugar stated, ``This Treaty simply has no teeth. . . . The CTBT's answer to illegal nuclear testing is the possible implementation of sanctions. . . . For those countries seeking nuclear weapons, the perceived benefits in international stature and deterrence generally far outweigh the concern about sanctions that could be brought to bear by the international community.'' As I have already said, this debate is premature. It may well be that the passage of years and the development of our own technology might make ratification of the treaty advisable. It is not so today by a wide margin. I must, therefore, vote against ratification in the absence of an enforceable agreement to leave the issue to the next President.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, during my service as a United States Senator representing the State of Washington, I have consistently reiterated one message to the growers and producers I represent. While I am not a farmer, and could not possibly pretend to understand the intricacies of the business, I will always do my best to understand farmers' needs and work on agriculture's behalf. But there is one message growers in the State of Washington have emphasized to me that I understand without question. When times are tough and the check book doesn't balance, families feel the pinch. When times are tough, I have asked farmer after farmer, ``why do you do this?'' The job is terribly difficult, so much of what growers depend upon is unpredictable, and for two years in a row now, world markets have driven prices so low that fathers are telling their sons and daughters not to enter the family business. But immediately after I question their dedication to their livelihood, I'm reminded of the golden, rolling wheat and barley fields of the Palouse. I remember my countless visits to Yakima and Wenatchee and seeing the lush, vibrant greens of the orchards, rising up out of the dust bowl that was once Central Washington. I think about the hearty breakfast I ate that morning and the apples and sandwiches packed away in my grandchildren's lunches. So much of what farmers do and what they produce is a part of our daily lives, that their existence in this country is paramount and deserves recognition. Farmers are proud, tough, hardworking Americans. Apple growers in the State of Washington, for example, don't like to come to my office and ask for help. In the past few months, however, I have visited with many growers who are visibly despondent. Washington leads the nation in apple production, and over the past year, it's estimated that producers have lost at least $200 million in the fresh market. From Tonasket to Wapato, the message from orchardists was clear--we need help. Over the past two months, I have communicated to my colleagues and others the significance of identifying a mechanism to assist fruit and vegetable growers in the disaster assistance package. During debate on the Senate floor in early August, I was able to assist in securing $50 million specifically for fruit and vegetable relief. In the conference report we're addressing today, potential relief for these very growers is incorporated in the $1.2 billion available for crop loss assistance. While I am frustrated that the specific designation for fruits and vegetables was removed, I am particularly pleased that apples were mentioned specifically. Apples are not the only commodity produced in Washington that could stand to benefit from the crop loss section of the package. Asparagus growers, hard hit by weather and a lack of labor have lost thousands of dollars in fresh product. Potato growers who have also been impacted by poor growing conditions can approach the U.S. Department of Agriculture for assistance. Many are surprised to learn that the State of Washington produces more than 230 food, feed and seed crops, and I hope that many of these commodities will receive the assistance they require. Wheat growers in Washington will also benefit from the $5.5 billion available for market loss in the disaster package. The nearly $.60 cent per bushel payment to growers will most certainly ensure that the highly demanded soft white wheat our farmers produce will continue to flow to recovering Asian markets. While the disaster package contained in the Fiscal Year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill is most certainly the highlight of the legislation, there are other important, annual funding priorities included. As a member of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to ensure that the research demanded and deserved as a result of the passage of the Farm Bill is provided for the Pacific Northwest. From research for hops to disease eradication in cherries, this bill provides funding necessary to ensure the longevity of the essential public-private investment in our nation's food production. Language and funding in this bill directed at the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act are also essential. Programs related to export enhancement and market development received the favorable attention growers in my state demanded. And the land grant universities are secure in knowing that the formula funds necessary for continued excellence in education are available. With all that said, there are many in this body who know I was not pleased with the removal of Senator Ashcroft's sanctions relief amendment in the conference report. Sanction relief is essential for the long-term prosperity of agriculture in America. While I received a commitment that the Senate would take up this issue before the adjournment of this session, I cannot over-emphasize the absolute importance and sincere necessity in addressing this issue. Food and medicine sanctions do not cripple regimes or dismantle communist governments. Instead, they hurt our family farmers and keep food out of the mouths of those who cannot provide for themselves. I initially refused to sign the conference report over this issue, and sincerely hope the Senate will address this matter in the very near future. I am also not pleased with the manner in which this bill was dealt with in the waning hours of conference. Conferees were literally locked out of decisions related to the sanctions issue, dairy, and items included in the disaster package. This ``top-down'' philosophy is not what should drive the passage of appropriations bills. All in all, Mr. President, what we have before us today is a good bill. Its contents include year-long negotiations on a variety of issues related to the essential functions administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. While some issues have caused me to struggle with my support or opposition to the legislation, the benefits of its passage are overwhelming. It is my hope that the President will give his blessing to the bill so that our struggling farm economy can receive the charge it needs to rejuvenate our agriculture communities.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I appreciate your commitment to developing highly skilled, principled individuals dedicated to service and leadership. medicare contractors

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, the current political climate in our society is becoming increasingly disillusioned and thus less involved in public life and civil discourse. More than ever, we need public servants who combine vision, integrity, compassion, analytic rigor and practicality. As the first school of public affairs at a public university, the Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington has trained public servants and leaders in the Northwest for 37 years. The school's mission is motivating a new generation towards excellence in public and non-profit service and restoring the confidence, involvement and investment in public service. Recently, the school was renamed for Daniel J. Evans, a longtime public servant for the people of Washington state who embodies the Graduate School of Public Affairs focus and values. As a governor, U.S. Senator and regent for the University of Washington, Dan Evans has stood for effective, responsible, balanced leadership. His public service legacy has touched so many citizens and has greatly impacted the state of Washington. Dan Evans' involvement in the Graduate School of Public Affairs will provide students the opportunity to learn from someone who represents effective, responsible and balanced leadership and who embodies the school's ideals. The Graduate School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington has played a vital role in public policy and management and is now positioned to become the region's primary source of expertise and outreach on public issues. I have strongly endorsed these efforts and believe it is worthy of our support and investment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. My colleagues have been very clear as to their position on this issue. As a member of all three of the interested committees, Budget, Commerce, and Appropriations, I appreciate this issue from all the different perspectives. In short, I believe that we need to spend more on aviation infrastructure investment, but that increased investment should have to compete with other transportation and other discretionary spending priorities. I think the record shows that Senator Shelby, Senator Stevens, as well as the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Arizona are strong advocates for the importance of investing in airport and aviation infrastructure. I share their concern that firewalling or taking the aviation trust fund off-budget would allow FAA spending to be exempt for congressional budget control mechanisms, providing aviation accounts with a level of protection that is not warranted and I will not support such a proposition in conference.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I have no objection.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we are trying to get moving on the FAA authorization bill. Will the Senator from Wisconsin agree to shorten his remarks, if we are ready to go? We are still trying to negotiate.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, we have now a unanimous consent agreement pursuant to which all amendments must be filed by 10 a.m. tomorrow. We appreciate the managers being apprised of those amendments to determine whether or not we can agree with some of them, unchanged or with modifications. We will probably go back to the fundamental amendment on slots to which the Senator from Illinois has objected and to which at least one Senator from Virginia, if not other Senators, have amendments to propose first thing tomorrow when we return to this bill. If, however, there are amendments that can be agreed to relatively quickly, we may do that later on this evening after the votes at 5:30. We will not debate either the Department of Transportation appropriations bill or nominations, so Members can come with amendments to this bill until 5:30 this afternoon. If they do, we will attempt to deal with them. If they don't, we will begin tomorrow. I know the leadership and certainly the managers of the bill want to finish this bill some time tomorrow. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment I presented earlier today be agreed to and be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk for Senator Rockefeller and myself, and I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so we may consider this one.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, does the Senator from Illinois wish to make any remarks now or should we just go on to another subject?

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I now send an amendment to the desk for myself, for Mr. Rockefeller, for Mr. Grassley, for Mr. Harkin, and for Mr. Ashcroft, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all first- degree amendments to S. 82 be filed at the desk by 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, with all other provisions of the consent agreement of September 30 still in effect. This has been cleared on all sides.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, I am going to explain this amendment in some detail, as it has been the subject of both long negotiations and much controversy internally in the Commerce Committee in the almost 7 months since the Commerce Committee bill was reported to the floor, and today. I will say right now, for my friend and colleague from Illinois, after I have spoken on the amendment and Senator Rockefeller has made any remarks on the amendment that he wishes, at the reasonable request of the Senator from Illinois, after any remarks he wishes to make, we will not take further action on this amendment today. The Senator from Illinois may have an amendment to this amendment. He may simply debate against and speak against the passage of this amendment. He prefers to do that tomorrow. At least informally, I will undertake that it will be the first subject taken up tomorrow. I am not certain I can give him absolute assurance of that, but I believe it should be the first subject taken up tomorrow, the debate to take place on it, and the positions of the Senator from Illinois presented. There are other Members of the body who may also wish to amend this amendment. This amendment is central to this overall debate. Once we have completed action on this amendment, I suspect most of the other amendments to the bill will require much less time and will be much less controversial. In any event, the background to the high density rule that is the central subject of this amendment is this: In 1968, that is to say, 31 years ago, the Federal Aviation Administration established a regulation to address serious congestion and delay problems at five of the nation's airports. That regulation, known as the high density rule and implemented in 1969, governed the allocation of capacity at Chicago O'Hare, Washington National, and JFK, LaGuardia, and Newark airports in the New York City area. Newark was later exempted from the rule, so it now applies only to four airports. The high density rule allocates capacity at the four airports by imposing limits on the number of operations (takeoffs or landings) during certain periods of the day. The authority to conduct a single operation during those periods is commonly referred to as a ``slot.'' The Gorton/Rockfeller amendment consolidates all of the negotiated agreements to lift the high density rule, the slot rule, at Chicago O'Hare, LaGuardia, and JFK, and to ease the high density rule and the perimeter rule restrictions at Reagan National. With respect to Chicago O'Hare, the amendment would eliminate the high density rule at O'Hare, effective April 1, 2003. Regional jets and turboprops would be exempt from slot requirements effective January 1, 2000, for service to airports with fewer than 2 million annual enplanements. There are two additional conditions that would have to be met before carriers could take advantage of this interim regional jet/turboprop exemption. First, there could be no more than one carrier already providing nonstop service to that airport from O'Hare. Second, the exemption would only be available for new service in the market, such as when a carrier is adding a frequency to the applicable market, or upgrading the aircraft that provides its existing service in the market from a turboprop to a regional jet. Regional jets would be defined as aircraft having between 30 and 50 seats. Limited incumbent air carriers would also be exempt from the slot requirements at O'Hare, effective January 1, 2000. The terms ``new entrant'' and ``limited incumbent'' air carrier are often used interchangeably. Limited incumbent air carriers are currently defined as those carriers that hold or operate 12 or fewer slots at a high density airport. The Gorton/Rockefeller amendment would redefine limited incumbents as those carriers that hold or operate 20 or fewer slots at a high density airport. The limited incumbent would be exempt from the high density rule only if they were providing new service, or service that they were not already providing in a market The Department of Transportation would be required to monitor the flights that are operated without slots under the exemption from the high density rule. If a carrier was operating a flight that did not meet the specified criteria, the Department of Transportation would be required to terminate the authority for that flight. O'Hare is currently slot controlled from 6:45 a.m. to 9:15 p.m. The amendment would reduce the slot controlled window at O'Hare from 2:45 p.m. to 8:15 p.m., effective April 1, 2002. International service to O'Hare would be exempt from the slot requirements beginning April 1, 2000, except or foreign carriers where reciprocal access to foreign airports for United States carriers is not available. Carriers would be required to continue serving small hub and nonhub airports where the carrier ``provides air transportation of passengers . . . on or before the date of enactment'' of the bill using slot exemptions. This period of required service at O'Hare would last until March 31, 2007. A carrier could get out from under these requirements if it could demonstrate to DOT that it is losing money on the route. The amendment would terminate the high density rule at LaGuardia and JFK, effective calendar year 2007. Regional jets would be eligible for slot exemptions for service to airports with fewer than two million annual enplanements. There are two additional conditions that would have to be met before carriers could get a regional jet slot exemption. First, there could be no more than one carrier already providing nonstop service to that airport from LaGuardia or JFK. Second, the exemption would only be available for new service in the market, such as when a carrier is adding a frequency to the applicable market, or upgrading the aircraft that provides its existing service in the market from a turbo-prop to a regional jet. Regional jets would be defined as aircraft having between 30 and 50 seats. Limited incumbent air carriers would also be eligible for slot exemptions at LaGuardia and JFK. Limited incumbent air carriers are currently defined as those carriers that hold or operate 12 or fewer slots at a high density airport. The Gorton/Rockefeller amendment would redefine limited incumbents as those carriers that hold or operate 20 or fewer slots at a high density airport. The amendment would ease the current criteria that enable new entrant/limited incumbent air carriers to acquire slot exemptions. The Department of Transportation is currently authorized to grant these slot exemptions when to do so would be in the public interest, and when circumstances are exceptional. On most occasions, DOT has interpreted the ``exceptional circumstances'' criterion to mean that there is no nonstop service in the route proposed to be served. In other words, DOT would grant an exemption only when there is no service between the city proposed to be served and the high density airport. The amendment would eliminate the ``exceptional circumstances'' criterion. The amendment would establish a 45-day turnaround for all slot exemption applications submitted to the Department of Transportation. If the Department does not act on the application within 45 days, it would be deemed to be approved and consequently the carrier could initiate the proposed service. Carriers would be required to continue serving small hub and nonhub airports where the carrier ``provides air transportation of passengers * * * on or before the date of enactment'' of the bill using slot exemptions. This period of required service at LaGuardia and JFK would last until calendar year 2009. A carrier could get out from under these requirements it it could demonstrate to DOT that it is losing money on the route. Next Reagan National. The amendment would establish 12 perimeter rule/slot exemptions for service beyond the 1,250-mile perimeter. To qualify for beyond-perimeter exemptions, the proposed service would have to provide domestic network benefits or increase competition by new entrant air carriers. The amendment would establish 12 slot exemptions for service within the perimeter. Carriers could only apply to serve medium hubs or smaller airports from Reagan National. The amendment would establish a 45-day turnaround for all slot exemption and perimeter rule exemption applications submitted to the Department of Transportation. If the Department does not act on the application within 45 days, it would be deemed to be approved and consequently the carrier could initiate the proposed service. On another subject, safety and delays, the Department of Transportation concluded in a 1995 report entitled, ``Report to the Congress: A Study of the High Density Rule'', that changing the high density rule will not affect air safety. According to DOT, today's sophisticated traffic management system limits demand to operationally safe levels through a variety of air traffic control programs and procedures that are implemented independently of the limits imposed by the high density rule. The Department report makes assurances that Air Traffic Control, ATC, will continue to apply these programs and procedures for ensuring safety regardless of what happens to the high density rule. Many improvements have been made in infrastructure and air traffic management in the 30 years since the high density rule was first implemented, which should allow for additional operations without additional delays. Improvements on the ground, including high speed runway turnouts, additional taxiways, and larger holding areas at the ends of the runways allow more efficient utilization of the gates and ground facilities and thus increase the capacity at high density airports. Enroute, approach and departure air traffic management improvements have increased the air space capacity above high density airports. In 1968 there were no ``flow control'' measures. Aircraft stacked up in the air rather than being planned and routed for arrival. Modern ATC flow control has significantly increased the airspace capacityu, while improving safety. Greater precision radar has decreased aircraft spacing requirements, thus increasing capacity without sacrificing safety. Further improvements are expected with the existing Global Positioning System, GPS, Technology, allowing for additional capacity increases. Future initiatives at Chicago's O'Hare and New York's LaGuardia and JFK will permit growth without undue operational delays. Airspace redesign, essentially the rethinking of the approach, departure and routing of aircraft, was proven effective in a recent pilot project a Dallas-Fort Worth. Redesign efforts are currently underway for the Chicago area and other airports. Other FAA programs, such as RNAV (area navigation) and the National Route Program, already in use in some locations, will further enhance enroute and terminal capacity. Technology improvements such as digital data transfer between controllers and pilots, automation tools for managing traffic flows, and precision location devices such as GPS will greatly increase capacity throughout the national airspace system. The recent ATC problems were due in part to the unique combination of adverse weather and the introduction of new systems at key airports. The gradual phaseout of the high density rule will allow time to fix these problems, and for the growth in capacity to match the increased air traffic control capability. The amendment allows 7 years before the slot rule is removed for the New York airports, and more than 3 years for Chicago. This phaseout allows adequate time for the FAA's initiatives to be in place. Even if there is some increase in delays, in both Chicago and New York, competitive nearby airports such as Midway and Islip provide a natural safety valve. Many new entrant carriers operating point-to-point have found that using nearby secondary airports is a profitable way to offer service to major cities. If delays and the associated costs do increase in Chicago and New York's major airports, more operations will naturally move to these secondary airports. Madam President, that is an explanation both of the details of this amendment and the rationale for the amendment. Again, in connection with the bill as a whole, this represents the level of partnership between Senator Rockefeller and myself, but as broad consultation and as much agonizing discussion over the details as can possibly be imagined under circumstances on a subject so important.

Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GORTON. Madam President, last Friday, I joined my friend and colleague, Senator Rockefeller, in introducing S. 1682. This measure is the culmination of input from a broad range of aviation interests. Senator Rockefeller and I have been holding a series of meetings with industry representatives searching for input on how we can make a positive legislative impact on the current air traffic control system. Three common themes emerged from these meetings: First, there will be a crisis in the aviation industry if we continue to experience the delays that plagued the system this summer. Second, the Federal Aviation Administration is doing a better job of responding to these problems under Administrator Garvey. The third point is, incremental changes are probably the best approach to take in reforming the system, as much as the Senator from West Virginia and I might very well prefer a more drastic reform. The amendment we have just introduced is the text of that S. 1682. Madam President, by now I am sure you have heard the analogy that fixing the air traffic control system is similar to trying to change a flat tire while traveling down the highway at 60 miles per hour. While I don't view the problem as being that daunting, I certainly think we can use a few good mechanics to help get the FAA back on the right track. I think the legislation Senator Rockefeller and I have introduced is a step in the right direction. While I am in favor of an end result that goes much further, positive action is needed. At this time, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Our approach would attack the problem from the management side. It is no secret that the FAA has a history of problems controlling costs and schedules on large-scale projects. We hope the creation of the chief operating officer position, with responsibility for running and modernizing our air traffic control system, will inject the necessary discipline into that system. S. 1682, the current amendment, would also create a subcommittee of the Management Advisory Committee to oversee air traffic control services. Of course, in order for there to be a subcommittee of the MAC, we must first have an MAC. I am assured by the FAA that the Management Advisory Committee will be appointed soon. Let me assure you that this subcommittee chairman will not look favorably on any further delays on this question. As we prepare to move into the 21st century, the NAS must be prepared to meet the challenges of increasing demand on an already strained system. A blueprint for this system should be a top priority for the FAA. S. 1682, this amendment, authorizes $12 million a year for the FAA to develop a long-term plan to provide direction. The most radical portion of this bill and the amendment deal with an innovative financing pilot project. This provision would set up a mechanism to establish public- private joint ventures to purchase air traffic control equipment. Ten projects for ATC modernization equipment will be selected, $5 million per project, with a total cap of $500 million. FAA seed money would be leveraged, along with money and input from the airports and airlines, more quickly to purchase and field ATC modernization equipment. As I stated earlier, this is not the final solution to our air traffic control system woes. We hope, however, that this will be the first step in a long journey to ensure Americans continue to enjoy the safest, most efficient aviation system in the world. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this amendment. An oversight committee for air traffic control: The bill and the amendment provide the FAA Administrator with authority to create a subcommittee of the current Management Advisory Committee, a 15-member panel appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to oversee air traffic control services. A COO for air traffic: The bill and the amendment create a new chief operating officer position with responsibility for running and modernizing air traffic control services, developing and implementing strategic and operational plans, and the budget for air traffic services. The COO reports to and serves at the pleasure of the Administrator for a 5-year term. Compensation is comparable to the Administrator's but with the possibility of up to a 50-percent performance bonus at the discretion of the Administrator. Performance bonus for the FAA Administrator: The bill and the amendment provide a performance bonus for the FAA Administrator at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation of up to 50 percent of the Administrator's salary. National Airspace Review and Redesign: The bill and the amendment mandate a review and redesign of the entire country's airspace. They authorize $12 million per year to carry out the project, require industry and State input, and impose periodic reporting. Cost allocation milestones report: The bill and the amendment require the FAA to provide a report on the progress it is making on the cost allocation system. ATC joint venture: The bill and the amendment set up a mechanism to establish public-private joint ventures to purchase air traffic control equipment. Ten projects for air traffic control modernization equipment will be selected, $50 million per project, with a total cap of $500 million. FAA seed money will be leveraged, along with money and input from the airports and airlines, more quickly to purchase and field ATC modernization equipment. A portion of the passenger facility charge, 25 cents, could also be used for financing. That is a brief explanation of the bill and, of course, of this amendment. The Senator from West Virginia and I believe we will probably be able to accept this amendment by a voice vote tomorrow. But we do want it before the body at the present time, so that if anybody has any questions about it or about any of the provisions of the amendment, they may contact us before the proposal comes back up tomorrow. My present intention would be to bring this up for discussion and vote after we have disposed of the early amendment on slots and any amendments to that amendment.

Mr. GORTON

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to and considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send a substitute amendment to the desk for Senator McCain, myself, and Senator Rockefeller and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, this afternoon the Senate begins consideration of a bill that will, if and when enacted, affect the constituents of every single Member of this body. An efficient air transportation system is critical not only to our commute home every weekend but, on a larger scale, to the functioning of a national and global economy. The U.S. economy is becoming increasingly dependent upon a safe and efficient national air transportation system. Without a sound aviation infrastructure, the enormous flow of goods and services across the nation and over the oceans would slow to a trickle. Unfortunately, the air traffic delays experienced this past summer seem to be the first signs that the system is reaching its limits. It is vital, therefore, that Congress acts now to keep this essential form of transportation on a solid foundation. S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act, would reauthorize the programs of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), including the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which expired last Friday. The AIP provides federal grants to support the capital needs of the nation's commercial airports and general aviation facilities. S. 82 establishes contract authority for the program. Without this authority in place, the FAA cannot distribute airport grants, regardless of whether an AIP appropriation is in place. It is imperative that airports receive the support that they need to operate both safely and efficiently. In addition to grants for airport development, S. 82 includes numerous provisions designed to enhance aviation safety, to improve competition and service in the aviation industry, and to address the issue of commercial air tour flights over national parks. On behalf of the aviation leadership of the Commerce Committee, I am offering an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 82. This managers' amendment does not dramatically change the provisions of the bill as it was reported. Rather, it makes technical changes and incorporates aviation-related provisions requested by many of our colleagues. The one notable difference between the bill as reported and as modified by the managers' amendment, is that the new version lengthens the term of the bill so that authorizations would be provided through fiscal year 2002. At this point, let me take a moment to summarize some of the major provisions of the substitute amendment: Title I provides 3-year authorizations for the AIP, the Facilities and Equipment account (F&E), and the Operations account. [Unlike the reported bill, S. 82 also includes an authorization for the FAA's Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D) account.] Title II would amend various provisions of the Airport Improvement Program. Although the current allocation formulas for AIP monies would remain essentially the same, there are a few differences. For example, the set-aside for noise mitigation would increase from 31 percent to 35 percent. Another change would increase from $500,000 to $650,000 the minimum amount of entitlement funds that an eligible airport receives each year. As recommended by the DOT Inspector General, airports would be required to use their entitlement funds for their highest priority projects before using them on lower priority projects. Title II also includes numerous technical amendments requested by the Administration. Title II also establishes a five-year pilot program to allow more airports to have the benefit of air traffic control services. This pilot program would be akin to the existing contract tower program. The difference being that an airport would bear part of the costs of a contract tower if it does not meet the benefit/cost ratio established for the regular program. Title III includes several technical and substantive amendments to current aviation law. The key provisions would do the following: Give the FAA the authority to establish consortia of government and aviation industry representatives at individual airports to provide advice on aviation security and safety. Give the FAA broader authority to determine when a criminal history record check is warranted for persons performing security screening of passengers and cargo. Reauthorize the ``War Risk'' aviation insurance program and implement an FAA suggestion to ensure timely payment of claims under the program. Make it a crime for someone to pilot a commercial aircraft without a valid certificate. Title IV includes a wide variety of provisions, all of which are intended to improve aviation safety, security, or efficiency. Notable provisions would do the following: Require collision avoidance equipment to be installed on cargo aircraft. Require more aircraft to be equipped with emergency locator transmitters. Prohibit anyone convicted of a crime involving bogus aviation parts from working in the industry or obtaining a certificate from the FAA. Give the FAA authority to impose fines on unruly passengers. Require the DOT to step up its enforcement of laws and regulations related to the treatment of disabled passengers. Require the FAA to accelerate its rulemaking on a program under which airlines and their crews share operational information. This new source of information may assist safety experts in identifying potential problems before they cause accidents. Require the FAA to develop a plan to implement the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), which enables aircraft to use the Global Positioning System for navigation. Require the DOT Inspector General to initiate an independent validation and assessment of the FAA's cost accounting system, which is currently under development. Title V contains provisions intended to promote aviation competition and service. Key provisions include the following: A five-year pilot program would be created to help small communities attract improved air service. It is designed to facilitate incentives and projects that will help communities improve their air access to business markets, through public-private partnerships. The bill as approved by the Commerce Committee also includes several provisions dealing with slot controls for high-density airports and the perimeter rule at Reagan National Airport. Although the managers' amendment does not alter those provisions as they came out of committee, we will soon offer an amendment to replace them with a compromise redraft. That amendment has been crafted to accommodate the concerns of several Senators. One notable difference is, the number of slot exemptions at Reagan National will be reduced from 48 to 24. Another change is that the high density rule will eventually cease to apply to all of the slot control airports, with the exception of Reagan National. Before the slot controls are eliminated, access to the airports will be broadened for regional jet air service to smaller communities and new infant airlines. Title VI contains consensus legislation developed by Chairman McCain to regulate the overflight of national parks by air tour operators. Title VII contains entirely technical amendments to address recodification and other errors in title 49 of the United States Code. Title VIII contains new provisions that transfer the aeronautic charting activities of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration to the FAA. The passage of this bill is crucial. We have a duty to the American people to provide support to the national air transportation system. Air travel and the aviation-related industries are a fundamental part of our social and economic structure, and their response will continue to grow. The Congress may play only one part in the overall workings of this system, but it is an essential part. The Air Transportation Improvement Act gives an opportunity to renew commitment to the future of this country. I strongly urge my colleagues to support S. 82. Before we start the amendments and begin debate, I note with great pleasure the presence of my friend and colleague, the Senator from West Virginia. Senator Rockefeller and I are often together on one cause or another. The Senator is responsible for many of the good things that are included in this bill, which is the result of a true partnership. I yield the floor.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I now withdraw the committee amendments. The committee amendments were withdrawn. Amendment No. 1891 (Purpose: To authorize appropriations for the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes)

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we will take such measures as are necessary to see whether or not the objection can be withdrawn or we will simply go ahead and debate the substitute amendment. Let me add three other matters. First, we will attempt to get a unanimous consent agreement on the filing of amendments as early and as promptly as we possibly can so debate can be carried forward. Second, as Senator Rockefeller pointed out, there are two additional amendments to this substitute amendment that can be put up whether or not the substitute amendment has been agreed to. One has to do with the air traffic control system and its modernization. Senator Rockefeller and I and many others, as the Senator from West Virginia pointed out, have worked diligently in that connection, and we believe that proposal now is not controversial, though it is of vital importance and we hope it can be agreed to promptly. The other amendment, of course, is the amendment dealing with slots at the four or five busiest airports in the country. There may be some controversy in connection with that amendment. In any event, we hope that each of those amendments will be adopted relatively promptly. Members are urged to bring their amendments to the floor or to speak to the managers about concerns they have that may be solved relatively easily. Under the statement made earlier today when this session of the Senate began, it is at least possible there will be further votes on this bill today after the vote on the Transportation appropriations bill at 5:30 p.m. In any event, there certainly will be by tomorrow. I yield the floor.