Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. For instance, Kendra St. Charles, who was a passenger aboard the USAir flight 405 appeared before us, just an incredible statement concerning her personal survival from that crash. She was taken unconscious and barely clothed to a hospital, and had no means of identification. She found her 16-year-old daughter was at home watching television and had the Sunday night movie interrupted with a report of the airplane crash. When she called the 800 number that flashed on the screen, she had no way to find out what was going on. She said, ``Hopefully, we can change the way families are treated after an airline disaster by enabling the NTSB to designate an independent nonprofit organization--like the Red Cross, with professionally trained grief and disaster counselors--to give care and support during this horrific time.'' I commend to all the testimony of Kendra St. Charles. We heard from Victoria Cummock, a dedicated woman whose husband was a survivor of the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie disaster. She has been responsible for working with various people throughout the country to try and urge a different way of dealing with the survivors of victims of air disasters. She specifically came to our committee and urged we look at H.R. 3923. She said, this ``embodies what air disaster victims have cried out for time and time again * * * for years. It provides families of air disaster victims the same quality of professional disaster care currently given to all Americans during other types of disasters, whether natural or manmade.'' She made a great impression on me. We should all thank her for the work she has done to bring about the Coalition of Families of Aircraft Disasters. We also heard from Richard Kessler, Jr., who was the husband of Kathleen Parker Kessler who was a passenger on ValuJet flight 592. He came to us on the Commerce Committee and made this statement: I urge the Senate to introduce and pass a bill exactly like H.R. 3932 that has passed the House, and attach amendments that provide for pilot vision equipment, passenger smoke protection and smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers. We did not have the time to do that because of the situation that existed at the end of Congress, but we have adopted that bill, H.R. 3932, as an amendment to this conference report. It is in this bill. We also heard from Dario Cremades. He appeared with regard to the treatment of families of aviation disaster victims. He particularly referred to the TWA flight 800. He had some very difficult problems. I commend his statement, likewise. He said: In light of the prior statements, our family feels H.R. 3923 combined and expanded reflects the needs of families of TWA Flight 800 and tries to correct some of the issues presented in his testimony. He urged us to support that House bill. Lastly, Hans Ephraimson-Abt is one of the members of the families of the Korean Airline 007 disaster, an aircraft that took off from my home city, and we all know was shot down as it went westward from Alaska. He told us that his group supported the passage of House bill 3923, and he very much wanted to have us enact as quickly as possible that and other matters. The other matters, unfortunately, will have to wait until next year. The point, Madam President, is that this bill contains the whole bill H.R. 3923, which is very much sought by all of those who have come before the Congress who represent families of those who have already suffered so much as a result of airline disasters. I think it would be a travesty if we have to go back and start all over next year and have it be more than a year before we get this legislation passed. Aviation welcomes it, the Red Cross welcomes it, the people who have been involved in these instances in the past welcome this legislation, and it is absolutely a must that we pass this bill this week without amendment and get it to the President. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the Senate now is going to continue its work on the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization bill.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, it is a very fitting tribute to Senator Pell. Those of us who have worked with him and staff know the great relationship that exists between the Senator and his staff. I think it is a wonderful thing for staff to take the opportunity to have a statement read like that on the Senate floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I ask to be added to the Senator's time that he has previously been allowed such time as he seeks now, 10 minutes. Is that what the Senator seeks?

Mr. STEVENS. That is what I am afraid of.

Mr. STEVENS. I have no desire to be here all night because the Senator is piqued now. I want to ask how much time he wants so we have some understanding. We were supposed to have 3 hours equally divided. We had 3 hours equally divided. How much more time does the Senator want?

Mr. STEVENS. How much time does the Senator seek now?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, first, let me ask unanimous consent that the time of the Senator from Massachusetts be extended for 10 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. How much time does the Senator wish?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I again read, ``on Wednesday, October 2, there be 3 hours for debate only, to be equally divided between the two leaders.'' And we are trying to do that. I would be willing to, in view of the misunderstanding, to extend that time for the Senator from Massachusetts. But as I understand it, this is the only debate today. Maybe the Senator knows something I don't know. But at the present time, the Senator from Massachusetts objects to the extension of time to meet his needs. I will yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator withhold for just a minute?

Mr. STEVENS. Let me try it this way. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Massachusetts be given the time following the time that the Senator from South Carolina has asked, equal to the time that the Senator from South Carolina uses--it's 24 minutes, I understand.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am informed that approximately 75 percent of our people who travel between cities in this country now go by air. In my State, as I have said before, over 75 percent of the communities in my State can be reached only by air. No one, I think, here is more sensitive to the problems of aviation safety and security than those of us from Alaska. It is an area one-fifth the size of the United States. We literally are one-quarter the size of the continental United States. When you look at our problems in terms of aviation, we live and sleep and some of our people are born and many of them die on airplanes. We have to have aviation security. I have worked long and hard on this bill. We have had some disagreements over funding of the future expansion and modernization of our airports and airway system, but I must tell the Senate there has never been a disagreement in our committee that we had to have a bill this year. It has to be done. When we got in conference and we started adding other issues --as I have said, we added the victims rights, victims assistance legislation, the rights of families legislation, we added a couple other items here and the measure obviously was opened beyond the original scope. The Senator from South Carolina offered his amendment. I believe it was the last amendment to be adopted----

Mr. STEVENS. In the conference, and it was adopted. There was a debate on it but an overwhelming vote, bipartisan vote in the conference. I have to tell the Chair I never suspected that we were going to have this kind of delay on this bill. To me and to the people I represent, it is the most important bill of the whole Congress. I thought that the fishing legislation, extension of the 200-mile limit bill, the Magnuson Act was important--I still think it very important--but this bill affects the lives of every Alaskan several times a week. I cannot tell the Senate how strongly I feel about getting it passed, and how sad I am to learn that in all probability there is going to be a point of order raised on this bill tomorrow. Incidentally, we must have 60 votes here tomorrow, and we are sending throughout the country alerts to everyone to come back and vote. I think there is an obligation of all Senators to be here, but obviously it is going to take at least 60 here tomorrow to terminate this filibuster. If the filibuster is not terminated, obviously the conference report fails. If the point of order is granted, obviously, the conference report fails also. It is not going to be an easy thing to explain to the country if we are not able to pass this bill. So, again, I urge Senators to come back, that they be informed about this bill, to understand what it is. It is not part of the chart that is behind the Senator from Massachusetts. It has nothing to do with taxes or any Republican attack on anybody. It is the most serious bill in the aviation era that has ever been passed by Congress. I hope it becomes law. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent there now be 30 minutes under the control of Senator Kennedy, 30 minutes under the control of Senator Hollings, and 30 minutes under the control of Senator Nickles, and following the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the Republican whip be recognized to make appropriate consents for the Senate to adjourn until 9 a.m. on Thursday.

Mr. STEVENS. Does the Senator from South Carolina wish any more time?

Mr. STEVENS. I yielded time to the Senator from South Carolina time.

Mr. STEVENS. I have not spoken on this issue now for 2 hours.

Mr. STEVENS. That is true. Mr. President, isn't the Senator from Alaska entitled to half of his time?

Mr. STEVENS. I do not have any objection if the Senator wants additional time, but I would like some time now. I mean, I thought this was equally divided. The Senator has spoken for now almost an hour this afternoon. It is very interesting, a Democratic campaign speech, Mr. President. But I have not heard much about the bill before us for the last 40 minutes. So I do not have any problem giving the Senator extra time to speak on the bill, but why should I listen to this bunch of stuff that is going on over here that is not true? We can speak all night and half run the campaign from here. We are the only ones listening to the campaign here. But I have been hearing about nothing but a bunch of stuff about taxes.

Mr. STEVENS. I object, unless after this Senator gets to use some of his time.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from ----

Mr. STEVENS. I don't remember the Senator being granted extra time. I was very indulgent. The Senator has been speaking for 40 minutes.

Mr. STEVENS. When was that?