Cuba Transition Act of 2003

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

May I ask what the pending Senate business is?

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Hollings, Senator Lott, and Senator Rockefeller, for their hard work on this very important legislation. Senator Lott and Senator Rockefeller held extensive hearings in the Aviation Subcommittee. They have come up with a product that has addressed many of the concerns and very important issues associated with aviation. I believe what they have done is a very agreeable product.

I note that our friends on the other side of the Capitol have completed their work on this bill, so if we could complete this legislation and go quickly to conference, I think we could have this done pretty quickly.

I am pleased the Senate is now considering S. 824, the Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act, AIR-V. This legislation was introduced by Senators Lott Hollings, Rockefeller, and myself on April 8, 2003, and approved by the Senate Commerce Committee on May 1, 2003.

I don't think that anyone could have predicted 100 years ago, when the Wright Brothers first flew their Wright Flyer over Kitty Hawk, NC, that air travel would become such a significant part of our Nation's economy. Aviation has evolved from the first controlled flight that traveled about 120 feet, to a system that has reached more than 550 million enplanements annually. Air travel has revolutionized the world. We are becoming a global culture for which air travel has contributed significantly. The United States has played a critical role in the explosion in air travel, with nearly two-thirds of world aviation travelers taking off or landing on U.S. soil.

Mr. President, 4 years ago, the Congress approved the Aviation Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century, known as AIR-21. That reauthorization measure provided for far reaching changes to our Federal aviation policies, coupled with significant investment in aviation. We increased airport spending by significant amounts and greatly improved our aviation system. At the same time, a great deal has happened in aviation during the past few years. The airlines have gone through several cycles of good and bad times.

The tragic events of September 11, 2001, forced a major restructuring of aviation transportation security. As a result of September 11 and other economic factors, Congress has twice voted to provide the airline industry aid totaling $8 billion in cash and the potential for $11 billion in other benefits. We have taken unprecedented actions to help ensure the continued viability of the airlines. I recognize that intervening events have been the cause of many of the industry's problems, which is why I was a strong supporter of these initiatives. However, I do believe that the industry must being to

solve its own problems and not come back to Congress when confronted with new challenges.

It is time for Congress to now focus its efforts on the Federal Aviation Administration. We must continue to ensure the safety and efficiency of our aviation system. We must address the continued modernization of our air traffic control system. We must continue our oversight of the FAA so that it continues to move towards more efficient operation. We must continue the expansion of our infrastructure. And, we must continue to strive to promote the security of our traveling public.

I believe the legislation before us, S. 824, the Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act, AIR-Vision, meets these objectives. This bill would reauthorize FAA programs for 3 years and continue the investments in the aviation system that began under AIR 21. Specifically, it would authorize funding for FAA Operations at $7.6 billion for fiscal year 2004; $7.7 billion for fiscal year 2005; and $7.9 billion for fiscal year 2006, and it would authorize funding for the Airport Improvement Program at $3.4 billion in fiscal year 2004; $3.5 billion in fiscal year 2005; and $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2006. The bill also authorizes $2.9 billion in fiscal year 2004; $2.97 billion in fiscal year 2005; and $3 billion in fiscal year 2006 for the Airway Facilities Improvement Program and requires a report on major FAA modernization programs.

The funding levels in this bill do not require any new or increased taxes or user fees. The taxes currently paid by air travelers and others into the Aviation Trust Fund are in place through fiscal year 2007 and are sufficient to pay for this bill.

We also must ensure that the FAA manages its resources wisely. The bill includes provisions, first proposed by former FAA Administrator Garvey and endorsed by the current Administrator, to improve FAA management. The FAA's management of its programs, especially its modernization efforts, continue to be of particular interest to Congress. I note that the FAA has finally hired its first Chief Operating Officer, Russ Chew, three and one-half years after the office was authorized. This bill would provide additional clarification of the FAA's Chief Operating Officers' responsibilities for managing the FAA's air traffic control system.

The bill would create a process to enhance airport capacity at certain large hub airports that significantly add to delays in the national aviation system by ensuring that these airports' needs are continually reviewed. It also attempts to streamline the environmental review process by coordinating the reviews by different agencies. This is important as this process is sometimes used to unnecessarily delay airport expansion.

The bill makes several improvements and reforms to services to small communities and the essential air service program by continuing programs created in AIR-21 to incentivize communities to take a greater ownership role in their service. It also allows the communities flexibility to opt out of the program in return for payment or to look at alternate services for the community.

The bill extends the small community air service development pilot program, established in AIR-21, until 2006, and provides funding of $27.5 million per year during the 3 year extension. It also clarifies that 40 communities per year may participate in the program and that no community may participate twice. This program has been well-received for the innovative ideas that have sprung from it regarding the provision of and payment for air service to small communities, and we believe it is important for the program to continue in the near term.

Regarding competition, the bill instructs the Secretary of Transportation to study competition and airline access problems at hub airports. Specially, the Department of Transportation is to look at gate usage and availability, and the effects of pricing of gates and other facilities on competition and access. Within 6 months, the Secretary's findings, conclusions, and recommendations are to be submitted to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

In addition, the bill requires that airports which deny applications by an air carrier for access to gates or other facilities submit to the Secretary notification of the denial and a report explaining the reasons for the denial and a time line, if any, for when the request will be accommodated.

For security, the bill establishes the Aviation Security Capital Fund which is financed with $500 million annually in security service fees which are already collected by the Transportation Security Administration. The fund will be administered by the TSA and the TSA will make grants to airports to assist with capital security costs. The fund will allocate 40 percent to hub airports; 20 percent to medium hub airports; 15 percent to small hub airports; and 25 percent is to be distributed at the Secretary's discretion to address security risks. At the same time, the bill protects the AIP funding from continued raids on what was created for capital improvement funding, but which in recent years has been used for security funding.

The bill also directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to study the effectiveness of the aviation security system. Within 6 months, the Secretary's findings, conclusions, and recommendations are to be submitted to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The Secretary is directed to redeploy the department's resources based on the results of the study.

For aviation modernization, the bill establishes a new Office of Aerospace and Aviation Liaison within the DOT. This office will be charged with coordinating aviation and aeronautics research programs, activities, goals, and priorities within the Federal Government. Areas of responsibility include air traffic control, technology transfer from government programs to private sector, noise, emissions, fuel consumption, and safety. This office will work with the FAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to ensure that aviation and aerospace research is coordinated and funds are well spent.

This bill also establishes a National Air Traffic Management System Development Office within the FAA with the mission of developing a next generation air traffic management system plan for the United States. This plan is required to focus on transforming the national airspace system to meet air transportation mobility, efficiency, and capacity needs beyond those currently included in the FAA's Operational Evolution Plan in an effort to build on existing capabilities while improving the security, safety, quality, and affordability of the system.

Finally, we have developed a manager's amendment which has been agreed to by myself and Senator Lott, Hollings, and Rockefeller. It includes a number of technical changes and improvements recommended by the executive agencies affected by this bill. It also includes some substantive changes to the bill, including: extending whistle blower protections to the employees of contractors doing business with the FAA; requiring that the GAO periodically report to Congress on the economic state of the airline industry and on airline executives' compensation; clarifying that the war risk insurance provision only applies to U.S. air carriers; moving the new security capital fund from the FAA to the TSA; and removing the provision adding additional ``outside the perimeter'' slots at Reagan National Airport.

I yield to my colleague from South Carolina and perhaps the Senator from Mississippi.

I say to my colleagues, if they are prepared to bring forward an amendment, we would like to consider that quickly and move forward with the amending process as it would be our intention to try to finish this legislation this evening.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Mississippi for his kind comments.

Mr. President, we are awaiting the appearance of Senator Lautenberg, who has an amendment we will be considering shortly. Until then, I remind my colleagues we would like to move forward with amendments.

I understand that Senator Cochran may have an amendment, and several others. But I don't think there are many. We could go ahead and move forward as quickly as possible with the legislation.

Pending their arrival, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this is a managers' amendment which we have developed working with Senators Lott, Hollings, and Rockefeller. It includes a number of technical changes

and improvements recommended by the executive agencies affected by the bill. It also includes some substantive changes, including whistleblower protections for the employees of contractors doing business with the FAA; requiring the GAO to periodically report to Congress on the economic state of the airline industry; airline executives' compensation; clarifying that the war risk insurance provision only applies to U.S. air carriers; moving the new security capital fund from FAA to TSA; and removing a provision--I emphasize ``removing''--a provision that was added in the markup concerning outside-the-perimeter slots at Reagan National Airport.

Mr. President, I understand the Senator from North Dakota has to leave at this time. We will be glad to discuss this amendment at his convenience, hopefully later this afternoon, and perhaps we can get something worked out on it.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

It is my understanding, from talking with you and your colleague, that at McCarran Airport--for example, on a Sunday--a 3-hour delay is a routine kind of experience. That is a normal experience rather than an exception, which is remarkably different from almost every other airport in America. Is that true?

Before the Senator from Nevada leaves the Chamber, I would like to ask him another question.

So that my colleagues will understand this problem--and it is a serious one--if I fly from here to the Atlanta Airport, or the Dallas/ Fort Worth Airport, which I will do tomorrow, and then change airplanes but stay within the terminal, not having to go through security again, and then I go on to the Phoenix, AZ, airport, that, for the purposes of the present formula, would be counted as the same as someone who enters an airport, flies and lands at another airport, leaves that airport, and then later on has to reenter the airport to leave that area.

In other words, what we are saying is, we have a formula now where someone who remains within the airport and does not have to go through security is basically counted the same as a person who does have to go through security.

So that, obviously, is an incredible burden if you have to put every passenger through security where a large majority of them, particularly at hub airports, do not have to send passengers through security. Is that basically the problem we are trying to confront here?

I say to the Senator, I think your concern is legitimate. I think the formula needs to be changed. We will work on it.

First, we will get a letter over to communications with TSA and tell them we need to look at this formula again. I have been told they are already doing that, but I want to assure the Senator from Nevada, we will try to do everything in our power to address this clear inequity that exists in the formula as we go to conference.

I thank the Senator.

I thank the Senator from Nevada. But I have done many foolish things in my life--many. One of those that ranks up in the top 10 is when I was being accused by the local newspaper for attempting to seek some

relief from the perimeter rule in hopes that I might then have the convenience of flying direct from Reagan National Airport to Phoenix. I swore I would never fly direct from Reagan National Airport. Many years have gone by, and I had hoped that people's memories had grown dim on that, but now I will probably have to go another 5 years since the Senator has raised that.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, this is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. Frankly, I would like to see it in law, but I am not sure whether it would be constitutional and in keeping with existing law.

Basically, it says that the airlines should do whatever they can to make sure that members of the Armed Forces can get the lowest fare even if they are late; that they will offer them the lowest fare available; and that when there are cancellations or other reasons they have to change their travel plans, the airlines will show the flexibility that will afford them the lowest possible cost for their airfare.

We have a lot of transience amongst the men and women in the military and their families, not just being transferred from one place to another but, generally speaking, they are not based where they grew up and where their families or friends are located.

There are a lot of men and women in the military who make use of the airlines and many times on short notice. We are simply urging the airlines to show the kind of patriotism that is necessary to provide these very low income Americans the ability to move from one place to another.

I might add, this amendment was offered by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on the DOD authorization bill as well. I hope the airlines will react positively to this sense-of-the-Senate resolution. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I oppose this amendment and I think we ought to understand this amendment does more than tie FAA's hands with respect to air traffic control management. It would prevent a host of broader measures as well. Certain FAA responsibilities are best fulfilled by contract, using a combination of Government and private services, as is the case today.

Congress gave the FAA unique procurement authority for exactly this reason and the amendment would compromise that authority. For example, the FAA's air traffic control systems are increasingly composed of commercial components and software that build upon privately developed computer programs. If this amendment passes, the FAA's costs to maintain and install its systems would most likely increase significantly as the FAA tries to acquire needed data rights to maintain the equipment or forgoes the advantages of using commercial products.

Furthermore, the FAA would pay ever-escalating training costs to provide its workforce with the changing skills needed to maintain multiple systems.

The amendment prevents the FAA's ability to reduce its operating costs by contracting out certain operations--such as providing weather information to pilots. Congress has been very critical of the FAA's continually increasing operating costs. This amendment would take a very important tool for controlling costs away from the FAA.

The FAA is currently conducting a competition to evaluate the performance of its 61 flight service stations, which provide needed services, such as weather briefings, to general aviation pilots. The FAA expects that the competition will identify innovations and lead to greater value for America's pilots at a lower cost to the taxpayer. The bottom line is that the legislation would stop this study--a study that encourages the FAA.

Finally, this amendment prevents the FAA from expanding the existing contract tower program. This program allows smaller airports to continue to have air traffic control where an FAA tower might not be fully justified.

The Transportation Department's Inspector General has examined this program. He found that contract towers are just as safe and effective as FAA towers and on average cost $800 thousand a year less. This amendment would prohibit any other existing towers from becoming contract towers.

FAA continues to operate about 71 towers that are similar in traffic and complexity to towers currently in the contract program. For example, in Virginia, the tower at Manassas Regional Airport, which has general aviation only, is FAA-operated but the tower at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, which has frequent commercial service, is a contract tower. Converting these towers could save the FAA about $57 million dollars per year in operating costs and free up 900 controllers that could be used in more complex facilities and help meeting the pending wave of controller retirements.

The Administration is adamantly opposed to this amendment or any other provisions that would reduce the FAA's flexibility and ability to control costs. In a letter to the House, Secretary Mineta indicated that he will recommend a veto of any bill that contained provisions similar to this amendment.

We will hear today a lot of discussion about how admirably the air traffic controllers performed on September 11, and it is true. It is absolutely true. They did a magnificent job. It is also true that the air traffic controllers in Canada worked extremely well with their partners, the counterparts in the U.S., and they are not government employees. They are privatized air control providers.

All of us appreciate the enormous contributions and terrific jobs that our air traffic controllers did, and do. The question is, Will the administration be able to have the flexibility necessary to do such things as contract towers that operate without the complexities and difficulties that are associated with major air traffic control centers?

I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated June 12 from the Office of Management and Budget, Statement of Administration Policy, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will not bother with the entire letter except to say that the administration strongly supports passage of the bill. It talks about all the good things which will happen as a result of the bill, most of which we have already covered. I am sure we will cover it again. But it also says the administration is aware that an amendment may be offered to S. 824 that would inappropriately prohibit conversion of any FAA facilities or functions from the Federal Government to the private sector. They say that such restrictions are unnecessary and would hinder the FAA's ability to manage the air traffic control system; and, if such an amendment were included in the final legislation presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.

I very much dislike having all the work that has been done on this legislation for literally months be negated by one amendment. Although it may be emotionally an important issue, I would hate to see that provision destroy all the hard work and important programs that are included in this bill.

I don't know what the plans are for the other side. We would obviously like to have a vote on the Lautenberg amendment. I think there are negotiations going on and conversations concerning that. In the meantime, I note the presence of the Senator from Texas.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, if my friend from Mississippi would not mind, the Senator from Wyoming has a brief statement counter to the Lautenberg amendment.

So that we can be agreeable, I ask unanimous consent that immediately following the Senator from Wyoming, we set aside the Lautenberg amendment for the purpose of the Senator from Mississippi proposing an amendment.

When would the Senator like to have that vote?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that pending the discussion of the Cochran amendment, we move then to a vote.

The Senator says 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I say, we are prepared to accept the amendment by Senator Cochran.

Mr. President, we are ready to accept the amendment on this side.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I understand it is the agreement of the Senator from Nevada that we will have a vote at 2:30 on the pending amendment.

Could I have a small modification, a technical amendment?

Mr. President, I have a modification of amendment No. 889 at the desk. It is a technical correction concerning the sale of airline tickets that was inadvertently included in the managers' package.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment No. 893 occur at 2:30 today, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; further, that the remaining time until 2:30 be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. President, I wish to mention to my colleagues that we are moving along on the amendments on this side. I know there is an amendment by the Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, which I hope we can consider rather quickly. It is a very interesting amendment on raising the age from 60 to 65. There are several amendments by Senator Burns.

I say to my friend on this side that I think we can probably agree to at least a majority of them. I know of no other amendments that would be pending on this side. If there are, we hope that during the vote that takes place at 2:30 we can get pending amendments at least brought to our attention so we can schedule them. I still believe there is a very good opportunity to finish this legislation tonight.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Equally divided.

Forty minutes equally divided.

Mr. President, before we move to the Inhofe amendment, I wish to state for the benefit of my colleagues, we have a Dorgan amendment which is being worked on. We have a Bunning amendment which is being worked on.

I believe a Burns amendment is being worked on as well. I think we are close to completion of work on the amendments. If our colleagues have additional amendments, we would certainly like to see them during this 40 minutes of debate on the Inhofe amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have been on the Commerce Committee for quite a few years, not nearly as long as my friend from South Carolina, but

long enough to know that this issue has been around for a long time.

When it was first presented to me, it was presented to my office by a group of pilots who were nearing the age of 60. And they said: Gee, we are in great shape. We fly planes that have two pilots in the cockpit. We would be willing to take three or four physicals every year if necessary. We all know people are living longer. We know that fewer and fewer people smoke. We have rigorous physicals.

I said: Gee, it makes good sense to me. And as I grow older, it makes even more sense to me, I might add to my friend from Oklahoma.

But here is the problem. The airlines do not want it because they do not want to pay senior pilots the amount of money they have to pay them, and so they want to get rid of them at age 60 and bring in lower salaried pilots. And, of course, then, incredibly, the younger members of ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association, want the old geezers gone so they can move up more rapidly. It is really kind of an incredible scenario, when you think about it.

We all know that people live longer and are healthier longer. And the Senator from Oklahoma probably knows when this rule went into effect. I am not sure.

Forty years ago. The demographics have changed, and everything else has changed. It argues for at least allowing pilots to fly longer.

By the way, I might say, also--again, maybe I have a little senior's bias here--more experienced pilots are better pilots. And if they are in good health, and there are two of them in almost every commercial airliner, why in the world are we opposed to allowing them to fly longer? Southwest Airlines supports the efforts. SWAPA and other organizations and individuals allow pilots to fly commercial jet aircraft beyond age 60. JetBlue supports it. The low-cost airlines all support it. The most expensive airlines, the more established ones-- most of them are rotating in and out of bankruptcy because of their outstanding management practices--are opposed to it.

So this is really a no-brainer, Mr. President. We should allow these pilots to serve longer and fly longer and be able to realize an income that comes from serving these airlines and the American public for a long time.

Having said that, we will probably lose because right now, ALPA, the Airline Pilots Association, and the executives and lobbyists for the major airlines are on the phone saying: Don't do this. This could be really dangerous.

It is hard for me to believe that someone 61 years old, who passed a physical, who is flying with another qualified pilot, plus, in many cases, a flight engineer, is in any way a danger. Not only that, in case there is some kind of emergency, that pilot is probably better qualified to handle that emergency by virtue of that pilot's experience than a much younger individual would be.

So I will clearly be supporting the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I appreciate his courage in bringing up this issue. Maybe someday we will be able to allow these young men and women to serve past age 60 if they are physically and mentally qualified to do so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, we have four Members here who have pending amendments which are going to be accepted. All four Members want to have their amendment proposed and discussed. I ask unanimous consent Senator Bingaman be recognized for his amendment, and Senator Bunning, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Inhofe, in that order. I know all will speak briefly.

Will the Senator yield for a question? Isn't it the case the Senator has added language that indicates that nonlethal weapons-- --

I support the amendment.

Mr. President, I believe Senator McCain will arrive momentarily to manage this legislation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank the distinguished Senator from South Carolina for those comments. He and Senator McCain certainly have been very interested in this important issue. A couple of hearings we had on this legislation were in the full committee because of the importance of the issues involved.

I also particularly thank Senator Rockefeller, who is the ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee, for his work and his cooperation on this legislation. This is truly bipartisan legislation: Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, Senator Rockefeller and I all have worked on it. Where we have had problems we have been able to work out most of them. I think we have a really good product.

I want to say at the beginning we are hoping to move this legislation through rapidly. Hopefully we could even complete it today. We have a few issues that have not been resolved yet. Two or three of them may require votes. We ask our colleagues to come to the floor, let's have a debate and, if we have to, we will have a vote. There are not that many amendments that I think would actually require a vote.

I also want to emphasize the importance of this legislation. Because we have moved it fast, and because we have been able to get an agreement worked out to bring it to the floor, and because we may be able to handle it in a brief period of time, it should not diminish at all the importance of passing this legislation. Transportation in America is unique. If we are going to have a strong economy, we have to have good transportation systems--not just roads and bridges, which are very important, and not just a good railroad system, freight and passenger, and not just good ports and harbors, but we also need a strong aviation system in America.

We all know the industry has been having difficult times for a variety of reasons. In some cases it was bad management decisions. Obviously all of them have been affected by high fuel costs. There have been some difficult management-labor decisions. But also probably no other industry was as dramatically and directly affected by 9/11 as the aviation industry. Aircraft were involved on that infamous day, used as weapons of destruction, as missiles--both in New York and, of course, one plane that hit the Pentagon and the one that went down in Pennsylvania. We saw the industry basically shut down that day--for days. We are still having fallout, the ramifications of that day and those decisions in terms of access to airports, including Washington Reagan National. General aviation is still dealing with the problems as a result.

There is no question the industry has had difficulties and some of those difficulties have been related to 9/11. Government decisions were made that needed to be made. We had to deal with security considerations on our airplanes and at our airports. So a lot of costs have been put on the industry that have caused them additional problems.

We have taken action immediately after 9/11, of course, to provide some assistance to the aviation industry. We did it again in the supplemental appropriations this year. But this is the third step and in some respects maybe the most important step in helping the airline industry, helping aviation get back to where they can see blue skies and begin to make profits and provide the kind of service the American people are entitled to.

I do think it is important we get this bill done, that we get into conference and see if we can come to a reasonable and relatively quick agreement with the House. That will allow this bill to be completed before we get into the time-consuming and very important TEA-21 extension, and the appropriations process.

This bill's title is Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act--AIR-V. Our intent is to go all the way from stabilizing the industry, giving them dependability and reliability of what they can expect from FAA, from the Airport Improvement Program, to all the different programs that are involved in aviation including service to small communities. I think we do have the fundamental provisions we need to make sure that happens. We will ensure the Airport Improvement Program will continue uninterrupted for the next 3 years. We also are going to make sure the funds that go into Airport Improvement Programs are actually used for their original purpose, and that is to improve our airports, the runways, the terminals, and the services our constituents need and deserve.

On that note, this legislation also no longer allows AIP funds to be used for security mandates. Up to this point approximately $500 million has been skimmed off the top of the AIP fund to pay for security mandates that the Federal government placed on our local airports. The Transportation Security Administration--TSA--predicts that an additional $500 million will be needed to complete these capital improvements that have been deemed necessary for security purposes. This bill proposes that these unfunded mandates be paid for by directing the passenger security fee into a separate fund to cover these costs. The first $500 million of these fees that is collected will be directed to this fund.

This legislation also looks at excessiveness at TSA. It will require TSA to do a study to look at the efficiency of their employees and then redeploy them as necessary based on the results of the study. I am pleased that TSA is already reassessing their workforce. While it is not the goal of this Congress to have less than adequate security at any airport, it is important for TSA to recognize the areas in which they have gold-plated security.

In another effort to help the industry, this legislation also makes permanent a provision already in the annual appropriations bill that requires TSA to pay fair market value for the space they occupy at airports. The bill also keep AIP funding at the fiscal year 2003 level for FY04, but changes the match requirement from 10 percent to 5 percent for that 1 year. AIP funding will then be increased by $100 million for the out years. This is very important to local communities that are hard pressed to make that local match, because their funds have been depleted due to these unfunded mandates. AIR-V also maintains the budget firewalls that were put in place during the debate over Air- 21. These firewalls require that the trust fund continues to be spent down.

Of particular importance to my home state of Mississippi is language in this legislation that continues the authorization of the Small Community Pilot Program. This provision will allow 40 new communities to be eligible to receive one-time money each year. This is a good program that requires innovative thinking on the part of airports and their local communities.

Another important issue to rural States such as mine and Senator Rockefeller's is the Essential Air Service Program. The two of us introduced legislation that works to improve this program, while not implementing the drastic change the administration has pushed. In short, it provides incentive to the local communities to get involved in determining the quality and type of air service their community receives. We have included that legislation in this bill.

Transportation infrastructure spending is important, and it is one of my top priorities. I want to continue the Republican congressional majority's commitment to transportation infrastructure. Our Nation's growing economy demands attention to this issue. Passage of this bill will be a step in that direction.

I say again, in Senator McCain's presence, I appreciate his attention to this and his interest and his desire to move forward. Without his tenacity we would not be here now. I believe we have a good bill that we can complete in short order.

I am glad to yield the floor at this time.

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

Mr. President, while discussions are taking place on other issues or amendments, I wanted to go back and comment briefly on the statement by Senator Dorgan and his amendment.

First of all, I appreciate his membership on the committee and his interest in this aviation hearing. Most of the time we agree on how we can be helpful to the aviation industry. I appreciated the fact that he said he thought it was important we have this revolving fund for TSA security. There are those who are going to speak against that fund later today.

The appropriators feel as if the fund is not a positive thing, that it is taking funds from their bottom line. My concern is, if we have these fees collected for airport security and there is no specification that it go into that area, then it may be spread all over the place. If you go into port security, Coast Guard, or any number of programs-- which may be very important and may be needed--if fees are collected for a purpose, they should not be spread out into other areas. It is like the highway trust fund. You collect gasoline taxes for highways, and to let it be spent for airports or ports--that is not the intended purpose and what people think they are paying for.

This fund is not intended in any way to get into the appropriators' job. They have a tough job. I know my colleague from Mississippi and Senator Stevens will work hard to help our homeland security. We will continue to work to see if we can come up with some compromise agreement that will accommodate all concerned. Our goal is to just make sure we have these fees that are collected for airport security and security for the TSA used for that purpose.

With regard to the local share, I have a State that, obviously, is not a wealthy State. We have a limited number of airports. Several of them are relatively small. So any kind of cost share is not easy for them, plus the airline industry will tell you very quickly that in a lot of airports--particularly the bigger ones--any kind of a local cost share, the airlines will wind up having to pick up the cost because airports cannot get money from the local government. So they will say, all right, we have to get it from the airlines and they will pass it on to the airlines. That is a legitimate concern. It is really not fair.

I know it is not easy for the local airports sometimes to get a match. But we are talking about a small match here. Even if we can have the match 10 percent, it would still have the principle that the local governments are doing their share. Airports and airline service is a very important part of the economy in these smaller towns. It creates jobs, helps attract industry, and it is a big plus. Yet the cities or counties, even the big cities--Detroit, Chicago, New York--get tremendous benefits from their international airports, but they don't want to participate or pay any of the costs. Of course not. The trend in America is just let the Federal Government do it. Let the Federal Government do it all. Let the Federal Government pay for all of the airport costs, pay for all the housing costs, pay for all of the farming costs--just let the Federal Government do it. That is why we are going to have a $500 billion deficit this year, and probably the same next year, and it may come down some in 2005, but it is still going to be really ugly. Let Uncle Sam do it.

All I am saying is, let the local communities do a little bit, participate some, help a little in the cost of this huge benefit. I promote local airports in my State, such as Tupelo, Meridian, Golden Triangle, Biloxi, Pine Belt, and others. We have small airports that mean a lot. For them to help a little bit looks to me like a good idea. So I realize maybe that is not the way to do things around here. I am arguing on principle and some degree of responsibility for everybody to pay a little bit. Why should the Federal Government always have to pay the first and the last dollar?

We will work with Senator Dorgan, a very valuable member of the committee. I understand his concerns in these smaller communities. But the problem is not really the smaller communities; it is actually the bigger airports that will be inclined to pass them along to the airlines. I realize they have plenty of burdens of their own.

I wanted to respond and make it clear why I feel that some small amount of local participation is a responsible thing to do. It makes good, common sense. We may have a way to work it out. I wanted to get that on the record before we got too far away from Senator Dorgan's remarks.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the Senator yield?

My questions and my comments are related to your subject.

First of all, I appreciate Senator Lautenburg and what he is doing here. I understand his point. I indicated to him on the committee we would work with him and see if we could come up with compromise language that we could agree to. Unfortunately, we could not get that done. However, the Senator knows I have tried to act in good faith. I know he has, too. I appreciate that.

My concern is, I, like you, have concern about privatizing the air traffic controllers themselves. I also have sympathy for the flight weather service people because, in effect, in some areas I am familiar with, they are the air traffic controllers. But the amendment, as I understand it, and I think the Senator admitted, goes beyond demanding the tower or demanding the actual person looking at the screen and the flight weather service, it does expand to the other employees who are employed in the area--the service people, the repairmen, and perhaps even further than that.

My question is, is that a fact? Would your amendment expand beyond the professional air traffic controller or even the FWS employee and other employees? Could you perhaps specify some of the areas that might be covered, just for the edification of myself and the other Senators.

If the Senator will continue to yield, we will continue to work on this. I know Senator McCain will have something to say about it later. Regardless of how it works here, we will continue to work together.

I want to make note of the fact for the record that Secretary Mineta has determined that air traffic control is a core function of the FAA and as such the administration would not consider outsourcing beyond the current contract tower program. I note that is a program that is in place, the contract towers, and it has broad general support. Twenty- five percent of all takeoffs and landings, mainly general aviation in the United States, occur at these traffic towers. There is an example of how contracting out has been done and is working.

We will continue to work with the Senator. While I have some sympathy with what the Senator is trying to do as the amendment presently exists, it is too broad and I would have to oppose it.

I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

I don't believe I will need the entire time. I will take a few minutes to say that, in this case, I do feel the need to oppose this amendment by Senator Inhofe. Our Commerce Committee has discussed this issue several times in the past and at various times we have gone different ways on it. In this case, I think you need to look at how we got where we are.

The Federal Aviation Administration has the responsibility that is mandated to ensure aviation safety. In 1959, they concluded, after concerns developed of potential detrimental effects of aging and the risk of acute and incapacitating medical conditions, that commercial pilots need to be required to retire at age 60. Today I believe there is sufficient evidence to keep that rule. There is not enough evidence to reverse that. There is a case here where I believe most of the airlines, although not all, support keeping it at 60. There is no question that the representatives of the pilots prefer to keep it at 60. So you have an agreement.

Also, I do feel as if, particularly in the aviation area, there is a need right now to have some opportunity for retirement at 60, to bring in newer, young pilots or, as a matter of fact, to decide they don't need all those pilots. This is a unique time in the aftermath of 9/11, where at this time I am inclined not to think we should raise the age to 65, whereas sometime down the road I might be so inclined.

I do worry about age discrimination. As I get older, I worry about it more than I used to. I think in this case, with medical science and the acknowledgement of the current situation in the industry, we should keep it at 60.

I don't like to be on the other side of my good friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, but I think, all things considered, we should stick with what the rule has been.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Reserving the right to object, I want to clarify there were no time agreements included, just the order that they would discuss the amendments briefly.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Has Senator Dorgan completed his remarks?

I think the order was for Senator Inhofe to be next, but since he is not here, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to speak at this time, despite the previous agreement.

Mr. President, certainly I always enjoy working with Senator Dorgan on these issues. I think he has a legitimate point.

He does note that we need a fund to make sure these security fees go for the purpose they were intended. But he does think, at least in this instance because of the security aspect, we should waive the local requirement.

It should also be noted that, in fact, local communities, particularly with bigger airports, are probably not going to get or could not get a cost share, and, even if they did in some ways, it would be passed on to the airlines, therefore undermining a lot of what we are trying to do now.

We are trying to get the priorities set where the people who are getting certain parts of the security should be the ones who pay for it, and we shouldn't always try to find a way to pass it off to the airlines. Sometimes it is a Federal responsibility. In other instances, other people--I think also local governments--should have some part of this pie. But we agreed for a variety of reasons to accept Senator Dorgan's amendment.

But I want colleagues to know and the American people to know the Bingaman amendment does the same thing but in a different category. I think, in fact, it is even worse. In the essential air service area, where special help goes to small airports and a lot of rural airports-- that affects airports in West Virginia, North Dakota, and probably in my State of Mississippi--with this additional Federal assistance to keep airports functioning, there would be some small local match. The administration recommended, by the way, that we eliminate the EAS problem; or, if we had EAS, you have the local match required for all of the airports.

The language in the bill specifies that there would be 10 airports where we would have this local match to see how it would work, and if it would work.

We now are agreeing to accept the Bingaman amendment because right now, I think out of concern for local communities and trying to have this essential air service, the amendment would probably pass.

But I want to say, again, I think for us to set the precedent and require not even a dollar from local communities when they are getting additional security, particularly where they are getting essential air service which is vital to their communities and which is important from an economic standpoint for the local cities and counties to put up no money--and in the case of the Dorgan amendment--at least in the bigger airports, it could create definite problems in terms of costs being passed on to the airlines. In this case, it is

just a question of these local communities not wanting to have to share at all.

I think we should continue to look at some small amount--10 percent or 5 percent, some amount of local share.

But for now, we will accept it. We will continue to work on these issues. It is important for us to get this important legislation completed so that the airlines, the airports, general aviation, and the American people will know what they can count on in terms of the Federal Aviation Administration and their programs over the next 3 years. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to interject my remarks at this point.

I believe Senator Inhofe is next in order to speak.

I yield the floor, unless Senator Dorgan would like me to yield to him. Does he want to get action on his amendment?

Mr. President, we have considered these amendments and we find no problem with them at this point. They have been cleared on both sides.

Mr. President, are we going to dispose of that amendment now?

It has been cleared. It may save some time if we could go ahead and agree to it.

Has this been approved on both sides?

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

Mr. President, I commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Commerce Committee for moving this reauthorization forward. It is critical. The FAA is an essential part of our travel and aviation system. I encourage its consideration promptly.

A principal issue these days in aviation is security. How do we best protect those who are flying and those who are working in the airplanes, the cockpit crew, the cabin crew? How do we best protect all of those people? Well, we review the passenger lists. We review the baggage. We look at what anybody brings aboard. One of the things that does not always get the attention it deserves is what happens with the FAA. What kind of people are they? Are they up to snuff in their training? Have we a reservoir, a reserve, of people who are trained and ready to take over when we are looking forward to a fairly large retirement possibility for those people who came in after some of the labor problems were resolved?

I send an amendment to the desk to make certain that FAA is going to be able to maintain its integrity, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I rise to offer a critical safety and security amendment to this FAA bill. My amendment would ensure that the air traffic control system and its personnel remain a government function.

There is an attempt underway right now in the executive branch to open up air traffic control to private contractors. I believe we in the Congress must put a stop to this. There are some areas where it makes sense to contract work out to private entities, but air traffic control is not one of them. The safety of our skies should not be put in the hands of the lowest bidder. We should not be looking to buy security on the cheap.

I believe those who operate and maintain our air traffic control system are almost like a wing of the military. They keep us safe. They police our skies.

On September 11, 2001, we had a tragic day for all Americans. In my State of New Jersey, nearly 700 people lost their lives. As my colleagues know, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta ordered all aircraft in the U.S. airspace grounded that day. They wanted those airplanes safely out of the sky. It was a massive undertaking.

I have a visual of 9/11 at 12:30 p.m. The assault took place around the 9 hour. This is a picture of the traffic, each one of these denoting an airplane, that was in the sky at 12:30. Many planes had already landed, but there were still thousands in the air, as we can see. The bulk of this traffic was in the East, as it was still early morning on the west coast. My home State of New Jersey is all but covered in air traffic in this picture.

In the next visual, we will see what the skies looked like roughly an hour later, at 1:45. We see some reduction in the cluster, but there are still hundreds, if not thousands, of airplanes in the sky. Planes are being rapidly grounded in the Northeast, and they are headed to the points in the Midwest to try to land safely, to take care of their passengers.

We have the next picture, which is only half an hour later, and look at this. Look at how empty the space, on a relative basis, is compared to where it was. The first one, this is now 3 to 3\1/2\ hours after the terrible assault on our buildings and our people took place. There is a cluster. We cannot even see the ground. But the air traffic controllers went to work, the system went to work, and now at 2:15, an hour and three-quarters later, they have cleared the skies, which is not an insignificant job.

We did not have one accident that day. We had the attacks with the aircraft on the towers, but all other aircraft that were in the sky that day got to the ground safely. People were able to call their families and say: Do not worry about me. I was flying. I am here. I am safe. I am well. I will be home tonight. I will be home this weekend. To the children: Daddy is alive and well, and we will be there.

We can see a massive number of planes were landing in that last half hour. Meanwhile, we can see the clusters of airplanes circling major airports, waiting for clearance to land, making sure the separations were maintained. The airports were at Dallas, Fort Worth, Atlanta, Kansas City, Denver, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Minneapolis-St. Paul. That was the extent of the impact of this attack and the need to disperse the airplanes in the sky. And out west, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, NV, Los Angeles, San Francisco, all of these planes landed safely in an amazingly short amount of time.

Let's look at the picture at 3:45. The sky almost looks clear, and thank goodness. Those were tense moments for everybody, for those who saw the smoke coming out of the Trade Center buildings and noted the absence of these two giant towers that were built, this testimonial to man, gone.

We did what we had to in the rest of the country to make sure those planes got on the ground safely. There were still some government planes in the air. We can see the military aircraft in the blue--they are a little hard to discern--as they patrolled the near empty skies.

On September 11, those who operated our Federal air traffic system demonstrated great heroism and dedication. Air traffic controllers across the Nation performed heroically as they guided thousands of aircraft out of the sky.

I wish to point out a bit of a technicality. They think of the air traffic control group sometimes as just the

people in the tower who have the microphones at that moment, but we have specialists who keep this equipment going, and it is a complicated network. We have those flight service people who are on the ground giving advice, watching the separation, making sure that the system is in an orderly condition. It is a package. It is one part of it. It is very obvious that we in this body need lots of people around to make the system work, such as our staff people who are very good. We could not take part of them and have them working for one entity while we worked for another. It would not make sense, especially if there is a moment of need when the owner of the company says we are cutting back on some of the company benefits. It does not work. This is a unified system.

In my home State, from the tower of Newark International Airport, the air traffic controllers looking out the window could see the World Trade Center on fire as they worked to return tens of thousands of Americans to the ground safely. Like many public servants on that day, they were heroes, along with the police and firefighters and other emergency personnel. These public employees gave 110 percent of their ability to secure the safety of the American people.

In the aftermath of these tragic events, our people demanded one thing in particular of their government. They wanted government personnel, not private contracting firms, to perform security screening of baggage at our Nation's airports. If the American people demanded that baggage screeners become Federal employees at substantially increased salaries, this was an enormous cost burden we picked up. We took it out of the hands of the private sector, away from the airlines, to say: You were not buying security appropriately; you were not spending the money needed to keep the people interested, trained, and functioning.

Why in the world, if we wanted the baggage screeners to become Federal employees, would we contract out air traffic control to the lowest bidder? It does not make sense. One bag getting through at the wrong time could be a terrible tragedy. But one airplane in the wrong place at the wrong time would dwarf many of the opportunities others have to attack an airplane with a piece of baggage.

The safety and security of the American people should not be the responsibility of the lowest bidder. It is a core responsibility of our Government. To be able to muster the forces we need for our military endeavors, we have to know the people in the towers and their support system are always on the job, that they are reliable, that there is no dispute between a company or corporate headquarters and the need of the people.

That is why it is so shocking the FAA is being asked to take steps to privatize air traffic control in this country. It makes no sense, especially after September 11. It is the opposite of what the public wants.

I yield.

The Senator from Mississippi is a sincere advocate of safety in our skies and has been very supportive of introductions of technology. The Senator has had a long period of service as chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation. There is mutual respect.

We are including all parts of the FAA, of the controller system, systems specialists, and the safety inspectors. As I tried to demonstrate, it is a whole unit. One thing and is quite apparent. Very often when you have an organization the size of FAA, when functions are parceled out, very often the segment you have taken out--look at railroads where you have different unions that control different parts. If one of those unions has a disagreement with the management or with the operations of the company, they go out and can tie the whole thing up.

Keeping this team together--the nurses in the operating room, the orderlies, all those people, beside the doctor and the guy now who is the person developing the equipment that in many cases now is doing the surgery--is all one thing. Would you think of splitting off parts of that and saying one part ought to be here, one part ought to be there? I think not. We include them all. We say this is one integrated system.

I come out of the technology business--of course, it was 20 years ago--but there are certain buttons you have to push to connect everything. You have to make sure the equipment is working properly. If one asks the distinguished Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens--and I take this from recall so I am not giving his statement--he talked about the value of the flight service people in the State of Alaska and remote places. The Senator from Mississippi said it himself; very often they turn into controllers.

It is our intention to keep this package together. If we want to talk about it at another time in the future, certainly I would like to do so.

We are leaving out the contract tower program. We do not touch that at all. Those are special situations, smaller airports where more is demanded from the operation than can be given as part of the FAA. We have no problem with those.

The amendment we offer now is smaller in scope than my original bill. It covers only air traffic control, separation functions, system specialists, and flight service station controllers.

There is a world far larger than that, that could be included which we have not included.

The administration has already changed the designation of air traffic control from ``inherently governmental'' to ``commercial.'' It is more than a technical change. It opens the door to privatizing the air traffic control system.

We currently have the best air traffic control system in the world, with 15,000 dedicated Federal air traffic controllers who guide home safely more than 2 million passengers a day. They are expert professionals who perform under pressure every day to keep our skies safe.

Air traffic controllers play a major role in homeland security. When President Bush gave his State of the Union speech this year, it was the flight service station air traffic controllers who

sent alerts to pilots around here to avoid the expanded no-fly zone around Washington. We wanted to keep the President safe. We wanted the security to be maintained. It takes a certain skill and dedication and experience to make sure it gets done, that it gets done in a timely fashion.

When the Space Shuttle Columbia tragically exploded in the skies over Texas, it was the air traffic controllers who directed the aircraft away from the falling debris field.

These men and women perform a critical function. Our security ought not be up for bid. Some claim privatization will save money, but we have to take a look at other countries' experiments with air traffic control privatization. When you do, you see financial messes and safety hazards. Australia, Canada, and Great Britain have all privatized systems that are now in crisis. Costs have gone up and safety has gone down. Since Great Britain adopted privatization, near misses have increased. That means near misses in the sky. When I told someone this, he said, You mean people missed more flights? I said, No, no, airplanes missing one another. Near misses have increased by 50 percent, and delays have increased by 20 percent. The British government has already had to bail out the privatized air traffic control company twice.

Look at this quote from a Member of the British Parliament.

The privatization of the UK's air traffic control system

was a grave mistake, and one that the United States can still

avoid making. British Air Traffic Controllers are among the

best in the world, and they fought tooth and nail to keep ATC

in the public sector. They insisted that the sale of the

National Air Traffic Services--NATS--would lead to a collapse

in morale, the unwise introduction of inadequate and

unreliable equipment, and an increasing danger of

catastrophic accidents. The Government did not listen and

went ahead. They were wrong and the air traffic controllers

were right.

This is from Gwyneth Dunwoody, a British MP in the House of Commons.

Why should we jeopardize the public's safety in the skies? We have the best system in the world now. Why should we risk making it more dangerous and costly. We should not repeat the mistake other countries have already made.

I want to make clear to my colleagues my amendment does not affect the expansion of the contract tower program. That is one that is contracted out away from the FAA, typically in smaller communities, and that service seems to function very well. It has been in place a long time. That program, which affects the small visual-flight-rules airports, can be expanded to any of the 4,000 airports that are eligible. My amendment only affects FAA towers.

Our luggage is important, important enough to be screened by trained Federal workers. But once you are up in the sky, it seems the administration believes your safety should be in the hands of the lowest bidder. It makes no sense.

My amendment declares air traffic control functions to be ``inherently governmental'' and therefore it means they ought to stay with the Government and they are therefore not eligible for outsourcing.

I want to point out the Member of the British Parliament, Gwyneth Dunwoody, the MP, is the equivalent of our distinguished Senator McCain in this body. So we have a considered opinion from someone who has the responsibility and has been through it.

I urge my colleagues to support safety and security in our skies by voting for the amendment, keeping the FAA as a body in the hands of the Government.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to comments made by our leader, the distinguished colleague from Arizona. I want to say that there are places where the contract tower process can be used. There are some 4,000 airports across the country where the contract tower program might apply. I have no objection to those smaller airports converting to that system. But we are grandfathering those that are presently FAA controlled to continue in that vein to make sure that the system is intact, and that the integrity of the functioning is as planned. If there is a point in time at some future date when we want to look at this, I am more than willing to discuss it. But I want to know exactly what the implications are to the total system, and not simply look at this as a financial gain because in the long run, the financial gains are ephemeral. We saw it in the British experience. We saw it in the Canadian experience.

The Senator from Arizona talked about how nobly the controllers from Canada performed on 9/11. Yes, we give them credit for that. But still in all, their system falls into higher costs all the time, and it is in financial despair, if I can use the terminology. We believe we take care of the issues concerned.

I think we would like to see what our colleagues have to say about that. In due time, I hope we will bring it to a vote.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question?

Mr. President, I asked if the Senator from Wyoming would yield for a question.

I ask if the Senator from Wyoming is aware of the fact that some $20 million has already been spent on a survey or a study of this process?

No.

The outcome is one we see that says perhaps we ought to put the security of the FAA out to the cheapest bidder. I am aware that is where it comes out. And can the distinguished Senator from Wyoming explain why it is we took this very comfortable, privately managed sector of our aviation system, the baggage screeners, and brought them into Government at three times the wage they were working? There are 33,000 or 28,000 of those people.

I am delighted--I always enjoy the comments of my friend from Wyoming. We talk the same language in New Jersey.

But to say it was a political decision, then it sounds relatively meritoriousless. But I hear people say things are better with the folks working for Government. Of course, we have started to lay off a lot of baggage screeners already. And so, to me, the chances of baggage screening being of the same danger as changing the system that now----

Mr. President, I am sorry. Forgive me. I did not mean to use the time of the Senator from Wyoming. I was just trying to respond to his answer.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I wanted to alert my colleagues that I intend to offer an amendment to this bill this afternoon. I have talked to several people about it. I will not take a lot of time. I don't intend to delay the bill at all. But there is an important piece of policy in this legislation.

Before I explain it, I should congratulate my colleagues, Senator McCain, chairman of the full committee, and Senator Hollings, ranking member, for their work on this bill. It is really important for us to complete this legislation. Hopefully, perhaps we can complete it today, in fact.

On page 145, there is an aviation security capital fund of $500 million. I think that is an important fund which it establishes in the Department of Transportation. I think that is perhaps transferred in the managers' amendment in fact to homeland security.

This capital fund provides funds for the security needs at airports around the country, and for investment in the construction and infrastructure for security purposes.

All of us know in the shadow of 9/11 and the terrorist attacks that occurred in our country that security, especially aviation security, is critically important.

This provision, as important as it is, however, has a local match requirement. My great concern is that this money will not be invested in aviation security because many communities and States around the country simply won't have the capability of coming up with the local match. That is why we put money in legislation previously. In the tax bill that passed the Congress, we included a substantial amount of money to try to help State and local governments, many of which are flat on their backs financially. They are having trouble funding their own needs.

I think having a security capital fund is very important. But having that fund available only if there is matching money available for it locally will mean that much of it will not be spent, much of it will not be invested, and much of it will not contribute anything to this country's security.

What I propose to do on this occasion, because it deals with security, which is a national issue, and because the State and local governments are in a pretty precarious fiscal position, is eliminate the local match so we could expect that this money would be invested. The construction and the infrastructure that will be completed with this money will contribute, in fact, to aviation security in this country.

I have visited with my colleague, the Senator from Mississippi. I think he has some persuasive reasons for not eliminating the local match. But, on the other hand, I think there is a persuasive argument that the only way we will see this money truly invested in airports around the country is if we eliminate the local match.

Perhaps I should offer this amendment now and have it pending. I have to chair a luncheon in a few minutes and will have to leave the floor.

If it is all right with the chairman and ranking member, I will offer the amendment. We will have it pending.

Amendment No. 890

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I have explained my amendment already. What I would like to do is work with my colleagues, Senator McCain, Senator Lott, Senator Hollings, and others. I think this is an important amendment. I am not suggesting this be a precedent forever, for all time. At this moment, in this place, for this reason, I believe if we want to invest $500 million in aviation security in this country, it is likely the only way that will be invested is to eliminate the State and local match. I think there are good reasons to do that. So if I can work with my colleagues in the next several hours, I hope we can make some progress on this amendment.

I do want to make one final point. It is not my intention in any way to hold up this bill. I do not expect this would be a lengthy debate, in any event. I would agree to a short time agreement. But my hope is perhaps we could support this by a voice vote at some point.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me take such time as I may consume on our side.

I intend to oppose the amendment. In many ways, I regret opposing my friend from Oklahoma. He is quite a remarkable pilot. I have had the opportunity to ride with him. I believe he flew around the world in a single-engine airplane at one point.

Nonetheless, he is a pilot who has flown around the world. He knows a bit about flying.

I learned to fly at one point in my life. I know something about the wonders of it. I know something about the time the instructor steps out of the plane and says: It is your turn. Take it up alone. That is one of the moments in your life you will always remember.

The issue here is about an age limit for commercial pilots. I don't stand here as an expert on this subject. I don't expect there is an expert in the Senate on this subject. The question of the age rule is a question that the FAA has dealt with, and they have dealt with it repeatedly.

The history of this rule goes back many years. It is a rule that has been around for a long while. It was established by the FAA as a matter of safety. I know this rule has actually been considered by the Senate previously as well.

At one point during its consideration in the Senate, it was considered and proposed that we had a shortage of pilots, and, therefore, we should remove this age restriction and increase it some. Of course, now we have exactly the opposite. We have many pilots who are furloughed and laid off and would like to come to work. That is not the issue. The issue is one of safety.

I think the FAA has always erred on the side of safety. I expect that all of us want them to err on the side of safety.

My judgment about this is that the decision about age requirements for commercial pilots ought to be left to the regulatory agency, the FAA. They are the experts in this area. We are not. They know more about this subject than we do.

I just feel uncomfortable substituting our judgment, with an arbitrary number, for the judgment of the FAA.

Let me say I am sure the Senator from Oklahoma would agree, the FAA has the opportunity and the discretion and the ability right now this afternoon to make that age change, if they wish to do that. The FAA has the authority under law, as I understand it, to change the rule as they see fit. They have continuously, however, kept the 60-year age rule because they want to maintain the highest degree of safety in air transportation.

There have been a number of studies dealing with this issue. In 1979, Congress mandated a study conducted under the auspices of the NIH. In 1990, the House Committee on Public Works asked the Office of Technology Assessment to examine the medical aspects of the Federal requirement that airline pilots retire at age 60 and to assess the state of the art medical risk assessment. There have been a number of these studies.

I chose not to go into the conclusions of all the studies except to say that the FAA, in reviewing the body of information in those studies, decided that they believed the 60-year age retirement rule was appropriate.

Again, in April 2000, the FAA reaffirmed its position and decision to maintain the 60-year retirement age. That decision was appealed to the courts actually in 2001, and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FAA's decision.

Once again, I say I am not an expert. I would expect, perhaps, the Senator from Oklahoma would make the same statement. The question of safety and the question of the proper retirement age given medical circumstances with respect to commercial flight and the commercial license that one needs to fly is a decision that is enormously complicated. It is a decision that has been studied and restudied by the FAA folks whose job it is to provide the assurance of safety. I frankly am comfortable with whatever decision they make.

If they were to decide this afternoon, look, we have studied this from six more angles and here is what we have concluded, and it came up with a different number, that would be fine with me. But I must say, I am not comfortable with the Senate arbitrarily deciding there is a number that we know better than the FAA which represents the risk assessment with respect to this mandatory retirement age. For that reason, I regret I have to oppose the amendment.

Again, let me finish by saying this is not a new subject and not a new debate. We may not know much more about it than we did the last time we debated it, but I believed then and believe now it is appropriate to allow the Federal Aviation Administration--the regulatory agency that has the experts and has the charge to make these decisions--to make this judgment.

Again, it is my contention, if they decided this afternoon to increase that mandatory retirement age, that would be fine with me. And they have that capability under current law to do so, but they have not because they believe it not advisable. I think the Senate would be well advised to listen to the FAA on this subject.

I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, let me make one final point.

It is not quite so simple to say it is ALPA, the airlines. The fact is, the Federal Aviation Administration, the FAA, has the authority today to make a decision about increasing this retirement age. It has chosen not to, I assume because the experts there have taken a look at the OTA study, the accident rates, and whole series of things.

I agree, people are living longer, better lives. I have an 81-year- old uncle who runs in the Senior Olympics. He runs the 400 and the 800 at age 81. People are living longer. I understand all that.

The issue is, what the proper age is for retirement of commercial airline pilots is not a function of the Senate, making a judgment on the floor of the Senate. In my judgment, it is a function of people who know, the medical experts at the FAA, looking through the data and making a considered judgment on behalf of the American people of what constitutes their best safety.

So that is the basis of this position. It is not, in my judgment, about ALPA or the airlines, it is just saying, look, whatever the judgment is, let it be, but let's have the experts make it. That is my whole point.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The Senator talked about a proficiency test. We would not have difficulty if the FAA could find a device that is appropriate to deal with that. I think they have evaluated that for a long period of time and have not been able to come to that conclusion. I don't think even those of us who would agree with your amendment believe there is a magic number here. I am not qualified to set the number.

I am not suggesting that it is ever appropriate to increase the age limit. I would prefer someone with the capabilities of the FAA to evaluate the medical histories to be able to do that.

Is my amendment the amendment pending before the Senate?

Mr. President, I ask it be considered at this point.

Mr. President, I visited with my colleagues Senator Lott and Senator McCain on this amendment. I believe they are prepared to accept it. This deals with the creation of an aviation security capital fund. Many of us know both revenues and passenger boardings are down in airports. We have gone through a pretty difficult time. The creation of this aviation security capital fund is very important in order for these funds to be invested in what that will make aviation safer and deal with the security issues we intend to have dealt with with this fund.

I think it appropriate at this point to waive the local match, State and local match, which I believe in most cases cannot be raised because of the circumstances I mentioned earlier.

I believe accepting this amendment will give us the assurance that this investment in security will be made across this country. It will be a wise investment. I think it ought not be borne by the carriers at this point, nor the local airports that can least afford it.

I appreciate very much the fact this will now be accepted by the Senate. I want to especially say thanks to the Senator from Mississippi. We have talked about this, I suppose, 10 times in recent days. He is a tireless advocate for what makes sense for our aviation system in this country. Of course, he is chairing the subcommittee here in the Senate on those issues.

I thank him for his cooperation in allowing us to move forward with this amendment at this stage.

I have.

Mr. President, let me ask the Senator to yield for a moment.

I think there is great merit in local matching, by and large, because you need local support. We ought not just create pools of money here in the Congress to send out around the country unless there is evidence of local support.

The Senator from Mississippi made the point, and I think it is an important point.

First, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the American Association of Airport Executives, and a letter from the Air Transport Association be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the American Association of Airport Executives and the Air Transport Association, and others, have told us it is unlikely we would see the security investment--after all, this is national security--we would not see the security investment in airport improvement and safety with this money if we did not waive the local match.

I continue to believe we ought to make this habit forming. The value expressed by the Senator from Mississippi is on the mark in many cases. I appreciate very much the ability to work this out and be able to move this amendment. If appropriate, I think it has been agreed to by both sides. I ask if we can have the amendment considered at this point.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the Bingaman-Inhofe amendment to preserve the Essential Air Service Program. Our amendment is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Collins, Specter, Harkin, Clinton, Schumer, Pryor, Ben Nelson, Lincoln, and Grassley. I thank them for their support.

I first want to compliment Commerce Committee Chariman McCain, Aviation Subcomittee Chairman Lott, and Ranking Members Hollings and Rockefeller for their good work on this bill to reauthorize FAA. The bill the Senate is now considering, S. 824, will do much to assure the safety and security of the traveling public.

I am also pleased S. 824 includes a number of provisions that will help improve commercial air service in rural areas, including a reauthorization of the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program.

However, we do take issue with one provision in this bill that would for the first time impose new costs on some communities that participate in the EAS program.

As the bill now stands, some communities would be required to pay to continue to receive scheduled air service I believe this arbitrary proposal could eliminate scheduled air service from many rural communities. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to eliminate all mandatory cost sharing language from the FAA reauthorization bill. I hope the Senate will do the same.

Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation could continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all.

All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system.

A recent study from the Department of Agriculture, titled ``How Important is Airport Access for Rural Businesses'' underscores the importance of commercial air service to rural communities. In a survey of rural businesses, access to airport facilities and air service was frequently cited as one of the top problems for businesses in most rural counties. Air facilities, services, and fares were also found to be important to tourist-related and service businesses in rural areas. Not surprisingly, airport access was one of the least cited concerns of manufacturers in large- and medium-sized cities.

The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in thirty-four states. EAS supports an additional 33 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and the current financial turndown in the aviation industry, particularly among commuter airlines, about 28 additional communities have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 2001.

Congress already limits the eligibility of the EAS program to communities more than 70 miles from a major airport. In addition, the amount of the subsidy must be less than $200 per passenger for communities less than 210 miles from a major airport. These requirements serve to limit the cost to the government of the EAS program. In fact, in the past two years, about a dozen airports, including one in New Mexico, have been eliminated from EAS because the cost per passenger has exceeded the limit. We feel the additional requirements imposed in this bill are not appropriate and could force a number of communities to lose their commercial air service.

In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the State's largest city and business center.

I hope that all Senators recognize the vast distances between communities in my State. If you drive, Hobbs is 320 miles from Albuquerque, Carlsbad is 283 miles, Silver City 233, Clovis 216, and Alamogordo 210 miles. None of these cities are on interstate highways, so the driving times to Albuquerque can be 4, 5, and even 6 hours. Commercial air service is the only practical way to make the trip for business people or community leaders going to Albuquerque or to the nearby state capital in Santa Fe. Though so called ``hub'' airports may be located a hundred miles away in another state, it is just not practical to drive the long distance to another airport in order to fly to Albuquerque. However, that's exactly what is likely to happen if the Congress imposes new costs on our communities to maintain their commercial air service.

As I understand it, under the proposal in this bill communities in 16 states could be affected by the mandatory cost-sharing requirements in the Senate bill. These States are, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont.

The House-reported bill--H.R. 2115--also requires some rural communities to pay or lose their commercial air service. We believe this ill-conceived proposal could not come at a worse time for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining tax revenues.

The Governor of my state of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, said in a letter to me supporting this amendment: The cost sharing provision has the potential to affect the economic welfare of small communities in over 35 states---particularly those in New Mexico.

I also have a letter of support from the New Mexico State Aviation Director, Mike Rice, who said this: This significant additional financial burden would have profound negative impacts on both current sir service and economic development efforts in several of our cities. Changes to current EAS funding could very well jeopardize existing air service in our state.

Mayor Donald Carroll of Alamogordo, writes that it is improbable that funding will be available to locally subsidize air service. He also notes that the city is actively working with the commercial carrier, Rio Grande Air, to increase enplanements.

The National Association of Development Organizations says:

During these challenging economic times, Congress should be

working to improve and enhance air service to rural and

underserved communities, instead of adding new requirements

that would further isolate hundreds of our nation's smaller

communities.

I'm not entirely sure that the proposal to charge the communities to continue their air service has been thoroughly thought out. The chairman's report on this bill from the Commerce Committee indicates that the Secretary will select 10 EAS communities to pay for their air service. However, the way I read the reported bill, only a one city in each of 8 states would be required to pay. Now, the chairman has offered an amendment that ups that total to 16 states with about 27 communities that could be impacted.

At the same time, the bill isn't clear on what exactly is a ``hub'' airport. As I understand it, the FAA compiles one set of data on annual enplanements, but the Department of Transportation currently uses a different set of data from the department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics to determine eligibility for EAS. These data produce a different list of ``hub'' airports, which could change which airports would be required to pay, simply because of the source of the data the government chooses to use. Finally, new cities are coming into the EAS program, so that additional states could have cities that would be required to pay for their air service.

Just one last point on the impacts of this proposal. I think we should make clear this isn't about saving the Government a lot of money. We estimate the payments from the communities would amount to less than $2 million a year out of a $113 million annual program.

Advocates of this proposal may claim they've made it as easy as possible for the communities to provide the mandatory 10 percent match. I just don't believe these alternatives will be all that effective. I understand, none of the five EAS cities in New Mexico currently charge the commercial carrier any fees to land at the airport. In this way, our cities are already contributing to the cost of their commercial air service.

I think we all appreciate the current concerns about the aviation industry and the EAS program. Ridership levels to rural cities are down. Meanwhile operating costs continue to increase, resulting in ticket prices that fewer people can afford. There are too many commuter aircraft flying at less than half capacity. Clearly, some improvements are needed.

But what are some better options? Well, I think senators need only look in this same bill for the answer. In my view the bill already includes a number of excellent improvements in the EAS program that I believe will significantly enhance commercial air service in rural communities.

For example, section 352 of the bill authorizes a new Marketing Incentive Program to increase ridership, reduce the Federal subsidies, and improve service. Section 353 provides for a number of pilot programs to help communities improve their commercial air service. One option is to allow communities to receive service with a smaller airplane. In my State, Alamogordo has decided to try service with a nine-passenger plane. In addition, communities may opt to convert their EAS service to alternative transportation, which might include bus or vans. I think these ideas represent a better approach to improving commercial air service in rural areas. I support these proposals and want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including them.

The choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the Essential Air Service Program today, we could well see the end of all commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital resources that help link rural communities to the national and global aviation system. Our amendment will help ensure affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America.

The House of Representatives has already voted to eliminate the mandatory cost sharing language from the FAA reauthorization bill. I hope all Senators will vote for this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that a listing of the communities that could be affected and a letter of support for the amendment by the Governor of New Mexico, a letter of support for the amendment from the Director of the New Mexico Aviation Division of the New Mexico Department of Transportation, a letter from the Mayor of Alamogordo, NM, and a letter from the National Association of Development Organizations, all in support of this amendment, be printed in the Record.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.