A bill to require background checks of alien flight school applicants without regard to the maximum certificated weight of the aircraft for which they seek training, and to require a report on the effectiveness of the requirement.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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

Mr. President, I rise today to support the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003. I am pleased to have bipartisan support for this bill and to be joined by the chair and ranking Democrats of the Commerce Committee and the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. Senators McCain, Hollings, and Kerry have been instrumental in developing the wide range of support for this bill, and I appreciate their interest in improving the way we manage our Nation's valuable coastal and marine resources.

In 1972, Congress responded to concerns over the increasing demands being placed on our nation's coastal regions and resources by enacting of the Coastal Zone Management Act. These pressures have greatly increased since the act was originally authorized.

Although the coastal zone only comprises 10 percent of the contiguous U.S. land area, nearly 53 percent of all Americans live in these coastal regions, and more than 3,600 people are relocating there annually. This small portion of our country supports approximately 361 sea-ports, contains most of our largest cities, and serves as critical habitat for a variety of plants and animals.

This bill reauthorizes and makes a number of important improvements to the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the authorities in this act, coastal States can choose to participate in the voluntary Federal Coastal Zone Management Program. States then design individual coastal zone management programs, taking their specific needs and problems into account, and then receive federal matching funds to help carry out their program plans. State coastal zone programs manage issues ranging from public access to beaches, to protecting habitat, to coordinating permits for coastal development.

As voluntary program, the framework of the CZMA provides guidelines for State plans to address multiple environmental, societal, cultural, and economic objectives.

The health of our coastal zone is vitally important not only to the multitude of plants and animals that inhabit this area, but also to the people and communities that are dependent on it for their livelihood. For example, coastal areas provide habitat for more than 75 percent of the U.S. commercial fisheries and 85 percent of the U.S. recreational fisheries. In turn, the commercial fishing industry, along with value- added services included, contributes $40 billion to the U.S. economy each year. Recreational fishing adds another $25 billion to the economy.

The Coastal Zone Management Program can be used to help balance the conservation of fish stocks with the demands that we place on coastal areas. In my State of Maine, a $150,000 study of the State's cargo needs led to a $27 million bond issue for cargo port improvements. As a result, Bath Iron Works built a new $45 million facility, creating 1,000 new jobs. Similar work needs to be done with our fishing ports so that when fisheries stock rebound, the fishermen will be able to realize the returns.

Unfortunately our precious coastal resources are being threatened by environmental problems, including non-point source pollution. Although the States are currently taking action to

address this problem under existing authority, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 encourages, but does not require, them to take additional steps to combat these problems through the Coastal Community Program.

This initiative provides States with the funding and flexibility needed to deal with their specific nonpoint source pollution problems. The States will have the ability to implement local solutions to a broad array of local problems. Many States are actively engaged in nonpoint source pollution programs and all can benefit from this new tool I am proud to say that Maine has risen to the challenge and already spends close to 30 percent of its funding on such activities. This has led to the reopening of hundreds of acres of shellfish beds and the restoration of fish nursery areas. Even with these successes, Maine is looking forward to this new opportunity to do more.

The Coastal Community Program in this bill also aides States in developing and implementing creative initiatives to deal with problems other than nonpoint source pollution. It increases Federal and State support of Local community-based programs that address coastal environmental issues, such as the impact of development and sprawl on coastal uses and resources. This type of bottom-up management approach is critical.

The Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 significantly increases the authorization levels for the Coastal Zone Management Program, allowing States to better address their coastal management plan goals. The bill authorizes $135.5 million for fiscal year 2004, $141 million for fiscal year 2005 and increases the authorization levels by $5.5 million each year through fiscal year 2008. This increase in funding is necessary to allow the coastal programs to reach their full potential.

Additionally, the Coastal Zone Enhancement Reauthorization Act of 2003 increases authorization for the National Estaurine Research Reserve System, NERRS, to $13 million in fiscal year 2004 with an additional $1 million increase each year through fiscal year 2008. NERRS is a network of reserves across the country that are operated as a cooperative Federal-State partnership.

Currently, there are 25 reserves in 22 States. They provide an important opportunity for long-term research and education in these ecosystems. Additional funds will help strengthen this nationwide program which has not received increased funding commensurate with the addition of new reserves.

I wish to address a very serious problem facing the Coastal Zone Management Program that we have tried to rectify in this bill. The Administrative Grant Program, section 306, serves as the base funding mechanism for the States' coastal zone management programs. The amount of funding each State receives is determined by a formula that takes into account both the length of the coastline and the population of each State.

However, sine 1992, the Appropriations Committee has imposed a $2 million dollar cap per State on administrative grants. This was an attempt to ensure equitable allocation to all the participating States. Over the past 8 years, appropriations for administrative grants have increased by $19 million, yet the $2 million cap has remained. The result has been an inequitable distribution of these new funds. By fiscal year 2000, 13 States had reached this arbitrary $2 million cap. These 13 States account for 83 percent of our Nation's coastline and 76 percent of our coastal population.

It is not equitable to have the 13 States with the largest coastlines and populations stuck at a $2 million dollar cap, despite major overall funding increases. While smaller States have enjoyed additional programmatic success due to an influx of funding, some of the larger States have stagnated.

In an attempt to reassure members of the Appropriations Committee that a fair distribution of funds can occur without this hard cap in place, I have worked with Senator Hollings to develop language that has been included in this bill that directs the Secretary of Commerce to ensure equitable increases or decreases between funding years for each State. It further requires that States should not experience a decrease in base program funds in any year when the overall appropriations increase.

I thank Senator Hollings for his assistance in resolving this matter and his commitment over the years to ensuring that the states are treated fairly.

The Coastal Zone Management Program enjoys wide support among all of the coastal States due to its history of success. This support has been clearly demonstrated by the many members of the Commerce Committee who have worked with me to strengthen this program over the past several years.

I thank Senator Kerry, the ranking Democrat of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, for his hard work and support of this bill. I would also like to express my appreciation to Senator McCain, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senator Hollings, the ranking Democrat of the Committee, for their support of this measure and for their willingness to discharge this bill out of the committee so that we may begin working with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to enact this critical piece of legislation.

This is a solid, reasonable, and a realistic bill that enjoys bipartisan support on the Commerce Committee. It is time that we now turn to legislation reauthorizing a program with a long track record of preserving our coastal environment while allowing sensible development.

I am pleased to support this legislation that will provide the States with the necessary funding and framework to meet the challenges facing our coastal communities in the 21st Century. I urge my colleagues to support.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2003. This bill continues and builds upon the research efforts established in 1998 by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act.

I am very pleased to continue working with my friend and co-sponsor Senator Breaux on this important issue. He and I represent coastal States that are directly affected by harmful algal bloom outbreaks and hypoxia, and we see the ecological and economic damage, as well as the risks to human health, that are caused by these events.

In Maine, for example, harmful algal blooms lead to paralytic shellfish poisoning, a potentially fatal neurological disorder. When humans eat shellfish that have fed on algae in the genus Alexandrium, they are exposed to the toxins that have accumulated in the fish as a result of the algae. Along with human, fish and marine mammals suffer and die from this exposure. This phenomenon, which occurs along thousands of miles of U.S. coastline, has increased dramatically in the Gulf of Maine in the last 20 years.

Although we have learned a great deal about harmful algal blooms and hypoxia in recent years, we still have a long way to go in understanding, predicting, and mitigating these events. Massive fish kills still occur along our coastlines on almost a regular basis, leading to extensive impacts on fish and shellfish populations and fishing industries. Beach-goers and anglers are still being warned of ``no swimming'' and ``no fishing'' alerts when conditions pose a threat to human health. The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in a 2000 study, estimated the annual economic impact from harmful algae to be $49 million, in lost tourism, fishing, and health costs. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in the U.S. approximately $1 billion could be lost in the next decade due to harmful algae.

Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia present enormous challenges to marine resource managers. For example, consider what happens in the Gulf of Mexico. Thirty-one States drain into the Mississippi River, and the runoff from this massive watershed is carried into the gulf. When the waters heat up in the summer, the heavy loads of nutrients in this runoff likely contribute to massive algal blooms. When these algae die and decompose they are consumed by bacteria, which depletes oxygen from the water. If the algal blooms are extensive enough, they will essentially remove all oxygen from the water. No sea life can live under these conditions, which creates a massive area in the water column known as the

``dead zone.'' At that point, all we can really do is wait it out. Clearly, we need to equip our coastal and ocean managers with better tools for predicting, minimizing, and mitigating these outbreaks.

Harmful algal blooms and hypoxia are just as much of a problem now as they were in 1998, when we passed the original bill. It is clear that these problems have not gone away. Algal blooms are still prevalent around the country, the dead zone still occurs each summer in the Gulf of Mexico, and the management and mitigation measures we set the framework for in our 1998 bill still need to be realized.

Our 1998 bill authorized a cross-section of research and monitoring activities on harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. These activities were to encompass basic and applied sciences, looking at the distribution and frequency of outbreaks, as well as how they may be better mitigated and managed. This research, however, was never fully funded at the authorized amounts for research and monitoring, so many of these research activities still need to occur, and many on-going projects need to continue. These amendments would authorize the funding that will reignite these scientific activities.

Our 1998 bill also codified an Interagency Task Force, chaired by the Department of Commerce. Through this group, experts from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Health and Human Services, and numerous other appropriate Federal agencies were able to start the long process of collectively understanding and seeking solutions to many aspects of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. This Task Force spearheaded a technical assessment of the causes and consequences of the northern Gulf of Mexico dead zone, an action plan to eliminate this dead zone, a national assessment of harmful algal blooms, and a national assessment of hypoxia. I would like to express my appreciation for the hard work and accomplishments of this group, yet I realize--as do they--that much more needs to be done.

The 1998 bill allowed the President to disestablish the Task Force after submission of their reports. Considering the great challenges that lay before us and this Task Force, we need to keep this group intact so that they can follow through on their previous recommendations and continue much of their ongoing collaborative efforts. This bill would repeal the Task Force disestablishment clause in the 1998 bill.

This reauthorization continues to seek the valuable contributions of Task Force members on a response and prediction action plan to protect environmental and public health from impacts of harmful algal blooms. This plan would review prediction techniques, develop innovative response measures, and include incentive-based partnership approaches. The Task Force would contribute to this plan, as would coastal zone management experts from State and local governments, Indian tribes, industries, universities, and non-governmental organizations. In developing this process, we mirrored the process used for the dead zone action plan, one of the products of the Task Force from the 1998 bill, to ensure widespread public participation and involvement of the coastal governors.

The dead zone action plan recommended a national framework for reducing nutrients entering the Mississippi River as well as regional plans to implement any needed measures. While a national framework is essential for facilitating the widespread changes that are needed, it is at the local and regional level that solutions must be developed and implemented. The regional plans will help avoid a one-size-fits-all approach, since local and regional variations in the types of land use, landscape geology, and community input should be taken into account when carrying out nutrient reduction and outbreak mitigation measures of this magnitude. By tailoring mitigation and management measures to each location, the overall approach can be more effective.

Local and regional assessments are a key component of this reauthorization as well. Coastal states, Indian tribes, and local governments would be able to request these local and regional assessments of hypoxia and harmful algal blooms, so they can better understand the causes, impacts, and mitigation alternatives for these outbreaks. By having the Commerce Department and the Task Force provide and assist in these assessments, local and regional communities can be more empowered to take action on reducing the magnitude and impacts of these outbreaks.

This bill would authorize $26 million in FY04, and $26.5 million in FY05, and $27 million in FY06. These funding levels reflect modest increases in some of the research and monitoring programs authorized in the 1998 bill and provide funding for the new assessments and implementation of their recommendations.

This reauthorization enables collaborative, science-based research efforts that can help us to better understand how to predict and mitigate harmful algal blooms and hypoxia events. It facilitates action at the local and regional levels, which is a key element for effectively addressing and minimizing the adverse ecological, economic, and health impacts of these outbreaks. I wish to thank Senator Breaux for his continued vigilance and important contributions on this matter, and I encourage my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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.