THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents
Last year an attempt was made by the House Appropriations Committee to strip FHWA from its authority over
[Page: S11846] GPO's PDF
At my request, the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation conducted a comprehensive analysis of federal motor carrier safety activities. Serious safety gaps have been identified, and as such, the authorizing Committees of jurisdiction have been working to move legislation to improve motor carrier safety. The Commerce Committee held a hearing on my specific safety proposal and we expect to mark up that measure during the next Executive session. Indeed, we are working to move legislation through the regular legislative process.
In my opinion, it is very short-sighted and a serious jeopardy to public safety if Congress shuts off funds for motor carrier safety activities within the Department of Transportation. For example, under the conference agreement, the Department would not be permitted to access civil penalties for motor carrier safety violations. According to DOT, ``this provision would effectively shut down our safety enforcement program.'' While I am aware safety improvements are necessary and am working to accomplish those needed improvements, stipping critical authority is not in the interest of truck safety. I would urge the President to veto this legislation due to this unwise and unsound provisions and permit the authorization process to proceed responsibly.
Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to address an issue of great importance for our Nation's environment and economic security.
Today the Senate will pass the fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill. In that bill, for the fifth year in a row, is a House-passed rider that would block the Department of Transportation from conducting a legislatively-mandated study of Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards .
The current CAFE standard for passenger cars is 27.5 miles per gallon, while the standard for so-called ``light trucks'' , including SUVs and minivans, remains at just 20.7 miles per gallon. Today, with SUVs and minivans accounting for almost half of all new cars sold in the United States, we need to give serious consideration to improving fuel economy standards for these vehicles. By doing so, we could cut harmful air pollution, help curb global warming, and reduce the amount of gasoline we consume. The existing CAFE standards save more than 3 million barrels of oil every day. Improving these standards , particularly for light trucks , is especially important when our nation is importing increasing amounts of oil every year.
For the past four years, Congress has denied the American people access to existing technologies that could save them thousands of dollars at the gas pump, technologies that the auto industry could implement with no reduction in safety, power, or performance.
The House rider blocking consideration of improved CAFE standards was attached to the DOT spending bill without any hearings or debate. While I will not object to passage of this important appropriations measure today, I want to state in the strongest terms my disappointment, shared by many of my colleagues, that the statutory requirement to study ways to improve fuel efficiency standards is being blocked.
We should lift this gag order and give the Department of Transportation the opportunity to consider this important issue.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I now withdraw the committee amendments.
The committee amendments were withdrawn.
AMENDMENT NO. 1891
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I send a substitute amendment to the desk for Senator MCCAIN, myself, and Senator ROCKEFELLER and ask for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Washington [Mr. GORTON], for Mr. MCCAIN, for himself, Mr. GORTON, and Mr. ROCKEFELLER, proposes an amendment numbered 1891.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's RECORD under ``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. FITZGERALD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold for a moment.
The Senator from Washington.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to and considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. An objection is heard.
Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, we will take such measures as are necessary to see whether or not the objection can be withdrawn or we will simply go ahead and debate the substitute amendment. Let me add three other matters.
First, we will attempt to get a unanimous consent agreement on the filing of amendments as early and as promptly as we possibly can so debate can be carried forward.
Second, as Senator ROCKEFELLER pointed out, there are two additional amendments to this substitute amendment that can be put up whether or not the substitute amendment has been agreed to. One has to do with the air traffic control system and its modernization.
Senator ROCKEFELLER and I and many others, as the Senator from West Virginia pointed out, have worked diligently in that connection, and we believe that proposal now is not controversial, though it is of vital importance and we hope it can be agreed to promptly.
The other amendment, of course, is the amendment dealing with slots at the four or five busiest airports in the country. There may be some controversy in connection with that amendment. In any event, we hope that each of those amendments will be adopted relatively promptly. Members are urged to bring their amendments to the floor or to speak to the managers about concerns they have that may be solved relatively easily.
Under the statement made earlier today when this session of the Senate began, it is at least possible there will be further votes on this bill today after the vote on the Transportation appropriations bill at 5:30 p.m. In any event, there certainly will be by tomorrow. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the manager of the bill and also the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. One thing I want to make clear, contrary to the statement of the Senator from West Virginia, is that at least this Senator from Illinois does not believe he was involved in any of the negotiations, certainly not with respect to this last-minute attempt to entirely lift the high density rule that has governed three of our Nation's most crowded and congested airports since the late 1960s.
Going back to the 1960s, the FAA has had a rule in effect that limits operations at Chicago O'Hare International Airport to 155 operations an hour. The reason for that rule was that the airport was at capacity and adding more operations per hour would add to delays and jeopardize the safety of the flying public.
This original bill had an exemption for 30 new slots that the FAA could grant at O'Hare. I had misgivings about even those 30 exemptions for new flights at O'Hare, and I had been working with the chairman of the Commerce Committee on that issue, going back several months. But this was at the last minute. In fact, I read it in the newspaper today that a deal had been cut behind the scenes to go ahead and lift the high density rule altogether.
[Page: S11847] GPO's PDF
I think that is a grave mistake that could jeopardize the safety of our flying public in the United States. I fly out of O'Hare International Airport every week. In fact, I live 12 miles from it. As I grew up, that airport grew up. It grew into the busiest airport in the world. Anybody who has been there this year knows that it is so crowded and congested that there are constant delays at O'Hare. In fact, a report that
came out earlier this year suggested there are more delays at O'Hare International Airport than at any other major airport in the country.
In 1995, when Congress considered lifting the high density rule, the FAA commissioned a study to look into what would happen if they lifted the high density rule. That study concluded it would be a great mistake to lift the high density rule because it would further add to delays at O'Hare and some of the Nation's other slot-controlled airports.
When there are massive delays at O'Hare, it pressures the air traffic controllers to hurry up and get more flights in the air to alleviate those delays. Sometimes there are 100 flights waiting to take off at O'Hare International Airport. Lifting the high density rule says that maybe sometimes we will have 200 flights waiting to take off on the runways at O'Hare. With that kind of pressure on the air traffic controllers, certainly there is the possibility to do something unwise and to make too many flights take off too close to each other, which could risk the lives of passengers in this country.
I am here to tell you that if one passenger dies in the United States because this Congress, going along with pressure from United and American Airlines, which already have 80 percent of the market in Chicago O'Hare and want more of it and are trying to block the construction of a third airport in Chicago because they do not want anybody else to have any of the market in Chicago, if in responding to pressure from those airlines, we are going to add so many more flights at O'Hare that we jeopardize the life of just one passenger in this country, then we have made a horrible, grave mistake.
Thus, I will be here everyday this bill is up, and I will fight doing that. I look forward to working with the managers of the bill to possibly address my concerns.
I was elected, in part, on this issue, and my predecessor, Carol Moseley-Braun, in fact, last year when there was a proposal to add just 100 more slots at O'Hare, fought that. She thought she had an agreement to lower that to 30 more slots that could be sparingly granted by the FAA, if all sorts of certain criteria were met.
Now it appears there is an effort on the part of those who have negotiated this bill to run roughshod over all those conversations with Senators from Illinois and go ahead and say the sky is the limit at O'Hare.
It is interesting; last week, Mayor Daley from Chicago was trying to fly to Washington. We had a Taste of Chicago party on the House side of the Capitol. It was a huge party. There were 500 people from Chicago willing to celebrate the Taste of Chicago in Washington. Unfortunately, the mayor of Chicago was stuck on the tarmac at O'Hare for 4 hours because of delays.
It is too crowded and it is too congested.
Fortunately, thus far, the air traffic controllers have managed the traffic and the delays there, and they have not felt pressured into doing something unwise. But it is very possible that we could put so much pressure on those air traffic controllers and those pilots that a mistake could be made and we could jeopardize the safety of the flying public.
So I will be here to fight the lifting of those caps at O'Hare. We have to come up with some other solutions. I do agree we want competition amongst our airlines. Certainly with the situation at O'Hare, where you have two airlines, United and American, that control 80 percent of the slots, they don't want anybody else to cut into their monopoly there. Thus, they don't want any more air capacity outside of O'Hare in Chicago. I understand that. That has created problems. I want to work to solve those problems with the Members of this body. But I do not think we should do it in such a way that we cause more delays at O'Hare, which puts more pressure on our air traffic controllers, our pilots, and our whole infrastructure in aviation, and potentially jeopardizes the safety of the flying public.
Mr. President, thank you very much.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KYL). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stanley Bach of the Congressional Research Service be granted the privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of S. 82.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Evelyn Fortier of my office be granted the privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of S. 82.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The clerk will continue to call the roll.
The legislative clerk continued to call the roll.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise in support of S. 82, the Air Transportation Improvement Act of 1999. This measure will enhance the safety and efficiency of our air transportation system. The residents of Hawaii, a State that is perhaps more dependent on air transportation than any other, stand to benefit significantly from this legislation.
Today I want to speak to title VI of the bill which addresses the issue of air tour operations at national parks. Title VI establishes a comprehensive regulatory framework for controlling air tour traffic in and near units of the National Park System. The legislation requires the Federal Aviation Administration, in cooperation with the National Park Service and with public input from stakeholders, to develop an air tour management plan for parks currently or potentially affected by air tour flights.
Under this process, routes, altitudes, time restrictions, limitations on the number of flights, and other operating parameters could be prescribed in order to protect sensitive park resources as well as to enhance the safety of air tour operations. An air tour plan could prohibit air tours at a park entirely, regulate air tours within half a mile outside the boundaries of a park, regulate air tour operations that impact tribal lands, and offer incentives for the adoption of quieter air technology.
S. 82 also creates an advisory group comprising representatives of the FAA, the Park Service, the aviation industry, the environmental community, and tribes to provide advice, information, and recommendations on overflight issues.
As embodied in the air tour management plan process, this bill treats overflights issues on a park-by-park basis. Rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, the legislation establishes a fair and rational mechanism through which environmental and commercial aviation needs can be addressed in the
[Page: S11848] GPO's PDF
In other words, an air tour management plan for Yosemite in California may differ significantly from a plan for the Florida Everglades, in order to take into account differences in terrain, weather, types of resources to be protected, and other factors. What is important about this bill is that it establishes a uniform procedure, with common regulatory elements, that will address overflight issues on a consistent basis across the nation, while allowing for local variations.
I am pleased that this procedural approach, in addition to requirements for meaningful public consultation and a mechanism for promoting dialogue among diverse stakeholders, mirrors key elements of legislation--the National Parks Airspace Management Act, cosponsored by my colleagues Senator INOUYE and Senator FRIST--that I promoted in several previous Congresses.
Title VI also reflects the hard-won consensus developed by the National Parks Overflights Working Group, a group comprising industry, environmental, and tribal representatives, which worked for many months to hammer out critical details embodied in the pending measure.
Adoption of this bill is essential if we are to address effectively the detrimental impacts of air tour activities on the National Park System. Air tourism has significantly increased in the last decade, nowhere more so than at high profile units such as Grand Canyon, Great Smoky Mountains, as well as Haleakala and Hawaii Volcanoes national parks in my own State. A major 1994 Park Service study indicated that nearly 100 parks experienced adverse park impacts. That number has assuredly risen since then. Such growth has inevitably conflicted with attempts to preserve the natural qualities and values that characterize many national parks, in some instances seriously.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Doc Contents