[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 69 (Thursday, May 22, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5019-S5020]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                BROOKE COUNTY'S BICENTENNIAL CELEBRATION

 Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I rise today in recognition of 
a historical milestone in my state of West Virginia. In 1797, Brooke 
County, named after Gov. Robert Brooke of Virginia, was officially 
born. I take this opportunity to congratulate Brooke County on its 
bicentennial celebration.
  Brooke County, located in the northern Panhandle of West Virginia, 
was created from part of Ohio County. The first session of the Brooke 
County court took place in the home of William Sharpe on May 23, 1797. 
Since that day, the residents of Brooke County have played a vital role 
in the development of West Virginia and the Nation. Its residents 
fought to protect our Nation in the War of 1812 and to keep it intact 
in the Civil War. They founded Brooke Academy, the first educational 
institution on the Ohio River, south of Pittsburgh and west of the 
Alleghenies. However, they are not only sound in body and mind, but 
also in their souls, as the Christian Church, the Disciples of Christ, 
and the Church of Christ all have their early roots in 19th century 
Brooke County.
  From the Duval Glass House, the first glasshouse in West Virginia, to 
the delicious Grimes golden apples, the residents of Brooke County have 
been steeped in a tradition of innovation. Their accomplishments are 
numerous and far-reaching. Part of the highly industrialized Ohio 
Valley, Brooke County has seen its innovation at work, as their 
industries have grown from early paper bag and marble manufacturers to 
a variety of steel industries including the most modern steel coating 
mill in the world.
  On behalf of all citizens from the Mountain State, I would like to 
once again commend Brooke County on its 200th birthday and ask that my 
distinguished colleagues join with me in recognizing its rich history 
of accomplishments and innovation.
 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, several weeks ago the ABC News 
``20/20'' program aired a piece entitled ``Your Tax Dollars at Work,'' 
a report about an airport construction project in northwest Arkansas. 
The report focused on allegations that the new airport was unnecessary 
and a waste of Federal tax dollars. As chairman of the Commerce 
Committee, I believed it was incumbent on me to followup on these 
allegations. I consequently requested that the General Accounting 
Office [GAO] review the project to ensure that the Federal Aviation 
Administration [FAA] followed the agency's established process to 
allocate discretionary airport funds to this project.
  I want to state at the outset that the GAO has said that nothing 
illegal has taken place with respect to the project. In its review, 
however, shortcomings were discovered with the FAA's grant 
decisionmaking process that need to be addressed. The FAA's decision to 
provide grants for the new Northwest Arkansas Federal Government does 
not always do the best job in managing the taxpayers' money. In this 
case, the FAA could have better managed the airport grant program. The 
FAA decided to fund this airport, although the circumstances on which 
it made its decision changed. When this new airport is built and ready 
for use in 1998, the Federal Government's share will be $70 million, 
almost two-thirds of the airport's total cost. It remains to be seen, 
however, if the airport will have an airline to serve it and if 
passengers will use it.
  The FAA must ensure that the limited Federal funds available for 
developing the Nation's airports to go to the most deserving projects. 
Maintaining and improving the Nation's airport system requires 
continual capital investment and the FAA provides Federal grants to 
help with that development. As with other Federal programs, the airport 
grant program has taken its share of cuts as we work toward balancing 
the budget. This situation makes it even more important that the FAA 
does the best possible job in managing the program's approximately $1.5 
billion in funds.
  From the beginning, there were problems with the FAA's decisionmaking 
process in awarding grants to NWARA. The FAA went outside its priority 
system, and relied in part on its subjective assessment in awarding the 
airport $70 million over the 12-year period from 1991 through 2002. The 
FAA made its decision in 1990 and did not reconsider its position, 
although the circumstances on which the decision was based changed in 
the immediate following years. In making its decision, the FAA assumed 
that a nearby airport, Drake Field in Fayetteville, AR, would close and 
that all air service would move to NWARA. Drake Field, however, remains 
open and improvements to this airport have been made. The airlines are 
happy with the airport. Rather than closing, it appears that Drake 
Field will compete with NWARA. These airports are less than 30 miles 
apart. The FAA also said airlines were behind the construction of 
NWARA. To this day, however, no airlines have made a firm commitment to 
use this new airport.

  The FAA also decided to provide grants to NWARA under a rarely used 
special mechanism called a letter of intent. This mechanism allows the 
FAA to schedule grant payments in future years beyond the program's 
authorization period. Of the tens of thousands of grants the FAA has 
awarded, only about 50 letters of intent have been issued and only 
two--one of which went to NWARA--have been issued in the last 4 years. 
The Congress established letters of intent only to fund projects that 
significantly enhance the capacity of the national airport system. The 
FAA, however, awarded the letter of intent to NWARA without having 
defined what constitutes a significant capacity enhancement for small 
airports like NWARA. The agency also used a cost-benefit analysis to 
justify the letter of intent, analysis that was not redone even though 
it was not clear that certain assumptions the agency made would hold, 
such as the closing of Drake Field.
  The sloppiness of the FAA's decisionmaking process on this project 
has been disappointing, although legal. The GAO and other observers 
agree that it would be a waste of investments already made to withhold 
Federal funding now. NWARA has received about 40 percent of its total 
$70 million in grant funding, and construction of the airport is under 
way. The airport's runways will be completed by the end of 1997 and its 
terminal soon thereafter.
  Nevertheless, the review of this project has been a valuable 
exercise. We must be certain that scarce Federal

[[Page S5020]]

resources are allocated to their highest and best uses. The FAA must be 
able to demonstrate compelling reasons for using subjective assessments 
to place projects on the priority list for Federal funding. The GAO 
will soon report to the FAA on how it can tighten up its grant award 
process, and better adhere to the criteria that the agency has laid out 
for itself. In the meantime, the Commerce Committee will continue to 
oversee the FAA's management of its grant program.

                          ____________________