[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 23, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10817-S10819]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 WENDELL H. FORD NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 
                                  1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Kentucky, I 
believe we now have an agreement on the managers' amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3618

(Purpose: To make minor additions and corrections to the reported bill)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send the managers' amendment to the desk 
and ask for its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN], for himself and Mr. 
     Ford, proposes an amendment numbered 3618.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as part of original text for purpose of amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the body ready to vote on the amendment?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
be considered as part of the original text for the purpose of 
amendment. This is a substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the adoption of the 
amendment and inclusion as part of the original text?
  Mr. FORD. Reserving the right to object, let's be sure we have the 
parliamentary procedure correct. This is a managers' amendment that is 
a part of the original bill as filed subject to amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Subject to amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It will be considered as part of the original 
text for the purpose of amendment and will be subject to amendment.
  Mr. FORD. I wanted to be sure. There is not any hanky-panky going on 
here, I know that. Every once in a while, we find we have to make a 
unanimous consent request to get us out of a parliamentary problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the adoption of the 
amendment? Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3618) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, now I ask that my colleagues, again, who 
are interested in this bill--we have a little less than 2 hours 
remaining--who wish to debate this bill, who wish to discuss it, who 
wish to amend it, please come to the floor and do so. The Senator from 
Kentucky and I intend, again, to achieve a final list of amendments for 
tomorrow. We have every intention of completing this bill by tomorrow 
evening.
  I want to put my colleagues on notice. We have been working on this 
bill for a long, long time. If there are not Members who come to the 
floor to propose their amendments, then I will move to go to third 
reading of the bill, because there is no point in us going all the way 
tomorrow and into Friday and not having completed this legislation. I 
repeat, it must pass.
  I have heard personally from a number of Members who have strongly 
held views on this legislation, particularly the Senators from Maryland 
and Virginia. I will point out, Mr. President, that one of the Senators 
from Virginia, Senator Warner, has had a tragedy in his family, which 
is why he is not here to debate the bill at this time.
  I, again, urge my colleagues to come to the floor in the next couple 
of hours to either propose amendments or debate the bill.
  Mr. BRYAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I would like to preface my comments by commending the 
floor leaders, my good friends, Senator McCain and Senator Ford, for 
the leadership they have provided in getting this piece of legislation 
through the committee and on to the floor. I am not unmindful of the 
fact there are some points of contention, but both of them have 
provided the kind of leadership and experience and real statesmanship 
we have come to expect from both of these two leaders. And I, for one, 
want to praise them for their leadership.
  I want to talk about one of those points that has become historically 
somewhat vexing when we deal with an FAA piece of legislation, and that 
is the so-called perimeter rule. The perimeter rule is extremely 
important to my State, Nevada, and particularly the expanding markets 
in southern Nevada. Within the next year, 20,000 new hotel rooms will 
come on line. It will be critically important to have additional air 
capacity going into southern Nevada in order that those new hotel rooms 
can be filled. The Metropolitan Las Vegas area will have in excess of 
120,000 hotel rooms within the next 18 months.
  I know of no place in the world that has that concentration of hotel 
rooms. It is no secret that the mainspring of the economy in southern 
Nevada, as well as the entire State, has been for decades tourism. And 
because of the relative remoteness and isolation of southern Nevada, 
air transport is a critical factor for our continued economic viability 
and the expansion that we have enjoyed over the years.
  I was able, with the support of the distinguished chairman of the 
committee, the senior Senator from Arizona, to convene a hearing in Las 
Vegas earlier this spring, because one of the challenges that we face 
in providing

[[Page S10818]]

additional air service to southern Nevada are some economic changes 
that are occurring in the airline industry itself.
  During the time in which the economy was relatively soft and business 
travel was not particularly robust, it was much easier for us in 
southern Nevada to get the kind of air service and the number of 
flights that we needed. As a result of the expanding economy and 
business travel expanding quite rapidly, the airlines have reached an 
economic judgment which, although hard to quarrel with, nevertheless 
has had some profound implications for us in Las Vegas. And that is to 
say that business travel, as opposed to recreation travel, generates 
more revenue per seat mile than does resort, tourist destination 
travel.
  So the airlines, to some extent, have shifted some of their capacity 
to the more profitable business routes. That change poses some real 
challenges to us in trying to fill those hotel rooms, I mentioned 
earlier in my comments, that are coming on line. That would be the 
largest influx of new hotel rooms in the history of Las Vegas for any 
given period of time. So as part of this hearing that we held in Las 
Vegas, we looked at a number of factors that might help to alleviate 
that problem.
  One area in which we desperately need expanded air service is from 
longer distance destinations, from the east coast. And one of the 
things that was pointed out as part of the barrier to that new service 
is that there are some artificial barriers that are created either by 
act of Congress or by policy, and to the extent that we can remove 
those barriers, it will be easier for us to get expanded air service.
  One of those barriers that was created by an act of Congress is the 
perimeter rule, established in 1986 as part of Federal 
legislation. That was part of the Metropolitan Washington Airport Act.

  Some history of the perimeter rule. In its initial origin, there may 
have been some justification for it. At the time, there was 
considerable concern that Dulles would not attract the kind of airline 
service needed to fully utilize that facility if, indeed, longer 
distance flights could originate out of Washington National or could 
come to Washington National.
  So this perimeter rule--which has kind of taken on a life of its own 
and has been exalted almost to divine status, something that is so 
sacrosanct that we should never touch it under any circumstances--is in 
point of fact an act of Congress' creation, and it is not inappropriate 
for the Congress to revisit that rule.
  The General Accounting Office, in examining airline competition, 
bolsters the argument that was made at our hearing in Las Vegas when it 
describes the perimeter rule as ``a barrier to entry service.'' It 
points out that the rules limit the ability of airlines based in the 
West to compete because those airlines are not allowed to serve--
LaGuardia is another airport which has a perimeter rule, as well as 
National Airport--from the markets where they are strongest. By 
contrast, because of their proximity to LaGuardia and National, each of 
the seven largest established carriers is able to serve those airports 
from its principal hub. So there is an invidious discrimination in the 
very existence of these perimeter rules.
  This report, as well as others, has suggested to the Congress that we 
grant authority to allow exemptions to the perimeter rule. I believe 
that is a sound recommendation and one that has been carefully crafted 
by my colleagues and friends who provide the leadership for us in the 
Commerce Committee, because a compromise has indeed been offered.
  Let me add an additional basis, it seems to me, for that compromise 
to occur. Not only does this invidious discrimination make it very 
difficult for new entrants to come into the market, but the original 
justification for the rule in 1986--if it ever had any validity, if one 
assumes arguendo that it may have been well founded at the time of its 
enactment--no longer exists.
  You will recall that the original or ostensible justification was to 
make sure that Dulles as an airport had plenty of activity and airline 
service, and therefore this artificial creation of the perimeter rule 
was designed to make sure that the longer distance flights emanated 
from Dulles. Having been to Dulles many times in the last month, none 
would argue that this airport is underutilized. It is a robust, healthy 
air terminal, and all of us are pleased for that.
  On two bases, it seems to me, the argument can be made: No. 1, that 
the original rationale and predicate of the perimeter rule no longer 
has any operative merit; and No. 2, the competitive aspect in the 
discrimination which I have alluded to in citing from the airline 
competition, ``The Barriers to Entering Into Domestic Markets,'' 
published by the General Accounting Office.
  I think for that reason the provisions that have been crafted into 
this piece of legislation dealing with additional slots at National, 
particularly those 12 which will be allowed to fly outside the 
perimeter, represent sound policy and a reasonable compromise.
  Again, I commend the chairman of the committee, Senator McCain, and 
the ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Ford, for their 
leadership. I hope we can get this enacted. I salute them for their 
leadership.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada not only 
on this issue but for his continued activity as a valued member of the 
Commerce Committee on all aviation issues. He is knowledgeable. He is 
given to bipartisan cooperation. I appreciate very much the opportunity 
to work with him not only on aviation issues but a variety of other 
issues, including the sport of boxing.
  As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, there is a list that I had 
included in the Record about a week ago of all the different formula 
funds, entitlement State allocations, totaling $2.1 billion, that would 
be delayed at this time. In the case of the State of Washington, the 
amount would be $7,410,694, to randomly pick a State; for the State of 
Kentucky, it is $4,932,788.
  Mr. FORD. What airports do they go do?
  Mr. McCAIN. I do not know exactly which airports they go to, although 
there are some letters of intent that I had printed in the Record. One 
is the Greater Cincinnati airport, $6 million; and Louisville, $18.243 
million. These are letters of intent following fiscal year 1999 grant 
allocations that are already in preparation.
  Texas: I see the New Austin at Bergstrom, $11.43 million; Dallas/Ft. 
Worth International, $12.5 million. Washington: Seattle-Tacoma, known 
as SeaTac Airport, $4,400,000.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this list be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Letters of Intent

       Current letters of intent assume the following fiscal year 
     1999 grant allocations:

Arkansas: Fayetteville (northwest Arkansas)..................$5,000,000
Colorado: Denver International...............................24,931,000
Georgia: Hartsfield Atlanta International.....................7,083,000
Illinois:
  Mid-America, Belleville reliever...........................14,000,000
  Chicago Midway..............................................3,000,000
Kentucky:
  Greater Cincinnati..........................................6,000,000
  Louisville.................................................18,243,000
Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan...............................16,400,000
Mississippi: Golden Triangle....................................300,000
Nevada: Reno/Tahoe International..............................6,500,000
New York: Buffalo International...............................1,700,000
Rhode Island: Theodore F. Green State.........................6,500,000
South Carolina:
  Hilton Head...................................................558,000
  Florence Regional..............................................94,000
Tennessee:
  Nashville International.......................................555,000
  Memphis International......................................18,733,000
Texas:
  New Austin at Bergstrom....................................11,430,000
  Dalls/Ft. Worth International..............................12,500,000
  Midland.....................................................1,327,000
Virginia: Reagan Washington National.........................14,232,000
Washington: Seattle-Tacoma International......................4,400,000
                                                       ________________
                                                       
    Total...................................................173,486,000

     (Source: United States Senate Report 105-249, Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 
     1999; pp. 86)

       In addition, there is $500,000,000 in discretionary funds 
     available for assignment by

[[Page S10819]]

     the FAA after the authorization and appropriations process 
     has been completed.

           Airport Improvement Program Formula Distributions

[Estimated FY98 entitlement and State allocations, Total formula funds 
                          at $2.1 billion] \1\

Alabama......................................................$5,823,950
Alaska.......................................................31,277,460
Arizona.......................................................8,759,576
Arkansas......................................................4,577,601
California...................................................31,086,667
Colorado......................................................7,958,160
Connecticut...................................................2,809,935
Delaware........................................................635,295
District of Columbia............................................468,506
Florida......................................................13,064,255
Georgia.......................................................8,040,687
Hawaii........................................................1,186,786
Idaho.........................................................5,134,047
Illinois.....................................................11,777,613
Indiana.......................................................6,148,104
Iowa..........................................................5,065,177
Kansas........................................................6,193,550
Kentucky......................................................4,932,788
Louisiana.....................................................5,778,788
Maine.........................................................2,734,919
Maryland......................................................4,298,977
Massachusetts.................................................5,091,338
Michigan.....................................................12,190,141
Minnesota.....................................................7,873,545
Mississippi...................................................4,490,016
Missouri......................................................7,558,689
Montana.......................................................8,289,328
Nebraska......................................................5,247,768
Nevada........................................................6,692,991
New Hampshire.................................................1,334,174
New Jersey....................................................6,348,164
New Mexico....................................................7,508,916
New York.....................................................16,573,616
North Carolina................................................7,827,567
North Dakota..................................................4,180,687
Ohio.........................................................10,647,533
Oklahoma......................................................6,061,992
Oregon........................................................7,247,957
Pennsylvania.................................................11,505,588
Puerto Rico...................................................2,632,148
Rhode Island....................................................832,693
South Carolina................................................4,302,524
South Dakota..................................................4,559,359
Tennessee.....................................................5,936,395
Texas........................................................26,942,447
Utah..........................................................5,752,302
Vermont.........................................................933,033
Virginia......................................................6,947,024
Washington....................................................7,410,694
West Virginia.................................................2,638,950
Wisconsin.....................................................7,204,305
Wyoming.......................................................5,421,196
Insular areas.................................................2,564,100
                                                       ________________
                                                       
  Total.....................................................388,500,000

     \1\ The list includes airport entitlement funds and State 
     funds that would be foregone in fiscal year 1999, assuming 
     the Senate AIP appropriations level of 2.1 billion dollars. 
     These figures don't include discretionary grants & LOI 
     payments.

     (Source: United States Senate Report 105-249, Department of 
     Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 
     1999; pp. 80-1).

     (Note: This does not include funds allocated to states for 
     general aviation, relieve, and non-primary commercial service 
     airports, nor does it include nearly half a billion dollars 
     in discretionary grants the FAA will allocate in FY99.)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will be prepared shortly, perhaps in 
half an hour, to propound a unanimous consent agreement on amendments. 
Again, I urge my colleagues to have their amendments. I repeat our 
determination to have completed legislative action on this legislation 
by the close of business tomorrow night.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be 
recognized to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________