Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 128 (Wednesday, September 23, 1998)

[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.

____________________