[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 129 (Thursday, September 24, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10893-S10901]
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. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask to be recognized to offer an 
amendment to the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  The pending business is the Moynihan amendment.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the current 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3636

  (Purpose: To facilitate air service to underserved communities and 
       encourage airline competition through non-discriminatory 
           interconnection requirements between air carriers)

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself, 
     Ms. Snowe and Mr. Wellstone, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3636.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following new section--

     SEC.   . NON-DISCRIMINATORY INTERLINE INTERCONNECTION 
                   REQUIREMENTS

       (a) In General.--Subchapter I of chapter 417 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof 
     the following:
       ``(a) Non-Discriminatory Requirements.--If a major air 
     carrier that provides air service to an essential airport 
     facility has any agreement involving ticketing, baggage and 
     ground handling, and terminal and gate access with another 
     carrier, it shall provide the same services to any requesting 
     air carrier that offers service to a community selected for 
     participation in the program under section 41743 under 
     similar terms and conditions and on a non-discriminatory 
     basis within 30 days after receiving the request, as long as 
     the requesting air carrier meets such safety, service, 
     financial, and maintenance requirements, if any, as the 
     Secretary may by regulation establish consistent with public 
     convenience and necessity. The Secretary must review any 
     proposed agreement to determine if the requesting carrier 
     meets operational requirements consistent with the rules, 
     procedures, and policies of the major carrier. This agreement 
     may be terminated by either party in the event of failure to 
     meet the standards and conditions outlined in the agreement.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Essential airport facility.--The term `essential 
     airport facility' means a large hub airport (as defined in 
     section 41731(a)(3)) in the contiguous 48 states in which one 
     carrier has more than 50 percent of such airport's total 
     annual enplanements.''
       (c) Clerical Amendment.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     417 of title 49, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to section 41715 the following:

``41716. Interline agreements for domestic transportation.''.

       Between lines 13 and 14 on page 151, insert the following--
       ``(d) Additional Action.--Under the pilot program 
     established pursuant to subsection (a), the Secretary shall 
     work with air carriers providing service to participating 
     communities and major air carriers serving large hub airports 
     (as defined in section 41731(a)(3)) to facilitate joint fare 
     arrangements consistent with normal industry practice.''

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, as I indicated when I spoke previously on 
this bill, I think Senator McCain and Senator Ford have done a 
remarkably good job on this piece of legislation, and I appreciate 
their work so much. And I think many involved in airline issues in this 
country, such as safety and so many other related issues, feel the same 
way. This is an important piece of legislation, and we very much 
appreciate their good work. I think both of them will be on the floor 
shortly, but I did want to offer the amendment and begin a discussion 
of it.
  Let me first describe why I felt a requirement to offer an amendment 
of this type. I offered an amendment similar to this in the Commerce 
Committee and lost by a vote of 11-9. It is interesting to me. I always 
remember the exact vote when I lose--11-9--and somehow that sticks with 
me, because I understand why I lost: there are people who view these 
issues differently.
  My concern here is about competition in the airline industry. I know 
about competition. I come from a town of 300 people. I grew up in that 
town. I was in a high school class of nine. We had one blacksmith. We 
had one doctor. We had one barber. We had one of almost everything. 
Actually, we had a couple of bars. I guess that is probably typical of 
a lot of small towns. But we had one of most things. I understand that.
  The fact is, most of the people who had their exclusive services that 
they

[[Page S10894]]

offered in my hometown always priced their service in a very reasonable 
way. Go to the barber and the haircut was just very little cost. Same 
was true with the blacksmith. But then, as I left my small hometown in 
southwestern North Dakota and started studying economics and lived in 
some big cities and went off to graduate school and so on, I began to 
understand that is not always true in our economy. When you have one 
entity providing a service or a commodity, it is not always true that 
they will always price that service in the public interest. Sometimes 
they will price it in their interest.
  I began to understand what monopolies were. I studied economics. 
Actually, I taught economics for a couple years in college. And I have 
told people I was able to overcome that experience, nonetheless. But I 
understood about economic concentration, market dominance.
  Then I watched what has happened in the airline industry in the last 
20 to 30 years. I understood some of the things that I had studied and 
learned and understood something in the field of economics relates to 
what we are experiencing in this country in the airline industry.
  In 1938, when the Federal Government began to regulate air 
transportation, there were 16 carriers--16 carriers--who accounted for 
virtually all of the air traffic in our country. It was a pretty 
primitive system back then. If you looked at those airplanes now down 
at the Smithsonian Institution you would say, ``Gee, I'm not sure I 
would want to ride very far in those airplanes,'' but people did. 
Sixteen air carriers accounted for the total traffic in our U.S. 
domestic market.
  By 1978, 40 years later, the year that Congress passed something 
called deregulation of the airlines, those same 16 carriers had reduced 
to 11. They were merged. A couple went out of business. So you had 11 
carriers. Those 11 carriers accounted for 94 percent of all the airline 
business in the country.
  Today, those 11 carriers have been reduced to seven airline carriers 
because of mergers, a couple bankruptcies--a lot of mergers. Those 
seven now account for over 80 percent of all the total traffic. 
American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta, Northwest, United and 
USAir--they account for 95 percent of the total air traffic in the 
domestic U.S., with their cochair partners.
  Since deregulation, 1978, it was estimated that we have had about 120 
new airlines appear. And then about 200 different airlines have 
disappeared, appeared, disappeared, merged, been purchased. But we do 
not have more competition after deregulation; we actually have less 
competition.
  Between 1979 and 1988, there were 51 airline mergers and 
acquisitions. Twenty of those were approved by the Department of 
Transportation after 1985 when it assumed all the jurisdiction over 
mergers and acquisition requests. In fact, the Department of 
Transportation approved every airline merger that was sent to it. You 
do not need a human being to do that. You do not need somebody that 
breathes and lives and eats breakfast; all you need is a big rubber 
stamp. If we are going to have a Department of Transportation that will 
say, ``Gee, no merger is too big. No merger's consequence is too 
significant for market dominance. We'll just stamp `approve' with a 
big, big ink pad and a big stamp,'' we don't need to pay anybody any 
significant amount to do that kind of Government work. Every airline 
merger submitted to it was approved.
  The 15 independent airlines operating at the beginning of 1986 had 
been merged into six megacarriers by the end of 1987.
  The father of deregulation, Alfred Kahn, testified recently at one of 
our hearings. He said that he had great disappointment in the industry 
concentration because he said it perverted the purpose of deregulation. 
And he pinned most of the blame on mergers and the Department of 
Transportation's approval of all of these mergers.
  What has happened is that these megacarriers--I will probably 
describe in a moment ``megacarriers''--have created competition-free 
zones in effect, securing dominant market shares at regional hubs.
  Let me describe a couple of these.
  Atlanta: Atlanta is a big, old city. If you go down to Atlanta, 
Atlanta is bustling. It has an economy that is vibrant, a huge city, 
big airport, a lot of folks coming and going, a lot of traffic. One 
airline has 82 percent of all traffic in and out of the airport in 
Atlanta.
  Why would that be the case? A city that big, that vibrant, an economy 
that strong, one airline virtually dominates the hub? Why? Because that 
is the way the airline companies have sliced up the pie.
  Charlotte: One airline, 92 percent in and out of Charlotte.
  Cincinnati: One airline, 94 percent.
  Dallas-Fort Worth, a big city: One airline, 72 percent.
  Denver: One airline, 74 percent,
  Detroit: One airline, 82 percent.
  Well, I do not need to go through all of them, but you get the 
picture. This is not exactly the picture of a robust American economy 
in which there thrives aggressive, interesting competition, one company 
competing with another for the consumers' business, deciding ``I'll 
offer a better product. I'll offer a lower price.'' That is what 
competition is about.
  Most businesses understand competition. The airlines have constructed 
a series of regional hubs which have dominance for major carriers, and 
then they retreat from the kind of competition you would have expected.
  That is my way of describing my criticism of where we find ourselves. 
I would like to infuse some competition here.
  I would like to see if we can find ways to say to the major carriers, 
``We need more competition.'' The consumer deserves more competition, 
the consumer deserves more choices, and the consumer deserves lower 
prices with respect to airlines.
  We have had plenty of studies about this issue. I come from a 
sparsely populated State, and deregulation has affected us in a much 
more detrimental way than in other parts of the country. Here are some 
studies--just a few--that describe deregulation and its impact on small 
States and rural economies: Airline Competition, Industry Operating and 
Marketing Practices Limit Market Entry; Trends and Air Fares at 
Airports in Small- and Medium-sized Communities; Fares and Competition 
at Small City Airports; Effects of Air Competition and Barriers to 
Entry. The list goes on and on, study after study.
  We don't need to study this. We know what is happening. We know what 
has happened. Most of us know what should happen. We should do 
something to help provide competition, certainly in areas that are 
underserved. For areas that used to have service but don't now have jet 
service, we ought to find some way to allow that service to exist. I 
have produced a piece of legislation that I think will do that.
  I mentioned that we had an airline shutdown as a result of a labor 
strike recently. That shutdown was very inconvenient to a lot of 
people, but it was much more inconvenient to my State. Just prior to 
deregulation, we had five airline companies flying jets in and out of 
my State. Now we have one. That one happened to shut down as a result 
of a labor strike. At 12:01 a.m. on August 30, there were no more jet 
flights in and out of our State. It was devastating to North Dakota, to 
the passengers, and to the economy.
  That kind of dominance by a carrier I admire. I think the carrier 
that serves our State is a wonderful carrier. It has some labor 
problems and other issues, but the fact is, they fly good planes and 
they have been serving North Dakota for many, many decades. I hope they 
will continue to serve many decades. I have told their president that 
one day there will be another carrier and some competition. Although I 
hope to get them some competition, I want them to stay there because 
they are a good airline carrier.
  But I also want to plug some holes in service that does not now 
exist, that should exist, and used to exist. For example, a State like 
North Dakota, for 35 years, had jet service connecting North Dakota to 
a hub in Denver, CO. After 35 years, that jet service was gone. We no 
longer have jet service to Denver, CO. The only way a jet service can 
exist between North Dakota and Denver, CO, is if you have a regional 
jet service that starts up and can cooperate with and have interline 
and other agreements with the major carrier that dominates in Denver. 
We had

[[Page S10895]]

a company that started and tried to do that, but, of course, the major 
carrier in Denver said, ``We want nothing to do with you; we don't want 
to do interline agreements with you.''
  So the only passengers they could haul were the passengers going from 
North Dakota to Denver. In fact, 70 percent of our people were going 
beyond Denver. They were flying North Dakota to Denver to Phoenix, to 
Tulsa, to Tucson, to Los Angeles, to San Francisco. That airline pulled 
out because they couldn't make it. The large carriers will coshare with 
each other, they will do all kinds of interline agreements with each 
other, but they don't want regional jet service to start up and 
flourish in these regions.
  I don't understand that. It seems to me it would benefit them to have 
regional jet service startups.
  However, I proposed something I hope will address this issue in the 
Commerce Committee that lost 11-9, as I mentioned before. I have 
modified that substantially now. But even with those modifications, it 
embodies the principles I am trying to establish: the opportunity for 
new regional jet service carriers to compete in a regional market by 
encouraging agreements between new regional jet carriers and large 
airlines with respect to a number of items--gates, baggage, and other 
issues.
  I will not read the amendment, but let me say that the current 
Presiding Officer, the Senator from the State of Washington, Senator 
Gorton, is someone who has spent a great deal of time on airline 
issues. I will be careful not to mischaracterize any of his views. I 
hope it is accurate to say that he has been someone who has felt very 
strongly that he does not want to move in the direction of reregulating 
air service. While we might disagree on some issues, I very much 
respect his views, and he has been very strong in asserting his views 
on a range of these issues.
  I have worked with Senator Gorton and others in the last few days to 
see if we could find agreement on a set of principles in this amendment 
that will accomplish the purposes and the goals that I want for my 
region of the country and other regions without abridging the 
principles that he has with respect to the consistency, deregulation, 
and other areas. I think we have done that.
  The amendment I have sent to the desk, I believe, is an amendment 
that is approved by Senator Gorton, who is the chairman of the 
subcommittee on the Commerce Committee that deals with these issues. I 
want to say to the Senator I very much appreciate his willingness to 
work with me to address this issue. It is more urgent than it has been 
in the past, because everyone understands the dilemma that we faced 
with this shutdown. It could happen again. We have other circumstances 
out there that could very well result in it happening again. I just 
want the Congress to send a signal that we are going to provide some 
workable solutions to allow regional carriers to serve areas not now 
served, in a way that can give them a viable opportunity to make it. 
That is the purpose of this amendment.
  I think I have described the amendment without spending time on a 
great deal of detail about the amendment itself. I have worked with 
Senator McCain, his staff, and Senator Ford. I recognize that doing 
anything in this area causes some heartburn for some people. There are 
some who are still not pleased because they would prefer the existing 
order--leave things as they are. Honestly, we can't leave things as 
they are. We must make some thoughtful changes here. That is what I 
propose to do with my amendment.
  Since the chairman of the subcommittee and Senator Ford were not 
here, let me again say I thank them very much for their cooperation. I 
am pleased we were able to work out this amendment. I hope very much 
they will be able to help me prevail in conference with the House on 
this very important amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, let me say to my friend from North Dakota, 
no one has worked any harder or had a deeper interest in trying to 
accommodate his constituency. He has been typical Henry Clay in this 
operation; he has been willing to compromise. As Henry Clay said, 
compromise is negotiated hurt. So he has given up something that hurt, 
and others have, too.
  I am very pleased we have gotten to this point. If I have any ability 
to help the Senator in conference, I promise him I certainly will.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCain). The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I want to express my agreement with this 
amendment and also express my admiration for both the dedication and 
the persistence of the Senator from North Dakota. It is a quality in 
him I greatly admire.
  We did start from very, very different points of view on this 
subject. Mine emphasized to the greatest extent free market principles 
and a lack of interference, whenever possible, with business 
organizations; his, a deep concern, and an appropriate concern, for 
smaller cities in which the kind of competitive advantage that my major 
city, Seattle, clearly has are simply not present.
  From the beginning, I have thought that his goal was an appropriate 
one, to try to see to it that better service was provided his 
constituents, was proper public policy, and at the same time feared the 
constrictions that some elements of his amendment imposed.
  I think at this point we have something with which we can live 
temporarily. It is not all that the Senator from North Dakota wants. I 
don't know everything about this field myself.
  One element of this amendment will try to get us the most objective 
possible information about the nature of the problem and perhaps the 
best solutions. We will be back--even if this bill passes in its 
present form--we will be back with another FAA bill in 2 years, all of 
us with much more knowledge.
  So my tribute to the Senator from North Dakota for his dedication to 
a cause that is significant. I hope we have done it in a way that will 
not damage the competition among major airlines or minor airlines, and 
in a way that will be of some real benefit to his constituents and to 
many other people in cities across the country in similar areas.
  I approve of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3636) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GORTON. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gorton). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also want to add my words of 
appreciation to the Senator from North Dakota. It seems that he and I 
are destined to spend a lot of time together, especially since we are 
going to take up the Internet Tax Freedom Act here soon. He and I will 
be having a vigorous discussion on that.
  I want to point out something again that I pointed out three times. 
Deregulation of the airlines is a wonderful and marvelous thing and has 
done great things for America. But when we have a situation where the 
State of the Senator from North Dakota is shut down because of one 
airline going on strike, obviously, we have to look at this whole 
environment of competition. Mr. President, it is not right; it is not 
right when an entire region of the country is dependent upon one 
airline. That is true, perhaps to a lesser degree, for other regions in 
the country. The concerns of the Senator from North Dakota, not only 
affecting his own State but the entire Nation, include the dramatic 
disparity, according to GAO, of airfares and where there is hub 
concentration and competition, which is clearly something that is 
indisputable.
  So it seems to me that the Senator from Washington, chairman of the 
Aviation Subcommittee, and I, and others should devote a lot of 
attention to this issue, as to whether there is true competition and 
whether people in rural areas and in smaller markets in America are 
being deprived as a penalty because of where they live. So I want to 
tell the Senator from North Dakota again, I want to work with him and 
with the distinguished Senator from Washington, and other members

[[Page S10896]]

of the committee, next year as we address this issue.
  I am afraid, Mr. President, that concentration is increasing rather 
than decreasing. That trend can only be reversed when we get new 
entrants into the airline business. I am very disappointed at some of 
the information--much of it anecdotal--that I hear of the major 
airlines basically preventing that competition from beginning, or even 
existing, for a long period of time.
  I thank the Senator from North Dakota and I look forward to more work 
with him on this issue and other issues, such as Internet tax freedom.
  I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I was thinking as the Senator from Arizona 
talked about fares, the ultimate objective of more competition is more 
kinds of service and lower fares. I pointed out on the Commerce 
Committee--and I thought maybe I should for my colleagues on the 
floor--the disparity in fares. I pointed out in the Commerce Committee 
that we may fly from Washington, DC, to Los Angeles to go to Disneyland 
and see Mickey Mouse, which is all the way across the country. Or, 
instead, we could choose to fly to Bismarck, ND, which is half the 
trip, and see the world's largest cow sitting on a hill outside New 
Salem. If you wanted to see Salem Sue, the largest cow in the world, 
you would pay twice as much to go half as far than if you were to go 
see Mickey Mouse.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is that cow alive?
  Mr. DORGAN. No; the cow is dead. Because you might be interested in 
going there, I will tell you that it is a big metal cow that sits on a 
hill.
  My point is that we have a fare structure that says you can go twice 
as far and pay half as much. Or, if you choose, if you want to go half 
as far, you get to pay twice as much. People talk about bureaucrats, 
and the discussion here a while ago was about bureaucrats and the HMO 
issue. I can't think of many Americans who could sit down and develop a 
rate structure that says, ``You know, we are going to tell people that 
if they will just go farther, we will cut their ticket in half, but if 
they don't go as far, we will double their price,'' and think that 
marketing strategy has any relevance at all. That has everything to do 
with competition. Where there isn't competition, they will price at 
whatever they want to price. Where there is competition, of course, 
prices must come down because that is the regulator in the competitive 
system.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator. I want to say that I am going to 
urge all of my colleagues to go view that cow.
  Mr. FORD. At twice the price.
  Mr. McCAIN. At twice the price.
  Mr. SARBANES. I wonder if that cow gives milk.
  Mr. DORGAN. No.
  Mr. FORD. You could prime it.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I also want to say again to the Senator 
from North Dakota, I was in Iowa, strangely enough, and I found out--to 
validate the point of the Senator from North Dakota--that it costs more 
to fly from Des Moines, IA, to Chicago, IL, than it does from Chicago, 
IL, to Tokyo. Now, these distortions have to be fixed because we are 
penalizing Americans who don't have access to major hubs. That is not 
fair to the American citizens. I know that the Senator from North 
Dakota will not give up on this particular issue.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I would like to raise an important issue 
with chairman of the Commerce Committee.
  I strongly support vigorous competition in the aviation industry. 
Competition provides greater travel opportunities at lower prices for 
the people of New York. As the Chairman knows, when discussing 
increased activities at major airports we must be very mindful of the 
impact that aircraft noise has on surrounding communities.
  A new start-up airline intends to provide new low-fare jet service 
out of JFK International Airport and is willing to purchase a number of 
new Stage III aircraft to place into service in New York. These 
aircraft will be the quietest aircraft manufactured, even quieter than 
aircraft that are retro-fitted with Stage III technology known as 
``hush kits.'' In selecting airlines to receive slot exemptions to 
enhance competition at JFK, the Secretary should give preference to the 
quietest aircraft willing to fill such slots, which, as I said, would 
be newly manufactured Stage III jets.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I would like to amplify the comments of my colleague 
from New York on aircraft noise. I strongly endorse increasing travel 
opportunities and lower air fares for the traveling public, especially 
in upstate New York where we have some of the highest air fares in the 
country.
  Mr. McCAIN. I would strongly agree with the Senators from New York. 
Noise is an important issue and all considerations held equal the 
Secretary should give preference to the quietest aircraft in the 
awarding of slot exemptions at JFK.


                           Amendment No. 3635

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is the Moynihan 
amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I understand that this is acceptable on both 
sides.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I ask that Senators Chafee, Kennedy, and 
D'Amato be added as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I understand that the amendment is 
acceptable to our distinguished managers. I earlier indicated if that 
would be the case, I would ask that the yeas and nays be vitiated, and 
I do that now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to vitiating the yeas and 
nays?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. I ask that the amendment be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3635) was agreed to.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I thank the managers.
  If I might just add a little tale, the manager remarked about Chicago 
and Hong Kong. In the city of Rochester, a major city in our State, and 
in the Nation, the flight to Chicago and the flight to Hong Kong cost 
exactly the same. And the Kodak company, as I understand it, has taken 
to having their employees who do business in Chicago drive there. There 
is something deeply mistaken about all of this. Thank heaven, we have 
you here.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from New York. I thank him for his 
abiding concern about Rochester, Ithaca, a number of small- and medium-
sized markets in his State that, frankly, have great difficulty getting 
to New York City, at great expense. I believe his amendment will be 
helpful in that direction.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. SARBANES addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I am concerned about the provisions in 
sections 606 and 607 of this legislation which would increase the 
number of flights and grant exemptions to the 1,250-mile nonstop 
perimeter rule at Reagan Washington National Airport. These changes 
would alter longstanding Federal policies and agreements governing the 
operations of the three Washington area airports--Reagan National, 
Dulles, and BWI--and could result in unacceptable noise impacts for 
tens of thousands of citizens living in the flight path of Reagan 
National along the Potomac.
  I recognize that the chairman and other Members are concerned about 
potential barriers to entry of new carriers at Reagan Washington 
National. While recognizing this, I think we must seek a careful 
balance between the benefits of increased competition and legitimate 
concerns of our citizens about aircraft noise. Anyone who lives in the 
flight path of Reagan Washington National Airport knows what a serious 
problem aircraft noise poses for human health, and even for performing 
daily activities.
  Despite having restrictive nighttime noise rules, aircraft noise 
remains a major concern for many of our citizens who live in Reagan 
Washington National's flight path.
  The Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, a coalition of 
citizens

[[Page S10897]]

and civic associations which has been working for more than a decade to 
reduce aircraft noise in the Washington metropolitan area, has analyzed 
data from a recent Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority report 
which shows that approximately 1/3 of the 32 noise-monitoring stations 
in the region have a day-night average sound level which is higher than 
the 65-decibel level that has been established by the EPA and the 
American National Standards Institute as a threshold above which 
residential living is considered compatible.
  Addressing existing noise impacts and the impacts of noise from 
further flights into Reagan Washington National Airport must, 
therefore, be a top priority.
  Senators Mikulski, Robb, and Warner have joined with me in framing 
some amendments to the pending bill to address the potential impact 
that would arise from increasing the slots and changing the perimeter 
at National Airport. These amendments seek to provide a noise safety 
net to mitigate adverse environmental noise consequences of exemptions 
to the existing operating rules.
  Ms. MIKULSKI, Mr. President, today, I rise to offer three amendments 
with my colleague, Senator Sarbanes to address the needs of my 
constituents in regard to this legislation.
  I also note that I am a proud co-sponsor of two amendments offered by 
Senator Warner of Virginia that further addresses our citizens 
concerns.
  Mr. President, I want to make it very clear that I am opposed to any 
changes in the perimeter rule and slot rules at Ronald Reagan National 
Airport.
  I believe the present balance among the three regional airports 
serves the public well. The present slot rules governing Reagan 
National work well and should be maintained.
  However, I recognize that this legislation has overwhelming support 
in the Senate and will pass with a majority vote.
  As a result, Senator Sarbanes and I have crafted two amendments to 
minimize any potential impact from changes to the slot and perimeter 
rules.
  The first amendment creates a mandatory set-aside of federal funds to 
mitigate any noise impacts that arise from changes to the perimeter and 
slot rules.
  The amendment requires the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority 
to set aside no less than ten percent of their federal funds to prevent 
noise pollution in areas affected by noise from National and Dulles 
International Airports.
  For my constituents, this means that they will be eligible for 
financial assistance to soundproof their homes and schools. This 
amendment will ensure that residents in Montgomery and Prince Georges 
Counties will finally get some relief from noise that impacts their 
communities.
  Currently, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority does not 
utilize federal funds for noise mitigation activities.
  This amendment will ensure that federal funds are used for noise 
mitigation. For the first time, federal funds will be dedicated to 
reducing noise in the Washington area.
  The second amendment requires that any new slots be distributed 
evenly during the day to avoid the possibility of stacking new flights 
early in the morning or in the evening.
  I want to make sure that my constituents do not suffer additional 
noise during the time they are at home in the morning or the evening. 
When families are together, they should not have to endure additional 
aircraft noise when enjoying their breakfast or dinner.
  The third amendment gives the Washington Airports Authority and the 
State of Maryland priority consideration for airport improvement 
grants.
  Because Maryland is affected by changes to the perimeter and slot 
rules, this area should receive priority consideration.
  In addition, to the amendments sponsored by myself and Senator 
Sarbanes, we have worked closely with Senator Warner on two other 
amendments to further address the needs of our constituents.
  One amendment requires a formal environmental review and public 
hearing before new slot exemptions are granted at Reagan National.
  I believe this is fair and necessary to ensure that our constituents 
have a role in this process and have their voices heard.
  A second amendment seeks to guarantee that the pending nominations to 
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board are confirmed in 
an expeditious manner.
  A fully functioning board is necessary to proceed with the 
modernization of Reagan National and Dulles and I support the pending 
nominations.
  Mr. President, I could not stop this bill, so Senator Sarbanes and I 
decided to change it.
  For the first time, we succeeded in providing funds for noise 
mitigation for our constituents.
  While I would have preferred no changes to the slot and perimeter 
rules, I believe our amendments will go a long way to reducing noise 
impact for our constituents.


                           Amendment No. 3637

     (Purpose: To ensure that certain funds made available to the 
     Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority are used for noise 
                  compatibility planning and programs)

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I send the first of these amendments to 
the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), for himself, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Robb, and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3637.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 607(c), as included in the manager's 
     amendment, and insert the following:
       (c) MWAA Noise-Related Grant Assurances.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to any condition for approval 
     of an airport development project that is the subject of a 
     grant application submitted to the Secretary of 
     Transportation under chapter 471 of title 49, United States 
     Code, by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, the 
     Authority shall be required to submit a written assurance 
     that, for each such grant made to the Authority for fiscal 
     year 1999 or any subsequent fiscal year--
       (A) the Authority will make available for that fiscal year 
     funds for noise compatibility planning and programs that are 
     eligible to receive funding under chapter 471 of title 49, 
     United States Code, in an amount not less than 10 percent of 
     the aggregate annual amount of financial assistance provided 
     to the Authority by the Secretary as grants under chapter 471 
     of title 49, United States Code; and
       (B) the Authority will not divert funds from a high 
     priority safety project in order to make funds available for 
     noise compatibility planning and programs.
       (2) Waiver.--The Secretary of Transportation may waive the 
     requirements of paragraph (1) for any fiscal year for which 
     the Secretary determines that the Metropolitan Washington 
     Airports Authority is in full compliance with applicable 
     airport noise compatibility planning and program requirements 
     under part 150 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations.
       (3) Sunset.--This subsection shall cease to be in effect 5 
     years after the date of enactment of this Act, if on that 
     date the Secretary of Transportation certifies that the 
     Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority has achieved full 
     compliance with applicable noise compatibility planning and 
     program requirements under part 150 of title 14, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this amendment is intended to assure 
that the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority provide funding for 
noise abatement activities such as soundproofing of homes and schools, 
buying homes that are affected by noise, and improving land use 
planning. It provides that the Metropolitan Washington Airports 
Authority will expend at least 10 percent of its FAA grant money on 
noise compatibility planning and programming.
  Let me note in submitting this amendment that MWAA is currently 
spending hundreds of millions of dollars of capital improvement at 
Reagan National, yet it is not spending a dime on the noise abatement 
activities. By comparison, Chicago O'Hare is currently spending $205 
million of its passenger facility charges on noise abatement and 
mitigation activities.
  In my own State of Maryland, BWI is spending a substantial portion of 
its AIP fund for noise mitigation efforts. In fact, since enactment of 
the AIP program, the Maryland Aviation Administration has received 46 
AIP

[[Page S10898]]

grants for BWI, totaling approximately $119 million. Seventeen of these 
grants, totaling more than $52 million, were for noise mitigation. In 
other words, 44 percent of all AIP grants for BWI have been for noise 
mitigation activities.
  In direct contrast, since 1991, when Reagan Washington National 
Airport first became eligible for AIP funds, the Metropolitan 
Washington Airports Authority has received $106 million in AIP 
discretionary entitlement funds and none of those funds for financing 
of the airport's passenger facilities charges has been used for noise 
abatement activity.
  I understand that the rationale that MWAA has given for not spending 
any funds for noise abatement was that it cannot have a 150 noise 
compatibility plan approved by FAA. Now that it has such an approved 
plan, it is time that AIP funds be spent to provide some relief for 
noise-impacted communities.
  This amendment seeks to have the Federal Government address the need 
for greater balance between airport expansion and associated 
environmental impact. I know this is an issue that the chairman has 
taken an interest in. I know he raised it in confirmation hearings with 
respect to members of the MWAA. We very much welcome his interest. We 
have tried to work with the committee as we deal with these amendments.
  It is my understanding that the amendment is acceptable to the 
committee. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to congratulate both Senators from 
Maryland who have been steadfast and tenacious in their efforts to 
further not only improve BWI but also Washington National and Dulles 
Airports.
  Senator Sarbanes I think has a very important amendment. Noise 
abatement is a very serious issue. I am glad to say that at least 
partially due to his efforts, BWI has made significant improvements. 
Unfortunately, that has not been the case with Reagan National Airport, 
which is interesting. That is one of the things that Senator Sarbanes 
is trying to do with this amendment, and is doing at all airports in 
the Washington metropolitan area under the Metropolitan Washington 
Airports Authority's work on noise compatibility, planning, and 
programs.
  I think this is an excellent amendment. I thank the Senator for the 
amendment. We obviously support it. But I know the Senator has other 
amendments.
  I want to additionally state that I understand how difficult some of 
these issues are for the Senators from Maryland, especially Senator 
Sarbanes who has been involved with these airports for many, many 
years. I think Senator Sarbanes was involved with these airports when 
Dulles was viewed as a white elephant, and now certainly it is a very 
busy airport.
  I was pleased--and I know Senator Sarbanes was--the other day to see 
an article in the Washington Post that says business at BWI is at an 
all-time high. It has turned into an outstanding facility.
  I thank Senator Sarbanes not only for his amendment but the following 
amendments in his efforts to help the Metropolitan Airports Authority, 
the districts, and his willingness to work with us on what is a very 
contentious issue amongst his constituents. I thank him for it.
  Mr. President, I believe there is no more debate on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Hearing none, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3637) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3638

   (Purpose: To mitigate adverse environmental noise consequences of 
   exemptions of additional air carrier slots added to Ronald Reagan 
         Washington National Airport as a result of exemption)

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), for himself, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Robb, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3638.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       In section 607(a)(2), as included the manager's amendment, 
     in section 41716(c) of title 49, United States Code, as added 
     by that section, strike paragraph (2) and insert the 
     following:
       ``(2) General exemptions.--The exemptions granted under 
     subsections (a) and (b) may not increase the number of 
     operations at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in 
     any 1-hour period during the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 9:59 
     p.m. by more than 2 operations.''.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to mitigate the 
environmental noise consequences of new air carrier slots added to the 
Ronald Reagan National Airport inventory. By precluding air carrier 
slot clustering during the operational day, it would prohibit more than 
two new operations per hour during the period between 7 a.m. and 9:59 
p.m.
  It seeks to achieve a more appropriate balance between the commercial 
interests of air carriers, the demands of the traveling and shipping 
public, and the concerns of residents living under the flight pattern. 
We understand the addition of the slots. This is primarily an effort to 
spread them out over the course of the operational day and to prevent 
heavy clustering, particularly in the early morning or late evening 
hours. I understand the committee feels that this is compatible with 
the objectives we are trying to seek.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I support the amendment. I think it is 
important. I know both sides support it. I believe there is no further 
debate on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate on the 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3638) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3639

   (Purpose: To mitigate adverse environmental noise consequences of 
    exemptions for Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport flight 
     operations by making available financial assistance for noise 
                  compatibility planning and programs)

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), for himself, Ms. 
     Mikulski, Mr. Warner, and Mr. Robb, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3639.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike the first subsection designated as subsection (d) in 
     section 607, as included in the manager's amendment, and 
     insert the following:
       (d) Noise Compatibility Planning and Programs.--Section 
     47117(e) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Subject to section 47114(c), to promote the timely 
     development of the forecast of cumulative noise exposure and 
     to ensure a coordinated approach to noise monitoring and 
     mitigation in the region of Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, 
     Maryland, the Secretary shall give priority to any grant 
     application made by the Metropolitan Washington Airports 
     Authority or the State of Maryland for financial assistance 
     from funds made available for noise compatibility planning 
     and programs.''.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, this amendment seeks to mitigate adverse 
consequences of the exemptions from the rules governing Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport flight operations by requiring the 
Secretary of Transportation to make both the Metropolitan Washington 
Airports Authority and the State of Maryland eligible for priority 
consideration when the FAA distributes noise discretionary funds under 
the Airport Improvement Program. With increases in the amount of 
flights at Reagan National--and these other two airports are 
interrelated, of course, Dulles and BWI--the problem of noise pollution 
is likely to grow, and it is vital that we make prudent investments in 
noise abatement activities.

[[Page S10899]]

  Therefore, we seek this priority status in order to be able to ensure 
that we are doing everything we can to soundproof homes and schools and 
take other steps to address the noise pollution problem for those 
living in the flight paths.
  I understand, Mr. President, that the committee has, as it were, a 
refinement of this amendment, and this is certainly acceptable to us.
  I, again, express my appreciation to the chairman and the ranking 
member for working with us in such a positive and constructive way on 
this issue.


                Amendment No. 3640 to Amendment No. 3639

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have a second-degree amendment at the 
desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The clerk will report the 
amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3640 to amendment No. 3639.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 7, strike through line 10 and insert the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary shall give priority in making grants 
     under paragraph (1)(A) to applications for airport noise 
     compatibility planning and programs at and around airports 
     where operations increase under title VI of the Wendell H. 
     Ford National Air Transportation System Improvement Act of 
     1998 and amendments made by that title.''.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in consultation with Senator Sarbanes, 
this amendment basically ensures that neighborhoods around high-density 
airports are eligible for priority consideration for noise mitigation 
funding. It is an acceptable amendment.
  I believe the Senator from Maryland accepts it and believes it is of 
some improvement to his amendment. I know of no further debate on the 
amendment.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, as I understand it, this reference to 
the high-density airport encompasses what I was specifically directing 
toward, but it gives it a more general statement, and it is certainly 
acceptable to us in light of that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further discussion on the amendment?
  If there is no objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3640) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. SARBANES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, again I thank Senator McCain and ranking 
member Ford for their cooperation throughout this effort. As the 
chairman has recognized, this is a very sensitive problem, and we 
recognize what the chairman and others are seeking to accomplish here 
in terms of increased competition in further flights, but we felt it 
necessary, obviously, to press the case for the noise mitigation 
problem. I must say both the chairman and ranking member have 
recognized that problem. We think what we have proposed here will help 
solve that.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I thank the Senator from Maryland. 
I believe we have taken significant measures to mitigate any additional 
noise problems that may result upon passage of this legislation.


                           Amendment No. 3641

    (Purpose: To require the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
 Administration to conduct a demonstration project to require aircraft 
   to maintain a minimum altitude over Taos Pueblo and the Blue Lake 
  Wilderness Area of Taos Pueblo, New Mexico, and for other purposes)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], for Mr. Bingaman, 
     for himself and Mr. Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3641.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 5  . TAOS PUEBLO AND BLUE LAKES WILDERNESS AREA 
                   DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

       (a) In General.--Within 18 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal 
     Aviation Administration shall work with the Taos Pueblo to 
     study the feasibility of conducting a demonstration project 
     to require all aircraft that fly over Taos Pueblo and the 
     Blue Lake Wilderness Area of Taos Pueblo, New Mexico, to 
     maintain a mandatory minimum altitude of at least 5,000 feet 
     above ground level.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment by Senator Bingaman and 
Senator Domenici has been discussed on both sides. It is acceptable.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we are agreeable with this amendment on this 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3641) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 3642

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate 
regulations to improve notification to consumers of air transportation 
 from an air carrier of the corporate identity of the transporting air 
                                carrier)

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Reed, I send an 
amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. McCAIN. Senator Reed of Rhode Island.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCAIN], for Mr. Reed, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3642.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in title V, insert the following:

     SEC. 5.  . AIRLINE MARKETING DISCLOSURE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Air carrier.--The term ``air carrier'' has the meaning 
     given that term in section 40102 of title 49, United States 
     Code.
       (2) Air transportation.--The term ``air transportation'' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 40102 of title 49, 
     United States Code.
       (b) Final Regulations.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of 
     Transportation shall promulgate final regulations to provide 
     for improved oral and written disclosure to each consumer of 
     air transportation concerning the corporate name of the air 
     carrier that provides the air transportation purchased by 
     that consumer. In issuing the regulations issued under this 
     subsection the Secretary shall take into account the proposed 
     regulations issued by the Secretary on January 17, 1995, 
     published at 60 Fed. Reg. 3359.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on an issue which 
affects many of our nation's air travelers. I am pleased to offer an 
amendment to the Senate's Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
reauthorization bill which requires the Secretary of Transportation to 
implement regulations that ensure airline passengers are more aware of 
the true corporate identity of the airline on which they are flying.
  I am pleased that the managers of the FAA reauthorization legislation 
have agreed to accept my amendment to their bill. I believe this 
amendment will go a long way to ensure that airline passengers are 
better informed.
  As you know, Mr. President, following the deregulation of the airline 
industry in the late 1970's, major airlines began to enter into 
cooperative agreements with smaller airlines to offer air 
transportation service to smaller, underserved areas. Common in such 
agreements is the practice of ``code-sharing,'' where the smaller 
independent airlines use the name and identification code of the larger 
airline. For example, for a two-leg ``code-shared'' flight, where a 
large air carrier operates one leg and a smaller commuter

[[Page S10900]]

carrier operates the other, air service for both flight segments is 
listed under the same identification code. As such, consumers 
purchasing ``code-shared'' air service are frequently unaware of the 
actual corporate identity of the smaller commuter airline on which they 
are flying.
  Mr. President, this lack of disclosure can cause consumers to be 
completely unaware of the true identity of their transporting air 
carrier, and therefore, lessen a consumer's ability to make the most 
informed transportation decision.
  Mr. President, under current law, U.S. air carrier ticket agents are 
required to verbally indicate to consumers the corporate identity of 
the airline they are flying on, when a ticket is purchased.
  However, in practice, Mr. President, these verbal disclosure rules 
are difficult to enforce. Furthermore, the rules are not applied 
universally because they do not cover travel agents, who sell a 
majority of the airline tickets issued in the United States.
  As a result, Mr. President, consumers are often surprised to discover 
that a segment of their flight, although listed under the ``code'' or 
name of a large air carrier, could be serviced by a different airline.
  Now, Mr. President, I do not mean to suggest that smaller commuter 
airlines are not safe, nor, do I mean to diminish the valuable service 
``code-sharing'' arrangements bring to many smaller and rural areas in 
the nation. Rather, I want to help ensure that consumers are aware of 
the true identity of the airline they are scheduled to fly on.
  For these reasons, I offered this amendment to require stronger 
airline ticketing disclosure rules, an issue the Department of 
Transportation recently considered.
  Indeed, in 1994, the Department of Transportation proposed a rule to 
require that at the time of sale, travel or airline ticket agents 
provide consumers with written notification of each airline's corporate 
name that participate in ``code-sharing'' agreements. The Department 
asserted such steps would help to ensure that a consumer had a complete 
understanding of the transportation they were purchasing. However, to 
date, the Department has not issued a final rule on this matter.
  Mr. President, the Department of Transportation was on the right 
track, and we need to encourage the DOT to follow through and implement 
better ticketing disclosure regulations to help better inform 
consumers. My amendment is simple and straightforward, and does just 
that. It requires the DOT to implement regulations 90 days after 
enactment of this bill requiring improved written and oral notification 
of the corporate name of ``code-sharing'' airlines. Such requirements 
would inform consumers of the identity of the air transportation 
carrier actually providing service, and thereby allow consumers to make 
more informed purchasing decisions. My amendment also grants the DOT 
flexibility in this process, and allows the Department to choose the 
method it deems most appropriate to achieve this goal.
  Mr. President, the basis for my amendment is also straightforward: 
Just four years ago, a constituent of mine, Ms. Pauline Josefson, of 
Warwick, Rhode Island died in a commuter airline crash. The airline she 
flew on was listed under a major carrier's identification code.
  Ms. Josefson had every reason to assume that the air service she had 
purchased was that of the major carrier, as her airline tickets 
indicated. However, she was flying on a plane piloted by an individual 
who had been repeatedly criticized by other airlines for poor 
performance and flying ability. If the little known airline's actual 
corporate name had been disclosed when the ticket was purchased, Ms. 
Josefson would have had an opportunity to make a fully informed travel 
decision.
  I share the concerns of the Josefson family and others that airline 
consumers deserve greater disclosure. That is why I have offered this 
amendment today, Mr. President, which is supported by the Aviation 
Consumer Action Project, a non-profit organization dedicated to the 
safety and protection of the flying public, and I ask unanimous consent 
that a letter of support for this amendment be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                 Aviation Consumer


                                               Action Project,

                                               September 24, 1998.
     Re: legislation requiring airline disclosure of code sharing 
         arrangements to consumers.

     Senator Jack Reed,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Reed: In response to your request for our 
     comments concerning your draft legislation on code sharing 
     disclosure, the Aviation Consumer Action Project supports 
     such a measure as necessary to curb a common deceptive 
     marketing practice by airlines which is not permitted in 
     other industries.
       General Motors cannot sell you a Cadillac then deliver a 
     Toyota or even a Mercedes without first informing the 
     customer. Only the airlines are except from state and local 
     consumer protection and deceptive advertising laws and even 
     most federal labeling laws. The U.S. DOT is the exclusive 
     agency protecting aviation consumers since the enactment of 
     the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978.
       Airlines, using techniques known as ``code sharing'' and 
     ``wet leases'', are now allowed to sell consumers tickets on 
     other airlines as though they were their own. So for example, 
     someone booking a flight on a U.S. carrier to Warsaw, Poland 
     may actually be flying from New York to London on an American 
     carrier and then to Poland on Lod Airlines (the Polish 
     national carrier) at both a higher cost than if tickets were 
     separately booked and with what most would regard as a lower 
     level of safety and service. Similarly, many airlines use 
     prop commuter airplanes that they do not own or operate with 
     a U.S. carrier brand name like ``Delta Connection''. After 
     the recent crash of Swissair 111 which killed all on board, 
     it was disclosed that 53 of the passengers were actually 
     Delta passengers, flying under an apparently undisclosed code 
     sharing agreement. Such marketing arrangements are inherently 
     deceptive and should be prohibited, unless disclosed in 
     advance to the airline passenger. The consumer can then 
     decide whether to purchase the ticket or call another 
     airline.
       The consumer notice should be in the form as proposed by 
     the U.S. DOT in 1995 which was never acted upon, i.e. 
     ``IMPORTANT NOTICE: Service between XYZ City and ABC City 
     will be operated by Jane Doe Airlines'', and in advertising 
     airlines should be required to identify the carrier(s) that 
     will actually provide the service by corporate name.
       Should you wish further comments, please do not hesitate to 
     contact the undersigned. ACAP is a non-profit corporation 
     dedicated to assisting and speaking out for the flying public 
     on issues of safety, cost and convenience. The organization 
     was founded by Ralph Nader in 1971. It receives no funding 
     from the aviation industry or the Federal Government.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Paul Hudson,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. REED, I thank the managers of this legislation for accepting this 
amendment, and for joining me in support of improved airline ticketing 
disclosure rules to better protect our nation's air travelers.
  Mr. McCAIN. Again, this amendment has been discussed on both sides. 
We think it is a good amendment by the Senator from Rhode Island. By 
the way, we are appreciative of his involvement in this issue. I do not 
believe there is any further debate on the amendment.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, we have no objections on this side and look 
forward to passing the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3642) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. 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. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to talk just a few minutes on 
this bill, particularly with respect to rural air service and some of 
the problems that we face in areas with small towns and small 
populations.
  First, let me say that I certainly support what the Senator from 
Arizona and the Senator from Kentucky are doing here. I think this is a 
valuable bill, and I think we should move forward with it quickly.
  I do want to emphasize, however, the difficulty that we have in rural 
America with regard to air transportation. I

[[Page S10901]]

must confess that it is not a new problem. As we deregulate various 
industries--and I happen to be for deregulation and letting competition 
work--we find ourselves with some problems in rural areas, whether it 
be telephones, or the deregulation of electricity, or air 
transportation. The obvious effect of deregulation is that capital and 
facilities, in this case airplanes, move to where there is the greatest 
usage, where there is the highest density.
  So we have made some arrangements, for instance, in telephones with 
universal service to ensure that despite the fact that the real 
advantages of competition go to where the heavy volume is, we do 
continue to provide service to rural areas.
  My State of Wyoming is struggling to maintain dependable, scheduled, 
available air service to airline hubs like Denver and Salt Lake City. 
We are in the process of seeking to strengthen our economy there, to 
recruit businesses to move to Wyoming. Travel and tourism is one of the 
three major economic activities in Wyoming, and so transportation is a 
vital component of our future. But we are having some problems.
  Last year, for example, Mesa Airlines, which operated as United 
Express, pulled service from five towns in Wyoming that they had been 
servicing in years past. I worked with Senator Enzi, my associate here, 
Congresswoman Cubin, the Governor, and others, and we finally were able 
to keep service to these towns. In fact, we had to go all the way to 
the chairman of the board of United Airlines to make this happen. 
Unfortunately, in most of these towns, we were only able to keep 
Essential Air Service (EAS). This provides just a bare minimum of 
service and I am glad we have it, but it does not provide the kind of 
service that is necessary if you are really going to have economic 
growth and development. In addition, in other Wyoming communities we 
continue to face cutbacks in the number of seats that are available 
every day as well as the loss of jet service to some of these towns.
  Those of you who are familiar with Jackson Hole, WY, know that it is 
a travel town. That is where a great number of people come and go. It 
is just devastating to the local economy when there are not enough 
seats to service demand.
  As I mentioned, Mr. President, I am in favor of deregulation. I think 
that makes for healthy competition. But I am concerned that sometimes 
we have to try another approach. As I mentioned, the investment in 
dollars nationally--and I understand it--go to where the yield is. They 
go to where the traffic is. That, I do think we have to understand. But 
we met with Delta Airlines which serves Salt Lake City and Jackson 
Hole, WY, and talked a little bit about the fact that there is a need 
for service, and frankly if we do not have service in some of these 
places I think you are going to see a continued interest in going back 
to some re-regulation in air service. I hope it doesn't come to that.
  Part of the problem, as I understand it, is the so-called code-share 
agreements between the big carriers and the commuters airlines. If you 
go to Denver from Casper, WY, a part of that fare subsidizes the cost 
of the trip that takes you from Denver to Washington. That does not 
seem right. That isn't the way it ought to be.

  These airlines are basically moving toward a monopolistic situation 
in the large ``hub'' airports, served almost entirely by one carrier, 
which makes serving rural America very difficult because then those 
airlines can dictate everything--fares, schedules, you name it.
  This is kind of unusual for me. I am a marketplace guy. I am one who 
wants competition. But I also firmly believe that when it comes to 
these vital services, there has to be a way to ensure that all of 
America will be served.
  I have been involved, because of my chairmanship of the Subcommittee 
on East Asia, in the rights to go overseas--``beyond rights.'' I have 
to think, myself, why are we spending a lot of time and energy talking 
about expanding air service to somewhere in China when you can't go to 
Cody, WY?
  So that's the situation we find ourselves in today. I don't have all 
the answers. But I do know that we will continue to work at this issue 
in Congress. The Essential Air Service (EAS) program works well. But we 
need to do more. Dependable and safe air travel is an economic lifeline 
for our State, as it is whether you are in Boston or whether you are in 
San Francisco. We depend on tourism and small businesses to drive our 
economy in Wyoming.
  We need to come up with a long-term solution to this problem. 
Hopefully, it will be done in the marketplace so it will be something 
that is not forced upon the airlines. However, it is hard for me, as I 
said earlier, to get excited about working on ``beyond rights,'' when 
we can't get to our own towns.
  I am glad we are considering this bill. We need to get this done so 
our airports can be financed. I am very involved in what is going on 
with Wyoming's air service. I happen to be a private pilot and have 
flown quite often into these airports. I know how important it is for 
us to have that air service.
  I commend the Senators who have worked on this bill. I suggest we 
always need to keep in mind those rural areas to which we find it 
difficult to provide service.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.


                           Amendment No. 3643

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself, Mr. 
     Sarbanes, Ms. Mikulski and Mr. Robb, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 3643.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 47 of the manager's amendment, between lines 6 and 
     7, insert the following:
       Sec. 607. (g) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provisions of this Act, including the amendments made by this 
     Act, unless all of the members of the Board of the 
     Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority established under 
     section 49106 of title 49, United States Code, have been 
     appointed to the Board under subsection (c) of that section 
     and this is no vacancy on the Board, the Secretary may not 
     grant exemptions provided under section 41716 of title 49, 
     United States Code.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment offered by 
the Senator from Virginia is adopted.
  The amendment (No. 3643) was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 10 minutes as 
in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________