[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.
____________________